Yes, Jesus gave authority to the apostles. This does not mean that authority passed onto the catholic church.
Matthew 10:1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
Did this authority get passed on? What pope, catholic bishop or priest can heal "every disease and every affliction"?
So which authorities given to the apostles passed on to the catholic church? Clearly not all. (See above)
Other than catholic say-so, why should we believe that any special apostolic authority passed from the apostles to the catholic church?
That's an interesting fact about your psyche, but I'm not sure how it bears into the point at hand... since people [depending on the person] can be disturbed by good or by evil--by truth or by falsehood.
Can you name any other Christian Church (aside from the self-identified Catholic Church) which has been in existence since the time of Christ? I don't.
Yes, Jesus gave authority to the apostles. This does not mean that authority passed onto the catholic church.
That's a bit like saying that authority was passed to all the senators and representatives, but not to congress...
Matthew 10:1 "And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction."
Did this authority get passed on? What pope, catholic bishop or priest can heal "every disease and every affliction"?
Scripture (and common sense) tells us that some such abilities are intrinsic to the Church's nature, while others are not; some are passed on by definition, and others are given to individual persons at need, according to the Will of God. Mark 16:17-18, for example, says the following:
And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.So... unless you're in a Pentecostal snake-handling group (would I be correct in assuming that you're NOT?), you and I can both agree that Mark 16:17-18, while it certainly sounds universal and unqualified (i.e. it sounds as if it applies to ALL who believe), is obviously not meant to apply to all believers... and our interpretation of Scripture must reflect that, in order to be right. (In fact, Scripture and Church history are replete with examples of those who were unharmed by poisonous snakes [e.g. Acts 28] and poison [St. Benedict, St. John, etc.], and who cured the sick by laying hands on them [e.g. St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Martin de Porres, etc.]; the Scripture is satisfied, since it never said that ALL would have such ability).
Case in point: how do we find out whether to interpret Scripture as "includes all" vs. "there are exceptions"? We need to look outside of Scripture in order to do so... to the Church Whom Christ established as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).
So which authorities given to the apostles passed on to the catholic church? Clearly not all. (See above)
I never said that "all" authority was delegated to the Apostles; in fact, I said the very opposite (i.e. NOT all). I'm merely refuting the silly and wrong idea that NONE of Jesus' authority was delegated to the Apostles.
Other than catholic say-so, why should we believe that any special apostolic authority passed from the apostles to the catholic church?
Because Jesus said so (Matthew 16:18-20, Matthew 18:18-20, John 20:23, 1 Timothy 3:15, and all of Church history which shows a continuous/unbroken Church--complete with hierarchy and liturgical structure and self-understanding as the universal [Catholic] Church of Christ), and because Scripture and history affirm it. When Judas fell away, his position was not "wiped out"--another was chosen to take his place... so it's obvious that Apostolic authority can (and MUST!) be passed on to successors. Apostolic succession involves an OFFICE (i.e. new members can take over when old members leave)... or, if you like the King James Version, it gives an even stronger term: "and his bishopric let another take". The Apostles were clearly the first bishops, and the office of bishop (i.e. bishopric) is clearly passed on to successors... and it'd be pointless to do so without passing on the authority which makes the "job" possible.