...I second the motion!

Just out of curiosity, if you are still planning on denouncing your relation to Catholicism, which denomination (if any) do you plan to subscribe to? My first guess would land at Greek Orthodox (who's communion is the only Non-Catholic communion recognized by the Vatican as the real deal) or perhaps Lutheran (the original Vatican denouncer)?  

In any case, I agree with much of whats being said in this thread. I personally believe that standing with the Church is the right thing to do. Even though you might not agree with all of their views, something can be done to correct it. Certainly not immediately, perhaps not even in your lifetime. But trying to guide others down the right path is one of our first most duties as not only Catholics but as Christians.

Is it right to do things based on tradition that are in direct contradiction to what is written in the Bible?

Of course all those doctrines are biblical.

Do you accept the doctrine of the Trinity? It's not literally in the bible but the concept IS....
Do you accept the hypostatic union, the fact that Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature but only one divine person? That's not spelled out directly in the Bible, but the concept can be understood by reflecting on the clues in the bible.

What so many fallen away Catholics and most Protestants utterly fail to understand is basis exegesis. They fail at basic, 101 level interpretation.

For example, many will be proof texted about "call no man Father" - utterly oblivious to the fact that in the same Gospel, Matthew begins by calling plenty of men "fathers" and Jesus himself, when reciting the ten commandments reminds people to honor their fathers..... thus, if that line is to be a LITERAL condemnation, both Jesus and the very same Gospel writer himself violated the so-called "literal" interpretation!

With respect to purgatory, Marian devotions etc. the problem is too LITTLE meditation on the Bible not too much. People read their bibles in little bites rather than whole chapters or whole books all at once and seem to forget how the Old and New are to work together and how the New works together as well. You can't read Hebrews while forgetting about the Gospel of John or Acts. You can't read the letter to the Romans while ignoring the Gospel of Luke. It's all got to fit and balance.

Thus doctrines like Purgatory draw on Maccabees and the book of Revelation for inspiration as to some state of further purification after death but before entering the glory of heaven. The souls therein are already 'saved' so it's not like they were otherwise damned. No, they had faith, they had love but it was as yet unperfected love. How long this state of purification lasts is impossible for say because without a resurrected body it's impossible to know how time works.

But typically the logic goes :a) Church must be wrong b) I don't understand this doctrine therefore c) doctrine must be un-biblical and d) I will stubbornly refuse to read the scripture as the early Church fathers did who came to conclude that this must be how things are.

It's silly.

Addressing the OP

Don't abandon the faith because others scandalize you. The letters of John are eloquent to not allow bad leaders bad example to rob you of your faith. Church history is replete with shameful leaders failing their flocks out of cupidity, cowardice, etc. and how it was always unlikely souls who stood in the breach and set things right (often in the teeth of a hostile secular world and in the teeth of the very people they tried to save from themselves).

Consider that perhaps you are such an unlikely soul....if rather than flee, you stay and witness.

I think we need to consider the value of the witness of heroic virtue in times of great disorientation and confusion like these where uncertain trumpets blow and the secular and Catholic press seem all too eager to join the cacophony shouting contradictory things about the Pope and the Church.

I've found that it's helpful to believe direct quotes not headlines or editorial spin by either or any 'side'. What did the pope actually say and in what context and in talking to who? When I got my hands on the full context of the "who am I to judge" quote, it totally changed the meaning that was being breathlessly trumpeted to the whole world as Pope being suddenly in favor of active sodomy. The reality was completely different. He was speaking about confession and what happens when someone confesses mortal sin (how it's forgiven and forgotten and so we ought not hold forgiven sin against people). In that context - of a man who was sincerely trying to follow the Lord post-confession - was his "who am I to judge" quip made.

Likewise when the encyclical Evangellii Gaudium came out there was rejoicing in the NYtimes, on the left-wing Catholic magazine blogs and by fat-head Mark Shea about how wonderfully anti-Conservative the Pope was by condemning 'trickle down' economics for the world's poverty. Within 30 minutes, the whole right-wing freaked out including Rush Limbaugh.

few people noticed and pointed out that the Argentinian Pope couldn't POSSIBLY be talking about Reaganomics because that economic theory hasn't been in vogue since 1988 and in any event has not been the economic system in power globally EVER....since 80% of all Catholics have NEVER lived under Ronald Reagan, it simply can't be that the Pope was blaming right-wing anything for the current situation of the poor. IOW, both left and right were utterly wrong about Pope Francis' ideology.

I think he's definitely muddled by his Argentine experience and doesn't fully understand how capitalism works (because he's never experienced it) or how the poor actually have earned their way out of poverty via enterprise vs. being lifted by socialist wealth schemes....but I can't see how a true intellectual case can be made from JUST what the encyclical says to what most of the commentariate claims he 'really means'.

In this time of turmoil then..... we need to be careful and read past the headlines and spin. And we need to live our Catholicism locally for the sake of building up holiness where we are. To a large degree, the kingdom rises or falls not on what the Pope does or fails to do but on what we do with our talents hic et nunc.

Great post.  

As much as certain elements like to go on about the non-scriptural nature of Catholicism, I always find it striking to read someone like Aquinas or Augustine or any of the great Papal Encyclicals or the Jerusalem Bible - the depth and quality of the Biblical study is so much richer than the prooftexting silliness many tend towards.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.