“Which again is something i just affirmed, and which does not refute what i said”
Except to show your point is moot.
“any more than your other attempts at damage control refute what was said.”
I made no attempts at damage control.
“Give it up.”
No. I was right - all along.
No. I was right - all along.
That is simply insolent denial, for all to see. You were wrong that this was misrepresenting Kenrick;
wrong about hiding what Kenrick was arguing, esp. since you have quoted Luther without even proving the source or a link to what he was arguing;
and thus wrong to presume the source did not know what Kenrick was arguing;
and wrong that Kenrick assenting in the end to the decree of V1 on PI Kenrick refutes my statement that what would be misrepresenting Kenrick would be to invoke him as one who always supported the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it,
and wrong to make his denial of Protestant belief the issue,
and wrong to impugn citing a source as an ally to their views when that same source doesn’t believe what the author believes, as you yourself have done.
All you got right was that Kenrick was misspelled once, as if that supported not knowing he supported Peter as rock, but which is another example of you focusing on a molehill in avoiding the mountain that refutes an RC argument.
And which attempts are the equivalent of what the RM calls spitwads, thrown by those who throw have no ammunition against educated, articulate, reasoning posters, and thus it is time that his advice should be heeded