Seamole, this is what debaters call a "sandbag". Tenn2005 is trying to get you to defend something you don't actually believe.
Tenn2005, "Successors to the Apostles" and "Apostles" aren't quite the same thing. Pope Benedict is not an Apostle, and the Church doesn't claim that he is. In particular, he can't write new Scripture.
But he, and every other validly consecrated bishop, receives their office in succession from the Apostles. The Bible says so very clearly, when Paul talks about appointing "overseers" (bishops) "in every town" and giving them their office through the imposition of hands.
"Successors to the Apostles" and "Apostles" aren't quite the same thing."
That would be because there are no successors to the apostles.
"But he, and every other validly consecrated bishop, receives their office in succession from the Apostles."
This is an incorrect statement. Your statement is self-condictary. Check out the meaning or successor or sucession in any good dictionary.
"In particular, he can't write new Scripture."
Then why did Seamole claim that he had changed the requirements for an apostle.
"The Bible says so very clearly, when Paul talks about appointing "overseers" (bishops) "in every town" and giving them their office through the imposition of hands."
Please show where a single bishop/elder/overseer (same office)or deacon ever received the laying on of the hands of an Apostle.
I believe that your coaching Seamole is a case of the blind leading the blind.
Let me recommend more Bible study and less listening to the opinion of others.