Well, we read it differently, don’t we, tgG? And all the Christians from the first century to the Reformation understood it differently also. One would think that God could have found SOMEONE who could hear God? Why did God allow the Church to misunderstand HIm for 1500 years? It seems like He did not keep his promise to lead the Church into 'all Truth".
Clearly those in the Reformed Tradition must reject Apostolic succession. If it were to be allowed to exist, then it would cause incurable problems for many new doctrines created at the time of the Reformation.
Yes, Apostles are eyewitnesses. They passed their authority on to Bishops, most of whom were not present at the events of Jesus’ life.
No, they were not considered Apostles. Their ordination can be traced back to the Apostles.
Scripture refers to the Apostolic succession as a “bishopric”, so your argument is with Holy Spirit’s choice of words.
Yes, an overseeing elder, but one that has been ordained by an Apostle, or is in the Apostolic succession.
The passage in Acts that Peter quotes refers to the office as a Bishopric. Obviously the Apostles were scattered around the known world, and did not remain in one geographical area, as Bishops do today. They had the care and feeding of the whole Church. Bishops ordained by them were assigned to certain geographical areas. This practice has continued to today.
Again, tgG, what Catholics see reflected in scripture Reformed Christians cannot see. This is a result of the installation of a punctum caecum, which accompanies Reformed theology.