My read of the NT is that there's five types of authority [you're welcome to provide scriptures for a 6th]:
(1) Civil authority (Romans 13; 1 Pet. 2:13; 1 Tim. 2:2)
(2) Heirship authority as children of God (John 1:12-13)
(3) Apostolic authority (1 Thess. 2:6) -- that which the apostles had [It's up to you to prove that this was "transferable"]...
To be authoritatively apostolic, "one had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:5-8), which clearly disqualifies anyone after the first century." (Rhodes & Geisler, When Cultists Ask, p. 206) Apostles had certain signs (2 Cor. 12:12). The apostles "were given certain unmistakable 'signs of a true apostle' (2 Cor. 12:12). These sign-gifts included the ability to raise the dead on command (Matt. 10:8; [cf. Acts 20:7-11]), heal diseases immediately that were naturlaly incurable (Matt. 10:8; John 9:1-7), perform immediately successful exorcisms (Matt 10:8; Acts 16:16-18), speak messages in languages they had never studied (Acts 2:1-8; cf. 10:44-46); and pass on supernatural gifts to others so that they could assist them in their apostolic mission of founding the church (Acts 6:6; cf. 8:5-6; 2 Tim. 1:6)." (Geisler, Rhodes, When Cultists Ask, pp. 113-114)...I don't believe these things "died out" with the apostles; I just don't believe any single "titled" apostles have this same gift-set as what was given. Btw, ALL of that power was given to ALL the apostles (Matt. 18:18) -- not just Peter.
(4) Derived authority -- the disciples' keys to bind & loose, for example (Matt. 16:19)...a "trust" that the leaders of Israel had failed in (Luke 11:52; Acts 9:14; Acts 26:10-12)...In fact,, when Christ rebuked the Jewish leaders it wasn't because they didn't follow the leadership traditions but because they did not "understand the Scriptures" (Matt. 22:29) [sola scriptura]
NOTE: Other examples of derived authority:
--Derived authority to take on demonic spirits (Luke 10:19; Mk 3:15; 6:7)
--For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. (1 Thess. 4:2) [Derived Authority to teach]
--Derived Authority to encourage & rebuke (Titus 2:15)
--Derived Authority to edify (build up the body) (2 Cor. 10:8; 2 Cor. 13:10)
--Derived Authority to make disciples by teaching & baptizing (Matt. 28:19-20)
(5) Absolute Authority of Jesus Christ ["ALL authority has been given unto me..." (Matt. 28:18); cf. Jude 25; Rev. 12:10; 2:27]
I don't see anywhere where Christ has 90% authority...and given men have 10%. I don't see from Matt. 28:20 ("lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age") -- where His omnipresence leaves Him stuck at the right Hand of God...as you imply.
And derived authority is distinct to a degree re: delegated authority. Since the Lord is the Boss; and the Boss is still present; and the Boss is the "Head" of the Body, He didn't simply delegate authority to men & then go on vacation for 2,000 years!
He has [present tense] ALL authority [see verses above]. I encourage you to stop playing down what authority is in His current hands -- and stop playing up what authority is in a single man who automatically has to live in the same place in Europe!
Even with authority verses re: church leaders like Heb. 13:17...Rhodes & Geisler do a good job explaining that:
"Proper submission to a church leader is voluntary, not compulsory. It involves a free choice to join or leave...It is done out of love and respect (cf. Heb. 13)...While the Bible speaks of voluntary submission from the bottom up, it nowhere enjoins compulsory obedience from the top down." (When Cultists Ask, p. 229-230) -- unless, of course, that "top" is our Lord.
Sorry...your model of human SuperAuthority coming thru a single-succession line of one man fails.
Here are other Scriptural reasons why:
* What then do you do with the apostle Paul? "I was in no way inferior to these [so-called] 'superapostles'" (2 Cor. 12:11); Paul rebuked Peter (Gal. 2:11-21); he claimed to be on the same level as Peter (Gal. 2:8); he wrote half of the NT -- compared to Peter's two epistles
* BOTH Peter & John were sent by the apostles on a mission (Acts 8:4-13)
* Peter wasn't "THE pastor of the church but only a 'fellow presbyter [elder]' (1 Peter 5:1-2)." (Rhodes & Geisler, p. 113)
* "In view of the New Testament titles used of Peter, it is clear that he would never have accepted the terms used of the Roman Catholic Pope today: 'Holy Father' (cf. Matt. 23:9) or 'Supreme Pontiff' and "Vicar of Christ.'" (Rhodes & Geisler, p. 193)
The Holy Spirit is our Vicar (John 14:16,26; 16:13-14).
No, it's up to you to prove that apostolic authority is necessarily accompanied by the signs and gifts you list, and that it is mutually exclusive with "derived" authority as you seem to imply. And as for Acts 1:22: I can find no translation that supports the idea that either candidate physically witnessed the risen Christ - on the contrary, they all seem clear that this witness-ship was imparted to Matthias as part of his appointment as apostle; a number render it as "become" or "be made" a witness.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that Christ is seated on His Throne and immovable. I haven't suggested this and even pointedly denied it here. Christ is seated on His Throne in power and majesty AND active in His Church as He promised He would be forever. These things are not mutually exclusive. However, He did actually put His Apostles to work and did actually give them His Authority (Matt 10:1 & 40). It is not by their own authority that they do these things, but by the authority of Him Who sent them. It's been a long time since Christ did this... can you please show me where the authority initially given the Church is no longer allowed to the Church? I can show you where Christ said that "he who receives anyone I send, receives Me (John 13:20).
In the Binding and Loosing discussions (Matt 16:19 & Matt 18:18), Jesus tells the Apostles that they don't just have authority on Earth in earthly matters, they have authority in Heaven also! That's REAL authority. Why is this necessary? Simply because having authority in one but not the other would lead to chaos in the Church. The Catholic (universal) Church is not just the visible Church in this world but also includes our communion with the Saints in the next. Just as Christ says He does nothing of His own authority, so do the Apostles (John 8:28)... all authority comes from God.
In Luke 22:29, you can see clearly that Christ has given to the Apostles what was given to Him... the Kingdom and thrones of judgement. And this authority must exist today or there is no Church today. In Acts 1:20, a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office is respected (notwithstanding his egregious sin--it's not about the man himself). The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own." Even St Paul, though He was struck down by Christ on the road, wasn't consecrated for his mission until hands were laid on him by Ananias (Acts 9:17). Such was the authority given the Church and respected by Christ. Surely, Christ could have done more for St Paul on His own... but He allowed His Church to fulfill Her purpose in confirming St Paul's apostleship.
Indeed, St Paul calls his position not a gift to him alone but a divine "office" (Col 1:23-25) and an office has successors. One of his final acts is to confirm Timothy in his office (2 Tim 4).
I had written a bunch of other stuff but it somehow got deleted. I'm not going to waste more time on it. God bless you.