The 'schoolboys' have no real authority

"The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background..."

This statement is not historically true. There were Christian leaders with a "theological background" well before 170 AD, the earliest date mentioned in your link's listing of Christian writers.

Here's some more historical background:

The earliest Christians did not have “episcopal sees”, i.e., “bishops” as we understand this phraseology today. They had unordained community leaders who, by virtue of such standing, presided at their sacred liturgies (”Masses”). Depending on particular community usage, these leaders were known as “presbyteroi” or “episkopoi”, not to be confused with our understanding of “priest” and “bishop” today.

In ELECTING OUR BISHOPS, Joseph O’Callaghan writes that “there was a Christian community in Rome before either Peter or Paul arrived there.” Furthermore, evidence suggests that “the church at Rome was governed by a council of elders or presbyters rather than a bishop.”

Likewise, Eamon Duffy in SAINTS & SINNERS: A HISTORY OF THE POPES writes, “Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume…that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.”

In ANTIOCH & ROME: NEW TESTAMENT CRADLES OF CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY co-authored by John Meier, biblical scholar Raymond Brown writes, “Certainly [Peter] was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome (and therefore not the founder of the church of Rome in that sense). There is no serious proof that he was the bishop (or local ecclesiastical officer) of the Roman church — a claim not made till the third century.” Brown also quotes the Roman historian Tacitus writing about the persecution of Christians by Nero in 64 AD and concludes, inter alia, “There was a large number of Christians in Rome.” Brown also notes that 1 Clement, “in connection with the deaths of Peter and Paul which had occurred in the author’s own generation (5:1-2), writes of a great multitude…of the chosen who suffered and were gathered to join the two apostles (6:1).”

Continuing (per Brown): “If there were many Christians in Rome in the mid 60s, how much before that time had faith in Christ arrived on the scene? Paul’s letter to the Romans, usually dated ca. AD 58, implies that the Christian community in Rome had already been in existence for a considerable period of time, since Paul says he has been wishing ‘for many years’ to visit (15:23). That this span of time is not pure rhetoric is suggested by Paul’s gratitude to God that ‘the faith of the Romans is being reported all over the world’ (1:18). Such flattery would be absurd if he were writing to a weak community recently founded. Thus the Roman community must have existed by the early 50s.” In fact, Brown cites some evidence suggesting that Christians were in Rome as early as the 40s!

According to Eamon Duffy, “First-century Rome had a large and thriving Jewish population, perhaps as many as 50,000 strong…By AD 49 [Jewish Christians] had become a significant presence in the Roman synagogues, and their beliefs were causing trouble” — so much so that the Emperor Claudius “expelled them from Rome in AD 49.” Duffy notes that the “Christian organization in Rome reflected that of the Jewish community out of which it had grown. The Roman synagogues…had no central organization. Each one conducted its own worship, appointed its own leaders and cared for its own members. In the same way, the ordering of the early Christian community in Rome seems to have…consisted of a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of the wealthy members of the community. Each of these house churches had its own leaders, the elders or ‘presbyters.’”

“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man as bishop for each of the churches they had founded. The only person in the New Testament whose role resembles that of a bishop is James the ‘brother of the Lord,’ who was most likely designated for his position of leadership in the Jerusalem church by his relationship with Jesus and the special appearance with which he was favored by the risen Jesus. It seems extremely unlikely that he was ‘ordained’ as bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter. Nor does the New Testament evidence support the idea that Peter, Paul or any other apostle became bishop of any one local church or ordained one man as bishop of any local church. One looks in vain to the New Testament for a basis for the idea of ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today" (Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPISCOPACY IN THE EARLY CHURCH).

According to Kenan Osborne, any study of ordained ministry in the Catholic Church must first acknowledge the "ecclesiological presuppositions" (or "a priori stance") of when and how the church was established. He presents two viewpoints: (1) the church including its basic structure and ministries was established by Jesus during his lifetime, and (2) the church including its early structure and ministries was established by Jesus' followers after the resurrection and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "If these two presuppositions," writes Osborne, "are not appreciated, then the tendency seems to be that one side begins to call the other side 'heretical'....[I]t is important to realize that such stances affect, in some degree, the manner in which subsequent historical data on the issue of ministry is evaluated" (Kenan Osborne, PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH).

The problem with the first viewpoint --- that Jesus established the institutional church with its structure and ministries --- is that it diminishes the significance of the Lord's resurrection! Easter, after all, is the most important day on the Christian calendar. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 651 (quoting 1 Cor 15:14) reminds us, "'If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.' The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings..." In paragraph 652, we read in part, "Christ's Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly ministry." According to paragraph 653, "The truth of Jesus' divinity is confirmed by the Resurrection. He had said: 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he.' The Resurrection of the crucified one shows that he was truly 'I Am,' the Son of God and God himself..."

The basic dividing line between these two presuppositions, notes Osborne, is the resurrection. It is belief in the risen Jesus as Lord "that is at the very heart of the Church....Prior to the resurrection and the resurrection faith of the followers of Jesus, it appears difficult to speak about a Church, since the central focus of the Church is missing: namely, belief in the risen Jesus as Lord....To put the institution of the Church chronologically prior to the resurrection tends to relativize the importance of the resurrection of Jesus itself and the faith in the risen Lord by the disciples."

The resurrection could not exist in a vacuum: it was necessarily and deliberately made manifest in the appearance of the risen Jesus in the breaking of the bread and to the doubting Thomas. As the CCC, paragraph 860 notes in relevant part, "In the office of the apostles [the Twelve in this context] there is one aspect that cannot be transmitted: to be the chosen witnesses of the Lord's Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church." If there are no witnesses, there can be no credible evidence of Jesus' resurrection. An empty tomb by itself means nothing. As Paul noted, preaching and reception would be "in vain." Without this combination of resurrection and witness, there can be no ongoing rationale for an ecclesial foundation, and, without the latter, various church ministries (ordained or otherwise) would mean nothing from the Christian perspective. After all, even athiests can do good works, albeit not in Christ's name.

If one accepts the view that the institutional church was established after the resurrection (a stance that acknowledges the singular significance of this Easter event), then one cannot ignore historical development of various ministries to serve the People of God. Viewed a different way, "If 'Jesus' way of acting' anchors the whole argument about women's ordination [as just one issue among several relating to historic development of ministry], then it must be carried through to a plausible conclusion in historic terms" (per Robert Egan, "Why Not? Scripture, History & Women's Ordination", COMMONWEAL MAGAZINE, April 11, 2008). We cannot afford to ignore church history. Any apologetics based in whole or in part on flawed history risks rejection at a time when so much more information is accessible to scholar and layperson alike. Weak apologetics risks not being "received."

In addition to the above sources, you might want to peruse:

+ James Burtchaell’s FROM SYNAGOGUE TO CHURCH: PUBLIC SERVICES AND OFFICES IN THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES, chapter 8,

+ Richard McBrien’s LIVES OF THE POPES, First Edition, pp. 17 – 36,

+ Keith Pecklers’ WORSHIP: A PRIMER IN CHRISTIAN RITUAL, chapters 1 – 3, and

Contrary to your assertion, Mr. John N., I am not "omniscient". Only "Carnac the Magnificient" is omniscient.

On the other hand, I do try to rely on what are considered respected and reliable sources.

You, sir, might want to acquaint yourself with works of genuine history.

"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010).

There's a respected place for doctrine, but it should not be seen as usurping the rightful and responsible role of history.