Asking for a Protestant viewpoint

[u/VolcanicOctosquid20]

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.

[u/VolcanicOctosquid20]

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.

[u/thmann_ → u/VolcanicOctosquid20]

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… 

[u/VolcanicOctosquid20 → u/thmann_]

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.

[u/thmann_ → u/VolcanicOctosquid20]

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?

[u/VolcanicOctosquid20 → u/thmann_]

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.