Your comment: “We (myself and millions of others who have examined these things —in detail—) could go on somewhat further, but for now, that is enough.”
“you simply cannot get away with accusing others of having merely and only “personal opinions””
You are certainly entitled to believe whatever your heart desires (freedom of religion) and there are 30,000 different protestant religions so you have lots of options. It is still your personal opinion that may be shared with many others. Please explain how it is not a personal opinion?
What is your authority other than personal opinion that you understand the Truth of the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and their successors?
Newman was an example of a non Catholic that went back and studied the teachings of the Catholic Church each century and determined them to be truthful. Yes it was his personal opinion and he acted on his research by converting to Catholicism.
That's another one of the "dogs that don't hunt" kind of things, but if anyone, and I do mean anyone in this nation enjoys "freedom of religion" (or even freedom from "religion" --particularly freedom from being forced into conforming to what 'authorities' in whichever religious persuasion would prefer) then thank the founders and framers of the U.S.Constitution, an overwhelming number of those men Protestants (and about a third of them holding degrees in theology if I am recalling this last bit accurately).
America -- Roman "Popes" thought they could award the territory to kings that payed obeisance to themselves --- those "Popes" were wrong in regards to most of the North American continent. It wasn't in the cards, not for the Church of Rome, anyway. Adherents towards that faith tradition were in the colonies at first by degree of sufferance, and then later under the U.S. Constitution (if not before) full citizens despite "religious" differences.
There are differing schools of thought within [Roman] Catholicism, while the difference between various written 'statements of faith' among the many relatively independent fellowships among those other-than Roman Catholic (or else some flavor of Orthodox -- Greek, Eastern, etc.,) are very often (but admittedly not always) near to being ~negligible~ , while there are faith traditions among the various Orthodox which include aspects which align somewhat with Protestants, such as in shared opposition to singular 'papacy' (or even much 'papacy' at all) as Rome knows of, and speaks of that. [Geez Louie, why I gotta' tell you this stuff each time we talk? I see no sign in your own words you have fully grokked the situation here]
As for my own opposition to some portions of Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma, you appeared to have addressed the following;
First off, as far as "opinions" go...do I have to say it? Same to you. You do need to wrap you mind around THAT.
My own opinions do not rest upon my own authority, but rest upon facts -- as best as those are able to be determined, not only by myself, but others too (of Christian faith) seeing very much the same truths, agreeing -- yes, that's what the Bible reads as, and that's how it was intended to mean, and this or that way how various notable persons in the early history of the Christian Church viewed things in their own era, etc.
I would ask what assurance you have that your own opinion (which if you will allow, includes; the Roman Catholic Church is entirely correct -- while none others are, or are scarcely getting things right(?)) is correct, but that would only lead us into the circular logic loop-d'loo that is the makings of Romes' own declaration that it's own declarations (concerning even itself) are infallible.
You neglect the far greater numbers of Newman's contemporaries, and afterwards also -- who examined the same things Newman did, including Newman's own writings after his own conversion ----but were far from swayed by RCC apologetic and Newman's opinions, and remained staunchly 'Protestant'.
Just about every time so-called ECF's (Early Church Fathers) are cited, in English nowadays, those citations went through the hands of a group of Protestants who were alive in Newman's Oxford Movement days (and soon afterwards) who in response to the likes of Newman and Co's usage and treatment of citations from ECF's went beyond the 'cherry picking' tendencies of the tractarians (who were Romanizing the Anglican Church, leading to Newman's own eventual conversion fully over to 'Rome') translating, assembling & cataloguing a far more complete set of writings attributed to ECF's than the tractarians and Roman Catholics were releasing in English, along with a certain amount of introduction and important to know further commentary.
Have you ever heard of Phillip Schaff? Among other labors partaken he was an editor of an enduring work of translation; Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers which carries within it's pages translations made by Roberts and Donaldson (among other translators) who were the main editors of (and possibly contributed translation work found within) Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Those collections are more complete than the partial works within Library of the Fathers which Newman (and many others) were associated with, the more complete works of the nominally Protestant individuals and groups showing just how the "cherry picking" presentation of the post-conversion Newmanite crowd went, and quite frankly, still goes.
Lopsidedness, misunderstanding (perhaps deliberate) and misapplication (perhaps deliberate?) of portions of "quote" from ECF's being one of the RC apologist's stock-in-trade, although I'm not certain how often they are aware they are deceiving themselves in how the partial-quote cherry picking often misrepresents the wider truth, that wider truth of the matter being at crucial junctures very much against RCC apologetic.
This is one of THE problems I have with RC apologetic when they turn to citing ECF's. Those ECF's simply are not at all times saying what the Romanist anachronistically asserts is the meaning various ECF's held, or had been intending to convey, this becoming more apparent when brief cherry-picked quotes are read from within wider context of most any ECF's own comments and the yet wider context of faith tradition (ways of thinking and doing) found evident in other materials from the same era. A person can track development of doctrines in that way, although it is tedious work, and BIGLY time consuming.
