The ROOT of our differences is the AUTHORITY we claim.....

[Tantor]

The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling.  You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession.  Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill.  Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered, by the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  How does one explain that?   It is that unshakable NT model that you question.  However, the question remains.

Where do Protestants derive their authority?

Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.

And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...

[desertknight]

Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.

And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...

Yes, our Lord is the ultimate authority, but you must clearly be opposed to, or ignorant of, the numerous examples in Holy Scripture of our Lord founding a visible Church, and in giving that authority to minister it, to mortal men and they in turn, passing it on through ordination, by the laying on of hands.  Exactly as is practiced today by my Church. 

I'm almost urged to wonder, do Protestants just ignore this?  Do they defend this somehow?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The fact that you did not answer the very question I, and the OP referred to, is telling.  You specifically posed the "unbroken line of Popes" as your argument., but that line is only a part of the total Apostolic Succession.  Of course we Catholics understand that the Bishop of Rome had developed the responsibilities of what exactly that office entailed over time, but that has always been in concordance with what the mission of Our Lord has been, and in what He anointed St. Peter to fulfill.  Your argument falls flat with the understanding that the Catholic Church accepts with complete authority the Holy Orders of, and the Holy Sacraments administered by, the Eastern Orthodox Churches.  How does one explain that?   It is that unshakable NT model that you question.  However, the question remains.

Where do Protestants derive their authority?

I probably shouldn't speak for all Protestants, since I certainly don't represent, say...the Lutheran, or Anglican churches, but it seems to me you really don't understand.

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense.  You may as well ask me how I create air.  I don't create air, so the question is inane.

Likewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.  This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."

Where I am, the only authority that is exercised is that of an overseer.  This "authority" is not positional, it is a function of experience.  Those who are mature teach, and look in on those who are younger to correct them in behavioral issues, and that is only with their consent.  If you do not wish to be taught by some certain elder, you may choose another.  IF you don't think you have anything to learn from any of them, then you may devote yourself to service rather than study.  If all you want to do is attend the song service, you're allowed (though I doubt you could really consider yourself a part of the church at that point).

There is a preacher/pastor, but the paradigm is not top-down authority.  It works the other way...the pastor is accountable to the eldership, and the eldership is accountable to the membership.

The clergy does not "lord it over" the laity, rather they are their servers; their employees.

The pyramid is upside down.

[Tantor]

Jesus.. there is no other authority for Christians.

And I have never seen the Pope act in a way that would be consistent with Jesus teachings... so if the shoe doesn't fit...

Yes, our Lord is the ultimate authority, but you must clearly be opposed to, or ignorant of, the numerous examples in Holy Scripture of our Lord founding a visible Church, and in giving that authority to minister it, to mortal men and they in turn, passing it on through ordination, by the laying on of hands.  Exactly as is practiced today by my Church. 

I'm almost urged to wonder, do Protestants just ignore this?  Do they defend this somehow?

I'm not ignorant of anything.. I just decern whom are imposters and whom are the real thing.

You will know christians by their fruit... and there is no fruit in the Catholic Church or evident in the Pope.

As far as Jesus setting up a physical church... there is one obscure verse in the Bible that Catholics use to justify their position... yet there are 4 books that cover the ministry of Jesus.. and there is one mention to a 'possible church'... obviously, the importance of the Catholic church wasn't that important to the Holy Spirit because almost every other thing Jesus said or did was recorded in no less then the 4 books of the Bible.

God is not a God of confusion.. he would never have been that vague with something that important.

So the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending?  I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.

[desertknight]

Likewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.  This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."

That is completely at odds with what Holy Scripture says.  The proof of that is what you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.  The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church.  You say it is a question you can't answer.  I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?

[desertknight]

So the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending?  I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.

Then there is about 1,600 years of your understanding of the very visible Christian Church that our Lord established, that you are missing.

[Tantor]

The scripture does say to call no one 'father'.  

And the entire premises of 'passing' on authority is no where to be found in scripture in the New Testament.. no where.

[Tantor]

So the answer to your last question is.. why do we have to defend something that doesn't need defending?  I am in no way accountable to the Roman Catholic Church in any way shape or form.

Then there is about 1,600 years of your understanding of the very visible Christian Church that our Lord established, that you are missing.

Nope... 1600 years of going astray to be shed or reformed... it's amazing how the Catholic Church has strayed and invented its own doctrine.. its similarities to Jesus' ministry are nothing but coincidental anymore.

[desertknight]

The scripture does say to call no one 'father'.  

And the entire premises of 'passing' on authority is no where to be found in scripture in the New Testament.. no where.

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 13:3  "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed presbyters 5 for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Acts 15:22  "Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers."

1 Tim.  4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Deut. 17:10-11  "According to this decision that they give you in the place which the LORD chooses, you shall act, being careful to do exactly as they direct.  You shall carry out the directions they give you and the verdict they pronounce for you, without turning aside to the right or to the left from the decision they hand down to you."

[Tantor]

Still no pope.

But the authority they had were as servant leaders.. leaders commissioned to keep doctrinal standards.

Why has the Catholic Church strayed from the very thing that they say that they were charged with? Their power went to their heads.. instead of supporting the congregation the opted to rule over it with an iron fist.

Thank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Likewise, we DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.  This is why we don't call anyone "father" or "mother" but instead opt for "brother" and "sister."

That is completely at odds with what Holy Scripture says.

What you mean is that it is at odds with the interpretation of the Bible that you have been taught.

What do you think this means?:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.  And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.    (Matthew 23:8-12)

Or these:

Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.

Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.  

Or...

Mat 20:25-28  But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

The proof of that is what you seem unable, or unwilling, to answer.

I answered you succinctly: We DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.

