[Iscool]

I have already covered this issue many times previously on this thread. From a previous post:"Two important traditions are apostolic succession and the infallibility Church councils certified by the pope.Of course these traditions are demonstrated in scripture fully verified by history.

You haven't covered it at all...There is nothing in the scripture that indicates Apostolic succession nor an infallible Catholic religion...

And the fact that your religion has foisted this anti-biblical fable on you guys for so long has nothing to do with your claim that you have unwritten Apostolic tradition straight from the Apostles' mouths...

C'mon, let's see the unwritten Apostolic traditions that you guys have that were left out of the scriptures...The OTHER things that Jesus taught that John didn't write about...Let's hear it...

[mas cerveza por favor]

C'mon, let's see the unwritten Apostolic traditions that you guys have that were left out of the scriptures

Now I'm confused. I already offered the succession of Peter. Does that not comply with your request?

[smvoice]

Wouldn't the RCC have been better off had they claimed Paul (God forbid) as their first pope?

"Besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." 2 Cor. 11:28.

It's just too bad Peter did not say this, it would have been written on the Basilica ceiling. But he didn't. Paul did. Because HE was responsible for the daily care of all the churches. As the Apostle who was given the ministry of the dispensation of the grace of God and the Church the Body of Christ.

[Quix]

INDEED.