Attempts to excuse away all "developments' (as long as those passed muster in a Church Council somewhere along the way -- or even NOT paased through 'Council') by asserting that the RCC, with it's papal system, is empowered to introduce theological novelties, does continually, at each place where that has occurred (either in Rome, or elsewhere which Rome OR anybody else then inherited as "tradition") begs the question(s); are such theological developments conveying the same doctrines in the same sense as was the earliest, primitive Church? If not, then why not?
If there has been departure (if only by way of additions to doctrine) subtle as those changes may be, end up opening door for significant change (the change coming it to full fruition often times only many decades, even centuries later) from the sense of doctrines (and what's most chiefly of importance) from what the Church proclaimed from it's initial inception -- who is fooling who?
It is obvious to me that Newman was mislead. Perhaps he fooled himself as much as he was fooled by the siren song of the apologetic he once opposed? I can just about guarantee you that Newman had not much encountered the Spirit of the Lord prior to conversion -- or else he would have realized that that very experience alone would have greatly falsified Roman Catholic assertions that were made frequently in Newman's own time, and still are, though today can find a bit of modification, a little more acceptance of the idea there are real Christians far outside the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism. It's about time that was acknowledged. It only took 300+ years(!). Why should anyone believe what a 'Church' that densely self-absorbed has to say about anyone?
There is far too much of RCC apologia that is double-talk "reasonings of men".
Not buying it, and would advise others to not buy into the Romish blarney either. Will keep saying that too, and saying it about like that as long as persons such as yourself keep bringing the same stupid, worthless non-hunting hounds to this forum, presenting them as champion hunters! champions!
If on the other hand you were to choose to raise the level of discourse, and leave off from; reliance of argument by assertion (while promoting something of an outlier, Newman, as prime example), trotting out the "it's your personal opinion" trope coupled with the ridiculous "30,000" different denominations ill-founded claim ("religions" you said!) with it going unstated that all are in serious disagreement(?) -- or else they wouldn't singularly, each one of them be a separate "religion" which when counted that way (as separate religions) the 'Catholic' apparently having found support within their own thinking -- which they arrived at there by way of misapplications and double-standards of measuring, weighing and comparing---then we could talk.
There was an article from more than a dozen years ago, written by a [Roman] Catholic who advised 'Catholics' should not use the 30,000, or 33,000 different "denominations" argument -- and here you've gone and turned them all into different religions. Doing so critically undermines credibility. Allow yourself be corrected. Check into the truths of the matter, yourself.
From a recent article at National Catholic Register (written by a fairly recent convert to Roman Catholicism, and though I would likely not agree with him entirely, as for what he may be thinking of when in summation he says "Protestants don’t need to answer to an Encyclopedia; they need to answer to St. Paul" would end up in overall positive results for various contested Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma (smile!) he does say many things that other Catholics should pay heed to.
We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations.
From midpoint(s) thru the [above, linked] article;
... There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protestant denominations. There are not anywhere close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of repetition, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to concede, relies on too loose a definition of the word “denomination.” ........ However strong the temptation some may have to characterize anything not Catholic or Orthodox as “Protestant,” you can’t do that. All that tells Protestant apologists is that you don’t know what Protestantism is, or what its distinctives are—and they would be right. And why would they take anything you say seriously after that? ....
[ending quote from NCR article]
Yet that still misses the point to an extent. Protestants have a generally different outlook towards what makes up the one Church.
It is sometimes claimed more than 30,000 Protestant denominations exist today. Some Catholics will argue against the Protestant church by asking which of these denominations is the true church? Why? The Roman Catholic Church claims to be Christ's one true church. The observation that Protestants have many different groups is one way they sometimes seek to show that the Protestant church is not God's true church.However, this accusation fails in many ways. First, there are not really 30,000 different denominations. ....
....Second, the concept of the true church of God is often misunderstood. The term church is used in the New Testament in two main ways. It can refer to a local congregation (the people, not the building) or it can refer to the church in reference to all Christians in all places. The true church is not any particular denomination, but rather believers gathered together in worship.
Third, there is no need for a "one, true church" as the Roman Catholic tradition teaches. Instead, believers in Christ are called to gather together in worship (Hebrews 10:24-25) and to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20). There is no requirement for a church system that includes a pope or sacred tradition.
Fourth, the authority of the church is found in Christ, not any person. He is the head of the church: "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior" (Ephesians 5:23). Colossians 1:18 adds, "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Under His leadership, the Bible notes that local churches are led by elders/pastors and deacons (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:5-9) who exist to equip the saints for works of service (Ephesians 4:11-16).
There is no single denomination or church group that serves as God's true church. Instead, God's Word serves as the authority that believers seek to study and live out to develop local churches that honor God and make disciples. Though many denominations do exist, all churches are called to follow the essential teachings of God's Word, such as the five solas of the Protestant Reformation, that form the basis for the functions of today's churches.
In closing, an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, one James White, would have a word with you;