This is ridiculous. I did. This is not worth responding to.
Are you referring to this?
The RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture. [snip] When Christ says "you are Peter and on this rock I build my church," for example, I see something totally different than RCC adherents.
Your response is a comparison of church teaching and your own interpretation. Where did the church change its interpretation of scripture?
Indulgences require a tortured interpretation, in my opinion. Mortification of the flesh through flagellation. Crusades against intra-RCC reformers in the 13th-16th centuries. Kings waiting on baptism until the end of life so as not to be burdened by sins committed after baptism. Purgatory was valid, and now is not.
Again, you stated that the RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture. Which scripture was taught and then retracted in this example?
Purgatory was valid, and now is not.
Again, which scripture was taught and then retracted in this example? More importantly, when did the Latin Church retract its teachings on Purgatory?
As RnMomof7 points out, the RCC has wisely not asserted infallibility on more scriptural interpretations.
Which raises the question: How many passages of Scripture have been defined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?
This is not worth responding to.
When you post a statement: The RCC has through history taught and then retracted several interpretations of scripture. You should be prepared to support your assertion.
That is an anticipatable response when no proof exists.