>>640706
>It is just the idea that bishops derive episcopal authority from their ordination by other bishops
I think there are multiple views of this, since I have seen many say it is the idea priests have their priesthood by ordination the line of which goes back to the apostles.
>and that this line of succession traces back to the Apostles
And this is where apostolic succession as you define it becomes impossible to prove. Not only because most bishoprics don't even claim knowledge of each previous bishop, let alone prove it, (thus making the line of succession an unfalsifiable empty claim), but also because the apostles ordained no bishops. The apostles ordained elders, who together as a group ruled individual churches, not bishops who alone lord over priests (another novel office). This is seen in scripture, for example Philippians 1:1
<To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons
>If a bishop deviates from the apostolic tradition by falling into pertinacious heresy, they are still validly ordained, but they lose their authority as a Catholic bishop
So which is it, do bishops derive their authority from ordination by valid bishops, or their orthodoxy? If it is the former, they cannot forfeit this authority by heresy.
>Another early patristic passage is from the Epistle of Clement of Rome, where Clement tells the Corinthians that they can't depose the lawfully appointed clergy and set up their own. Not very low church at all.
What Clement said (speaking on behalf of the church of Rome not as bishop of Rome) was that the system of elders had been established by God, so they could not be justified in rejecting it.
>There is an idea of doctrinal development, which is that things that were not taught so explicitly in the New Testament may be drawn out and expanded upon. The most obvious example is the Trinity, which is not explicitly taught in Scripture, but the principles behind it are.
The trinity is not explicitly taught in scripture inasmuch as the nicene creed is not in the bible. However, the trinity is actually taught in scripture, and its components are explicitly taught most clearly. Compare this to things "implicitly" taught in the bible, like the bodily assumption, allegedly taught by a passage in Revelation (famous for its eccentric symbolism and allegories) about a woman in the sky being rescued from satan, without actually identifying this woman as Mary or claiming she was assumed bodily into heaven, or even giving indication that this is intended to be a literal passage at all, or the immaculate conception and sinlessness of Mary, which is "implicitly" in the greeting "Hail, you who have been graced". This is not so much proper development of the faith once delivered in scripture as it encounters false religions and heresies, and more doctrinal evolution and innovation, with novelties being inserted back into a bible which knew nothing of them.
>>640709
So I just looked at it, and found this truly striking
<When one Anglican has admitted that he finds a constitutional Papacy in the fathers and Councils down to 451, another Anglican, possibly still more learned in patrology, will deny that these old texts mean any real primacy at all. We shall go on arguing about the meaning of the fathers even more hopelessly than we have argued for centuries about the meaning of Matthew 16:18. The only possible real standard is a living authority, an authority alive in the world at this moment, that can answer your difficulties, reject a false theory as it arises, and say who is right in disputed interpretations of ancient documents.
To translate: Nothing is to have any epistemic authority whatsoever but the papacy alone. This is why papism is so dangerous, it serves to remove God from His throne and enslave the will of man to the papacy, if it and scripture conflict, the pope prevails, if it and tradition conflict, the pope prevails, if it and reason conflict, the pope prevails. Since to the pope is made the "living authority", which decides right or wrong, the pope is granted the power to make true and false at will. God is outright denied the right to do as Jude 3 says and once for all deliver a faith, no, it is said this must be subjected to a "living authority", which can change it at will, and having changed it, it becomes having always been so. The pope is granted the power to alter reality as he sees fit, in one instant the truth is as it is, and the next it is as it becomes, as Ignatius Loyala said, "if she [the church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it black". Let no one make any mistake, that is precicely what that means, in practice if not in theory, and in light of that fact, it is clear that the pope, standing in the very temple of God, declared himself to be God.