Succession of Bishops

[bibleapologist]

Either Jesus gave the Apostles a task that He knew they could not fulfill, or He knew they would appoint Bishops and Priests in their places to continue to spread the Gospel to all the nations after their deaths.

That Jesus knew they would appoint bishops and Priests is just speculation… the fact is, of course they could have never taught all nations… those alive during that time nor the billions that have lived and died since. The Catholic Church has not accomplished that task even with their bishops and priests. It has nothing to do with appointing bishops and priests, Matt. 28:19-20 is a command for all believers.

St. Paul instructs Timothy to teach with authority, describing a means of passing on the authority of priests and bishops that continue today (1st 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.

And then here St. Paul shows Timothy to continue to pass this authority on to others so that they can instruct. Here we have at least three “generations” of teaching authority - Paul to Timothy to others: (2nd Tim. 2:2) - And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

I do not deny that we should teach new converts, we absolutely should teach new converts. And we should also take care to teach those who have been called to pastoral, or teaching positions. But the question has apparently come down to this. How is that teaching administered, and how are those gifts transferred.

In the Old Testament, a king’s authority was transferred by birth, and anointing with oil… to contrast this, a pastoral position is to be transferred by New Birth, and the Holy Spirit.

Given the Catholic Church’s theocratic worldview, and their embrace of “replacement theology”, many of the teachings of the Catholic Church very closely resemble Old Testament Israel. It is this confusion of spiritual and earthly matters that has facilitated the grotesque monster of heresy that the CC has become in 1700 years.

To understand what I mean by the previous paragraphs, it might help to read an article that I have written regarding “hyperdispensationism”.

“Israel and the Church Contrasted”

The Catholic Church holds to the “supercessionist” view, but “hyperdispensationism” and “supercessionism” are very closely related, and they both obscure the truth.

I have also covered the issue of this transfer of birth extensively in this article.

“A Repudiation of Infant Baptism”

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

Mathias didn’t have to “take” anything. The 11 Apostles did everything for him, they set him apart, they cast lots, and the lots fell on Mathias… then he was counted with the 11 Apostles

And he is never heard from again.

So, did Mathias accept what was offerred? Apparently not, we don’t see any record of him evangelizing or teaching or anything. All we are told is that he was numbered with the 11 Apostles.

Do you notice the contradiction? You first try to argue that Matthias’s apostleship wasn’t real because it was forced upon him and he didn’t have a choice. “The apostles did everything…” Then, your next argument is that he couldn’t have accepted it because we never see him again. Which is it? Did he have to accept it, or did the apostles do everything and not leave him with the option?

Also, your argument that he mustn’t have accepted it because we don’t see him do anything is very fallacious. It rest upon an assumption that Acts is a complete and thorough history of the early church, which it is obviously not. We don’t see any records of Matthew, Thomas, or Bartholomew doing anything after Jesus left earth! Are they apostles? So, your “Argument from Absence of Matthias’s Action” (as I will title it ) is fallacious because it assumes a premise which is clearly false (that Acts includes everything about every apostle).

Next, your argument that Matthias didn’t have anything to do because the apostles did it all is false, because Matthias would have had to accept it. He could have rejected it, right?

Do you not think that God answered the Apostles’ prayer - “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.”? If so, then God chose Matthias.

You have absolutely no proof that Matthias was not willing to accept the apostleship. You conjecture that he wasn’t, but your arguments lack evidence and in some places are fallacious.

-BT

 

[BigTurkey]

So, could you start over and give your argument for why Matthias wasn’t an apostle? (Please don’t link to your article, because I have read that and in many of my posts I have attempted to refute what was said.) I would also enjoy it if, instead of giving your argument, you ask questions that you suppose to be difficult to answer if you believe Matthias was an apostle.

Also, do you still hold that the Catholics believe the Bishops are Apostles? That was a discussion that was ended abruptly.

