Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, who was excommunicated in 1871, is a favorite of the anti-Catholics because he publicly rejected the concept of papal infallibility, thus giving him street cred. I seriously doubt that you or any Protestant wholeheartedly embrace 100% of his writings, only the small percentage that agrees with your preclusions.
So name calling is your attempt at repudiating of his historical findings?
Want to throw mud at Yves Congar too?
Yves Congar is one of the most influential Roman Catholic historians and theologians of this century. He makes the following statements on the Eastern Church’s ecclesiology and of the patristic understanding of the rock of Matthwe 16: "Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62).
It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 398)."
Here is a little clue for you....he wasn't excommunicated for telling the truth.....
Cardinal Congar was indeed a brilliant scholar, but was not infallible. He helped to shape the Post Vatican II Church, he did not establish or govern its dogma. He believed in the compromise of certain core principles of the Church in order to establish Christian unity. I do not and neither did the majority of the Church.
For the record, do you support Cardinal Congar's positions on Apostolic Tradition or only agree with him when he agrees with you?
BTW - you really need to pull your head out of those anti-Ctholic websites and read some actual books on the people you cite. It will keep your arguments from appearing so buffoonish.