How do we know that the Church has infallible authority?

[Grace_Seeker]

Yes, Remember Phillip and the eunuch on the road. The eunuch was reading Isaiah and Phillip asked if he understood it. The eunuch responded How can I since I have no one to explain it. And so Phillip taught him.

And from THAT you get that we all need to have interpreters???

 

[Jerry-Jet]

That’s just a hint of the need for interpreters from the earliest days of the church.

Thousands of Protestant churches–many who believe diametrically opposed things are Proof Positive that the Holy Spirit doesn’t lie in thousands of ways–He speaks only one truth–and either He isn’t doing a good job of interpreting the Bible for Protestants–which isn’t true!–or they definitely do need interpreters!

The Catholic Church speaks one truth just like it has for 2,000 years.

Seem like the Holy Spirit Does speak to it and that the Catholic Church Does listen!

What is hardened more–the Protestant heart that want listen to Jesus’ Catholic Church or Pharoah’s heart which would not listen to Moses?

The Protestants do have the Catholic Church preaching the truth to them and Jesus’ words and the a scriptures.

They have less excuse than Pharoah!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

That the Catholic church has listened to just one authority for two thousand years simply is not true. Consider all of the heresies, the councils called to debate them, the people excommunicated, the schisms. There are many people who were considered Catholic at the time that disagreed with the church. And many others have challenged its authority and continue to do so. What you have now is a remnant, and that remnant believes that it has always been right, but as those who have been pushed to the side believed they were right.

You may ultimatley be proved to be right in your theology, but the idea that there has been unanimity within the Catholic church for its entire history is just so much nonsense.

 

[guanophore]

The problem with point #2 is that this very understanding of Peter’s “headship” is a Catholic idea read into the scriptures. I see Peter’s role and especially the idea of it being passed along a line of “Peters”, completely different than the one you have presented here.

This seems kinda strange, since the passage was written by, for, and about Catholics in the first place.

I am curious how you see the succession, if it is different.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I am curious how you see the succession, if it is different.

I don’t believe that Jesus set up an office for Peter to pass on to others. I think Jesus was speaking to Peter, and that was it. I think the office of bishop is one established by God, and that it is indeed the Church’s role to select, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the specific people for that task. But I don’t think that one bishopric has any more authority in the Church than another except as the Church, not Christ, has chosen to give it. If the Catholic church chooses to so designate the bishopric of Rome to be in authority of all of the Catholic chuch, then so be it. The Catholic church has full authority to do that for itself. But I don’t see this as something assigned to it in perpetuity by Christ simply because he said he would found his Church on Peter.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe that Jesus set up an office for Peter to pass on to others. I think Jesus was speaking to Peter, and that was it. I think the office of bishop is one established by God, and that it is indeed the Church’s role to select, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the specific people for that task. But I don’t think that one bishopric has any more authority in the Church than another except as the Church, not Christ, has chosen to give it. If the Catholic church chooses to so designate the bishopric of Rome to be in authority of all of the Catholic chuch, then so be it. The Catholic church has full authority to do that for itself. But I don’t see this as something assigned to it in perpetuity by Christ simply because he said he would found his Church on Peter.

I don’t think it is only that specific promise, but the Petrine gift, to strengthen the brethren that has been passed on. The Bishop of Rome has always been a source for this. It is not so much about “authority” as it is an anchor for right teaching.

 

[Church_Militant]

That the Catholic church has listened to just one authority for two thousand years simply is not true. Consider all of the heresies, the councils called to debate them, the people excommunicated, the schisms. There are many people who were considered Catholic at the time that disagreed with the church. And many others have challenged its authority and continue to do so.

I disagree.
It requires one authority to make these decisions on the very issues and actions that you have named.

What you have now is a remnant, and that remnant believes that it has always been right, but as those who have been pushed to the side believed they were right.

Wishful thinking on your part. The people that you refer to as “pushed aside” were those who departed from the faith and rejected those truths. Or are you willing to allege that Nestorianism and a great many other heresies were okay and no one needed to speak out for the truth?

