Replies

I apologize for the accusation, calling you a liar. You just don't know that what you call "historical", is dogma, an absolute unchangeable truth, that can't be changed in later times. Since you are a Protestant, a philosophy that requires no adherance to any doctrine, you will never understand the hierarchy of dogma, and there is no point in going further. I've written enough.

Apology accepted. As a Protestant, I certainly do believe in adherence to doctrine. For me, that is the doctrine of Scripture. Yes, there are regrettably many interpretations of Scripture in Protestantdom. Most are not "salvational" in nature. For you, a Catholic, that doctrine is Scripture and Tradition (as defined by your hierarchy, the Pope and Magisterium). Neither should change. As I have shown, however, your hierarchy has changed its teachings on essential matters. That should make any honest Catholic question the validity of that hierarchy.

re: As I have shown, however, your hierarchy has changed its teachings on essential matters.

As I have shown, you have not given any example which is clearly heretical. AND no new dogmas have been written by JPII or B16 which oppose the EENS dogma example that I gave.

So, let's both just leave it at that.

re: That should make any honest Catholic question the validity of that hierarchy.

Become an "honest Catholic" yourself, then you can be a sedevacantes. I have nothing against sedevacantes, I can understand how they come to their conclusions. I just won't go there. I'll let God sort that one out.