The One True Empty Shell

Some converts to Catholicism are very smart, which is ironic. Striking that smart guys are so easily suckered by such a transparent scam. The way they act, it doesn't matter if what the pope teaches 99% of the time is false, if what cardinals, bishops, priests, Catholic college and seminary profs. teach 100% is false, so long as it's not stamped "official". 

Doesn't matter how morally corrupt the clergy are, from top to bottom (case in point: priestly abuse scandal). 

All that matters is having this empty shell of the One True Church®.

And even the infallibilist caveat is a scam, because that caveat is circular. If a pope or council says something manifestly wrong, then that doesn't disprove infallibility–that just goes to show they weren't speaking infallibly on that particular occasion. So even in principle, there can never be any evidence that falsifies the infallibilist claim. 

The church can never officially contradict dogma or de fide teaching, so any reversal on doctrine or policy is, by definition, unofficial, was never dogma, never de fide in the first place. Once again, no evidence can ever count against the claim. Like Hume on miracles or methodological atheism. 

All this intellectual effort and passion in defending a hollow shell of a church, with enough loopholes to shield their paradigm from any possible disproof. A classic cult member mentality. 

Recently, as I was debating two Catholics, I cited this article:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/02/from-ratzinger-to-benedict

Here are two successive popes who worked together for 25 years. Both attended the council. Both were players at the council. If they can't agree on what it means, where does that leave a less informed reader? Plus, Benedict 16 has revised his interpretation over the years.

Catholic apologists routinely attack sola scriptura by asking, "What's the point of an infallible Bible without an infallible interpretation?" Hence, the dire need for the Magisterium.

Well, by that logic, what's the point of an infallible council without an infallible interpretation? Can any Catholic show me where to find the correct interpretation of Vatican II? Where's the official commentary?

Of course, the reason for divergent interpretations of Vatican II is largely due to built-in ambiguity. It's a consensus document. Things are worded to give different factions elbow room. To get votes from competing parties. So the meaning of Vatican II is inherently uncertain, although it clearly  represents a dramatic departure from tradition in crucial respects.