Sigh, I guess it's my day to have to straighten out all this Protestant nonsense before I head for Church, (the real one).
(1). The Bible itself considers oral tradition to be equal to the written epistle, hear the words of Saint Paul: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thess. 2:15).
(2). The Pope does not consider his words to be equal to Scripture. The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible was the end of revelation. When the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" his words must be in line with Scripture and tradition, and cannot deviate from the teachings of the previous 2,000 years of Christianity. The doctrine of "infallibility" is a very narrow one, used only rarely, that is confined to pronouncements that directly concern salvation. The Church, however, has always considered the pronouncements of its councils to be the infallible truth. That is the very reason why the Church has always held Councils through the ages, to officially define doctrines that come into question. The first Council was the Council of Jerusalem, seen in Acts 15. This council of the Apostles and "elders" was held because the question for the need of circumcism arose and needed to be defined. Even Paul and Barnabus traveled to Jerusalem to sit at Council with Peter and the Apostles on this matter. After much debate, Peter, the head of the Apostles, "rose up and spoke" (and settled the matter), "and all the assembly kept silent..." - (Acts 15:6 - 12).
None of what you list below adds or removes a single world from the Bible. Nor are all of them even doctrines. Many are practices and traditions are found in the Old and New Testaments, TRADITION. As Saint John's gospel tells us, the Bible does not contain all of what Jesus said and did. (John 21:25) and (John 20:30). But I will anwser them anyway.
"1. Prayers for the dead -- 300 AD"
Praying for the dead is not "unbiblical". In fact, Luther removed the two canonical Books of Maccabees from the Bible and called them the "Apocrapha" because in 2 Maccabbees the Jews did indeed pray for the dead, (see 2 Maccabees 12:44 -45). Even though you Protestants unfortunately removed this book from the canon of Scripture, you still keep it in the middle of the KJV Bible because it is accurate Jewish history. And since it is accurate Jewish history, we know that the devout Jews of the Old Covenant prayed for the dead; - inspired book or not inspired book, the account of praying for the dead is considered historical fact.
Furthermore, we see Saint Paul referring to his friend Onesiphorus in the past tense, and asking God to bless his household, and asking God "to grant him the mercy of the Lord in that day", (Judgement). He was clearly praying for the deceased Onesiphorus. 2 Timothy 1: 16 - 18).
"2. Making the sign of the cross -- 300 AD"
Just another Protestant fallacy. Hear what Tertullian, an early Church Father, wrote in 197 A.D. about Christians signing themselves on the forehead with the sign of the Cross: ""In all our travels and movements in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross". (De cor. Mil., iii). And it's quite obvious from this writing that even in 197 A.D. this was not a new practice. Revelation 7:3 also speaks of a Christian seal on the forehead: "saying, Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads."
"3. Veneration of angels & dead saints -- 375 A.D."
The Saints are dead? Then please explain what Moses and Elias were doing on the Mount with Jesus, showing themselves to Peter, Andrew, and John. (Mathew 17:2). And who are the "cloud of witnesses" in Hewbrews 12:1 that "surround" the Christian? And how is it that the "rich man" in Hades saw the long deceased Abraham in Paradise, and asked him for help? (Luke 16: 19 - 30).
I'll answer the rest of your time worn rhetorical Protestant nonsense later. Tis time to get myself to the true Christian Church.
Matt.15:2 Paul was an apostle, and this was the apostolic era during which Scripture was being written, and attending signs, such as the raising of the dead, were given to the apostles. Scripture has been completed. There are no more apostles, the current Polish Pretender with the mitre that blasphemously claims the title "Pontifex Maximus" included [Pontifex Maximus means "Highest Priest" Christ is the only Highest Priest we have ore need. "1Tim.2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
The "traditions" Paul referred to do not mean what the RCC erroneously teaches as tradition. Paul referred to the doctrines He taught under inspiration by the Spirit in the Scripture written by Him, and the Scripture available from other Apostles and the Old Testament Scripture. If by "tradition" one means doctrine and practice that conforms to the Scripture on which that tradition is founded then that is commended in Scripture, as in the verse cited by Paul. But when "tradition" means UNSCRIPTURAL doctrines and practices which have gradually become accepted and popular, the Bible in general and Jesus in particular constantly condemned this kind of tradition [which is the kind of meaning the Catholic church attaches to the word "tradition."]
Matt.15: 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Col.2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {rudiments: or, elements} {make a prey: or, seduce you, or, lead you astray}
Tell me anything Paul taught that contradicts Scripture. Then examine your church [the only real one as you so arrogantly put it]. The history of the RCC from its first attempts to gain ascendancy over all of the other churches in the 4th century, even going so far as to forge phony documents supposedly from Constantine that claimed preeminence for the Roman church.
