I would suggest then that what you refer to as Teaching Office isn't a charism at all but a "position"

No, not a "position," in the sense of a theological perspective. An Office, here, refers to an agent of responsibility and the attendant duties. AKA "Magisterium," you can find a good description of it here.

. . . and that once the canon of scripture was established there was no longer any real need for that particular position as heresies etc could be dealt with by elders in light of the true charism, teaching. Just a suggestion.

What you're calling "elders" here and the task they would perform is very close to what I've been describing. See this link for a good discussion on how those early ministries described in the NT came to be understood. Obviously, what we're seeing there is a snapshot of the beginnings of a post-apostolic order.

An established Teaching Office also suggests that the church is doing the teaching when, in fact, it is the church that is taught.

It is both, Stephen. The Church IS doing the teaching in the name of Christ; we are also taught and formed by the teaching.

. . . . . . and that once the canon of scripture was established there was no longer any real need for that particular position as heresies etc could be dealt with by elders in light of the true charism, teaching.

Another comment on this point, which is to note that the canon wasn't established for over 200 years. The living reality was and still is the Church; The Book is an inanimate by-product of its life--a life that includes the authority which authenticated it. You can't really dissect The Book out of Church history, Church authority, and even Sacred Tradition without turning it into some kind of idol, which is what often seems to happen in fundamentalistic churches.

OK, one more note, which is to say that I find it rather odd that what is so clearly known and understood about early Church history should so often be called into question -- as though they really didn't get it right in their manner of organizing themselves, or they weren't following the Spirit. It was a persecuted Church dealing with a wide variety of pressures and heresies that came up with the basic model of leadership and the interdependence of scripture, tradition and magisterium. They had no worldly power; there was nothing to gain from being a bishop or elder in a worldly sense, except that you were more likely than others to be martyred.

I am not denying that abuses of power and authority have taken place; that's a matter of historical record. But the basic model seems to allow for a wide range of interplay by the Spirit and a marvelous system of checks and balances that has stood the test of time. The burden rests with alternative systems to demonstrate that this model is unfaithful to God's intent, and that the early Church got it all wrong.

Yeah, I did mean "position" in the sense of "office" , rather than a perspective.

I don't think I'm calling into question the formation of the early church at all, believing that their organisation was very much after the Spirit. I'm just wondering how much these positions/offices, and the appointment of same, have changed over the centuries, both in the Protestant and Catholic lineage, and if that change is more reflective of a less Spirit centred formation, indeed, a move AWAY from the original format.

I agree with your comments about the book becoming an idol. In itself an inanimate object, but with words contained therein of Spirit and Life, I'm sure you'll agree.

Agreed, Stephen, on Scripture being a "dead letter" apart from the Spirit and even community.

Don't know what to say about your other points. The RCC maintains that the interdependence between Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium is part of the divine plan. Other traditions have begged to differ, of course, and have proposed all sorts of alternatives. The way I see it is that the interdependence mentioned above continues to exist, and so I can't see where prying them apart would be to advantage. I know many Protestants would disagree, of course.

See the new thread I started on the theology forum about what it means to be a Catholic. Maybe some of those points will spark a good discussion.