[Cronos]

1. Paul's letter to the Romans. My point was that Paul was not the apostle who first went to the Romans, yet wrote to them an epistle advising... This is a strong indication of early Church "hierarchy" or "organization" which negates your statement So, no, I do not believe as you say that there was this ONE, TRUE, ONLY Church (singular). Rather there were many across the continent, all being established and peopled by genuine, born-again believers in Christ and the Bible became their "rule of the faith".
2. Reading aloud -- true, yet remember that those writings were not uniformly available and writings are also liable to be distorted at times if one is not careful, especially in the pre-Internet days and as you point out, the Bishops were appointed by the Apostles.
3. I seriously doubt they kept track of everyone. -- of "everyone" no, but don't forget that most of the conversions if not nearly all of them were in the cities of the Roman Empire or Parthian Empire. The faith expanded rapidly among the urbanites but the rural people (pagan = people of the fields, rural people) held out for longer.
4. I fully believe in the spiritual body of Christ and we ARE already one in the faith. Just because we may not all speak the same language, wear the same clothes, conduct our worship in the same manner, doesn't mean we are not one in the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is who recognizes us - what's in our hearts - and he is who unites us. That feeling does you credit and since you hold to the Nicene Creed, I reciprocate the same feelings for you.
5. I fully understand your need to assert -- I strongly resent that statement. I may not be very good at dogma or philosophy, but my post above was STRICTLY historical except for the note in the Pauline Epistles how Paul sends letters to various missions admonishing them to stay true to the ONE faith.. I intend limiting myself here to the historical sphere that I know well -- I will leave the philosophical, religious discussion to my betters. And in the historical sphere of facts one sees regular and strong communication in the Mediterranean continent -- one could send a message between Hadrians Wall and Ctesiphon in a week or two. Even in the Parthian Empire, which strung from the Tigris right up to the Uighur Empires in Zinjiang, communication was regular, predictable in time and accesible. Actually, going back, even the Empire of Cyrus the Great of Persia that stretched from India to Greece and Egypt did have excellent communication in a matter of weeks (Cyrus i.e. Khurosh inaugurated the pony mail!)
6. What does this mean for the One True Church statement -- it means that:
   
   1. people throughout believed that they were part of the One true Church
   2. Were there a day-to-day orders? No -- and that was not true of the Church or even of government until the invention of the telegraph. Prior to that, there was regular communication.
   3. There was regular communication between bishops through the Roman and Parthian Empires, just as there were regular communication between Praefects and governors in the Roman, Parthian Empires. These were not of course yahoo Messenger level speed :) but would have been with a few weeks. As an aside, note that communication after the fall of the Roman Empire in 430 AD was WORSE -- the Pope in the 9th century was less able to communicate with bishops in Britain and Cyrene than his predecessor in the 1st century. In fact, by the 9th century, the Western and Eastern Churches were barely able to communicate due to language problems, which was not the case in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
   4. Now though the communication took weeks and with the back and forth, tossing out a bad priest could take some time, STILL people felt that connection to the ONE Church -- you see it in the beliefs of the Naimans, Mongols who were converted to Christianity in the 3rd-7th centuries, you see it in the 2000 year old Christian communities in Kerala, South India.
   5. Church bishops were responsible to God and administratively to the council, deferring to the bishops of the pentarchy.
   6. In those pre-Internet days, the ways to know that someone was telling you the truth was to ask him where he learnt His truth and go back in time to the source. This is borne out in how an Arab until the 70s would introduce him "I am Abu bin Mussa bin Muawiyah bin Kadeer bin ... " -- documents could be incorrect or spurious --> what proof do I have for this? I take the example of the Old Believers in Russia. The only way they knew something was correct was that this was what their bishops said and their bishops were entrusted as their shepherds
   7. The "Bible" was not compiled and there were a number of books circulating -- some valid and inspired, some valid and now we regard them as not canon (The SHepherd of Hermas etc), some were definitely spurious (The Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas). The Bible or even the writings they gathered were not their "rule of faith" for the simple reason that they were not "verifiable", but their bishops and priests WERE. To all societies before the printing press, the oral instructor's worth and "verifiable ancestry" was far more important than any text he carried.
   8. The rule of faith was that they were people of the book, and they looked to their Bishop to shepherd them correctly.

[Cronos]

repeating specifically

You said I fully believe in the spiritual body of Christ and we ARE already one in the faith. Just because we may not all speak the same language, wear the same clothes, conduct our worship in the same manner, doesn't mean we are not one in the Spirit because the Holy Spirit is who recognizes us - what's in our hearts - and he is who unites us.

That feeling does you credit and demonstrates the love of Christ that is in you.

I reciprocate the same feelings for you, but I'm not as nice as you are :)