First of all, his whole arguing technique is to make himself immune from challenge by defining everyone who isn’t a Catholic as a simpleton.

My argument is that the theological explanation underlying the fifth and sixth sessions of Trent cannot be properly understood without understanding Aquinas's theology, and that one doesn't fully understand why one is a Protestant instead of a Catholic, without understanding those sessions of Trent. That doesn't imply that anyone is a simpleton.

Therefore, the only acceptable attitude for a Protestant is to meekly listen to what Cross has to say about Aquinas and Catholicism.

My claim is that Protestants need to understand Trent, before dissenting from Trent on the basis of a prima facie understanding of it.

Cross falls into the “you’re only allowed to think what the pope says you can think” school of Catholic fundamentalism.

Catholics are under canon law, which includes canons 750 and 752. Catholics may not believe whatever we wish about doctrine and morality.

If the only thing that matters is what the Holy Father has said and authorized, and he has not put the imprimatur on Bryan Cross’ blog, by Cross’ own arguments, I should ignore his blog and stick to authorized sources like the Catechism, the decretals, and the scholastic doctors.

Something can "matter" in different respects. Josh's argument makes use of that ambiguity in the antecedent of his conditional, and thus commits the fallacy of equivocation. Of course nothing I write has doctrinal authority in the Church, so nothing I write matters in that sense. But hopefully some of what I write matters in the sense of explaining what divides Catholics and Protestants.

He’s been a Catholic for all of three years, guys. He’s a neophyte.

That is true. I'm still just scratching the surface. But this is an ad hominem; it doesn't address any of my arguments.

Third, a lot of what he says and thinks relies on this inability to see any other possibilities than the stratified institution of the RCC with the pope at the top, or some kind of caricature of Protestant ecclesiology where division doesn’t matter, because hey, invisible church. In fact, that summarizes his entire mode of discourse–he discards all but two possibilities, one ruinous and absurd, and the other Catholic. There are only two possible doctrines of justification, two possible ecclesiologies, two possible doctrines of Scripture, two possible doctrines of clerical authority, two possible doctrines of tradition, and so on. Then he declares that if you don’t believe whatever stupid thing he’s decided is the only legitimate Protestant view, you must believe the Catholic position.

Josh is claiming that I'm offering false dilemmas, but he does not provide a third option for any of the dilemmas I have proposed. So my arguments themselves remain untouched. It would be helpful for him to provide his proposed third options to these dilemmas.