Replies

Try this:

F.A. Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops, Newman Press, a Catholic source often quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Admittedly the Catholic position, that bishops are successors of the apostles by divine institution, remains far from easy to establish . . . The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained apostles as bishops . . . The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop . . . The letter of the Romans to the Corinthians, known as I Clement, which dates to about the year 96, provides good evidence that about 30 years after the death of St. Paul, the church of Corinth was being led by a group of presbyters, with no indication of a bishop with the authority over the whole local church . . . Most scholars are of the opinion that the church of Rome would most probably have been led at that time by a group of presbyters . . . There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only in the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church."

An honest Catholic scholar who disagrees with you and the rhetoric from the Holy See. He probably lost his Imprimatur and became a Presbyterian, you think?.