No, that’s the level of dismissal of your excuses.
The RCC and EO have been at odds over significant positions of doctrine for centuries.
Tell us, oh knowledgeable one, which one is the TRUE form of Catholicism.
It’s Roman Catholicism, Vlad’s rendition.
“No, that’s the level of dismissal of your excuses.”
I made no excuses at all. Remember, you - not apparently knowing how to make a logical argument - tried to use a false analogy about the Roman Rite and Eastern Orthodox. I demonstrated why it was a false analogy. None of that is an excuse. It’s just your false analogy.
“The RCC and EO have been at odds over significant positions of doctrine for centuries.”
Duh! But it was still a false analogy you used. They are not Protestants, cannot be lumped together as Protestants, do not claim sola scriptura and are not sects founded only 500 or fewer years ago. That’s why your analogy failed. I agreed from the start that there are differences. But those differences do not serve as a proper analogy and cannot do so when compared with Protestantism. That’s the point.
“Tell us, oh knowledgeable one, which one is the TRUE form of Catholicism.”
Catholicism is the true form of Catholicism. Which form of Protestantism is the true form of Protestantism? You can’t say “Protestantism is” because you disagree with Lutherans or Presbyterians or Congregationalists or Evangelicals or Baptists or the Church of Christ or Mennonites or the Amish or the Quakers or the Shakers or the Methodists or the Anglicans or the Calvinists or the Pentecostals or the Seventh Day Adventists or the Swedenborgians or the Christian Scientists or the Plymouth Brethren or the Apostles of Johane Maranke or the Church of the Nazarene or the Salvation Army or the Ephrata Cloister (no, actually they’re all dead!) or the Pilgrim Holiness Church or IHOP (no, not the pancake house, the International House of Prayer).