Okay, here's a question:
Assuming that the Truth is somewhere within Rome, which soteriological position is Biblically correct, that of the predestinarian Augustinian Catholics or that of the free-will Molinist Catholics?
They are certainly different, they are certainly infighting, and given the fact that they have respective nomenclatures for their positions, they are certainly denominated from eachother theologically.
The fact that there are "thousands of different and infighting protestant denominations" is not really a valid argument. The state of the Church is this:
None of which answers the prima facie question of the legitimacy of Rome's claims at all. The existence of "infighting" among Protestants is hardly a compelling argument when the Bishop of Rome has plenty of his own to deal with.
They are certainly different, they are certainly infighting, and given the fact that they have respective nomenclatures for their positions, they are certainly denominated from eachother theologically
I do not share that which can only be described as an obsession with Calvinists, namely the desire to define absolutely using human words and understandings the nature of Divine Providence and election, predestination versus Free Will.
Its a mystery, OP. Get over it. Neither of us can or will be able to define the infinite mystery and wisdom of God.
Therefore, the Church of Rome, in her WISDOM, has refused to definitively define that which absolutely cannot be defined by men and mens words and mens finite intellect.
And that is why I flee violently from those who are so PROUD as to think theirs and theirs alone is the correct "soteriological position."
Think about it OP, and a light bulb will explode in your mind and soul.
And then your entire approach to Christian apologetics and evangelization will change and see far greater fruit than what it does now.
If I may offer my thoughts. The way I see it is that the difference is that Protestants institutionalize their disagreements (i.e. Lutherans are different from Baptists, who are different from Anglicans, who are different from Presbyterians, who are different from...) and often relegating their differences to "Christian freedom" whereas with Catholics, there is a place where the buck stops.
In regards to the Thomist/Molinist debate, it is still, for Catholics, a valid and open area for discussion and disagreement. If the Church ever definitively ruled on the matter, that would be the definition of Catholic orthodoxy on that matter. Would the other side be disappointed that their view didn't, for lack of a better term, win out in the end? Undoubtedly. Would some reject the teaching of the Church? Sure. Would nearly all submit? Most likely.
On the other hand, if I go to different denominational Protestants and ask, "What does your denomination teach about Baptism?", the different answers I would get would be in direct proportion to the different denominations asked.
On the various issues which there is vigorous dissent in the Catholic Church today(i.e. contraception, women priests, the nature of the Church, etc...), there is still authoritative teaching with which to cling to which will never change, regardless of what the dissenters say. Seriously, who am I to believe, some theologian priest from South Bend or the Pope? I'll go with the Pope every day of the week and twice on Sunday.