first of all most denominations believe in one of your first creeds-Apostles or Nicene(?) That creed is VERY<VERY scriptural. The division perhaps started when following creeds etc became less scriptural …One must also compare apples to apples . CC is just one magisterium or denomination , very unified within itself. Southern Baptists is another denomination/magisterium, very unified within itself. Greek Orthodoxy is another ,very unified within. Within any denomination , you can travel the world and feel right at home within that denomination, having the same truths in Boston as you do Melbourne. Right ? …That is a big generalization ,that CC has been the same for 2ooo years .In areas such as baptism, limbo ,Marionism,.it has not,generally speaking
Sorry to inform you, the RCC is not a denomination… all denominations stem from the Catholic Church.
Word Origin & History
denomination:
late 14c., “a naming,” from L. denominationem (nom. denominatio )
"a calling by anything other than the proper name, metonymy," from denominare “to name,” from de- “completely” + nominare “to name.” Monetary sense is 1650s; meaning “religious sect” is 1716.
anyone’s interpretation of the Bible is their ‘Traditition’ ex. "This is how we interpret the Bible’
We don’t teach Bible alone, self interpretation nor private revelation…but believe in
a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The other is this: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.”
Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books.
He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
see the rest
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=318735&Pg=Forum12&Pgnu=1&recnu=24
God bless
john
Here again David is another false premise of yours. Catholics do not believe you need just the Church, or just Tradition, or just the Scriptures, but all in are apart of the Church’s deposit of faith.