That the basis for your assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus all much be made to conform to her.
again, back to the Apostolic succession notion, nowhere in Scripture does it teach against it, although there is transitional evidence of that development in the Pauline Pastoral epistles, So you can say the NT does not teach Apostolic succession, I can just as easily retort it does not teach against it.
As if the Holy Spirit did not see it as important to record, even after James was slain. Your argument from silence is not a basis for doctrine, while the Spirit clearly instructs elders to be ordained as overseers of the church, the requirements for such, charges them as the overseers of the church, to carry on the work of the foundational apostles. (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:28; Eph. 2:20)
Meanwhile, the basis and credentials for apostolic authenticity (Acts 1:2,22; 1Cor. 9:2; Gal. 1:12-18; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 2Cor. 12:12) excludes Rome's (among others) claimed successors from being apostles. Even distinctively titling NT pastors as "priests" is also not seen in Scripture, but was also a latter addition.
As for 1 Timothy 3:1-7 a commentary by Chrystostem views it as an Episcopal Office. And yes, it was to continue the ministry of the Apostles who were commanded to celebrate the Eucharist, baptize in the Trinity, hear confessions and forgive sins in Christ name, etc, etc. Do you think that because the NT epistles don’t clearly give that authority to the Presbyters means that as the Apostles died all those functions stopped????????????????
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
As for Galatians, Chrystostem’s interpretation of the “disagreement between Peter and Paul” is consistent with Saint Jerome’s [point of another thread] and again, nothing in it are a quick summary of the other cites from the Church Fathers says Rome has no apostolic authority. Again, why is that?
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
Saint Chrysostem’s commentary on Titus 1:5-7 indicates that Titus was a Bishop who had jurisdiction over many others in his region, which is consistent with Catholic Ecclesiology.
Again, Chrysostem’s Homily on Acts 20, the central reason for Paul coming together was too break bread [Eucharist] so I don’t know what you are getting at
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
He also has a homily on Ephesians 2:20. As for your cites of 1 Cor 9:2, 2 Cor 6, 12, here is a link to the citations from the Church fathers who quoted those passages and I don’t think any of those commentaries in the Church Fathers draw the conclusions you are making regarding Rome. Why is that
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
So all these passages cited by the infallible authority of Daniel1212 and interpreted by your infallible opinion don’t seem to match anything I can find in the Patristic commentaries on these same scriptural passages. Again, why is that?