Key elements of this for me include the attributing of Godly attributes and titles to the Pope, Marian dogmas, veneration of Saints, and the creation of a priesthood standing between God and man.
From a kind of distant, unattached perspective, two comments, the less important first:
(1)AS I think the article said, when a "protestant" (speaking loosely) group decides that this or that is a superstition, they fissiparate. Where there was one group, now there are two, each claiming the archaic mojo (if you'll excuse the technical language ...). In the Catholic Church, when somebody rubs the hierarchy's face in some superstition (as THEY, rather than somebody not a member of the this group, think) they rear back and inhibit or prohibit or suspend, or something.
As an example, there is currently in vogue a notion called "Fundamental Option" (developed, I think, to assuage the guilt of those who use artificial birth control despite the clear teaching not to do so) which states, more or less, that if you really intend by your act to show love for God and your neighbor, why then it's okay! This has been explicitly declared a no-no in Veritatis Splendor.
(I'm trying to ignore the uncomfortable reality that the proclaimers of this teaching went merrily on proclaiming it after that encyclical was published. At least in the case in which I was involved I could speak up and cite the encyclical and could sort of clean up after this particular heterodox but well-meaning deacon and 'splain to the victims of his teaching that it wasn't true.)
(2) Of course members of different groups will differ on what is superstition and what is orthodoxy. Basing my guess on your inclusion of "and the creation of a priesthood standing between God and man," in your list of superstitions, that you may not quite understand what we think of priests. And if that's so, maybe what you think we think about the others may also be a tad uncertain. I mean no offense.
But I think the writers point was not meant to go where you're taking it. Rather he was talking about what bodies do when members of those bodies believe things which the body itself, rather than some other body, think is unorthodox.
I agree the term "Protestant" is vague and equivocal. Unfortunately "Protestant" ecclesiology means that there can be no body to say authoritatively what the term means.
...human tradition ...
Just as a place marker, I want to note that "tradition" and "human tradition" do not certainly mean the same thing, or we would just say "tradition". There are, we think, some traditions which are not merely human.
The question though is not what ‘others’ do in the face of ‘superstition and ignorance’, but what we as followers of Christ are called to do.
Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. (2 Ti 4:2)
I would also echo the injunction in 1 Cor and Eph here to do so 'with love'.
As to what constitutes ‘superstition and ignorance’, in this sense my meaning is that which is not supported by clear scriptural antecedents and which is built upon the (often well meaning) traditions of men.
Your comment on birth control is an interesting one, as it raises an issue that's been on my mind lately. If you like, this can be considered a 'superstition' by my definition, as the scriptural support for it is weak at best. Such things though have much broader theological implications.
Are we saying that the God of Abraham and Isaac, the Great I Am, for whom nothing is impossible... can have His will thwarted by a few microns of latex? Are we saying that sexual intercourse within a lawful marriage is not meant to be joyful and physical? Are we saying that Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law, needs to have a new law created by man (though the RC would argue it is by God though His vicar upon earth... yet did Christ come to fulfill the law so that His 'vicar' could reestablish it?)?
My comment of priests was not a denigration of the need for leadership, order, and authority within the church (we are to be a people in submission to governing authorities, and most of all to be a people in willing and loving submission to an all sufficient God), rather it was a critique of all churches where a priesthood has arisen which sets itself up (whether willfully or not) as a mediator between God and man. This does not even address the question of priest acting as alter Christos in persona Christi
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti 2:5)
There well may be elements of RC understanding of priesthood with which I'm unfamiliar. If there are any points which you believe are germane, please bring them to my attention.
Agreed that there are some traditions that are given to us from God, yet we need to teach them clearly so that they are obeyed not just in physical action, but in full spirit and in truth.
His peace be with you.