I’m enjoying our discussion. It is refreshing to have a friendly debate on matters that I have been think about recently.

BT

 

[bibleapologist]

You have absolutely no proof that Matthias was not willing to accept the apostleship. You conjecture that he wasn’t, but your arguments lack evidence and in some places are fallacious.

My evidence lies in Biblical truth (which I will not go over again). And even if I did not give sufficient proof that Mathias was not an Apostle, I have in fact given ample biblical proof that the Catholic Church has no basis for teaching that he was an Apostle.

Therefore, the Catholic Church has no basis for voting on anyone to succede Peter’s Apostolic office. Therefore, no basis for the Papacy.

You prove to me that Mathias was an Apostle, without a doubt, and I will reconsider my stance on Apostolic Succession.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Mannyfit75]

My evidence lies in Biblical truth (which I will not go over again). And even if I did not give sufficient proof that Mathias was not an Apostle, I have in fact given ample biblical proof that the Catholic Church has no basis for teaching that he was an Apostle.

Therefore, the Catholic Church has no basis for voting on anyone to succede Peter’s Apostolic office. Therefore, no basis for the Papacy.

You prove to me that Mathias was an Apostle, without a doubt, and I will reconsider my stance on Apostolic Succession.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Peter was martryed in Rome and how do you suppose the Apostles could spread the Gospel of Christ without successors?

It would be like not having any Presidents after George Washington. To deny Apostolic Sucession is to deny history. History as shown that the Apostles had and successors, which is past on to this very day by bishops.

Even so, the Orthodox Church acknowledges that the Church in Rome list is history to Peter. The Orthodox Church is not in union with the Pope, but acknowledges as one its equal, but not as a supreme Pontiff as we Catholics believed.

Here is a list of Popes if you are curious about it.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

That Jesus knew they would appoint bishops and Priests is just speculation… the fact is, of course they could have never taught all nations… those alive during that time nor the billions that have lived and died since. The Catholic Church has not accomplished that task even with their bishops and priests. It has nothing to do with appointing bishops and priests, Matt. 28:19-20 is a command for all believers.

That Jesus knew they would appoint bishops and Priests is just speculation?!?!? How can you possibly come up with that assumption? Jesus, being God and what-not, knew exactly what the Apostles were going to do with His Church. That’s why He appointed them.

And, yes, the Catholic Church has gone to every nation, and spread the Good News of the Gospel. It’s probably the only Church that has fulfilled this command of Jesus’.

I do not deny that we should teach new converts, we absolutely should teach new converts. And we should also take care to teach those who have been called to pastoral, or teaching positions. But the question has apparently come down to this. How is that teaching administered, and how are those gifts transferred.

As Paul showed, that teaching has been transferred with the laying on of hands of the Apostles, and then the bishops.

In the Old Testament, a king’s authority was transferred by birth, and anointing with oil… to contrast this, a pastoral position is to be transferred by New Birth, and the Holy Spirit.

You lost me here. We are all called to a New Birth in the Holy Spirit, not just pastors.

Given the Catholic Church’s theocratic worldview, and their embrace of “replacement theology”, many of the teachings of the Catholic Church very closely resemble Old Testament Israel.

Didn’t Jesus usher in the New Israel? Isn’t the Old Testament “but a shadow of the things to come”. Doesn’t a shadow represent the true form of the reality? You’re very close on the “replacement theology”, because that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

It is this confusion of spiritual and earthly matters that has facilitated the grotesque monster of heresy that the CC has become in 1700 years.

It is broad sweeping statements like this that has made the Catholic Church so misunderstood by people outside Jesus’ Church.

To understand what I mean by the previous paragraphs, it might help to read an article that I have written regarding “hyperdispensationism”.

“Israel and the Church Contrasted”

The Catholic Church holds to the “supercessionist” view, but “hyperdispensationism” and “supercessionism” are very closely related, and they both obscure the truth.

I have also covered the issue of this transfer of birth extensively in this article.

