Excellent points. Both of y'all. Thank you.
Whatever "succession" there was spoken of by early church fathers was a succession of MESSAGE and TRUTH and not any kind of automatic power transfer that guaranteed infallibility to whomever was the next in line. We have numerous examples of popes who were, it appeared, not even Christians much less THE leader of ALL Christians. If what they taught was contrary to Scripture, then we are to trust God rather than man. The common argument has been that Scripture says what "we" say it means and that has been the source of much contention especially when clear Scripture is twisted into something unrecognizable.
As an example, I was having breakfast with a local priest and other family members and we started talking about our "favorite" verses in the Bible (I think I might have been the one to suggest it, but I don't remember). I said mine was Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast.". The priest looked up and said, "That sounds Protestant to me.". I was surprised somewhat that a Catholic priest wasn't familiar with Scripture enough that he didn't recognize it when he heard it, but it was clear that he knew what he heard was NOT what his church taught. That pretty much confirmed what I had thought. It is the handing down of the TRUTH and if a church strays away from that truth, it no longer is the buttress and foundation of the truth.
He was right...That verse is Protestant...The whole of scripture is Protestant...
There are no Protestants in the Catholic religion and there are no Catholics in the Bible...