The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church.  You say it is a question you can't answer.  I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?

A presbyter is an elder.  A bishop is an overseer.  These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works.  This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly.  But you chose to ignore that part of my post.

Perhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.

As to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow.  But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way.  It is a recognition of the gifts and calling of God for service, an opportunity to bless a laborer as he departs into the field, and a job recommendation for the ordained to take with him as he goes.

Jarrod

[desertknight]

Thank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance

So now, your argument has changed.  The Catholic Church is not ministered by just the Pope or any Pope.  He is our chief Bishop, and certainly holds the "Keys to the Kingdom.", as Christ ordained, but as important as the chief Bishop is, he is but one Bishop in a Church that is governed by all of the Bishops and Presbyters with our Chief Bishop as our chief Shepard.

[desertknight]

What you mean is that it is at odds with the interpretation of the Bible that you have been taught.

What do you think this means?:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.  And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.    (Matthew 23:8-12)

I think it means that we are to recognize that our father in heaven is our true father, as every Catholic knows.  Have you ever called your "dad" father?  Do you not realize that even the Apostle Paul referred to himself as "father"?  I guess he is damned as well...

Or these:

Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.

Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

This is clearly Christ's teaching that in order to be a true Christian one has to practice true humility.  He is teaching that the lowliest beggar is worthy of our acceptance as a brother.  Where in the world are you deriving that this has anything to do with what Holy Scripture clearly defines as the ordained offices of His Church? 

Or...

Mat 20:25-28  But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.  But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Well, Our Lord tells us clearly what this means.  "But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant."

"Let him be your minister", ...yet you say that is not so.  It is a long standing observance that the Bishop of Rome, goes to confession, owns virtually nothing, practices penance and contrition, and washes the feet of the disciples.

I answered you succinctly: We DON'T derive authority one over another; we submit to God as equals.

The NT is unequivocal as to our Lord appointing His ministers and the authority they exercised and the passing of that very authority down to the Bishops and Presbyters of His Church.  You say it is a question you can't answer.  I say, have you no knowledge of this in your reading of the NT?

A presbyter is an elder.  A bishop is an overseer.  These are the same offices I have referenced in explaining to you how my church works.  This apparently does not resonate with you (is it because they aren't wearing funny hats?), but it matches the Bible perfectly.  But you chose to ignore that part of my post.

I haven't ignored it at all.  In fact, it is the very heart and core of the question.  The Catholic Church is governed by the very Bishops, (overseers), Presbyters, (elders), and Deacons, (well, deacons or "servants"), as you say.  That your argument boils down to "funny hats" is really telling.  Is that all it's about?

Perhaps you can show me where it refers to cardinals and archbishops in the Bible, because I don't remember that hierarchy in either Testament.

The position of Cardinal and Archbishop is not in the Bible nor is it a religious office that one is ordained to in the Church.  Just as a secretary of the Chancellor, or the instructor of Sunday school is also not mentioned in the Bible and is also not an ordained office.  The only ordained offices in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, are Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon...just as in the NT.

As to the laying on of hands by the elders/presbyters for ordination, this is a practice that we also follow.  But it is not so much a delegation of authority, and is not a successorship in any way.

Then that is in complete contradiction to Holy Scripture in the NT. 

It is a recognition of the gifts and calling of God for service, an opportunity to bless a laborer as he departs into the field, and a job recommendation for the ordained to take with him as he goes.  Jarrod

That is in complete agreement with Catholic doctrine.

[desertknight]

I mean this in all honesty.  Reading the Bible for a Protestant must be a tortured and convoluted thing.  One must take out just one or two passages of Scripture, of course, one must never recognize it was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible, then one must only choose those passages that will bolster the protestant argument.  Hence, "Truly my Flesh is actual or true food.  My Blood, truly drink.", is oh, well, just "symbolism".  Sure...that is why our Lord made such a covenantual sacrament of it at His last supper.  Sure He didn't really appoint ministers to be ordained in His one and true Church.   Protestants are always having to argue against what scripture says.  When Christ clearly appointed St. Peter as chief of the Apostles, it is "NO!, it actually needs to be interpreted as this...".  When the NT obviously establishes that a real visible Church with earthly authority appointed over us is established by our Lord, it is "NO!,it needs to be interpreted as this!"...He really meant for there to be 30,000+ denominations, all preaching completely contradictory things, to "save" people.  More like they "save" people from their bank accounts...

[Tantor]

Thank goodness they no longer have the political power it used to have or we would still be in the dark ages of ignorance

So now, your argument has changed.  The Catholic Church is not ministered by just the Pope or any Pope.  He is our chief Bishop, and certainly holds the "Keys to the Kingdom.", as Christ ordained, but as important as the chief Bishop is, he is but one Bishop in a Church that is governed by all of the Bishops and Presbyters with our Chief Bishop as our chief Shepard.

Actually, my argument hasn't changed at all.  I take what Jesus said as the truth.. you need the funny man in the jewish hat to tell you what Jesus said... as if the Holy Spirit is not enough.

All I read are opinions and more opinions.. that you believe as the truth..

You have been a good little lacky... you certainly wouldnt want to have to think for yourself.

There is no chief bishop.. never has and never will be.. there is only Christ.. and he is not beholding to the Catholic Churches twisted and evil dogma. (Satan has done a admirable job of derailing the 'popular' romanized catholic church).

I wonder how many boys the Pope gets to molest before his fellow cardinals finally give in and tell the authorities.  But then again he is the 'Don' of their religion (the Pope is the Don of the religious Mafia), they need to give him respect and kiss his ring... he can probably get away with it the rest of his life.

Thank goodness the world doesn't put up with him putting out hits on his enemies anymore.