“A Repudiation of Infant Baptism”

John
www.gideonsword.net

You’re going to have to go back to the Catholic Church in the First Century and show that she was already in error by baptizing infants. That’s a pretty ambitious task, assuming that there were still apostles alive during the time that Jesus’ Church was already baptizing people in error.

 

[djrakowski]

My evidence lies in Biblical truth (which I will not go over again). And even if I did not give sufficient proof that Mathias was not an Apostle, I have in fact given ample biblical proof that the Catholic Church has no basis for teaching that he was an Apostle.

Seriously, how can you keep saying this, when the scripture rather directly states that he was indeed an apostle? You keep denying the plain words of scripture, which reflects the Catholic teaching that Matthias was an apostle:

Acts 1:26 (KJV) - " Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

What is so blasted unclear about the plain sense of this passage of scripture?

You prove to me that Mathias was an Apostle, without a doubt, and I will reconsider my stance on Apostolic Succession.

Done. Start reconsidering.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Actually, the family member I’ve been talking with argues exactly that. He argues that the early bishops in the Apostolic Sees, close in time to the apostles, had a certain authority that wasn’t meant to last beyond the completion of the New Testament. Once the Church hierarchy went “apostate,” the Bible had been disseminated enough to allow people to follow Christ without Church authority.

In my opinion, this opinion is quite typical of evangelical Protestants, though many would likely have different ways of expressing it. What I don’t understand, and never really considered during my days as an evangelical Protestant, is how the Church could possibly have existed prior to the invention of the printing press, enabling everyone to have their own copy of the Scriptures. But, I guess they would say God requires less of those who don’t have access to the Scriptures. It’s just an unworkable theory, and makes your brain hurt if you think about it too long.

You’re absolutly right. Before the printing press, everything had to be copied by hand. In addition, there was no paper, so they had to write documents on leather, which was VERY expensive. Sola Scriptura did not become practical untill everyone learned to read and had access to the Bible.

Have you asked your relative how he can square his belief in a mass apostacy in church leadership with Christ’s promises that “the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church” and “The Spirit will guide you to all truth?” That was a major turning point for me. I couldn’t reconcile a belief in some sort of mass apostacy and corruption of doctrine with the promises of Christ. If the church did become completly become apostate for 1200 years, where was the Holy Spirit? On vacation?
I decided that, if the Church became apostate for 1200 years, putting the salvation of millions of people in jeapordy, then the Holy Spirit is useless, and Christ was a liar, and therefore not God, and not worth my time.

BTW, if your relative believes that Constantine brought the corruption of Rome into the Church and changed Christian doctrine, you can always say, “That’s what Dan Brown believes!” (The author of The Da Vinci Code.)

 

[BigTurkey]

My evidence lies in Biblical truth (which I will not go over again). And even if I did not give sufficient proof that Mathias was not an Apostle, I have in fact given ample biblical proof that the Catholic Church has no basis for teaching that he was an Apostle.

The “Biblical truth” is exactly what we are discussing.

1. You argued that the Greek word “lambano” (in Acts 1:20) meant to “take”, showing that the Apostles/Matthias took something that was not theirs. I showed that the Greek word has another sense - to receive what is offered - and that the lexicons I consulted used Acts 1:20 as an example of that second meaning. So, Matthias accepted what was given, and in the context it was given by God.
2. Next, you claimed that he didn’t accept it, but you had no “Biblical truth” for this. You gave as evidence that we never see him mentioned again; he “disappeared”. I showed that that argument was based upon a fallacious premise that Acts told the story of all the Apostles. It clearly doesn’t because we don’t hear from Thomas, Bartholomew, or even Matthew. So, if Acts doesn’t tell us about all the Apostles, one cannot use Matthias’s absence from Acts to prove that he wasn’t an apostle.
3. I pointed out that in a post you said both that the Apostles did everything -and- Matthias didn’t accept the offer. I pointed out the apparent contradiction in that.
4. You argued that Paul was the true successor to Judas’s bishoprick. This is largely based upon your evidence cited above; you claim that Matthias wasn’t really an Apostle, so Paul must have been the true successor. I pointed out that it wasn’t clear that Paul took a position among the twelve (no doubt he was an apostle, just not one of the Twelve). I also pointed out that, even if Paul had to fill a spot in the original twelve, it isn’t clear that it had to be Judas’s. It could have been James’s position (the brother of John) that he filled.

