[HarleyD]

I know it is hard for you, Harley. But it's OK to admit it! Christ spoke to the Apostles orally.

That would be a silly thing for me to deny now wouldn't it? He also spoke to Judas orally.

The writings of even the greatest of Church Fathers, St. Augustine or St. Ambrose, are NOT relegated to the role of Scriptures.

Then there is a difference; while Christ might have spoke to the Apostles and they wrote things down, what makes their writings different? It can also be said that Luke was not an Apostle and yet his writings are inspired. There is a distinct difference between Church writings and what was written by the Apostles just as can be said that there was a distinct difference between the oral word of the Apostles and the oral word of anyone else.

We presume that wherever Matthias went, he ALSO appointed bishops to continue God's teachings

What is neglected is the recognition that Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession. He was appointed by God and this was verified by Ananias in a vision. Now at the very least, if there were an Apostolic succession as you suppose, and Peter was the head of the Church, wouldn’t it make sense that God would have revealed Paul to Peter instead of Ananias, who wasn’t even an apostle? Instead the scriptures states that Ananias was a “disciple”-not even a church leader. And it was Ananias who laid hands on Paul so that he might regain his sight. It was after visiting with Ananias that Paul “immediately when out and preached”. My, my. He didn’t even get blessed by the first Pope.

Sorry, the conversion of Paul in Acts 9 does not square with Apostolic succession as God has recorded the events.

[annalex]

Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession.

You should read the Bible every once in a while, Harley.

James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision

Galatians 2:9

[jo kus]

There is a distinct difference between Church writings and what was written by the Apostles just as can be said that there was a distinct difference between the oral word of the Apostles and the oral word of anyone else

I agree. That is why it is more difficult to ascertain Apostolic Tradition. It would take a nearly universal agreement on an issue in time and space - the so-called "sense of the faithful" that St. Lerins speaks of. I think Apostolic Tradition is more relegated to Liturgy and interpretation.

What is neglected is the recognition that Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession. He was appointed by God and this was verified by Ananias in a vision. Now at the very least, if there were an Apostolic succession as you suppose, and Peter was the head of the Church, wouldn’t it make sense that God would have revealed Paul to Peter instead of Ananias, who wasn’t even an apostle?

According to Paul, he went to see Peter for two weeks to ensure that their Gospel agreed. Apparently, it did. I don't think it matters much that Paul was not revealed first to Peter.

He didn’t even get blessed by the first Pope

Sure he did. Check Galatians. It would be silly to think that Paul did not highly regard Peter, since Paul went specifically to see him...

Sorry, the conversion of Paul in Acts 9 does not square with Apostolic succession as God has recorded the events

The exception proves the rule, Harley.

Regards