Should we believe it is a sin to not surrender ourselves over to the Papacy. It seems so much like the Jewish laws. I mean it is no ten commandment that we must bow to the Papacy. So no sin there. It is definately not listed as the great mortal sins such as Homosexuality, drunkardness, idolatry, sodomy, fornication, lying, stealing, murder, adultery, fault finding. So then my question is this . Didnt christ get hung up on a cross and crucified because he didnt believe in the jewish king of those times and said he was the king of jews. Didnt christ do miracles on the sabbath that was considered unholy because it was not lawfull to do works on the sabbath. Didnt Paul pursue christ because christ was a lawbreaker in his eyes. Was not Paul in fact a Roman hebrew. Is not the Pope a hebrew. Fear not you people youre not in trouble. The pope is not a messenger from heaven and many of you may be. How many times has our modern Pope had to apologize for his own words. Definately not messages from heaven right?. Look if you arnt a citizen of rome dont believe in it. Thank him for his service to God pray for the guy and tell him to his face to just leave you alone and do his own work not meddling in youre business. Everyone has to love the guy love is the law. We have to be respectfull to elders like him. However the way I myself read the bible it always seems like Paul was the greater authority over the church. Paul having even rebuked Peter to his face for not ministering proper and living like a jew instead of converting gentiles. Therefor if Paul could rebuke Peter to his face. I see no way there was such a great need for a Papacy. Especially since Rome is a culture not a faith. the kingdom of heaven is no such culture. The kingdom of heaven is within everyone who recieves the holy spirit. Jesus Christ is right in each person who recieved baptism. A personal savior christ really is. Our brother not just our Lord and Master. Why would Paul write he is freed from all men and yet submit himself to Peter. Werent we to imitate Paul not just Peter. What about the other apostles. Isn't christ really the rock and not Peter?. Although in Mathew there is a scripture where Jesus tells Peter "On this rock I will build my church". Does it really mean Peter was the rock when elsewhere it says Jesus Christ is the rock of which the church is build on. So shouldnt we believe that Jesus is the only rock. Peter denied christ 3 times and was rebuked by Paul for something else. So is that an example of a rock?. Doesn't make sense to me. I am working on a ministry I can use a lie detector and simplify the need for any great authority such as a Pope by using bylaws keeping it from becoming a left wing cult for lawmakers and liberals. I can also think of improvements that could be made world wide to orphanages and other causes. A papacy only makes those improvements harder because it ads more politics and leads toward needing others approval. So I am confident that the Papacy has a place but it isn't the Lord of Lords. Again I am no expert on church history. From what I have read I get that the Original office of Pope was Peter's office as Bishop of Rome. Inheritly the office was supposed to be in authority over all the rest of the church. Ok that resembles the office of Archbishop of the Orthodox church more than the Pope. Atleast he is a Bishop as Peter was. Who's to say Paul wouldn't have blown his doors down and kicked his butt if he was to do something Paul believed contrary to what christ taught him having been taught by the same Teacher and doing miracles in his name. Peter with office of Bishop of Rome. Paul also a citizen of Rome, but not residing in Rome because he was converting Gentiles all over the globe. So Paul just couldn't convert Gentile's if he resided in Rome and his ministry was to convert new Gentiles and alot of them probably powerfull people of wealth to convert the employers and set up decent wages for the church and so that Governments would be on the shoulders of Jesus Christ to execute his righteousness. Something to that effect. Also Roman Citizens were free back then. There was no European governments as we know it in modern times. Just look at the 3rd world. Can you imagine what it was like for early christians. With Romans being the only real free citizens. So between Paul having freedom to go everywhere and convert people and Peter residing in Rome. Wasnt Paul also a Roman and free to do without Peters Permission. Now that they are dead and the church is all over the Globe. Now that there is freedom all over the world. Is the Papacy a real protection. Sure it is over doctrine. The orthodoxy claims to be older then the Roman Papacy. Etheopean orthodoxy supposedly is the oldest. The coptic egyptian orthodoxy also is quite old. So these early established church's with an Archbishop such as Peter was Archbishop do they seem as arrogant as the Anglican do with their liberal modernization. It could be true the orthodoxy's claim as being most like the original church. The roman's liturgy was changed by Newman and another man only so long ago way after Peters Death. Also the Orthodox claim to hold the original ark of the covenant. The Pope doesn't even have access to the Orthodox's Original Ark of the Covenant. What's that tell us?, that possibly Peter wasn't the only authority and someone else was in charge of the Ark of the covenant or what?. If someone tells you that you are sinning not already being a Roman Catholic and not believing in the Pope's infallible authority that's because they themselves have romanized their own citizenship so much so they believe he is an infallible authority. I honor that it guards over the truth of the Lords faith in some measure. I don't believe God trusted mankind a whole lot expecially any one man. Also in proverbs it tells us its not wise to trust any man it also tells in proverbs not to give any man or woman dominion over us. So its probably not wise to give to much authority to someone just out to please their own desire to have authority over us. Out of respect I suggest not falsely accusing the Pope of anything. I definately wouldnt try an opposed arrogance of actually trying to change the local Catholic Church to suit youre own fancy. Just dont believe its a mortal sin to not trust the man or believe he is a Great Power over youre faith that you should bow to.Also I wanted to ad that I believe in modern times there are many catholic around the globe who honor the Pope because of their culture. So much so that it is more of a culture the roman fellowship then just a faith in God. Not to say the protestants aren't creating their own culture but that both the Greek and Roman are a culture not just a faith. If you take the culture out of what they do in youre mind and heart. It isn't so cloudy the real purpose and place of their fellowship. We are free citizens to heaven. It's so possible for the Lord to teach us himself and guide us through life without anyone else. We could have a family communion at home saying the same prayers. We could study the bible in our homes. Protecting the doctrine wouldnt be so easy but it isnt as hard as the culture makes it either.
The priest who baptised me was a Jesuit Priest. The Jesuits were who initiated the inquisitions of Rome pursuing Martin Luther to stop his movement. Killing and imprisoning early protestants. The Jesuits were exiled and banned from every country other than America. They were basically exiled to America after the inquisitions had all ended. There is a book titled Vatican Assasins explaining about the Jesuits. Patrick Walsh the priest who baptised me gave a sermon about how he hated culture. The culture of the papacy and greek church and protestant church cultures are what he was referring to. Such as the anglican culture even. Its all culture most of the church division is culture. Jesuits werent really honored in Rome so he probably hated people attending as though its a culture to attend not just to commune.