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
Three years after preaching the gospel???? I guess Paul's spiritual gift was procrastination.
The exception proves the rule, Harley.
As I posted somewhere between your comment and mine, Paul was not the exception. Apollos had the same experience. Besides, perhaps Luther was an exception as well.