What I think should be more than understandable regarding the truths of the faith handed down to the Apostles and ultimately to us in the here and now is that there never really was an "Apostolic Succession" of authority that wasn't first dependent upon the revealed Scriptures. The example I gave of Peter being corrected by Paul concerning the "requirements" expected of Gentiles coming to the Christian faith should be more than adequate to demonstrate that, even in that first century there was no absolute belief in an authority intrinsic to the Apostles nor to their personally named successors. It was always dependent upon what was the truth and their faithfulness to what Jesus had taught them. Certainly, the Apostles were given authority by Christ to preach the gospel and to disciple others to carry on the ministry of reconciliation. But, he did not give them the authority to make it up as they went along. It was supposed to be as they were lead by the Holy Spirit and as he revealed the truths to them to pass onto the church.
That it was a succession of the teachings of Christ and not of the teachers, is pretty well attested to both in the New Testament epistles and the writings of the early church fathers. What Rome relies upon is the supposed perpetual "Seat of Peter" having ultimate authority over all the Christian faithful. But there is no evidence in Scripture that this was Christ's intent. It is the duty of the church to pass on the faith "once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And I think we agree that the church is the “buttress and pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). However, I think Catholics believe that in order for this succession to be valid, it has to be seen as primarily a succession "in person". Whereas, Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the primary issue involved is a succession in teaching, doctrine, and practice. That's why Roman Catholics will focus on the one to whom the succession is given, while Protestants focus on the teaching and doctrine itself, believing that the person who receives the succession is instrumental, but not integral. In the Apostles' time, they were very careful to train up church leaders and as Paul said to Timothy, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure." (I Timothy 5:22)
Rather than this way of thinking about church leadership and the working of the Holy Spirit in those doing the leading being a "new" or novel concept, I think it can be easily shown to be the way Christ designed and intended His body to operate. If not, then I hardly see the need for the Scriptures. If the succession of authority included the gift of "infallibility" and it could be miraculously handed down from one individual to his next in line, there would be no need for divinely inspired Scripture containing the teachings to be held by all. The special "prophet" could be entrusted to keep it all straight and he would also have the authority to develop doctrine as the need arrived since he has a direct line to God and all. Right? It seems to work like this for the Mormons. What could go wrong???
Here of late I've taken to including some illustration or demonstration as am led, using theological principles & scripture best I can to get towards fundamental truths --- but few seem to get it, or just cruise right over it. Or it goes right past them somehow... It gets real old. I'm wearing down, and getting quite tired. I do wish they'd just hurry up and light that fire they'd like to burn me to a crisp with, like they did to "heretics" and others in opposition, when they could get away with such. It's like they keep jones'en for the good 'ol days.
As to the near impossibility we face on this forum, a convert from Rome to an unspecified Orthodox Church put it;
For non-Roman Catholics, it is almost impossible to comprehend the attachment a Catholic has for the Papacy and our reaction was highly defensive. In the past, when we came across serious works of history which contradicted the Roman Catholic position, we were skeptical and if we found that the author was Protestant, or the book came from a Protestant publishing house, it was given scant attention and if it contradicted a dogmatic belief it was dismissed immediately. Only Roman Catholic historians have a pure line to objectivity, especially when it concerns articles of faith. This is what Catholics are taught and it is this belief that will keep their faith inviolate. This teaching is best exemplified by Pope Leo XIII in his celebrated Letter to the Prelates and Clergy of France (September 8th, 1899). While encouraging them to the study of history he reminds Those who study it must never lose sight of the fact that it contains a collection of dogmatic facts, which impose themselves upon our faith, and which nobody is ever permitted to call in doubt. Cardinal Manning of England is even more blunt, The appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be divine. 10 At another time Cardinal Manning wrote, The appeal from the living voice of the Church to any tribunal whatsoever, human history included, is an act of private judgment and a treason because that living voice is supreme; and to appeal from that supreme voice is also a heresy because that voice by divine assistance is infallible.