Oh? And what makes you think Protestants know the Gospel any better than Catholics?
Scripture.
And you agree with uninspired, unwritten Protestant Tradition.
Such as...?
What's the difference? "Oh, but, but, but, our Tradition is Biblical, yours is not." is no answer.
It's funny how you refuse to answer questions, then tell us we follow Unbiblical traditions without giving any evidence or answers, but then turn around and accuse somebody else of not giving answers.
What makes you think your Tradition is any more biblical than ours? It all comes down to interpretation. How do you know yours is the right one?
You still haven't told us what "traditions" you're talking about.
Okay wise guy---and what makes you think you understand the Scriptures any better than Catholics? You see, we have those very same Scriptures.
If you go through threads in the Catholic forums, you'll see that Catholics often refer to scripture, but very rarely cite it. And, when they do, it's very nearly always out of context (eg. John 3:5, Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, etc). You never answer any questions or follow up questions. You just parrot somebody else's talking points, instead of studying the scriptures and giving a thoughtful answer of your own.
When Christians answer, we often cite scripture and are more than happy to back it up and answer follow up questions.
You are more than welcome to show how we have misinterpreted or misunderstood scripture, but you never do.
When the Protestants appeal to the Scriptures, they aren't really appealing to the Scriptures, what they are doing is appealing to an interpretation of the Scriptures that is based on what they were taught by their ministers, teachers, scholars, etc. Protestants deny they are doing this, instead claiming to go by the Holy Spirt of course.
And yet, every time you tell us we're wrong, we ask you to show us how and you never do.
You're really nothing more than a child who sticks his fingers in his ears when someone says something he doesn't like.
Now, Catholics freely admit that any appeal to the Scriptures in the Catholic Church, is really an appeal to an interpretation based on the teachings of the Faith. For Catholics, the Bible is the Divine text book of the Faith, the Church the divinely authorized teacher. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, the idea that Church teaching is not evidence that something is scriptural and revealed---is sort of oxymoronic for the Catholic.
Why should we believe the Catholic Church is any of these things when you can't even explain where in scripture the Catholic Church is said to be any of these things?
Thus, everything is ultimately an appeal to authority. The question is--which authority is divinely authorized? Catholics see this as the RCC, Protestants do not.
Catholics see the authority
On this we agree.
The issue isn't whether or not it is the Spirit who teaches and the Spirit who has authority, but the mechanism in which the Spirit speaks.
So, how do you know it's the Holy Spirit if you don't first follow the Bible's command to test it in light of scripture?
For Protestants, I guess, the Scriptures alone are the concrete manifestation of the authority of the Spirit.
Once again, showing you do not know the difference between sola scriptura and nuda scriptura.
If the Spirit guides the Church, and I think we can agree that the Spirit guides the Church--the Body of Christ, it is difficult for me to understand, again, why the testimony of the Church to some teaching, say the IC, should not be taken as evidence that the Scriptures teaches the doctrine, if the Scriptures themselves are unclear.
Saying the scriptures teach something is not true if scripture teaches the opposite.
You continue to tell us it is scriptural, but have yet to show us where it's taught in scripture.
Put another way: when we approach the Scriptures, and we seek to prove or disprove that the Scriptures teach something, and the evidence in the Scriptures is inconclusive, why shouldn't the Church have the authority to judge the evidence and then make a determination either way, and then bind the Christian conscience to that decision?
The Bible says we're to show others the liberty to disagree about matters of aidaphora.
The problem is the things the Catholic Church so egregiously contradicts are often not matters of aidaphora, but are very serious, essential doctrines.
So you have two sides to an issue, again, say the IC of Mary. One side says "The Scriptures teach this doctrine." The other side says "The Scriptures do not teach this doctrine." Why doesn't the Church get to judge the evidence and then make an authoritative, definitive determination either way?
Why should the Catholic Church have greater authority than anybody else?
For instance, if the Bible says Mary is a sinner, then who gave the Catholic Church the authority to contradict that?
If the Bible says Mary had other children, then who gave the Church the authority to contradict that?