Do you deny Matt 16:17-19?
Why did Jesus tell Peter (Luke 22:32) that He had prayed for him that his faith not fail him, and that he should convert his brethren (fellow Apostles)?
The entirety of Acts makes clear that, for whatever faults he may have had, Peter was the chosen one.
You can reject Jesus’ authority as He exerted it in Scripture, but that seems contrary to the Spirit.
Not so. James was the head of the church at the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 and Paul is abundantly clear that HE was the apostle to the Gentiles.
Having considered prayerfully that Scripture quite often I do not see how Peter being selected as the chief apostle at that time now confers the same authority to the pope today. I am pretty sure Peter would not be appointing such openly corrupt individuals to such high places of influence within the Church.
My issue is not in a lineage of structure but with the continued near infallibility imbued within that structure, an infallibility not born out in Scripture nor in the acts of the Catholic Church itself.
Many faithful disagree with how that Scritpure is interpreted by Catholicism. That is a stretch even just considering as it is written linguistically. All you are doing in asking that question in that manner is insisting I abdicate my search for the truth and accept dogmatically what the institution of the Catholic Church insists is the correct way to read those Scriptures.
Not me. Peter was the street-level leader among apostolic brethren, whom he never ex-cathedra commanded (versus led and exhorted) but is one of those who were manifest as leaders, (Galatians 2:6) and specifically named as one of the apostles who was married, (1 Corinthians 9:5) and who preached evangelical gospel, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and is evidenced to have a general pastoral ministry. (Galatians 2:6)
However, nowhere in the rest of the NT, which is interpretive of Matt 16:17-19, is Peter said or described as being the rock upon which the church is built. In-stead, in contrast to Peter (“petros”), that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
Moreover, the NT church Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops. Which is contrary to what Scripture reveals of Peter, and which modern research even by Catholics rovides testimony against.
The NT church also never manifestly saw mention or intimation of preparation to choose a successor for Peter by electing a elder as a apostolic successor, much less conveying total supreme papal authority. Unlike king David and the promise of his son Solomon to reign over Israel and his institution as king, (1 Chronicles 29) and the record of his son Rehoboam reigning in his stead (2 Chronicles 9:31) and so forth, the Bible not only does not record Peter�s death but it also does not foretell of a successor or speak of preparations for one. Nor does it mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1,2) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous (see #8) being ordained to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 20:28)
Nor is ensured perpetual magisterial (conditional) infallibility ever promised to leadership as Rome imagines of the Peterine office, nor ever evidenced (Caiaphas will not do), neither is that essential for authority (Dt. 17:8-13; Mt. 23:2) and binding and loosing, and which is not restricted to Peter or apostles.
As with Mary, the Peter of Rome is not that of Scripture. Why did Jesus tell Peter (Luke 22:32) that He had prayed for him that his faith not fail him, and that he should convert his brethren (fellow Apostles)?
Which is begging the question, since the Lord did not tell Peter to convert his brethren(!), for the word at issue (stērizō) means "strengthen" (likewise stablish/establish) as your own Luke 22:32 NABRE translates it (as does the KJV and others, or similarly), versus convert. The Lord prayed for Peter as being the impetuous leader, whom He knew needed it.
Acts makes clear that, for whatever faults he may have had, Peter was the chosen one.
No, Christ is the Chosen Cne, while Peter was "a" chosen one, as described, though Paul is more manifest as a "pope" than Peter. 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy - using popular Catholic reasoning that is.
You can reject Jesus’ authority as He exerted it in Scripture, but that seems contrary to the Spirit.
Meaning there is not one command to all the church to recognize and or submit to Peter as the infallible supreme head in authority overall all the churches - much less in Rome - while it is Paul who calls a council, commissions elders, reproves, chastises, and daily cares for all the churches, and suffers greatly. Etc. And reproved holy faithful Peter for an exceptional instance of compromise (not that I am throwing stones at him!).
Who, as one sovereignly chosen by the Lord Jesus, was converted, baptized and filled with the Spirit thru a non-apostle, and preached immediately, before spending 3 years in Arabia, likely receiving the special revelations that were entrusted to him, having not received the gospel from man.
And apart from a non-eventful brief stay with Peter 3 years later, it was 14 years later that Paul went to visit James, Peter and John, whose formal approbation was needed due to charges by false apostles that he was not a valid apostle, which threatened to undue the labor of Paul. (Galatians 1, 2)
But we need anointed evangelical Peter and Paul converts today.