[/FONT][/COLOR]First, you are talking about a different era of the early Church. Succession was useful to verify a teaching WHEN THERE WAS NO NEW TESTAMENT.
I don't quite follow. Are you arguing that once there was a New Testament, succession was redundant as far as verification of teaching?
The arguments against Arius rested on the Magisterium's understanding of scripture, against his private interpretation.(a Protestant principle) Arius's succession is irrelevant.
What Magisterium? The Arian controversy ran wide and deep - bishops, and none less than the Patriarch of Antioch, were a part of the Arian party. Arius didn't come up with it on his own - there was wide agreement on its supposed 'orthodoxy', not in such a way to numerically dominate the church. But, the lack of prima facie consensus was the whole reason Nicea was needed in the first place.
But, again, succession is not irrelevant, because
you raised it a proof yourself. I'll quote you again:
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
That's what you said. If you wish to abandon that argument, that's fine, I'm happy to moot it. But I'm just addressing what you assert.
You assume Paul is talking to 2 generations of apostles here.
2 Timothy 2:2(ESV)2 and what you(2)have heard from me(1)in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men(3) who will be able to teach others(4)also.
It's irrelevant how many generations he was talking to. My point is whether or not Paul would recognise the apostolic writings as at least a part, if not the authoritative part, of what should be passed on in the context of 2:2.
That's great. Now, do it in terms of teaching or doctrine that is not finally reliant on the Scriptures for its authority.
You keep making the same mistake. There never was a "secondary source of teaching". The Fathers were not the Magisterium, but contributed to her development and submitted to her final ruling on matters of faith and morals. If they didn't, they couldn't be called a Church Father. Scriptures were ALWAYS the primary source for doctrine. Maybe you can find a church father whose teachings, accepted by the Magisterium, were in VIOLATION scripture. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are and were, inseparable. Your whole premise is based on ripping them apart.
My premise is that the Magesterium and Tradition, such as they are, derive their authority from the apostles, because they derive it from the Lord, and their authority is only so insofar as they agree with the apostles, of whom the Scriptures are the primary sources.
But if you want to argue over a particular doctrine, let's go with plenary indulgences. I believe it is nowhere taught in Scriptures, and nowhere understood by the apostles, that one should, or even could, receive remission of temporal punishment on sins that had already previously been forgiven. There are potentially multiple presuppositions in that that I don't feel unsubstantiated by the primary apostolic sources. Is this doctrine, as taught in detail by the church, apostolic in content?
What would they have measured scriptures against to know if they were authentic?
They were authentic because they were apostolic, and ante-dated whatever heretical teachings were put forward.
various quotes from Irenaeus
What is your point? Let's first of all acknowledge that I was simply reiterating the comments made by Kelly, the expert that you cited. If you have a problem with that, you also have a problem with his argument as well.
Again, Irenaeus' assumption is that the content of Scripture and Tradition was identical, and his argument regarding tradition rested on that assumption, as well as the need to pit the public oral tradition of the orthodox tradition against the secret oral tradition of the Gnostics. Would you agree with me that far, if not further? I'm just trying to build some common ground to work off at this point.
What was used to verify the authenticity of scripture? A good feeling when it was read? Did they float in the air? Did they glow in the dark? Keep in mind there were some 12 "gospels" and 15 "books of acts" circulating.
Almost certainly not in the second century there weren't. List for me the competing gospels that were in wide circulation by 180 AD. There will not be many.
But as to your underlying argument - the fact that the church recognised texts as authoritative because they were apostolic still doesn't change the fact it was the texts that were authoritative in terms of teaching content, not the church.
It's a bit like me giving you the authoritative manual for my car that I made. When you come to tell others which manual they should use to repair my car, you tell them "this is the manual, that Nick gave me." That doesn't change anything about your authority in relation to my authority - the whole rationale for why that manual is correct is because I GAVE IT TO YOU. Your authority to say which is the correct method for automotive repair is based on the fact that I GAVE YOU THAT TEACHING. IF you then went and added to the manual, that would be your teaching, not what I gave to you. This point has very little to do, and needs very little to do, with some special successive divine authority or guarantee of infallibility. It's simple eyewitnesses testimony and authentication, very little of which was needed once the texts were widely accepted.
The whole reason Irenaeus emphasises this argument is that this is precisely what the Gnostics couldn't do - they had to assert a special magical 'secret' oral tradition as authentication of their teachings precisely because they had no real oral tradition and no written scriptures that went back far enough, or to the people that mattered, which is the apostles. This is why you get pseudepigraphia like the Gospel of Thomas - because self-evident apostolic authority was what mattered to people.
That people who had been students of apostles, or the wider church, testified to the authenticity of some texts and not others says nothing about any intrinsic authority in the church, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that their interpretations of the texts or any additional teaching they gave was error free, especially if it cannot be indisputably linked to a clear apostolic teaching, either in the written texts or at the very very least with an unambiguous "John taught Polycarp taught Irenaeus x teaching." But, again, on the reading of Irenaeus, it seems to me he simply wouldn't think that any kind of teaching claiming apostolicity could exist that did not already exist in the Scriptures.
There is nothing in Apostolic Teaching (which predates enscripturation of the NT) that contradicts or goes against scripture. Scripture is a subset of Apostolic Teaching. Without Apostolic Teaching, YOU WOULD HAVE NO SCRIPTURES. Scriptures had to be PROVEN to be inspired, whereas you just assume them to be.
But it adds to it, yes? Again, my argument is simple - the apostles, or their immediate proteges, wrote Scripture. Already by the time you get to the likes of Augustine, if you go purely by oral tradition, you are several stages removed from the apostles. Logically, you would prefer primary sources to second or third hand sources. And something doesn't have to contradict Scripture by being unscriptural.
And no, I don't assume the texts to be. I know because, using corroborative evidence, the apostolic writings predate all other writings, including those of the church fathers. I know they are because the church fathers within a generation or two put those texts in the hands of the apostles. Otherwise, see my point above.
You are skipping huge time frames. There is the apostolic era, the sub-apostolic era, the post apostolic era...you are mixing them up. 2 Tim. 2:2 is proof text of apostolic succession. Paul is not talking about your average believer, but trained men qualified to teach , contrary to the "all believers are bishops" theory that dominates this forum.
Not sure you addressed my point. My point is that what Clement says is not relevant to how we should treat succession now, by virtue of the fact that Clement is writing before the canonical writings were complete, when at least one apostle was alive, when first generation believers were alive, and when the immediate pupils of the apostles were still alive. You can't simply apply Clement's words as normative practice for later centuries - he's simply not addressing the same context or the same age, as you pointed out.
It was from several posts back, but you brought it up.
I don't remember. Happy to forget about it, then, whatever it was. 
It's simple math. One cannot be ordained by a lesser authority. You should have no problem tracing the line of succession of your denomination, in persons or in doctrine. But you will come to a dead end at the 16th century.
Still not sure what this has to do with guaranteeing succession on doctrinal authority, or on perfect transmission of doctrine in oral form. But obviously ordination has to be from a higher authority, whatever that authority is. I think most people would find that uncontroversial.
