I don't have to bet, I'm certain The Holy Spirit lead them back to Catholicism
If Catholics resent the Inquisition, depravity of their popes, terrible misuse of indulgences, oppression and murder
Whatever someone did in the name of Catholicism that was contrary to dogmatic teaching did not represent Catholicism, be it a Pope , Bishop or Lay person. Our faith is "concrete". Those who choose not to follow correctly excommunicate themselves Latae Sententiae
Protestantism has no dogmatic teaching so there is nothing to adhere to other than the many self interpretations of what each person believes about faith and morals
You have the good and the bad just like we do, but you have no concrete rules on many issues such as abortion, contraception , etc...
That is incorrect. Anyone who claims to be a Christian has the Bible as the authority and guide and it is full of "concrete" rules on all the issues that matter to a Christian if he only seeks to know them by the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. I am not swayed by the false construct of there being genuine unity in the Roman Catholic Church. That there are millions who call themselves Catholics because of infant baptism and identify as that "denomination" on any form that asks the religion question, and yet who live their lives as functional atheists, proves that this unity and the structure that is supposed to guarantee it is a myth.
A careful - UNbiased - read through history more than adequately shows that genuine Christ-like faith and behavior peeks out only occasionally from the "fathers" of the faith and the further they get from the first century church the further their thoughts and musings evolve away from Biblical Christianity. I believe that the false teaching that the "church" is the one ONLY in Rome and its Pope, the ONLY genuine successor of the Apostles, served to further the error that whatever this leadership deemed true, was true. Instead of the "faith once delivered unto the saints" being passed down faithfully, it morphed into whatever WE decide is the faith, YOU must accept. Imagine for a moment if one of Timothy's disciples after Timothy died started developing his own doctrine on issues not taught in the Holy Scriptures. Would he have been able to "get away" with it? Not at first, I contend, but the further away from the time of the living Apostles, the further could men develop their own understanding and teach things NOT done in the early church.
The Roman Catholic Church's history is replete with the exact same thing. So, why, I wonder was there no one to stand up to them and object to this "new" doctrine that slowly became MANDATORY to believe? The answer is, of course, power. Not the power of the Holy Spirit, but temporal power that the Catholic Church found as it became one with the secular authorities. While Jesus specifically said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.", showing the two should be separate, the church was wooed away with the promise of wealth, power, influence and global reach. Since this began in the fourth century, we can see how the result was a cumulative effect.
So, rather than denigrate "Protestants" - which I have already said is nothing more than a "catch-all" name - for what they lack by not being more Catholic-like, I think the preferred way to judge has to be whether what they believe is the Christian faith once delivered unto the saints, and the only way that can be objectively determined is whether or not it can be proved by Scripture. Every church I have attended has a "Statement of Faith" - a "creed" - and everyone who wants to join goes through new-members classes where they learn what is believed before they can formally join.
We already both agree that Scripture is God-breathed - Divinely Inspired - and is the deposit for the truths taught by Jesus and the Apostles, so why shouldn't it be adequate for testing claims of truth? Why do you think the MAJOR tenets of the faith have not changed all this time? Like you said, there is good and bad, so we MUST have an unbiased, objective and authoritative source by which good OR bad can be determined. It CAN'T be a group of fallible men, who bring to the table their own likes, dislikes and prejudices. It MUST be the one thing God has ensured we still have to this day - His holy word, the Bible.
Look, I am not trying to be argumentative nor am I trying to cause anger or strife. I know I am a Christian and I KNOW I am going to heaven when I die because I have received Jesus Christ as my Savior and I trust in His sacrifice for my sins. I know I have the Holy Spirit within me because He has changed me completely in ways I could not if I wanted to or would not if I could. That is evidence that I am His. And, because I am His, no one, or thing, can ever snatch me out of His hands. Catholicism was NOT where He wanted me to stay nor is it where He wants me to return. I mean no offense by saying this. If you are happy there, stay. But don't insist that it is only your church that can save a person - I know that is not true!
A few comments on this statement of yours. First of all, the definition of "dogmatic teaching" in Catholicism is NOT concrete, but fluid. Lots of things changed. For example, during the Inquisitions, the leadership of the Catholic Church was fully behind the things that were being done. Sure, it's easy to say you wouldn't condone something so terrible NOW, but back then, they thought they were in the right! According to them they weren't doing anything that wasn't "dogmatic". Too bad the dogma didn't match the Scriptures. Jesus NEVER said to do what they did. He preached love, remember?
The same thing with "indulgences". Now, I know some people like to claim not everyone was on board with the abuses, but the Pope at the time sure knew about them and the money went for the rebuilding project of St. Peter's Basilica. These things were done and taught at the INSTITUTIONAL level - not a few bad apples out of the laity. The leaders did these things and nobody had the power to stop it BUT the leaders.
Imagine if Peter and James had gone through with the mandatory circumcision of Gentiles in order to become Christians. If Paul had no authority and no recognized Holy Spirit leading to correct them, I wonder if we would STILL have that as an "ordinance"? The very leadership of the Roman Catholic Church DID - by decree - many of the things Catholics look back on now and regret and deplore. So, DID these men have the authority of Jesus to do these things based on their position? Because THEY determined they could? I don't think so. The Bible didn't give them that, they ignored the Bible and did what they thought was best. And here we are centuries later and it STILL makes the Church look bad - it's probably the FIRST thing a non-believer asks, "What about the Inquisitions?". So, again, this concrete dogmatic teaching is not so solid as you might think. Having the Scriptures as our rule of faith helps to ensure orthodox beliefs. Place it as second fiddle to "tradition" and the "magesterium", and you invite wrong teaching and wrong behavior.