Thanks, I didn't know that. I also am fairly comfortable on the subject, but completely agree that we cannot have certain knowledge.
What amazes me is that the Protestants accept pastorship of ordinary men, but refuse the pastorship of those who succeeded Apostles in direct line of succession. I think it's just anti-Romish bias.
It's not that we refuse them as pastors, I mean, they WERE pastors. :) That's not arguable. It's just that we do argue with their infallibility, based on majority vote (for you) or ultimately a single vote in the case of the Latins. Bishops, pastors, leaders, teachers, EVERYONE is capable of being seriously wrong, either individually OR in any subgroup of God's Church. Of course that includes Protestant groups. Men are subject to error. That's why we say that EVERY teaching, no matter how popular, must be tested against the only thing comparatively impervious to change, the scriptures.
It's because we can read Scripture, study history and think.
The Apostles were missionaries. The Apostles did not serve as bishops, except James the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem. Decision making and organizational structure of the early church was congregational. The idea of a direct line is a myth as there are gaps in it, the most glaring being the Apostles not directly appointing the next generation of leadership. The monobishophoric system did not emerge until after the Apostolic era and was not created by the Apostles.
In addition the merger of the church to the state and the systematic creation of doctrine that separates the believer from God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit leads any Bible believing Christian to reject their claimed authority.