You say Christians "who are wrong" when what you mean is "in your opinion". If you start from a base of trying to understand why they think what they do, it might become less polarized?
One of the big issues, if not THE issue that separates catholics from others is the question "By what authority" do christians believe their interpretation of scripture and doctrine is correct. (great book , by that name by Mark Shea - read it).
Catholics accept what the early fathers taught , that is those taught by apostles, the faith handed down, (the greek word paradosis, translated as "tradition" but the word "tradition" also carries colloquial interpretation which is not helpful). It is not as opponents believe "other stuff added" to scripture. It is ALL of the faith handed down by succession (which is what it was for the early chuch). And gives meaning to scripture, and is why Paul tells you to "hold true" to it.
Read such as iraneus, (who we rely on to know who wrote the gospels!) who puts tradition in context. It is the mechanism of the passage of the entireity of faith handed by succession bishops (he says) with primacy at Rome. The canon of new testament was still some way in the future. The early church was not sola scriptura, nor did anyone think that till mediaeval times.
Catholics also accept what Jesus taught in regard to the power to "bind and loose" (meaning give authoritative decisions on doctrinal disputes) separately to the apostles and to Peter , the holder of office of keys. Which is the basis of understanding why scripture says "the foundation of truth is the church" Indeed without church authority you would not have a definitive canon you call the new testament or the creed, all decided in council.
The canon was actively chosen. The first canons were deemed heretical (as iraneus points out and rejected by Rome (eg marcions)), and there were many books in circulation which "claimed" apostolic authorship. Many were rejected by the church, before councils decided and rubber stamped the canon.
The catholic church (small c) was formed by Christ " church will be one" - "gates of hell will not prevail" and started with the apostles, but they as early fathers show, taught and handed on to bishops.. The first references to "catholic church" are in the first century AD, for example Ignatius refers to it in his writings. It means "universal".
Other than some groups declared as heretical (eg gnoistics, arians) there was only one church. There were not denominations with "alternative conflicting beliefs" as the reformation churches are now.
It was not until the easterns split away to become what is now the "orthodox" that it became necessary to give a name to the (much larger) remainder of the church root, when others began to call it "roman" to distinguish it from east. But the name "roman catholic" did not indicate the date of formation - nor was it a name used by the church it is a name that was used by others to describe it, and relates to the date of others splitting away. Later the word "roman" also began to describe flavours of Liturgy. "roman or western rite" vs "eastern rite" catholics, but these are still full communion and share the same doctrine.
Till then it was the "catholic church" Now study what that church did and believed. It was liturgical, sacramental, believed in apostolic succession through appointed bishops, believed in real presence in the mass, and sacramental baptism. All the cornerstones of catholic practice today. Not much has changed in two millennia. Understanding has evolved a little resulting in derived doctrne (eg trinity) And whilst we have differences with the orthodox, they agree on those points.
Several of the earliest fathers who knew/ were taught by the apostles refer to the importance of (succession) bishops, Iraneus refers to the episcopate starting with linus...through to his time, which chain is later extended and referred to in full by Augustine up to the time of the new testament formalization and creed
The entire reason for the post is to say... rather than declare catholics "wrong" - by which you mean you have a "different opinion", try to work out by what authority your opinion is right? and also understand why Catholics believe what they do regarding authority in order to converse with them. They point out rightly that "sola scriptura" is an invention of the medieaval church, it was never the basis of the passage of faith in the early church, nor does scripture anywhere claim it, indeed it identifies truth outside of itself, and simple logic refutes it. So the question all must ask, is where is the truth that resolves the ambiguities if you just take scripture? Many claim they "discerned the holy spirit" as authority. It clearly has not worked. Because they belief different, even opposite things.
ALL factions view scripture through a lens of their own tradition. Not all recognise it, and certainly not all hold the tradition of the early church, they substitute it with later documents. Indeed some - hand down doctrine (tradtion) which are heresies were outed in early church (eg modalism, oneness pentecostalism). That they believe it is "their tradition" but is certainly not that of early church. Such as the "augsburg" and "westminster" confessions are attempts at substituting catholic tradition with another document. Sola scriptura itself, viewed by catholics is a man made tradition. It was started by several identifiable people as an article of faith handed down from then on in the second millenium
I also point to the fact that many intelligent and well read people post reformation have come to scripture and on every aspect of doctrine, they disagree what it means, which is why protestant churches have so many conflicted indeed mutually exclusive views. Even on basics like baptism, salvation and eucharist. And the fact they are intelligent - well read - demonstrates there IS something missing from scripture alone, or why do they all disagree? These arefundamentals: eg OSAS, saved can lose it, not saved to the end. The method, applicability, outcome and purpose of baptism (which is the entry to the church) are all disputed and are polar opposite beliefs in some cases..
Catholics accept the historic fact that faith was passed by tradition and tradition gives meaning to scripture (eg "body and blood" really does mean "flesh of jesus" quote justin martyr writing in the first century. Nowhere did Jesus say write this, most of the apostles did not, he told his disciples to teach and "do this"
The point I make is first try to understand why catholics think what they do, and study early fathers (some of whom were taught by apostles) and see why catholics think that.
Yeah, I don't know what it is about me. The person with whom I was conversing must have read this book by Dr. Hahn. I can handle debating with atheists, and those of other religions, but for some reason, I get really really annoyed when I speak with other Christians/Catholics who are wrong and come off as if they are the ones who are correct. Particularly Catholics---I was on a date with a guy one time who lost interest in me the second I revealed I wasn't Catholic. He acted like I was some sort of heretic, and claimed that the 12 disciples of Christ were Catholics! Even though Catholicism did not even exist in Jesus' time.
