Wow, is THIS ever an example of the concepts we bring to the table determining what we see on the table!
Speaking for myself, when I credit the Church with doing something, I do NOT think of myself as saying the thing they did is "mostly a work of men." On the as-far-away-from-it-as-you-can-get contrary!
I think more along the lines of, "Despite the Bozos whom God suffers to be members of and even to exercise leadership in His Church (and when I say "suffers" I mean in every possible sense that is not incompatible with God's impassability) By the prevenient and concomitant and ex post facto (to keep us from coming back and messing it all up when He isn't looking) grace of God, the Church managed not to make a total hash out of something.
When I say, "Dominic was a great example of a loving evangelical man," I do not mean to take anything from God but to note that God did something amazing in Dominic.
Works of men -- pheh! It is God who worketh in them, both to will and to do for His good pleasure; otherwise it's a complete mess.
I think more along the lines of, "Despite the Bozos whom God suffers to be members of and even to exercise leadership in His Church (and when I say "suffers" I mean in every possible sense that is not incompatible with God's impassability) By the prevenient and concomitant and ex post facto (to keep us from coming back and messing it all up when He isn't looking) grace of God, the Church managed not to make a total hash out of something.
That sounds a lot more humble, so I appreciate that. :) I've just seen many posts over the course of this thread that, shall we say, do not exactly reflect that same humility. :) The argument that I frequently see is along the lines that since it was the men of the Apostolic Church who both wrote the NT and then decided which books should be included, that we would not be Christians if it were not for them. We "owe" them, in essence, part of our very salvation. Consequently, we are then arrogant and ungrateful for not accepting Apostolic theology, and the rest of the writings of the Fathers, etc. That sort of thing.
Our typical response is that NO HUMAN (or group), not Luther or Calvin (if they had lived at the time) or anyone else, deserves any credit in and of themselves for the scriptures. We talk of them being God-breathed. I even quoted with favor from the Catechism on this. I think that approach sounded fine to me. :)
We think the word "Apostle" includes in itself the authority/power to pass on. That's why (in our not so humble opinion) there's not an explicit statement. The writers, we'd say, thought they'd said all that when they said "Apostle".
Yes, I'd agree from what I've seen. Along with the (lack of) scripture argument, I would also add that if the authority and power did pass on, then all who have received it since would be able to say they were, shall we say, in the "same club" with the Apostles. I wouldn't go so far as to say "equal with" as an astronaut today would not say he was "equal with" Neil Armstrong. But, nevertheless in the same club. I guess I think of the Apostles as having a very unique and one-time-only club.