My experience has been just being ignored whenever I demonstrate verses that outright contradict false churches of merit claims and even when I break down arguments where it is irrefutable what I've said follows through whereas what the churches say is incoherent I don't get a response

Sometimes people appeal to patristics but that's laughable but only to anybody who has spent even a small amount of time studying early church theologians, because they got into debates over theology and did not agree on anything, including between themselves such as in the case of augustine famously writing a series of RETRACTIONS for when he got things WRONG, and worst of all for the roman church the MAJORITY of the early church theologians had the correct view of Matthew 16 and said 'the rock' was the professing faith of Peter. Some of them viewed it as meaning all Christians, with origen saying incredulously, "Does Peter hold the keys to the Kingdom alone?!"

Besides on it's face being an idiotic causality loop argument where scripture cannot be interpreted by men so we must turn to men to interpret scripture, which is also present in the "we created the canon of scripture therefore we own it but it also informs our doctrines" chicken and egg hypocrisy. Both east and west churches claim the early church theologians were unanimous in consensus. Rome hilariously makes this claim while at the same time labeling some as heretics(but only later of course). Similar in concept to them claiming the church has been unchanged but also that vatican I and II were these landmarks where the church redefined itself by going back to its traditions which how can you go back to tradition unless you strayed from it in the first place?