"What should not be in dispute though is that Christ breathed the Holy Ghost to a select group of people, who ipso facto became bishops of the Church and in due course consecrated other bishops"
Then by your interpretation, Paul was not part of the select group so he could not have consecrated other bishops like Timothy, Titus and nowhere do we find that Jesus' brothers James and Jude were consecrated by any of the Apostles. Matthias, who was numbered among the Apostles after the ascension, although an Apostle, could not consecrate anyone.
Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus set out the qualifications for bishop but no where mentions that the applicant must pass the inspection of an apostle or another bishop. In fact the only time bishop is mentioned with the exception of the reference to Jesus in 1 Peter, is in the letters to Timothy and Titus and then it applies to the pastor of a church, a family man. No where in the scriptures are the Apostles called bishops nor do you find them consecrating bishops. They appoint deacons but no bishops.
Either a laying of hands or annointing refers to consecration, and both are mentioned in the Acts and some epistles. Indeed the scripture does not mention, at least to my memory, consecration of every apostle, but it does not mean it did not happen.
It is also true that the disctinctions between bishops, priest and deacons were formed a generation or two later. The Greek "presbyteroi" most widely used in the New Testament is most naturally translated as priests, but the Protestant translations prefer the jejune "elders", another reason not to read them.