“I suppose I have to show (translated copy of) the letter?”
No. Learn to read. I said, “Except that never happened: The Church was not “all but destroyed†by the selling of indulgences or anything else.” The “never happened” comment was in reference to your claim about the Church being “all but destroyed” not the existence of a letter. Rather than worrying about having “to show (translated copy of) the letter” you should focus some attention on developing reading comprehension.
“You claim to be a historian.”
That’s what you’re reduced to by your repeated failure to make an actual argument?
“Why should I bother?”
Bother resorting to make repeated errors? Yeah, I don’t know why you bother either.
“We are talking about differing things using the same words. This began with your own assertion that Churches other than the RCC (with the exception of the Orthodox, then again possibly not *all* of those, depending upon which RCC scorekeeper is consulted) are not Churches.”
No, sects are not Churches. Period. I never claimed some Churches are not Churches. Sects are not Churches. Protestants only have sects. They can’t have Churches because they only have sects started in the 16th century or last week or ten years ago or whenever recent.
“That’s been backed by argument of assertion, coupled with added conditions which Christ did not include.”
You keep avoiding the Protestant Elephant in the room - Protestant sects are ALL recent sects founded by men. None were started by Christ. None. It’s just that simple.
Your other post is just as much the usual blather as your second post here. There’s no point to commenting on both when you clearly are struggling with basic reading comprehension.
Go ahead. Make another error. Go ahead. Post more prattle that doesn’t deal with the entirely man-made and recent foundation of each and every Protestant sect. It’s all you can do apparently.
I know how to read. So stopped right about there.
I'm in no mood for any further abuse from you.
You're continuing assertions and all the "what I said" back and forth, returning to the same old garbagey patterns of inter-acting with others that you've long exhibited here, don't work, and in the larger scheme of things (beyond your own limited parochial horizons) do not mean all that much, not in light of what the real truths of the matters are.
Things are not true simply because you, or even the RCC says they are, despite all the added conditional 'because of this or that' appealed to in efforts to justify the assertions.
Speaking of people around here needing to "learn" something, get that through your head.
Didn't I already tell you that it was the underlying pretense & assumptions that were where the problem with your little rants lay? Ok, I didn't say "little rants" but have added that now.
Go study up on "reading comprehension" yourself. Or go play in the freeway. Your choice!