[af_vet_1981]

When you get instructions from a religion that illegitimizes itself by violating the basic instructions given from God, I don't believe I or anyone else should consider that religion as a legitimate source for bible exegesis...

• He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
• And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
• And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
  
  ...
  
  
• And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
• And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke, Catholic chapter ten, Protestant verses twenty six to twenty eight,
Matthew, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses eighteen to nineteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

When one gets instructions from oneself, or one of thousands of disjoint faith communities and their leaders that are not in apostolic succession, in an attempt to re-form, re-create, or re-construct the faith once delivered to the saints, it is unreasonable that one should consider that religion as a legitimate source for bible exegesis...

[Mom MD]

First of all, you cannot prove apostolic succession for the leaders of your church. There is no record of unbroken lines from 33 AD on. Second I have read the requirements to be a pastor in Timothy, nowhere is apostolic succession listed. Third, if apostolic succession is so important and if your denomination actually had it how do you explain the mess in your church today? If that’s what apostolic succession looks like who wants it.