The ironic thing about debating Catholicism is that the main source of division between us and them ought to be the one thing we have in common. The Bible is, or at the very least it ought to be, common ground between Catholics and Christians. The only real difference is that Christians believe it is the sole and sufficient authority in the Christian faith, and so interpret it naturally, as any other book, whereas the Catholic Church teaches that it is equal to what they call "sacred" tradition, and thus interpret it according to whatever that happens to be in the current era.
If you need a source to say that, look no further than the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum. In chapter 2, we read "Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence." (Emphasis mine). In other words, according to Pope Paul VI, Catholics are required to believe the Bible is equal to sacred tradition.
Of course, both in theory and in practice, this is impossible. In theory, both the Bible and "sacred" tradition have many areas of conflict. As an apologist, I have no trouble comparing Catholicism to the Bible and showing where those areas of conflict are. In practice, Catholics almost invariably respond to this by elevating tradition above scripture. Thus, Pope Paul VI set Catholics an impossible task by asking them to serve two masters. The result is that Catholics must love one and hate the other (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). The question is, which do they love, and which do they hate?
This is the reason for this ministry's official policy regarding denominations: "There are true Christians in every denomination, but no true Christian denominations". Yes, even within the Catholic Church, there are true Christians. There are Catholics who, when the Bible and "sacred" tradition butt heads, will gladly choose the Bible over tradition. For example, I remember when my Catholic friend observed me debating another Catholic with regard to salvation by grace vs works. At the time, I didn't know she was Catholic, and because of this debate, she confessed. So I replied: "But your primary faith is in Jesus, yes? If the Bible contradicts a Catholic doctrine, you would go with the Bible?" Her response was "Yes, that's the weird thing, I find myself agreeing more with your views."* Because it is clear that this woman believes the true Gospel, and is willing to reject the teachings of her Church when they conflict with the teachings of God, I have no doubt in my mind that she is a Christian.
On the other hand, there are many Catholics who, upon hearing a conflict between the Bible and Catholic tradition, will instead proceed to elevate tradition above the Bible. Sometimes, this is a simple "yes, the Bible says X, but tradition says this should be interpreted as Y." Other times, this leads to outright blasphemy. I have been told that the Bible is a terrible instruction manual, that Sola Scriptura is "the worst cancer on Earth", that the Bible is riddled with errors, I've even been called a particularly derogatory word beginning with R (which, according to the rules of this ministry, I am not permitted to speak) for believing in Sola Scriptura. I've honestly seen atheists respect the scriptures more than some Catholics.
If scripture and tradition are equal, neither of these scenarios should occur. I don't think I should need to counter the Bible bashing. If you hold tradition and the Bible equally, it is impossible to bash the Bible without also bashing the Catholic Church. But what of the former camp? What of those who revere the Bible, yet reinterpret it whenever it clashes with tradition?
Let's use an illustration. According to Catholics, where does Sola Scriptura come from? Catholics claim it was invented by Martin Luther. Thus, Sola Scriptura could effectively be called a Protestant tradition (even though it actually comes from the Bible). According to these same Catholics, "Protestants" are therefore holding Luther as being more authoritative than God. Now, if "Protestants" are holding Luther's beliefs above scripture because we (allegedly) use his views to interpret scripture, can Catholics not also be said to be holding tradition above scripture because they use tradition to interpret scripture?
It is, therefore, as I said. It is impossible to serve two masters. When Catholic tradition and sacred scripture disagree with each other, they have only two options:
1. The tradition is greater than the Bible.
2. The Bible is greater than the tradition.
The first option is repugnant to both Catholics and Christians. In the same paragraph as he commanded equal reverence to scripture and tradition, Pope Paul VI also declared "For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit...". The scriptures agree. 2 Timothy 3:16 removes all doubt, as it says all scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore, in order to claim tradition is greater than scripture, Catholics not only have to say the Catholic Church is wrong, but that it is also more authoritative than God!
The second option is very much "Protestant". In fact, it is the very option that I, as a "Protestant", happily endorse. Of course, it does once again conflict with the idea that scripture and tradition are equal. But more to the point, it overwhelms every tradition that is in conflict with the scriptures, which is unfortunately a lot of them. Thus this option also requires the Catholic Church be declared wrong, but without the unbelievable consequence of believing the Church has more authority than God.
In both scenarios, the Catholic Church must necessarily be false. Therefore, Catholics need to repent immediately.
*Disclaimer: This conversation was copied and pasted directly from the message history. I am not attempting to claim that my views are the standard of Christianity. Rather, my point was that my Catholic friend agrees with me when I agree with the Bible, thus showing that the master she serves is Jesus, not Roman Catholicism.