Sorry, but the Bible does not call Peter the head of the apostles. Paul spoke with as much authority, and wrote much more of the New Testament than Peter. We at least know that Paul went to Rome, but there is no concrete evidence Peter ever did. Which makes sense, since Paul was to be the Apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the Apostle to the Jews.
Oh but wait, the Catholic church thinks that Peter is the rock on which the church is based, even though two different words are used for that foundation rock [huge stratum of rock] and Peter [small rock]. Peter never claimed to be the rock on which the church was built any more than any other Apostle. Let's let Peter identify the rock:
1 Pet.2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
The Greek language is very precise, and it is the Greek language through which the Spirit moved on the Apostles to record Scripture.
1Cor.10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
When the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" his words must be in line with Scripture When I was speaking of the "Pope's words" I was speaking of his "ex cathedra" statements. Catholics say his words have to agree with Scripture. But in practice they do not. And in line with 2000 years of tradition? Claiming that Mary had an "immaculate conception" was not officially accepted until 1854. It took until 1950 to claim that Mary ascended bodily into heaven. Neither have any basis in Scripture at all. These are just two of the examples I listed previously of the Catholic church doing exactly what Jesus condemned, teaching as doctrines the inventions of men. Giving glory to Mary that is only due Christ.
Pius XII’s encyclical, Mediator Dei: Christ “has offered and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins.” Hebrews 9:25 says, “nor yet that he should offer himself often.” Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”
Catholicism does not have a high view of Scripture: From the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Bible as a literary work had traditions that included myth” (Vol. 10, p. 184); “Some of the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture may be fictional and include imaginative literary exaggerations. The episode of Noah and the Ark is imaginative literary creation” (Vol. 9, p. 887); “The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus and still less scientific history” (Vol. 12, p. 403).
The RCC can't even unequivocally say that Christ is the only way of salvation. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #846: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try by their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.” [SOME OF THESE INDICTMENTS I LIST AGAINST THE RCC APPLY TO MANY PROTESTANT CHURCHES AS WELL]
We can think those who stood up to Rome's tyranny that we even have a Bible in our own common language to freely discuss here on Free Republic.
Bible translator and reformer, Tyndale was ordained as a priest in 1521, having studied Greek diligently at Oxford and Cambridge universities Following his studies he joined Sir John Walsh's household, with duties not easy to define. Some accounts describe him as a tutor to Sir John's children; some make him chaplain to the household; while another suggests he acted as secretary to Sir John.
One day Tyndale was engaged in a discussion with a learned man who told him it was better to be without God's law than that of the Pope. To this Tyndale retorted that he defied the Pope and all his laws, adding that if God were to spare his life, before many years passed he would cause a boy who drove the plough to know more of the Scriptures than this learned man. Tyndale had found his vocation: translation of the Bible into English.
Tyndale conferred with Luther in Germany and stayed on the continent translating the Bible from Greek into English. The printing of the translation was begun at Cologne in 1525, but was stopped by an injunction obtained by Johann Dobeneck, a vain and conceited man who hated the Reformation and opposed it in every possible way. Tyndale fled to Worms, where the book was printed. Copies were smuggled into England, where Archbishop Warham and Bishop Tonstall ordered them seized and burned.
Eventually Tyndale was betrayed by a friend and arrested in Brussels, Belgium. Despite the efforts of Thomas Cromwell and others to save him, he was tried for treason and heresy against the Church. He was condemned, degraded from holy orders, strangled, and his body burned. His last words were a prayer, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes."
Tyndale's influence upon English literature was great, chiefly through the use made of his renderings in the King James Version of the Bible (1611). It is estimated that 60 percent of this translation is derived from that of Tyndale.
NOTE: I RESPECT THE STANDS THAT THIS CURRENT POPE AND MOTHER THERESA TOOK FOR MORALITY AND AGAINST ABORTION. AND I APPRECIATE THE MANY PATRIOTIC CATHOLICS WHO VOTE THE CONSERVATIVE LINE ON THE MANY "VALUES" ISSUES TODAY. CATHOLICS WERE MORE VIGILANT IN OPPOSING ABORTION FROM THE BEGINNING THAN PROTESTANTS. BUT I DISAGREE THEOLOGICALLY WITH MANY RCC DOCTRINES BECAUSE I CANNOT FIND SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THEM. I BEAR NO PERSONAL ILL WILL AGAINST ANY CATHOLIC. I JUST FEEL COMPELLED TO TELL PEOPLE THAT CHRIST IS THE ONE WHO SAVES, NOT A DENOMINATION, AND IF SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SUPPORT A DOCTRINE, THEN IT IS NOT A PART OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY. I AM BLESSED TO HAVE MANY FRIENDS IN MY CHURCH WHO WERE CATHOLICS JUST A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT HAD NEVER HAD A PERSONAL SALVATION EXPERIENCE WITH CHRIST.