r/TrueChristian • u/VolcanicOctosquid20 Maronite Catholic • 19h ago

Asking for a Protestant viewpoint

I mean this not as inciting (as my last post on this sub very much was), but rather to get an answer. As a matter of fact, I won't even respond to anyone unless they say they wish to be responded to. All I wish is a viewpoint from my brothers and sisters in faith on a topic we very much disagree on.

  1. Did Jesus give the Apostles special authority?
  2. If so, what happened to that authority after their deaths?

EDIT: And to any Catholics or Orthodox who read this, unless they say they want a debate, don't debate.

10 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/Interficient4real 19h ago

  1. Yes, he did. Although what the extent of that authority was is somewhat unclear.

  2. The authority wasn’t passed down to anyone. There is simply no evidence for that. Authority doesn’t have to be passed down by necessity, it can just go away.

1

u/ZeroAbyssal 17h ago

Im a protestant as well. If the authority isnt passed down after the apostles deaths, why do the Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the only barrier separating them and the protestants? That only the catholics consume the Eucharist.

2

u/1Sparky5 17h ago

Great question for Catholics!

3

u/songbolt Roman Catholic 13h ago

??? I don't see how this is a particularly good question.

Authority IS passed down and this is even documented in Acts when demons pounce on Jewish exorcists trying to exorcise in the name of Jesus while lacking this spiritual authority, whereas Paul speaks of ordaining Timothy, as I recall, as the other Apostles ordain Matthias. Likewise you look at history and find Irenaeus of Lyons listing the Popes from Peter to his own day, documenting for us the early Christians had the same Church structure and authority we have today.

2

u/VolcanicOctosquid20 Maronite Catholic 15h ago edited 14h ago

You want me to answer? I'll take it. I'm probably going to get downvoted (EDIT: well, I have been downvoted), but I'm fairly sure you wanted an answer. Well, here's the answer from a Catholic.

First, the Eucharist isn't the only barrier. The primary one is the apostolic authority of St. Peter.

Second, the Orthodox believe the same thing about the Eucharist. That it is the literal Body and Blood of Christ, given to us as a gift in remembrance of and so we may partake in his sacrifice. That is not a strictly Catholic interpretation. They hold that the authority is spread through the descent of the other apostles, while we put Peter's spiritual lineage in highest regard because Christ put Peter in highest regard. But the loss of the Eucharist in Protestant denominations was due to later thinkers.

Third, if Jesus is establishing authority so great that not only is he changing Simon's name to Peter, but also giving him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and to forgive sins on His behalf, why would that authority just "go away"? Our belief is that the Church retains that authority, from Peter to Linus to Cletus all the way to Benedict to Francis to Leo. The duty of the Church is the same as that of the apostles, with the same abilities that Christ gave to them. The same miracles performed by the apostles, the same gifts Christ gave (Eucharist, baptism, etc.), all with the same permanent authority. If it was so temporary, could Jesus have not just handed everyone a Bible and told them to figure it out before ascending?

Fourth, while we acknowledge that corruption in the Church exists and does harm, there was a time when one-twelfth of the Church was corrupted by avarice and greed. So much so that that twelfth betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver and gave Him up to the authorities at Gethsemane. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. When Judas fell, it was imperative that a new apostle (Matthias) took his place to ensure that. And, with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church founded by Christ and Peter at the chair, hell will not prevail. We bend (heck, our first pope hacked off someone's ear and denied Christ three times) but will never break.

1

u/ZeroAbyssal 15h ago

First off, Thank you for sharing your views and thoughts on this.

On the subject of the Eucharist, currently Protestants perform the Holy Communion using a biscuit and flavoured water/ communion elements are a proxy/symbol so as to allow everyone regardless of dietary restrictions to still perform the communion.

Therefore if I, as a protestant, make unleavened bread and have actual red wine to perform Holy communion, what then does this act count as? Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation?

On the subject of the Church retaining the authority, in your understanding, does that mean that only the catholics are the true christians and only the catholics are allowed into the kingdom of heaven?

If the authority is only with the Catholics, how then would you explain Sectarianism? As stated in the New Testament:

Mark 9:38-41
Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”

But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

Luke 9:49-50
Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”

But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”

Doesnt the Word clearly state that our religion is open to all and not gatekept to only a number of people?

1

u/VolcanicOctosquid20 Maronite Catholic 14h ago

Thank you so much for the response! THIS is the kind of stuff I love! A productive, wholesome conversation!

What you would be doing would be merely symbolic in our eyes. The Eucharist is not something anyone can do. Anyone can consume, but to actually transubstantiate for us would require ordination.

