These men were appointed by Saint Paul to continue his work. Bishops do the work of Apostles and missionaries of the Faith. Priests are their assistants and deputies in their apostolic work.
Using exact wording to try to defeat the Spirit of the Word through making unnecessary distinctions in exact wording that ruin the plain sense reading.
So I "ruined the plain sense reading " when i said the apostles appointed bishops/ presbyters to oversee the churches they founded ? I think you did when you said these appointments did work of missionaries and apostles, as if they traveled, from church to church.
No one is denying that all offices are for the benefit of the flock, whose jobs are interconnected. Do you also disagree with the Catholic historian O’ malley who wrote an apostle is a distinct office from bishop/ presbyter?
Do you also disagree with those who said at the time of apostolic writings the term “bishop” and “presbyter” were interchangeable?
As to the term “successor”, which began our semantic dialogue, am i ruining the Catholic sense of reading that bothers you, that reads beyond teaching/ preaching (feeding/ guiding) , so that one successor must be rock and key holder leader, to the exclusion of others, as if one succession line was to be “treasurer” as was Judas/ Matthias, each apostle imprinting his specific role he held as one of the twelve,etc., etc.?
Please explain to me why you believe the Upon this rock passage is uncertain in its interpretation.
First off, the words have a certain meaning(s)… what is uncertain are all the various understandings, for indeed, some may be misapplied or just wrong. But that is a whole other topic. Suffice to say that Peter indeed is a foundation of the church, but not exclusively, unless you go against the plain sense that all the apostles are our foundation, with Christ the cornerstone, the Rock of ages, and we ,along with apostles are also living stones, per scripture and tradition.
Rather than calling out straw man; please explain why you think they’re straw men.
In one case you imply understanding for me is solely on scripture and zero on tradition, which is your misunderstanding that you use against my points, hence straw man…the other where you infer i hold any understanding of scripture suspect is also incorrect.
Again scripture and tradition is normative. I differ from you by saying all normative authorities are subject to God breathed scripture. Even when oral tradition went before any writ, as is often the case, that which was written still held normative authority as applicable to any oral case.
That Tradition was the normative source in concert with the Septuagint Scriptures…
While I agree that reception of Scripture is also by God given grace , I do not call them equally infallible or without error. That is, God speaking or writing by inspiring man is not conditional . Our reception and understanding of said message is conditional.
