That’s working under the false assumption that if someone “really” knew what the Catholic church teaches, of course they’d understand it and be Catholic, that they couldn’t help themselves.
And that only those who choose to remain Catholic “really” understand Catholic doctrine.
That’s not true. Someone can be thoroughly knowledgeable about a subject and choose to reject it. Someone can be thoroughly knowledgeable about Catholic doctrine and choose to reject the parts of it that they don’t see lining up with Scripture.
The part that is the most ironic is that the Catholic church claims to be responsible for the Bible’s existence, and certainly appeals to it for authority to establish itself as supreme authority over everyone on the planet, and then dismisses anyone else’s positions when they try to use Scripture to support their position.
Sola scriptural is just fine to establish the papacy and transubstantiation, but not fine to contest it. How inconsistent of them.
No problem . . . when DUPLICITY is a cardinal doctrine of the . . . INSTITUTION.
Of course someone can know a subject thoroughly and reject it. One must begin by accepting certain premises, or conclusions do not follow, no matter how airtight the argumentation. And here the priest begins by rejecting the dogma of papal infallibility AND certain other dogmas that are foundational to the Catholic Faith. Further, he has also rejected the spiritual community in which he was reared and the way it worships, and that more surely leads to the rejection of the tenants of faith than “study.” In a way, this is like a political defection. In the end, it is simply a matter of choosing. Assuming that this is not fictional, I grant anyone the right to explain why he changes sides and until he is caught in a falsehood, I assume him to be honest.