You may ultimatley be proved to be right in your theology, but the idea that there has been unanimity within the Catholic church for its entire history is just so much nonsense.

I’d disagree with you on this. I believe that there is evidence that there is far more “unanimity” than you are willing to admit.

I don’t believe that Jesus set up an office for Peter to pass on to others. I think Jesus was speaking to Peter, and that was it. I think the office of bishop is one established by God, and that it is indeed the Church’s role to select, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the specific people for that task. But I don’t think that one bishopric has any more authority in the Church than another except as the Church, not Christ, has chosen to give it. If the Catholic church chooses to so designate the bishopric of Rome to be in authority of all of the Catholic chuch, then so be it. The Catholic church has full authority to do that for itself. But I don’t see this as something assigned to it in perpetuity by Christ simply because he said he would found his Church on Peter.

Yet that is precisely what the verse in Matthew 16 says…

As for passing on the apostleship, what is this passage in Acts 1 about?

15: In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16: “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17: For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
18: (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19: And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’
21: So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22: beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23: And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
24: And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I don’t believe that Jesus set up an office for Peter to pass on to others. … But I don’t see this as something assigned to it in perpetuity by Christ simply because he said he would found his Church on Peter.

But somepeople believe that this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah 22:22 - “I will give him complete authority under the king, the descendant of David. He will have the keys of office; what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts, no one will open.” Which sounds like the famous quote in Matthew 16:19.

I have been in some threads on this…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2422185#post2422185
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2367500#post2367500

The key of the house of David implies succession because King David had been dead for hundreds of years…
More info…
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys.html

 

[inchrist101]

You need to stop using using the term authority. Jesus gave no one authority and if you refer to scripture you will see that.

Matthew 20: 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [3] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [4] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus meant for his church to be a serving church. He wanted the Apostles to evangelize his name to everyone just as we should. The church itself has no authority over anyone. Jesus is the only one with authority.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in [2] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 **teaching **them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Notice the word teaching not authority. The important thing for Christians is to have faith. How do we achieve that today? We have the Bible which records the teachings of the Apostles and some of their followers in the case of Mark and Luke. Scripture is really all we have as far as documentation from anyone that followed Jesus. It’s a measuring stick for us so we can know when we come across false teachings. As Bruce Shelly writes in his book “History of the Church”, the early church fathers always used scripture when deciding on matters of faith. The first question was what does the Bible say. We need to do the same thing.

Invoking authority in the case of Bishop Leo who was the first self proclaimed Pontifex Maximus (i.e. Pope) is what caused the first split in the church. The churches in the East referred to scripture immediately on this matter and showed that it was counter to Leo’s argument for authority.

As far as Paul was concerned he didn’t look at the Apostles as having authority, he taught about Jesus before he even had the chance to converse with them. When he did finally have the chance to converse with them he wanted to make sure what he was teaching was the same thing they were. Not because of authority but because he knew they walked with Jesus and would know what he taught.

Acts 9: 26 And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

The church simply does not have authority over anyone. No Christian church does whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, etc. etc.

 

[SyCarl]

But somepeople believe that this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah 22:22 - “I will give him complete authority under the king, the descendant of David. He will have the keys of office; what he opens, no one will shut, and what he shuts, no one will open.” Which sounds like the famous quote in Matthew 16:19.

I have been in some threads on this…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2422185#post2422185
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2367500#post2367500

The key of the house of David implies succession because King David had been dead for hundreds of years…
More info…
members.aol.com/joyinliving7/keys.html

I believe your quote comes from the Good News Bible, which is really a paraphrase and not a great translation.

The NASB renders the verse:

Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open.

Every other version I have looked at, including the Douhay Rheims say nothing about under the king. I quote the NASB because it is the only one I have with me now.

Revelation 3:7tells us who has the key of David.

