To be clear, I am not hostile to the Catholic Church...ok certain Catholics, yes but not the institution. It’s just that as I understand it, I would have to believe and do a lot of things that I do not believe in to become a Catholic.
I am on these threads to learn and hope that my (probably) silly questions do not frustrate too many folks. I recognize that some of the things I post on these threads can be taken as being mean or out of line, but I usually don’t see it that way until after I click the “post” button.
The Catholic Church also teaches that you have to follow your conscience as it is presently formed. And also we have to, through prayer and study, inform that conscience.
So I wish you the best in your endeavors at learning, I'm still at it.
There is no silly question that is sincere.
If you are truly searching here are a few superb links, if you are considering Rome.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Testimony.html
http://www.christiantruth.com/Beckwith-Response-to-Return-to-Rome.html
There is some misconception in here. Yes, there are things that the Church teaches which are not spelled out in the Scripture. Some are clarifications of what the scripture does say, but does not say it systematically. The doctrine of Trinity, divinity of Christ, necessity of faith and good works for salvation, necessity of the sacraments of the Church, the mystical connection between Mary and the Church are such things.
Then there are things of which the Church has a historical memory but that naturally fell out of scope of the Scripture. These are the lives of the apostles and Mary, or later saints. There are gaps in that knowledge, but that which we do know is precious to us.
There are also things that the Church teaches based on her authority to "bind and loose" (Mt. 16:19, 18:18). These are manner of worship, holy days, fasts, religious orders, obligations of lay faithful, etc.
Finally, there are things that are popular expressions of faith, but are not taught as mandatory. Many Marian devotions, for example, are such spontaneous modes of veneration of our first saint. In fact, we would not have any canonized saints if there hadn't been such outpour of love for the holy men and women of the Church.
None of that should present any logical challenge to any believer in the scripture, once you realize that the scripture itself is a product of the Church, that recorded her most precious memories, often in a stenographic literal manner.
If the Church ever taught a contradiction with the scripture, that would be highly suspect. But that is not the case. The Church interprets the scripture -- the entirety of it, -- with reverence and precision. Other interpretations exist, but invariably thay can, at best, explain some parts of the scripture but never the whole. This is why rightly the authors accuse the Protestants of not grasping "the essential teaching of the Gospels".
Please feel free to ask me or any of us questions, publicly or privately.