@Doctor Anon Protestantism is logically indefensible.

Do you hold to the 5 solas?

It's the basis of Protestantism.

Even so, most have those in common.

The fact that you haven't heard of them is quite shocking. I am guessing you believe that the Bible is the only authority?

The Bible is not the rule of authority? What is?

What you said is literally not even recognizable as Protestantism.

It sounds like some relativist, New Age form of Christianity. Do you just like Protestantism because you can make up your own rules?

Baptist is such a vague term too, there are thousands of different branches.

Every Christian in the world claims to believe that. It is not unique to "Baptist".

Protestantism is logically indefensible because it's result is thousands of different denominations that can't agree on any basic tenets of belief, but arbitrarily throw out parts of Christian Tradition they dislike. The various Protestant branches have no legitimate claim to authority, and rely on claims of a Great Apostasy that, if logically followed, would render Christianity an almost abject failure.

Following God in your own way almost always leads to that. That's why most mainline Prot denominations accept those things.

The others just create God in their own image, to suit their own needs/emotions

Knowledge of God can be achieved through reason.

Obviously not totally, but God isn't a vague concept. The point of Christianity is to know God.

You're acting like God is a vague concept, incomprehensible to humans, which is antithetical to the point of Christianity (ie the Incarnation).

Veneration of Mary is intrinsic to historic Christianity, so that should not be an issue. And the behavior of individual Catholics shouldn't interfere with how you view the actual beliefs.

God is incomprehensible in many ways and absolute. But you have to be careful not to reduce the personal nature of God just to emphasize other aspects of God.

Literally all of the Church Fathers (who were directly taught by the apostles and their succesors) wrote about the values/virtues of Mary. And some of the Prot "Reformers" held very "Catholic" views of Mary.

Protestantism is antithetical to Tradition though. The moment a significant portion disagrees with an element of a tradition, they will just start their own church.

"Praying to Mary" is literally just asking Mary to pray for you though. That shouldn't be a problem, unless you view asking other Christians to pray for you as sinful.

There are many instances of people bowing/kneeling before people in the Bible - that act is not worship. And the kissing of feet is a sign of respect, not pagan worship.

What do you define as primitive Church? The apostolic and early Church fathers wrote of asking saints/angels to pray for them as early as 80 AD.

The temporal power of Popes cannot be sinful either, unless you view the temporal power of kings as sinful, which the Bible advocates.

St. Paul advocates celibacy, and Christ Himself was celibate, so it obviously has virtue.

St. Peter isn't declaring that bishops must be married either, just that they cannot be divorced/remarried.

Actually not true, many Eastern rite priests are married. It's just a discipline, not a dogma.

Selling of indulgences were historically distorted and overemphasized.

Jesus literally gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins.

And that apostolic authority is handed down to priests. So Catholics confess their sins to God, through the presence of the priest, as a representative of God.

You literally don't address anything I say. You just continue to list distortions of historical events and blatantly misinterpret Catholic teachings. Are you copying and pasting this from somewhere?

John 20:21 is literally Jesus telling the apostles they are representatives of Him. Priests/bishops are the successors of the apostles.

What is wrong with the idea of a king? The Bible advocates for the authority of kings as derived by God. The Pope's temporal and spiritual authority is thus derived by God.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-biblical-support-for-apostolic-succession

If you're actually interested

Do you condemn the apostles because of the actions of Judas?

You shouldn't condemn the entirety of Catholicism because of the actions of evil people within the religions.

Acts 1:21-26 New International Version (NIV)

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us,22 beginning from John’s baptismA)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witnessB)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed,C)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> “Lord, you know everyone’s heart.D)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> Show usE)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
This is Acts 1:21-26

Thessalonians is just confirming the importance of Tradition, which apostolic succession is.

The apostles were given very clear offices/positions, by Christ Himself. When there was a vacancy left by Judas, the apostles immediately appointed his successor.

"Apostolic ministry" is pretty clear and unambigous.

Okay so onto apostolic succession, yes there is historical evidence of this practice written about in the Early Church.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" 
This is St. Iraneus writing in AD 189

Vicarius Filii Dei is not a title of the Pope, and even if it was, you are just playing games with numbers, many names can add up to 666. Likely 666 was Nero.

Papal infallibility is only invoked when speaking from the Chair of Peter, which connects to the Seat of Moses from the Old Testament. It basically just a guarantee that the Holy Ghost prevents the Church from formally teaching error.

Lol Cardinal Newman converted to Catholicism and renounced those claims!!!!!

I'm just saying, you should check your source. If even the person who originally wrote it denounced it, would you say it's still credible?

Christ promised to be with the Church until the end of time though, and to send the Holy Ghost upon the Church (ie Pentecost) though. So yes, there are clearly going to be false teachers/bad leaders in the Church, because of human nature/sin. This doesn't equate to a Great Apostasy.

Matthew 16:18 - the gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ's Church

The leaders of the Church? Some no. The Church as an institution though is different.

The Catholic Church is the only Church that can be traced back to the apostles.

And yes, obviously it's not a physical/material location, but it is the Church that can most accurately be traced back to the Apostles and the teachings of Early Christians.

Which branch of Baptist belief is the Apostolic Church? Please tell me.

Do you believe that the Apostolic Church just began in 1609 with the beginning of the Baptist movement?

The Bible literally commands us to hold to apostolic tradition that is handed down. The Catholic Church is the only Church that maintains this.

There is one mediator of the New Covenant!! This doesn't mean that we can't ask others to pray for us because that would be "mediating" or that Jesus didn't give the apostles the authority to forgive sin.

So you literally think the apostles failed and no Church maintains their tradition even though Christ sent the Holy Ghost upon His Church and actively promised that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against it?

The Catholic Church as an institution is divine because Christ established it. The members are flawed and mortal.

The papacy literally started with St. Peter though.

In the Bible. Like he was the first pope.

It's implicit in Christ giving him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. As much as I would like to continue this discussion, I haven't even finished praying my night prayers and it's almost 6 a.m. so I am going to get back to that, until I have to be awake in two and a half hours.

If you're actually seriously interested in some of the claims you've made, I have no issue addressing them.

Same here.

Sedevacantism denies the indefectibility of the Church.