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, and is true, who has the Key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:

 

[guanophore]

You need to stop using using the term authority. Jesus gave no one authority and if you refer to scripture you will see that.

Who made you the authority to tell others what they need to stop doing? Jesus DID give authority to men. Jesus had the authority:

Matt 9:5-6
6 But that you may know that **the Son of man has authority on earth **to forgive sins"

He passed this on to His Apostles:

John 20:20-22
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Matt 9:7-8
8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

You can also understand this better when you study the Key of David:

Rev 3:7
The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

And how Jesus passed this key to Peter.

Matthew 20: 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [3] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [4] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Servant leadership does not mean that there is no authority. It just means that the authority is humble, has an attitude of service, and is willing to give one’s life for what one believers. Jesus did not say that none would be great among them. He said that the one who would be great must be the servant.

Jesus meant for his church to be a serving church. He wanted the Apostles to evangelize his name to everyone just as we should.

No arguement here!

The church itself has no authority over anyone. Jesus is the only one with authority.

Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches. Authority was given to Jesus:

Matt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

The authority He passed, among other things, was the authority to make disciples, to baptize, and to teach. All these require accuracty of doctrine. The authority is not over people, but over the doctrine. All who profess to be in Christ will be in union with this doctrine.

Notice the word teaching not authority.

Clearly not, because anyone can step up and start teaching error. The Apostles, having been given authority, passed this on through ordination:

2 Tim 2:2-3
what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Titus 2:15

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Those who did not submit to Apostolic Authority were considered out of order:

3 John 9-10
I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.

 

[guanophore]

The important thing for Christians is to have faith.

Yes, but faith in what? or Who? The definition of these things has been passed on to us through the authority of the Apostolic Succession.

How do we achieve that today? We have the Bible which records the teachings of the Apostles and some of their followers in the case of Mark and Luke. Scripture is really all we have as far as documentation from anyone that followed Jesus.

Where do you think your bible came from?

It’s a measuring stick for us so we can know when we come across false teachings. As Bruce Shelly writes in his book “History of the Church”, the early church fathers always used scripture when deciding on matters of faith. The first question was what does the Bible say. We need to do the same thing.

On the contrary, there were MANY questions before the New Testament, as you have it, was written. An example of this was the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Here is a model of a question on faith and morals that was decided through Apostolic authority.

Invoking authority in the case of Bishop Leo who was the first self proclaimed Pontifex Maximus (i.e. Pope) is what caused the first split in the church.  The churches in the East referred to scripture immediately on this matter and showed that it was counter to Leo's argument for authority.

The seeds of the schism were sown long before Leo. His declaration was “the last straw”. However, all these misunderstandings have been reconciled by the Church.

As far as Paul was concerned he didn't look at the Apostles as having authority, he taught about Jesus before he even had the chance to converse with them.

Prove that Paul did not look upon the Apostles as authoritative.

When he did finally have the chance to converse with them he wanted to make sure what he was teaching was the same thing they were.

Prove that Paul conversed with the Apostles to make sure what he was teaching was the same thing they were, and explain why this would make any difference, since they did not have any authority.

Not because of authority but because he knew they walked with Jesus and would know what he taught.

If Jesus did not teach with authority, and pass that authority on to them, why would this even matter? Couldn’t they just teach whatever they felt like teaching at the time?

Acts 9: 26 And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

Where in here does it say anything about comparing his message to theirs?

The church simply does not have authority over anyone. No Christian church does whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, etc. etc.

I urge you to read the thread called “rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff”, because you apparently are one!

If you despise authority, you are not “in Christ”.

 

[SyCarl]

If Matthew 16:17-19 is the basis for Petrine supremacy, why in Luke 22:24 were the Apostles still disputing among themselves as to who would be greatest? This was after the Last Supper.

And there arose a dispute among them as to which of them was to regarded as the greatest.

 

[guanophore]

If Matthew 16:17-19 is the basis for Petrine supremacy, why in Luke 22:24 were the Apostles still disputing among themselves as to who would be greatest? This was after the Last Supper.

