Interesting for sure. As a Catholic who used to be a Lutheran, the question of authority has historically been perhaps the most divisive, leading to continual fragmentation of Protestant denominations. Being a pastor is a tough job. God bless you in your journey.
The pastor of my Southern Baptist Church has been there since 1978. Church people love him just as people in this town do. They know he is honest, loves people, and teaches from the Bible. None of this feel good junk. We are thankful we have him.
As well as more unity in core Scriptural beliefs among those who hold most strongly to what RCs protest (that of Scripture as literally being the word of God being the supreme authority, versus sola ecclesia). those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, and by which Rome shows what she really believes. (Mt. 7:20; Ja, 2:18)
Meanwhile, under the alternative model for authority, in which the church says is the supreme authority (as only what it says Scripture consists of and means is assuredly correct), then you have competing churches, each interpreting the evidence as supporting them, and taking the problem of variant personal interpretations to a corporate level.
The question is, which is correct. RCs tend to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God).
And or to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And for support that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?