[thefrankbaum]

If Apostolic Succession was to be infered because of Peter’s actions... where are the OTHER eleven apostles now? Assuming, of course, that the Pope is the apostle of this era. Shouldn’t there be twelve at ALL TIMES? In other words, Apostolic Succession never happened after Acts 1, did it?

I don't follow your point - why does Apostolic Succession have to be limited to 12 men? Further, Apostolic Succession means that one is the successor of the Apostles, not an Apostle themselves. The Apostles were Bishops, but Bishops are not Apostles.

Let me ask you a question in response. If there was no need of Apostolic Succession, why did Paul receive the laying on of hands - the same rite the Church uses to ordain men today? Why would Paul exhort Timothy to be patient in deciding to lay hands upon men, if it is merely a blessing?

[irishtenor]

****I don’t follow your point - why does Apostolic Succession have to be limited to 12 men? ****

If Peter did the correct thing of choosing a successor for the one who was now departed, then 12 is the number and they have to alway have 12. When one goes you choose another to maintain the correct number. So... if Apostolic Succession was the way to go, we should have 12 today, not just the one (Pope).