I refer you to Titus 1:4-well almost the entire letter. Paul, to whose authority you must submit (he was the Apostle to the Gentiles) spiritually fathered Titus and was instructing Titus, how to appoint bishops and elders throughout Crete to maintain the doctrinal and practical unity of the churches (this is the succession I am discussing).
Alright, I see that. And of course there needs to be SOMEONE in authority in a church body, if for no other reason than someone needs to teach the apostolic teaching.
I don’t see how this goes into the authority of the Roman pontiff, though. Paul’s concerns aren’t about a line of succession; Paul’s concerns are that pure teaching is observed and that it comes from those who are beyond reproach.
This passage, from what I can see, suggests more that apostolic succession comes about by teaching the same thing that Paul taught—which is the same thing that Jesus taught.
“I refer you to Titus 1:4-well almost the entire letter. Paul, to whose authority you must submit (he was the Apostle to the Gentiles) spiritually fathered Titus and was instructing Titus, how to appoint bishops and elders throughout Crete to maintain the doctrinal and practical unity of the churches (this is the succession I am discussing).”
Paul was instructing about appointing leaders to local assemblies.
He said nothing about Apostolic succession.
It’s interesting that you use Titus 1 to try to justify apostolic succession. First of all they were to be “the husband of one wife”. Then it’s obvious that Titus was in Crete which was a local assembly of believers. Paul’s letter to Titus would support the contention that the leadership in each local assembly would have been the succession of apostolic succession. That whole chapter would negate the false premise of Rome that there is only one line of succession.