In addition to what I wrote above….
Most who hold the type of systems of belief that are exemplified by Ron also refuse to look at what the Church believed in antiquity. The belief of the Early Church is well documented in the writings of the Early Fathers, and among both Pagan and Jewish writers of the day. You can see in Ron’s writings how he uses the usual phrases of he has picked up by those who without a cogent argument against the Church, and orthodox teachings when they say, “Keep your catechisms, and histories, I’ll keep the Bible.” They take the Bible out of context, only quoting the individual passages that support the teachings they want to believe in. They isolate texts out of context not just to the Bible itself, but interpret it without regard to what the text would mean to a Jew in the First Century or before, (in the context of the times.)
Along with the denial or rejection of what historians of the time, and modern day historians who have reviewed the archeology, writings and artifacts of the time, they deny the Infallibility of the Pope, marking him as an Anti-Christ, or as part of an ancient conspiracy with Pagan Rome to supress the “Authentic Chirsitan teachings” which only developed in the past two hundered years. They do however claim an infallibility that by far outstrips the limited infallibility that the Catholic Church defines for the Pope, and for the sources that they use, most of which have been disproven as fantasy and a misreading of history outside of context.