Your description was indeed popeless, and i did not say the pope changed Catholic teaching, but he can be looked to for the final word, and has doctrinally perpetuated errors, and has unhindered power, and cannot be deposed without his consent.
Erroneous.
I did not restrict his primacy to PI, nor do the EO's in contending against his full roman role.
I do not read pointless and vague acronyms, and the rest of this is irrelevant.
It is indeed a distinction with a difference, as rather than being good enough to enter purgatory, as you had me saying, it is a purported place for becoming purified.
Contradictory, and irrelevant.
A mere assertion. Purgatory is what i said it was, a place one becomes good enough to enter glory.
No, it isn't.
after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030).
This contradicts your own point.
You seem to be having a problem following the argument. go back and re read it.
No. It was incomprehensible. Example is not a verb, and it only goes downhill from there.
What you imagine may assume you...
Nothing is assuming me. I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
It is actually hard to exaggerate the role and power of the pope and magisterium more than Rome and popes or Catholics have or do, either in establishing doctrine or enforcing it, or in application etc. .
Assertion is not fact. The rest of the cut and paste I will pass over.
No, it is not as the Presidential limitations. Who will impeach the pope if he oversteps his bounds?
Who will impeach the Supreme court justice? An irrelevant point.
You have gone from describing a popeless Catholicism with no mention of the magisterium to now having to minimizing his claim to unhindered excise of power.
Interesting, false and irrelevant.
No, i called you that because in your description of the church and how it acts in passing on doctrine you did not even mention the pope, or the place of the magisterium.
Quite amusing. Of course, as I have stated, unlike those attacking the Church I have no need of inserting papal prerogatives into every discussion of Catholic life. Why is that? Because I have a balanced and historically sound view of the faith. If you are obsessed with popes, by all means write about them, but I am only interested in responding to those issues which are related to the actual topic under discussion. As for my original point regarding the war on tradition and the effect it has had on Mass attendance, I believe I have covered it quite clearly. I have even responded to any meaningful, and many less than meaningful, questions which have arisen from those original comments. There is nothing new in any of this. You are merely repeating your already refuted claims.
You really have no defense so there is no need to continue. You are repeating your already refuted claims.