Greetings, well the Lord has already shown you the flaws within SS and the fruit it has produced - some positive, but so much division and no real authority whatsoever. 33,000 denominations all reading the same bible and all interpreting it differently. The Spirit is not a schizophrenic and I think Truth matters. There has to be a visible Church, somewhere that is rock solid doctrinally - 1 Tim 3:15. And there must be a visible Church somewhere with actual, tangible authority Matt 18:17/John 20:21-23 If not then these scriptures do not seem to make much sense in the protestant realm, imo. Because over there if you don’t like the pastor’s ruling you can just walk across the street and go to that church. And under the protestant umbrella a pastor’s interpretation of the scriptures sadly holds no more weight than that of a 13 year old kid with his/her parent’s backing. My point is the grass is not greener on the other side, imo.
- Paul was very clear in giving liberty in what one eats or days being holy in Romans 14. The church does not seem to do so, with days of obligation and meatless Fridays.
Keep in mind that not everything was written down. We do not know what was being imposed on the Churches in regards to spiritual discipline like fasting, etc. So Paul may very well be speaking of people doing things in addition to the calendar. I think when read in it’s context, his main point is don’t cause people to stumble. Also, picture the Church in it’s infancy stages - looks quite different with nobody having a actual bible. You had the Septuagint and maybe 2 Pauline letters and were waiting for more instruction. The Church was united ,but because of the limitations of that era(transportation, illiteracy, etc) not united enough yet. This took time and just like anything else, developed.
- Papal infallibility - was not a unanimous vote, with some bishops walking out. It is not accepted by the Orthodox church I believe. It seems to also lean against Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 20:25 when He said the rulers of the Gentiles lord over one another, but it shall not be so among you. The RCC seems to do a lot of lording over. Authority is one of it’s main claims.
But the Orthodox now admit Roman primacy.
First among equals is still first!! You can’t be sorta first anymore than you can be sorta pregnant.
And the protestant argument against Papal authority was always petros/petra. But now most the scholars from their side worth their weight are now admitting this argument has no legs. Instead they argue against apostolic succession - but by doing this they must conclude the Church went off the rails for quite sometime, which is in direct opposition to the promise in Matt 16:18
And notice that as much as Jesus disliked the Pharisies’ practice, He was NOT anti-authority:
Matthew 23:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Did you catch that? Follow the Church authority but don’t follow bad examples. God has always had his guy such as Moses and you listened to that guy and were under authority. And if you started griping about God’s guy He sent snakes to bite you, lol. That’s a true story, Numbers 21:6
The passage you quote Matt 20:25 is not anti-authority, it is emphasizing humility. If the Son of God came to serve, so shall we do the same.
- Assumption of Mary - I think Papal infallibility was used to declare this (correct me if needed). It’s something that no one truly knows today. And it’s not necessary for salvation. But you can not be an active part of the Church if you don’t agree.
This is one of those things that we should ask ourselves…is it plausible? If God assumed Enoch and Elijah then does it stand to reason He does the same with the Mother of God? We have relics from pretty much all these people and know most of their grave sites a well…all except the blessed Mother. The Orthodox believe she was assumed a well(called the Dormition), they just don’t make it dogma. And we split with them in 1054AD but actually that number is arbitrary as it happened long before that. So you know this was indeed Church tradition and not pulled out of thin air with Papal infallibility being the caveat. .
- Priest being married - it’s so clear that it is totally acceptable in the Bible, even stating in 1 Timothy 3:2 that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. When I ask of this most of the replies are not even of a neutral stance, but state that what the church does is best. I am not even asking for submission, just simple acknowledgement that either way is OK. Because of this, I don’t put much weight on the other responses of these people, as it looks to me like they are not seeking simple truth, but supporting the organization no matter what.
. Just out of curiosity, can I ask why you are opposed to it since scripturally it can be argued from both sides? 1 Corinthians 7:8
I do not mean to be uncharitable, and if the truth leads me to the RCC that’s where I’ll go.
Thank you all.
Take your time and be convinced in your heart before you make the commitment.