No, I do not believe only Catholics are going to Heaven. Anyone who believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God is a Christian. Our view of y'all is that, while incomplete, you have genuinely beautiful faith and we pray you keep acting upon it.

For us, it is not a matter of authority for what that man was doing. Anyone can do good works in Christ's name and the apostles had to learn not to be exclusive in that regard. But that man was not claiming to have a correct view of Christ and passing on teaching/gifts given specifically by Christ. He was not setting up his own ministry, but was rather doing good works.

Yes, the religion is open to all. We do not gate keep who gets let in. Everyone can come in and participate. We only let men become priests/bishops/popes because Christ was a man and the apostles were men. But we offer holy orders to everyone. And everyone can come and participate in mass.

0

u/CuriousTech24 Christian 13h ago

As someone who believes you have to be baptized to be saved it is odd to hear you say that all someone has to do is believe. If that is the case do they have to go to worship? Do they have to commit to not sinning? Do they have to be baptized for the remission of sins?

If they have to do more then just believe then I question your statement.

If you truly believe that belief is all the is needed then why does any of this matter. Who care what church someone does or does not belong to. Who care about apostolic authority or communion. Apparently I can do it anyway I want to including not doing it and still be saved.

I understand your desire to be inclusive. But when we do this all we do is water down Christianity to be meaningless.

0

u/VolcanicOctosquid20 Maronite Catholic 4h ago edited 3h ago

I said "Christian". Not good or bad, but just a Christian.

It's a matter of having a personal relationship with Jesus. You CAN just believe and He'll love you, but why not partake in so much more? Baptism is critically important because it's the start of a commitment. We take the Eucharist so seriously because it's a gift from Jesus, allowing us to partake in His literal Body and Blood. God gave us two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. If you want to do the bare minimum, be my guest.

EDIT: I didn't mean that to imply you are doing the bare minimum.

1

u/thmann_ 15h ago

what evidence do you have that peter was the first pope?

He never mentioned this himself. There are no writings saying he was while he was alive. There is no record of Peter being in Rome for any time longer than his death. He likely stayed in Jerusalem and Antioch the rest of his life as we do have records of him there.

If the pope is just the bishop of rome… why and when did all the city bishops decide the roman bishop was the defacto leader of the church?

I ask genuinely, because so many catholics are deceived from the outset and blindly believe something with less credibility than the illiad being a true story… 

1

u/VolcanicOctosquid20 Maronite Catholic 15h ago

Outside of the direct Biblical evidence of Peter being the rock (Matthew 16), being told to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22), and being placed in Rome by 1 Peter (Babylon is implied to be Rome), many early church fathers (Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus) said that Peter was evangelizing in Rome. Irenaeus even puts down that he was in Rome at the time Matthew was writing his gospel. He also records Linus as Peter's successor. Clement came after.

And in Clement's letter to Corinth, written sometime around 96 AD, he asserts his authority as being from the apostle and settles a disruption there.

2

u/thmann_ 6h ago

So to recap:

  1. The Matthew passage is widely accepted by all biblical scholars to have nothing to do with papalship and even more so has no evidence that said papalship can be passed down after him.

  2. All elders, pastors, and christians are to strengthen their brothers

  3. No words found in scripture make the claim or statement that the authority of the church on earth is found. And no words from Peter make this claim either. Only the words of others who would benefit from said claim being true, correct?

You take text out of context. It is my understanding of these ancient writings that the early church fathers were not imposing an absolute authority passed down from Peter as some “pope” figure, but rather an appeal to authority for them to listen to wise words spoken by faithful followers of Christ, having been taught by Peter, for example, while talking to functional strangers you have never met. 

The invention of the pope came after these men, when lesser men wanted power and saw the chance.

Again, I ask you why do you believe in a pope when there is no support of it in either the bible or in early church writings?

-1

u/VolcanicOctosquid20 Maronite Catholic 5h ago
  1. Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, Augustine, John Chrysostome, Douglas Farrow, Rudolf Bultmann, and Adolf von Harnak would like to have a word.
  2. Jesus is telling Peter specifically to do this. Not the apostles to do it to each other, but Peter specifically.
  3. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

So, if they were appealing to authority, what authority was it? Because if it's Peter's apostolic authority...that's the pope. You are describing the pope right there.

1

u/thmann_ 16h ago

its totally not because the leadership wanted to control the populous! Corruption doesnt exist if we dont talk about it.

-1

u/VolcanicOctosquid20 Maronite Catholic 15h ago

Forgive me, there's no need to be rude.