The burden of proof is clearly upon those who would deny the apostleship of Matthias. The evidence leans in favor of him being an apostle. In fact, I would say that the evidence is fairly close to being proof.

1.The Scriptures say that he was counted with the Apostles. Prima facie, this would seem to be a claim that he was considered an apostle. The greek word that is translated “numbered” in the KJV means “assigned a place among”. So, Matthias was “assigned a place among the apostles”.

1. If the apostles had circumvented God’s Will in appointing Matthias, we would expect to see a rebuke. We never do. This, of course, isn’t proof since Acts doesn’t contain everything. But it is odd that Luke would show the Apostles electing a successor to Judas’s appointment but never show any type of rebuke; or even show the real successor. You might claim that Luke did show the real successor: Paul. But, Luke doesn’t talk about Paul as the successor to Judas, so that is speculation without any evidence.
2. Jesus gave the apostles the power to bind, so why doesn’t this apply here?
3. The apostles prayed for God’s guidance. It would be odd if God didn’t answer this prayer from those he clearly appointed to lead the Church.

Anyway, I think the weight of the evidence is clearly in favor of Matthias being apostle. I’m not saying that you have no more evidence, simply that what I have seen so far doesn’t add force to your claim about Matthias. Do you have anything else? Do you have a rebuttal to my replies to your evidence? I am as interested in finding the “Biblical truth”, which is why I am interested in this conversation continuing. I want to know what the Bible teaches, so I am anxious to hear your replies.

You prove to me that Mathias was an Apostle, without a doubt, and I will reconsider my stance on Apostolic Succession.

Does this mean you think that if Matthias was selected to succeed Judas then that gives weight to the arguments for apostolic succession?

If this is the end of the discussion, thanks for good, friendly discussion. It’s been enjoyable.

-BT

 

[bibleapologist]

Acts 1:26 (KJV) - " Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

What is so blasted unclear about the plain sense of this passage of scripture?

Well, the first thing is… it’s not the KJV as you stated, it’s the NRSV - which is another one for KJV only crowd I guess.

The KJV says…

Act 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

There is a direct difference there. One says Mathias was “added” (definitive), and the other says Mathias was “numbered” (passively suggestive).

Actually, the version of the Bible that is approved by the Vatican for liturgical use is “The New American” version, which reads this verse…

Acts 1:26 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
Translated by: The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine

He was “counted” (passively suggestive) with the eleven apostles.

Also, according to the “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” in their notes on this verse state…

The need to replace Judas was probably dictated by the symbolism of the number twelve, recalling the twelve tribes of Israel.

As I said, there were only 12 Apostles… Paul being the 12th.

I had asked earlier in this thread why certain Catholics have told me the CC does not believe Paul was an Apostle (see post #29). I recieved no response, so I am glad I have an opportunity to introduce my argument for that in this post.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

The need to replace Judas was probably dictated by the symbolism of the number twelve, recalling the twelve tribes of Israel

As I said, there were only 12 Apostles… Paul being the 12th

This doesn’t say that there were only 12; it said this could have motivated the apostles to restore their number to twelve. Remember, they didn’t know about Paul, so that Paul was eventually added doesn’t destroy the point about what motivated the apostles to appoint Matthias before they knew about Paul.

In a previous post of mine on this thread, I quoted from F. F. Bruce where he said that Paul’s calling was unique, his apostleship was unique, and he would have resisted any claim that he was part of the Twelve. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t an apostle though, because it isn’t that there are only twelve. I think that statement has some Scriptural plausibility to it.