Because it is not “supremacy” it is primacy, and because the Petrine gift was not intended to make Peter “great” but to give him a unique charism to “strengthen the brethren”.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

SomeProtestants have done what Satan wanted to do “Sift like wheat” as they have split themselves into thousands of pieces.

They can do that in non-Catholic churches–they can’t do it to the Catholic Church and they burn inside with the same fire that one day they will spend eternity in.

You don’t see thousands of Catholic Churches believing different things.

Wouldn’t you see that if the Catholic church didn’t have infallible authority?

In fact–infallible authority keeps the catholic church from being sifted like wheat by Satan and the successors of peter strenghten their fellow bishops just like Peter strenghtened his fellow disciples!

 

[inchrist101]

That the Catholic church has listened to just one authority for two thousand years simply is not true. Consider all of the heresies, the councils called to debate them, the people excommunicated, the schisms. There are many people who were considered Catholic at the time that disagreed with the church. And many others have challenged its authority and continue to do so. What you have now is a remnant, and that remnant believes that it has always been right, but as those who have been pushed to the side believed they were right.

You may ultimatley be proved to be right in your theology, but the idea that there has been unanimity within the Catholic church for its entire history is just so much nonsense.

That is so well said. In reading Bruce Shelly’s History of the Church book this is so apparent. The Orthodox church claims apostolic succession, the Roman Catholic’s claim apostolic succession etc. etc.

There may have been one big Christian church that was called catholic but the word catholic simply means universal. So wherever the catholic church was Jesus was there. But you are so right about the splits and disagreements. It’s impossible to say there has been one authority for that length of time. I’ve always argued that Jesus never meant for there to be an authority as he so plainly stated in Matthew and Mark:

Matthew 20: 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [3] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [4] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[inchrist101]

Who made you the authority to tell others what they need to stop doing? Jesus DID give authority to men. Jesus had the authority:

Matt 9:5-6
6 But that you may know that **the Son of man has authority on earth **to forgive sins"

He passed this on to His Apostles:

John 20:20-22
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

Matt 9:7-8
8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

You can also understand this better when you study the Key of David:

Rev 3:7
The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

And how Jesus passed this key to Peter.

Matthew 20: 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [3] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [4] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Servant leadership does not mean that there is no authority. It just means that the authority is humble, has an attitude of service, and is willing to give one’s life for what one believers. Jesus did not say that none would be great among them. He said that the one who would be great must be the servant.

Jesus is the vine, and we are the branches. Authority was given to Jesus:

Matt 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

The authority He passed, among other things, was the authority to make disciples, to baptize, and to teach. All these require accuracty of doctrine. The authority is not over people, but over the doctrine. All who profess to be in Christ will be in union with this doctrine.

Clearly not, because anyone can step up and start teaching error. The Apostles, having been given authority, passed this on through ordination:

2 Tim 2:2-3
what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Titus 2:15

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

Those who did not submit to Apostolic Authority were considered out of order:

3 John 9-10
I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.

The passages that you quote make my point. Jesus is given all authority in Heaven and on Earth. It’s not passed along to any mortal man. Jesus is still with us through the power of the Holy Spirit. The apostles may have had the “authority” to teach if you want to use the word authority, but that’s because they witnessed Jesus death and ressurection or were called as in the case of Paul. What they wanted was for reliable people to pass along these teachings so they would not get distorted and people like us could understand who Jesus really was. Which makes my point about the importance of the Bible plain and simple. In matters of Faith the Bible overrides anything a church official may think he has the authority to say.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

And whart any church official who had real authority taught supereceded what anyone with no authority thought about what the bible was saying!

Who cares what anyone thinks about the bible that has not been granted authority?

And please–don’t insult Jesus’ intelligence by saying that He set up an authority less church so reprobates 1500 years later could do however they wanted to do and split into thousands of Opinions.

