So back to the Issue of the apostles ordaining bishops and leaving things to them.
If that was “the plan” why would new apostles be called for a short time and than stop with no recored of the change being made? (outside CC tradition)
First let’s deal with the term Apostle.
The very term “Apostles” has multiple meanings and inferences depending upon who is using it and in what context. However, the word “Apostle” is from the Greek,
Apostolos means “one who is sent forth, who is entrusted with a mission”. Since Jesus didn’t speak Greek, it is highly unlikely that He would have called the selected 12 men Apostles. What he did refer to them as were His Chosen Ones, His beloved.
He then gave them the mission of spreading the Gospel and founding the Church. To accomplish this He gave them Authority. That Authority was recognized and exersized all through the early Church without significant interuption. The fact that some terms might have changed in no way alters the fact of the clear lineage of succession. Remember that Peter is refered to both as Apostle and as the Bishop of Rome.
Let’s put ourselves in the time of the Apostles for a moment. From the year 33 to the year 100 AD we had an ever decreasing number of “Origional” apostles. Also remember that they were scattered far and wide preaching the Good News. Over time, as the apostles were dying, the church continued to grow at an astounding rate. Finally there is only one Apostle left alive. Our beloved St John. Did St. John feel the need to make any changes in the Church structure? Did he feel there was something missing, or wrong with the current structure, titles, terms, liturgy, etc of the Church at the end of His Life? The answer is no he did not, for if he did, he would surely have trained his disciples differently.
So you see from this that, as the origional 12, trained by Christ Himself and guided by the Holy Spirit, established the Church it was done in the manner which Christ and the Holy Spirit Planned.
The reason you are having trouble grasping this “change” issue is because, like so many protestant groups, you put the cart before the horse. You accept the Bible as compiled by the Church, then try to deny the Visible Church built on the Oral, as well as written teachings of many Early Church Fathers.
What I find in the NT is a system for governing the church of which a bishop (or pastor) is a part, but that was founded on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles. I’ve not seen many buildings last long when separated from their foundation.
And here you have a major error.
The Church was not built on the Prophets and Apostles but rather on Our Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles and those appointed by the Apostles using their Christ Endowed Authority.
If, as you believe, Christ founded His Church on Prophets and Apostles, Promising to be with them until the end of time, then allowed this Church to fall into apostacy after the death of the origional 12 two things would have occurred. First you claim that the Church fell into confusion. That would have been around 110 AD (by your statement earlier) with the death of St. John.
Second, due to that confusion, true apostolic succession would have been lost along with any chance of the Church being able to assemble a valid Bible. Since you hold that the Bible is Valid, the Church could not have fallen into confusion when you say it did.
OR
It fell into confusion and apostacy then out of confusion and apostacy, then back into confusion - - -
Something that the Lord Promised would not happen.
Peace
James