I don’t think the Catholic Church officially teaches that there were only twelve apostles. I could be wrong, but I couldn’t find anything in the Catechism to limit it to twelve. Could you point me to some passages in the Catechism where they say that?

-BT

 

[bibleapologist]

Could you point me to some passages in the Catechism where they say that?

CCC #765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head. Representing the twelve tribes of Israel, they are the foundation stones of the new Jerusalem. The Twelve and the other disciples share in Christ’s mission and his power, but also in his lot. By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his Church.

These 12 were sent by Christ Himself (not called and sent by another)

CCC #858 Jesus is the Father’s Emissary. From the beginning of his ministry, he “called to him those whom he desired; . . . . And he appointed twelve, whom also he named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach.” From then on, they would also be his “emissaries” (Greek apostoloi). In them, Christ continues his own mission: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” The apostles’ ministry is the continuation of his mission; Jesus said to the Twelve: “he who receives you receives me.”

This “foundation of Christ’s Church” of the 12 Apostles is described in Revelation (previously quoted).

CCC #869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with all the information of the previous quotes, nor do I consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an authority on any spiritual matter, they were used only to solidify my argument that there are only 12 Apostles.

Whether it be the translators of the New American Version, or the organization that publishes the catechism, or Cardinal Ratzinger who was in charge of that effort… in order to understand Christ’s justification for appointing 12 Apostles always comes back to the number 12 being in relation to the Old Covenant foundation of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gen. 49).

There is so much symbolism throughout the Bible, much of this symbolism is in regard to numerics. I think it would be grossly irresponsible to ignore the symbolism of the 12.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

The need for Mathias to be an Apostle was crucial to the birth of the New Israel during the Pentecost. Paul did not become an apostle til years later, after the New Israel was created.

There had to be twelve Apostles to replace the 12 judges of the 12 tribes of the Old Covenant.

 

[bibleapologist]

The need for Mathias to be an Apostle was crucial to the birth of the New Israel during the Pentecost. Paul did not become an apostle til years later, after the New Israel was created.

That idea is only relevant to others of the supersessonist worldview. My argument is not supersessional or dispensational, but spiritual… which is what Jesus himself taught.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

bibleapologist:

If you notice, none of the quotes from the Catechism say that there were only twelve; I asked for quotes that said there were only 12. Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent site and look at their entries on Paul and Matthias. Both are considered apostles. Also, by doing a search on EWTN’s document library and other Catholic sites you can find Paul and Matthias being called Apostles in Church documents.

Also, simply because one considers Paul an apostle doesn’t mean thte symbolism of the Twelve is tarnished. Paul’s call was unique, and while he was no less of an apostle, I don’t think he would have included himself in the Twelve.

Once again, your claims about Matthias and Paul are based upon poor Biblical exegesis and arguments. I think you are misinterpreting the Scriptures in this case.

-BT

 

[BigTurkey]

bibleapologist:

I understand your appeal to the symbolism of 12; I’m going to think about that a little more. But I don’t think that Paul being an apostle destoys the symbolism; Paul’s call was unique; he went to the Gentiles; I don’t think he was included in the 12, and I think he would resist being numbered with them.

Plus, Scripturally, I see no reason to deny Matthias apostleship. I respect your arguments. I hope you don’t think otherwise; I just don’t think they carry much weight. Anyway, I’ll be thinking about this some more.

-BT

 

[bibleapologist]

Big Turkey,

Thank you for your honesty. I can’t claim to understand the symbolism completely either. I have been doing some studying on the matter. I do think Paul considered himself with the other Apostles though.

Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

1Co 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
1Co 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am:…

Here is some food for thought… Paul writing to the Church in Corinth was verifying his apostolic office and said…

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

It is interesting to note, that even though Paul said Christ was seen of the twelve, there were only ten present when this viewing took place. Judas had hanged himself, and Thomas was not there. Why would Paul have still called them “the twelve”?

