In a way, yes, the one holding the office of Bishop in a certain sense can be called a "successor" of the Apostles. That I will grant. However, any church leader can be called that, not just those belonging to the Latin rite.
Take out the capital 'A' and Ill go with it because I think the central concept is something like a "designated agent whose actions commit the one who made him an agent."
I don't think along your lines here :-) I have to leave the capital "A" for the simple reason the word represents an office or title. An "Apostle", in any sense of the term is an "Ambassador" of the sender. That Ambassador cannot deviate from the intention of the sender and propose something on his own.
In general I think the Apostles either appointed or ratified already appointed individuals (supervisors) or "boards" (elders) to administer urban congregations. And these agents had apostolic authority and duty themselves -- especially "the Apostles teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers."
Hmmm....the letters of the NT lay out specific guidelines for the office of Bishop and Deacon. A lot of denominations of Christianity, even the RCC, don't really follow those guidelines laid out as the letters of the NT say. There has been a lot of innovation on this over the centuries. Some of the terms used have been redefined to the extent that they contradict what the letters have to say. That's all I'd say at this particular time.
The bold part of what I quoted from you above I would take exception to: for the "Apostles" in your quote of the Scriptures were the actual Apostles of Jesus, not "Bishops" of the churches formed after the time of Jesus. But yes, what you said about those taking the office had duties such as you say. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
Why do you say "Latin Rite"? There are plenty of bishops in Communion with the See of Rome who are not in the Latin Rite.
That Ambassador cannot deviate from the intention of the sender and propose something on his own.
That's why we look back to Acts 15:28. Of course those not of our communion disagree with us, But we think that councils and popes, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, speak what "seems to to the Holy Spirit and themselves." Being in communion with the See of Rome takes faith!
Even though Paul had his own experience(s) of our Lord, his ministry to the gentiles was known to be valid by the letters the Council sent with him and Barnabas and Judas and Silas.
There were other people taking titles and authority to themselves. In your view, how does one distinguish a REAL apostle from a bogus one?
And these agents had apostolic authority and duty themselves -- especially "the Apostles teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers."
There should have been an apostrophe after "Apostles", thus: Apostles'.
As the Apostles fell asleep, their teaching did not disappear. All teaching since then has included (or so we claim) an aspect of development, which is part of why Apostolic authority is important to us.
A lot of denominations of Christianity, even the RCC, don't really follow those guidelines laid out as the letters of the NT say. There has been a lot of innovation on this over the centuries. Some of the terms used have been redefined to the extent that they contradict what the letters have to say.
Well, that's the charge, for sure. Again, the Acts 2:42 verse is important. I think that the development of the orders of supervisor and elder and even the unique case of the successor of Peter are legitimate elaborations to deal with the problem of maintaining the teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers, as the Church spread and grew.