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.
This is not what Al is talking about. What he probably meant is that some Catholics for sure do superstitious things and are ignorant of what their church teaches. The things you enumerated are indeed parts of Catholicism, and as such are to be understood and followed. But they are not superstitions.
The numerous titles of the pope are simply custom. Nothing mysterious or supernatural attaches to them. If you have a question about a specific title, I can try and answer your question.
The Marian dogmas and the veneration of saints are all the belief system of the early Church, whether they have a direct scriptural prooftext or not. They certainly all make scriptural sense. If you have a specific question, again, I will try to answer, or you can educate yourself using the Internet or your local parish as a resource.
The priesthood is quite simply scriptural. Christ sent his apostles to give the Eucharist and educate; they sent others and still do. When an unconsecrated person attempts to imitate a priest, then that is superstition and bad things happen, scripture tells us (Acts 19:13-16).
Human tradition has some place in the discourse, but human tradition must be judged by God's Word, and not the inverse.
Now this is superstition. Where did you get that from? Please see On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition