"Who gave the reformers the authority?... Let's assume for the moment that the Church WAS seriously off the rails in 1517 and that it HAD become apostate. Now we will make ANOTHER huge leap of faith (or personal opinion) and ASSUME that Luther WAS actually led by the Holy Spirit and that all of the "stuff" that HE taught was the Truth. This of course REALLY, REALLY leaves ALL Protestants in a VERY difficult situation. Each one must decide among all of the conflicting Protestant doctrines and choose a Church which most closely teaches what they want to be taught. They must choose from even the conflicting Protestant versions of Salvation." [source]
I was just reading how Catholic apologist Scott Hahn claimed that original sin in some sense was Adam's failure to protect the Garden of Eden, and that Satan appeared in the garden as a dragon. Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis blasted him for this, strongly disagreeing.
Catholic apologist Gary Michuta believes that certain books not included in the current catholic canon, yet included in the Septuagint, may be canonical, or possibly not, because Trent left particular books undecided as to their canonicty. The New Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Catechism though think the list is fixed.
I have read how Catholic apologist Art Sippo stated there is not a fixed Roman Catholic position on the doctrine of predestination. No wonder Jonathan Prejean recently stated, "[Adam] had already put his lot in with Satan against God, setting his will in unnatural opposition to God's predestination of his nature, which is what produces death in patristic theology just as a natural consequence." Predestination of nature? What?
And then Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics say the church is in a “last days” crisis. Gerry holds the great majority of Catholics have been swept away by great deceptions in last 40 years, particularly ecumenism. He says, forget the papacy- It’s up to Catholic layman and lay-groups to preserve the “true” Catholic faith handed down from the apostles. Of course, this view isn't shared by other Catholic apologists.
What about Catholic scholar Hans Küng? He rejects the doctrine of papal infallibility. He remains a Roman Catholic priest.
I could go on and on.
The truth of the matter is that Roman Catholics are united on very little. Each exercises excessive amounts of private interpretation, often contradicting Catholic teaching, or other catholics, while at the same time saying things like, "ALL Protestants in must decide among all of the conflicting Protestant doctrines and choose a Church which most closely teaches what they want to be taught." The fact of the matter is, Catholics don't have infallible interpretations on the great majority of Scripture, and even if they did, they would still disagree with each other on how to interpret that infallible interpretation. I tire of the charade that Catholics are united in belief. This is nonsense. If you're going to use such an argument- you are left with a very difficult situation. You make a charge against Protestants that likewise, when applied to your own particular sect, refutes your particular sect.