Now Satan might sell that as the real church–no one who believes in Jesus’ Catholic Church is going to buy it!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So what? Jesus washed the disciples feet–that didn’t mean that he didn’t have authority.

Now how dumb would Jesus have to be to leave His church with no authority?

Can you say infinitely dumb?

And it doesn’t matter about all the schisms and all the heresies–all the people who didn’t agree with the Catholic magisterium and the successors of Peter were never the Catholic Church after disagreeing with him.

And it doesn’t matter what any of those people think!

And it doesn’t matter how much they may not want there to be an authority–there is one and if they choose to disobey it after knowing the truth then they will get to spend eterninty in Hell!

And many of the ones who don’t know better will get to experience the truth of purgatory as soon as they die.

Then they’ll mourn and say “why didn’t I believe the real scriptures”?

“How could I have been that dumb”?

“How could I have thought that I could be the authority?”

The whole authority thing is really bogus for another reason–read anything that anyone for the 1st 2 centuries says about the Eucharist.

There’s nothing Protestant in what anyone says about it.

If the Catholic Church is wrong–then the whole christian church was wrong since the beginning because there is no Record anywhere in the first centuries of the church of grape juice drinking–cracker eating–memorial meal eaters!

There weren’t none!

Now ask yourself–do you think Jesus would leave His church not only to believe totally wrong about the Eucharist–but also that everyone believed wrong–and that there also wasn’t as leade?!

Now what would account for everyone believing the same way if there were no leader?

Establish any Protestant church you want anywhere in the US without a leader and tell me how long it lasts before it splits!

The Catholic Church with a bona fide leader threw out heretics who would not listen to not “A truth”–not “What I’d like to believe Truth”–not “what I think Truth” but The Truth!

Jesus said He was The Way The Truth and The Life!

None comes to thre Father but by Him and when He says to Peter “Whatever you bind” He is not lying–He is not saying anyone can believe how they want or how they think–there is absolutely Zero democracy!

The church doesn’t have democracy!

God isn’t a democracy! What God says goes!

So take all the false christianity which is mixed with one’s political views and love for democracy and flush it down the toilet!

Don’t worry–if one cannot stand authority–if one cannot obey authority–then they will burn in Hell becaudse of it–and it won’t matter what their interpretation of the truth is.

Jesus will treat all those who have opinions of the interpretation of the truth as Publicans and Sinners!

And Protestants as Pope Benedict XVI says don’t actually have churches–they are mere communitites–and what those mere communities think is not what the Church commands!

Listen to Catholic church’s authority–obey its commands–or disobey Jesus who established that visible church in the first place!

 

[guanophore]

The Orthodox church claims apostolic succession, the Roman Catholic's claim apostolic succession etc. etc.

Both claims are true.

There may have been one big Christian church that was called catholic but the word catholic simply means universal. So wherever the catholic church was Jesus was there.

Actually, I think it was the other way around, wherever Jesus was, there were the Catholics. But the earliest writings we have say that where the successor of the Apostle was (bishop) THERE was the catholic church.

But you are so right about the splits and disagreements. It’s impossible to say there has been one authority for that length of time.

Something is wrong with this reasoning. When the Israelites broke away from the covenant, and did not follow the revelation God had given them, did that take away God’s authority or make the revelation untrue? When the people decided not to follow the ten commandments, did that make the commandments null and void?

When some of the disciples split (walked away ) from Jesus, did that make the truth of His words less authoritative? I don’t understand how you can reason that authority is gone just because some people rebel against it.

Let God be true, though every man be false!

I’ve always argued that Jesus never meant for there to be an authority as he so plainly stated in Matthew and Mark:

Matthew 20: 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, [3] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, [4] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This passage does not speak against authority, it speaks against a haughty attitude in the authorities.

Titus 3:1
:1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work,

1 Tim 5:17

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor,

Jesus arranged elders and rulers in His Church, and passed His authority on to them. If you don’t believe that, then your arguement is with scripture, and not with Catholics.