I understand that there is 2,000 years of emotion involved with this issue (just as there was between Moses and Jesus).
But you are mistaking the power of God given to Christ and to His church, as a hierarchy among the church. What do the scriptures say? That Christ is the head over many wives of different authority? No, but only, "the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church."
The authority of the husband over the wife is a different topic to the authority given to the Church. The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).
It does not follow that the authority of the husband over-rides ecclesial authority, which you are implying. They are two different things.
Matt. 16:18; 18:18 – Jesus uses the word “ecclesia” only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.
Acts 20:17,28 – Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Thus, the difference is not a hierarchy of authority, but of gifts only, and to each the power of God.
This leads to confusion between the gift of pastor-ship and the office of pastor. They are related but not one and the same. People with the gift of pastorship can create headaches for the one holding the office of pastor. "Gifts only" is gift worship, IMO. Manifesting gifts is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. The Pentecostal movement that began in the 19th century is divided into 100+ denominations, some of them degenerating into the heresy of Modalism, yet they have "gifts".
As for the church going "off the rails", I tell you, as history will attest, it was never fully on the rails. There were twelve apostles and one was a devil. There were seven churches named by Jesus of whom most he had somewhat against. And those planted by Paul, were they all exemplary? And today?
Basically, of course, this boils down to saying that we ought to renounce Catholic teaching and become good ol’ Protestants (preferably Calvinists) Sorry, Scott. It doesn’t work that way.
Sin and truth are two different categories (in case you didn’t know that).
Sin will always be with us. This is why we have Christianity in the first place: to save men from sin (
duh!!!). It’s called . . . original sin . . . concupiscence, etc. Certain brands of Christianity takes it even further than we do, holding that men have a “sin
nature.” Yet they are
surprised that sin — even very serious, especially evil sin, with cover-ups — occurs.
But there is one truth, and that doesn’t change because some people in the ranks of where the Christian truth resides most fully, have sinned.
It’s a huge tragedy, disgraceful, abominable, unspeakably evil,
but it doesn’t cause doctrinal truth to change. If Isaac Newton — heaven forbid — had been found having sex with a little boy, it wouldn’t alter the fact that gravity is a scientific truth. We wouldn’t reject his established, demonstrable teaching because he was personally a scoundrel.
St. Paul didn’t hesitate in calling the Corinthian assembly “the church of God” (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; RSV) even though terrible sexual sin had occurred within its ranks. Somehow, our Lord Jesus still called the assembly of Christians in Thyatira “the church” (Rev 2:18), despite the presence therein of wicked sexual immorality. The Thyatira argument to discredit Church Authority doesn't hold water.
As for the Pope, not even Solomon--who was a king, was so adorned.
The vestments of the Old Testament priest are much more ornate than what the Pope wears, but you don't object to them. That would be politically incorrect. Customs and rubrics have nothing to do with Church Authority or doctrinal purity. The Pope is so adorned because of the office he holds, you think it's to glorify the person who holds the office. The SDA does the same stupid nonsense. Your objection to customs and rubrics is shallow and insulting.
But you are correct to say that the church would never be overcome by evil. But that does not make void that which was foretold regarding destructive heresies brought in by false teachers, teachers who now have many more children than she who has a husband.
The doctrine of the Trinity came into further development at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.
in response to destructive heresies.
Fast forward to this century.
The Papal Encyclicals Online <no destructive heresies
That link gives a list of RECENT teachings that address concerns of today while your arguments are frozen in 16th century politics.
But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.
You should quote me where I have boasted in arrogance instead of making up false generalizations.