It seems that no Roman Catholic can deal with this:
I left this comment twice over at Jason Stellman's blog here. (below is an expanded version of the original.)
If apostolic succession was there from the beginning in the way that Rome defines it; why does Peter (the suppossed first bishop of Rome and suppossed first “Pope”) not mention it in his second epistle, when he should have – in 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 3:1, when he speaks of
a. knowing that he is about to die; (verses 12-16)
b. wanting to be diligent to leave something with the believers that will enable them to “stir up their sincere minds” and “remember the truth” when he is gone? (verses 12-16 and 3:1)
Seems Peter especially would have at least mentioned the other presbyters and/ or bishops (addendum to be clear as what I meant: presbyters/elders who would have the charism of apostolic succession and infallible teaching and able to solve all disunity problems and interpretation differences, as Roman Catholics claim that has been passed down in all history, in an unbroken chain beginning with Peter) who would take his place when he is gone; and that they would able to help the believers be able to learn truth and be reminded of the truth; and be there to help solve disunity problems and differences of interpretation. Instead, he does no such thing. (Addendum: I didn't mean that there were no other presbyters or teachers or pastors; sorry for that lack of clarity. There obviously were a college of presbyters/elders - 1 Peter 5:1-5)
This a clear proof that it is the writting (Scripture alone) 2 Peter 3:1 – "this is the second letter I am writing to you", by which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder” – in other words, after I am gone (1:12-17), you will have something, somethng solid, a text, a writing, a Scripture, that you can read in order that you can stir up your minds in the truth -
And that argument from 2 Peter 1:12-21 and 3:1, points to Sola Scriptura in principle.
I asked Jason Stellman, "how do you deal with that in 2 Peter?" and he and others don't seem to grasp the enormity of the supposed first Pope leaving out the teaching that his office would have successors, who would be able to teach the believers after he gets executed by Nero around 67 AD. That is a major teaching to leave out, if it is true, it seems to me. I think it is devasting to the whole Roman Catholic claim that Peter was the first Pope and that God intended the office of Peter in the bishop of the church in Rome to then to be succeeded by another infallible interpreter who would be able to shepherd and guide the church and give the infallible interpetation, and that that office would be passed down all through history.