Let's start with the top 10.
1) The RCC is the one true Church.
2) Infallibility of the RCC.
3) Only the RCC has the authority to interpret the Scripture.
4) The Pope is the head of the Church and has the authority of Christ.
5) RCC tradition equal to Scripture.
6) Forgiveness of sins and salvation is by faith + works.
7) Penance is necessary for salvation.
8) The merit of Mary and the saints can be applied to the Catholics.
9) Mary remained a virgin after conceiving Christ.
10 Purgatory.
These are doctrine of men practiced by Catholicism.
May the Lord bless us with his wisdom and love.
The first thing I noticed on this list, the confusion you have between what is dogma and what is tradition.
So let me list you off the dogma of the church, these are the things that are most important for every Catholic and to be Catholic is to believe in this.
We believe in the Holy Trinity, we believe in the Incarnation the birth of Jesus, we believe in the passion and death of Jesus, we believe in the resurrection of Jesus, we believe in the second coming of Jesus, we believe in the last judgment, we believe in the remission of sins, we believe in the church as being the one Church who is handed the keys through Peter and in succession every hope afterwards who was elected by Bishops and the Holy Spirit, we believe in the Eucharist the body and blood of Jesus, we believe in eternal life.
Everything else is a tradition that we follow including the understanding of purgatory and Mary.
The Traditions will not save you, but we hold true to our beliefs and our traditions as they help us grow in our faith.
Paul talks about keeping the Traditions alive, so we follow the words of Paul who is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I want to point out a couple details one is that the Catholic church can follow its Heritage all the way back to Peter and paul. There are plenty of documents to show the proof of that.
Also the church as a whole did not experience the divisions that we see today up until the late 1400s. There are even manuscripts of the King James version in the late 1400s that include the Apocrypha written in it. It was somewhere in the 1500s that the apocryphal is removed from the King James version.
To note and to understand the Apocrypha it has the teaching of purgatory. I tell you this because it is an accepted teaching till the late 1400s ( and this is with the discernment of the Holy Spirit when the Bible was first compiled back in the 300s.)
Now even though the seven books were removed, you still cannot remove it completely from the scripture. You believe that there are only heaven and hell, but it does not put into account certain things stated in the scripture. As an example, Jesus makes the statement to the scribes and pharisees, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be judged less harshly than the people of this age. And there are other statements in Scripture that are not accounted for when it comes to heaven or hell because they are neither.
The understanding of Mary is purely tradition, and there are people who are witnesses of what happened with mary. John of the Gospel of john, being one of them. What he wrote of mary, was not added to the scripture.
And like those writings that were not necessary for one salvation nor part of the scripture text does not mean that they do not exist or their experiences were not true. As you may know the scriptures themselves were first compiled in the 300s by monks of the Catholic church.
There are plenty of Scrolls and writings that were not added to the bible. They don't have the importance the Bible holds, but if you wish to research these things you can. The Scrolls of Enoch and other Scrolls written by John including the Sunday sermons of many of the founding fathers up to the 300s or put into print at one time or another. What I found interesting were the Dead Sea Scrolls is they verified many of the books set in modern scripture.
The Catholic Church follows the teachings of Jesus when it comes to the eucharist. Jesus stated, this is my body, this is my blood and we believe that when a priest consecrates The Bread and Wine that it indeed becomes the body and blood of Jesus
No just like the Disciples of the time of jesus, only those Jesus hand-picked stayed with Jesus, after he taught this. Because Jesus said, are you going to leave too? To which they replied where will we go.
So obviously not everyone was meant to accept that teaching, because plainly, it is pretty rough for those who don't understand it and as Lentz said, we are all a bunch of cannibals.
Do I hold him at fault for this? Of course not. It's a tough teaching. But if we look at the Mana that came down from heaven for the israelites, and Paul talks about this Mana as the bread from heaven, is it any less cannibalism just because the symbology is different?
Because in the New Testament we are told that the Manna From Heaven is jesus, and you are more than willing to accept that as being Jesus versus the Eucharist as being jesus. You are more than willing to accept that those who walked in the desert with Moses ate the manna that was sent from heaven and drank the water that came from The Rock. And in both cases it was said to be Jesus. Why do you not look at the Israelites as cannibals? So you see you do believe that the Israelites received the Manna From Heaven and the water that was from jesus, but you cannot accept the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus.
I'm sorry for the long explanation, but your question required it. May God always be with you