You like the Reformation. I got that. And I don't. I show its lies through the Holy Scripture that the Church gave me. If you want to dispute with me, you need to do better than telling me what you think.
Do you know what the term "ad hominen" means? Your very NEXT words are a prime example! You condemn ALL of the "Protestant" faith and seem to forget that the majority of the tenets are the same as what Catholicism teaches. There are several different kinds of "ad hominem" attacks people use when arguing a point. Let's see if you are guilty. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem, they are:
Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy. Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.
Ad hominem abuse is not to be confused with slander or libel, which employ falsehoods and are not necessarily leveled to undermine otherwise sound stands with character attacks.
Circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.
Tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.
Guilt by association
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
I think there is ample evidence that you have resorted to ALL of these kinds of ad hominem attacks. Do try to improve your tactics.
You like the Reformation. I got that. And I don't. I show its lies through the Holy Scripture that the Church gave me. If you want to dispute with me, you need to do better than telling me what you think.
There is a reason why people hate the Reformation and I think it has more to do with their source of authority being challenged than it does with the doctrines defended by the reformers themselves. I, as have others, given you much more Scriptural evidence than you have provided. The snippets you use to support the doctrines the Catholic Church gave you match the snippets they used to try to do the same. Had they actually been able to defend the rule of faith that was "always, everywhere and by all" held by faithful Christians, they could have successfully quashed the Reformation's charges that they hadn't. The Catholic magesterium could not and that is why God's hand was working through these faithful men and women and He continues to honor the faith once delivered unto the saints - saving all those who come to Him by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.