We understand that Protestants despise Holy Tradition.
But we also know they embrace their own traditions of men e.g. sola scriptura, sola fide, predestination to hell, etc. Granted, not all noodles on the spaghetti farm believe in each of these small "t" traditions. The result is all the division within Protestantism.
The most highly Protestant countries are the most prosperous in the world.
The most highly Catholic countries are among the most impoverished.
Jesus condemned the tradition of men set up by religious rulers while He was here.
What on earth could make anyone think that He’d then turn around and establish an organization that would mimic that very thing He just got done condemning?
It boggles the mind how brainwashed Catholics are that they can justify such contradictions.
You really should just say Christians instead of Protestants.
But we also know they embrace their own traditions of men e.g. sola scriptura, sola fide, predestination to hell, etc.
These beliefs may be controversial to some, but they do have support in Scripture. It's the making things up out of thin air that Christians despise.
The result is all the division within Protestantism.
What those that place their faith in a church fail to see is how little division there is among Christian churches.
Among the beliefs you will find unity on are salvation is by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, for the Glory of God Alone. We may argue at length over eschatology, predestination, whether church govt should be presbyterian or congregational, but on the big issues of salvation we have very little disagreement.
The traditions of men
The RC church has never sifted through the various traditions and developed a comprehensive text with authority ,just as it has never written a bible commentary or systematic theology ...
The catholic encyclopedia notes:
“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.”
St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.
The teachings of mary flow from the pagans and heretics. The belief of the assumption is based on apocryphal and spurious writings
. Again from the Catholic encyclopedia
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite”
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine.4 However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century.5