I think maybe it has something to do with the symbolism of “the Apostles”, and the need for there to be 12. Not that Paul was mistaken, but that to say “the twelve” was to mean the same as “the Apostles” as a group.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BigTurkey]

Yeah…I was thinking about that passage from 1 Cor. 15 today. I just haven’t had time to do any research on it; this week and next I am really busy.

I agree that Paul would have considered himself an apostle; I’m not sure that he would have considered himself part of the Twelve. Not that it made him any less of an apostle, just that he had a difference in roles. And, importantly, a difference in role does not mean a difference in significance.

As I said, I understand the appeal of the symbolism, but I think less damage is done to the Biblical text (actually, I’m not sure any damage is done ) by saying that Paul was an apostle on equal footing with the Twelve, but that he was not one of the Twelve because of a different role. There seems to be Biblical evidence for this, because in several places Paul takes about his role. I think more damage is done to the texts by trying to claim matthias wasn’t an apostle to make room for Paul.

I’ve tried a little to find any writing from the Catholic Church on this matter, but all I know is they consider Paul and Matthias apostles. So, at the very least, my interpretation fits in with their doctrine; at best, it is their interpretation.

Anyway, perhaps a Catholic viewer of this thread (as I have said, I’m studying Catholicism, but am not Catholic) would be able to point to a Church document about this the Twelve and Paul’s relation to it, e.g. was he apart of it? if not, what how did he relate to it?

-BT

 

[JDHallKY]

I started this thread last November, and just discovered it had been revived and become an entirely different discussion! Very interesting discussion, though. Keep it up!

As for my two cents, The Twelve, chosen by Our Lord, are clearly unique in their ministry. But, part of their role is to pastor the Church and teach the faith to the faithful. This aspect of their mission is continued by their successors, the bishops. “Apostolic Sucession” does not mean “a succession of apostles” as much as it means “succession *from *the apostles.” Of course, the Church is still apostolic because she continues to preach and practice the apostolic faith and because she “is sent.” In the sense of “being sent” all Christians are apostles, but in the sense of The Twelve, there were, well, twelve. Paul is also an apostle like The Twelve because he was sent personally by Christ. Matthias is a bishop (and apostle in the general sense), and joined with the “eleven apostles” in their ministry in the capacity of a bishop.

Anyway, that’s my impression off the top of my head. Also, the term Apostolic See means a seat of a bishop who succeeds from and holds to the faith of the apostles, not the seat of a present day Apostle (except in the general meaning of apostle as one who is sent, of course).

 

[SPH1]

I take it you are claiming that refers to the Pope. In the context of the whole thing you quoted, it refers to Peter being referred to as “the apostle”. It is not calling the Pope an apostle. I’m not a Catholic, but I am studying and thinking about the Protestant - Catholic divide. So, I could be mistaken, but the way I think about it is that inherent in being an apostle is being a bishop (but not the other way around…being an apostle is not inherent in being a bishop). So, the Pope is a successor to Peter’s office of Bishop (because he was Peter, succeeding him means being the head of the Church…aka the Pope), but being a Pope is not being a successor to the apostleship.

The Pope doesn’t get revelation like Peter did - the Catholics admit that - so it is clear the a Pope’s succeeding Peter doesn’t mean that he succeeds Peter in every way and in everything.

TO ACTUAL CATHOLICS: please correct my errors. I’m just trying to explain how I think about it.

I tend to agree with Big Turkey.

While the Pope and Bishops (Catholic & Eastern Orthodox) are successors to the Apostles, they are not technically apostles. “Apostle” is not, to my knowledge, an official title of the Pope or Bishops.

The Pope and college of Bishops succeed to Peter and the college of Apostles, and this is “apostolic succession”, meaning in line from the apostles. But not technically “apostles” in the way Peter, Paul and the others were.

So, a red herring.