Previously you said "the requirement of Apostolic succession isn’t found in the Bible." Apparently you are now saying that "the requirement of Apostolic succession is found in the Bible, but it was just a mistake by the Apostles and metmom knows better than they."
As far as schismatic - Council of Trent. The Roman Catholics are the splinter, not the Eastern Orthodox. Sorry, but that’s the fact. And they have as much claim to the “See of Peter” as the Bishop of Rome has.
You doubt the historical record of Peter in Rome? Then your dispute is with secular historians as much as with Catholics. The schism between Rome and the East Orthodox happened well before the Council of Trent and has nothing to do with it. Mainly, the East resents the Venetian sack of Constantinople (against the orders of the pope). Eastern Orthodox take the Catholic side in the doctrinal disputes with Protestants.
No, I’m saying apostolic succession is not Biblical; the Roman Catholics insist it is, but don’t realize their own hypocrisy in being schismatics themselves.
This is a case where the Protestant position would actually save the Roman Catholics - but we can’t have that, can we?
As far as Peter - no dispute with him in Rome. And until the Council of Trent in 1054 there was a single Church, and it moved its seat of power to Constantinople. Then in 1054 the Roman Catholics splintered off - and thus are no longer part of the single succession they so righteously insist upon. No more so than Lutherans, when Luther split from the Roman Catholic Church.