The problem is that a LOT of non-Catholic theology au fond is based on a forced choice, zero-sum, either/or paradigm that clouds discourse and obscures truth.
The clue is the ready recourse to argumentum ad hominem. They say things like [NOT an exact quote], "Among those who love the TRUTH," these quotes should be sufficient." This kind of attack makes it clear that, in their minds, to hold an opinion differing from theirs or to construe these texts in a manner contrary to theirs is to put oneself under suspicion of a profound spiritual defect.
There are bullies on both sides, but for one side, bullying is part and parcel of the dialectical approach.
I think not. When a statement is made by the CCC and it’s put up as evidence we are told that what was said in that statement isn’t what that statement means. We are told that we need to go read two pages of text to try to understand what that statement says. When we go read those two pages we get an obscure runaround with insets of foreign language, because of course that foreign language is much more holy, which attempts somehow to disavow what was said in the original statement.
We get the same nonsense when quoting church fathers. What was clearly stated in there writing we are told is not what they meant but that if we read the entirety of their writing we will find that what they said in that original statement is not what they meant. When we read the entirety of their writing we find that nothing has changed what they meant in that original statement.
We see through the propaganda of the RCC. Their injection of mysticism and “extra biblical knowledge” through some secret orally handed down “truths” seems to impress many. The RCC is having the same problem the politicians today have. They don’t have the control over information they once had and truth is “getting out”. We can “search the scriptures to see if what they say is true” and we find much of it is not.
Logical fallacies abound but the one that is most prevalent among the anti-Catholics is the one in which a party argues that something must be true because of their inability to perceive and unwillingness to consider anything other than that presumed prescribed truth. It is a form of arguement that appeals to and rewards ignorance and intellectual laziness.
Also prevalent are the classic "argumentum ad ignorantiam" in which something is assumed true simply because it hasn't been proven false, "argumentum ad logicam" that one poorly articulated defense of a proposition nullifies all other defenses and the "Tu quoque" that defends an error by pointing out errors in the opponents statements.