Now I'm certain you don't know much about Catholicism.
The core dogmatic teaching on such things as The Divinity of Christ are CONCRETE for example. Often things are defined clearer through the ages due to heretical teaching that arise
The same thing with "indulgences".
Again, you don't seem to realize that the abuses of indulgences during the Reformation was from a small group of priests and bishops who did not follow the teaching of the Church on this subject and ended being excommunicated
There have been abuses that the the Church has dealt with through the ages regarding this
From New Advent..
These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.
Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).
Perhaps you should read actual Catholic Councils , documents and how dogmatic teaching work from ACTUAL document from the Church rather than opinions of them.
You might find out how wrong you are and convert back.
When we are talking about issues that are NOT laid out in Holy Scripture, the Catholic Church has used a process of "development" by which they explain just why certain dogmas now defined as "essential" were unheard of in the Apostles' time. Where Catholicism has stayed true to the doctrines of Holy Scripture, and which differentiated Christianity from all other world religions, they were more concrete, but even in some of the explanations of the interpretations, there has been disunity and would be what I described as "fluid".
Perhaps you should read actual Catholic Councils , documents and how dogmatic teaching work from ACTUAL document from the Church rather than opinions of them.
I have read actual Council documents, though not all, as well as the ways the Catholic Catechism has interpreted them so that Catholics are informed about them. Though I reject the entire concept and necessity of indulgences - seeing as there IS no such thing as Purgatory in Scripture and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us of ALL sin - it is incorrect to say the outrage over the abuses was minimal and confined to a few excommunicated clergy. Martin Luther was reacting against indulgences which Pope Julius and after him Pope Leo had issued to help fund the rebuilding of St Peter's. Raising donations for Church projects by dispensing spiritual blessings was a long-established practice, and few people questioned it. That the Council of Trent made specific references to the issue, makes it pretty clear it was an acknowledged abuse that had been allowed to continue - with the revenues generated gladly accepted - that proves it was no small amount of money, nor a minor issue.
The doctrine of Justification by Faith was another one of those "fluid" doctrines and it IS a core tenet of the Christian faith. Much of the Reformation was in response to doctrines such as these which had no Apostolic antiquity or Scriptural warrant.
You might find out how wrong you are and convert back.
There is no chance of that happening. Why would I exchange truth for untruth? Don't save me a seat. :o)