Peter was an “older man”, possibly in years but certainly in experience having been with Christ all during his ministry. Peter was an important man, an “elder”.
Peter's understanding of the prophecy was not in question nor his statement of the requirements for being counted among the twelve.
But Acts 1:23 says, “They” (plural) not Peter alone, put forward two possible choices to replace Judas and “they” drew lots indicating who should be accepted.
Peter had a great privilege in this matter but he he was not the decision maker.
“Then why is it that Clement of Rome argues that he was ordained by St. Peter and that he has apostolic authority as appointed as a successor to Peter?”
It's a bit difficult to read minds. But claiming association with, ordination by, an apostle would add to his claim of authority, wouldn't it?
“Scripture doesn’t tell us who was appointed to replace James. That doesn’t mean they didn’t appoint one. Look, even the martyrdom of St Peter and Paul is not recorded in scripture. Does this mean that they didn’t die in Rome?”
Peter and Paul's death isn't recorded in the Scriptures but I feel safe in saying they did die. Not a good comparison.
“Where does scripture say this? You are arguing that ‘because scripture says nothing about it it didn’t happen’. Argument from silence.”
An argument from silence might well be superior to any other available. If James had a replacement chosen no one thought it important enough to even allude to it?
Mathias was counted as one of the twelve but a replacement for faithful James would have made thirteen apostles.
Yet in John's Revelation vision years later he sees only twelve names of the apostles on foundation stones.
Would it be possible to leave one name out and if so, who?
So the argument is not from complete silence.
As to the question of why the early church did not end with the last apostle the very broad answer might be that it had taken sufficient root to grow even if over seeded with weeds per Jesus’ parable of the wheat and weeds.
“It’s a bit difficult to read minds. But claiming
association with, ordination by, an apostle would add to his claim of authority, wouldn’t it?”
True. More importantly, it indicates that the early Church regarded ordination by the Apostles as sufficient proof of one’s authority.
“Peter had a great privilege in this matter but he he was not the decision maker.”
Great privilege? Is this another way to say that he was the leader of the Apostles and that they looked to him for guidance.
“Peter was an “older man”, possibly in years but certainly in experience having been with Christ all during his ministry.”
So was Andrew. Why was Peter the one given these ‘great privileges’.
“An argument from silence might well be superior to any other available.”
Nonsense. We could just as easily assert that China did not exist in those days because nothing is said of it. Arguments from silence are untenable under all circumstancees.
“If James had a replacement chosen no one thought it important enough to even allude to it?”
You would think that they would talk about the death of St. Peter and St. Paul?
“Yet in John’s Revelation vision years later he sees only twelve names of the apostles on foundation stones.
Would it be possible to leave one name out and if so, who?”
Judas one presumes since Revelations looks at the originals not the replacements.
In all this discussion about Peter’s successor, the only thing Catholics appeal to is the decision of peter to draw lots for God to validate the man HE already chose.
No seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all.
Also not mentioned is ANY instructions on anyone’s part, particularly Peter’s, on choosing a successor for him. If it was that critical to the church, I would love to have some Catholic give an explanation for such a serious oversight.
Peter wrote a couple epistles and yet didn’t mention something so important as to procedure for replacing him when he died?
John wrote Revelation as an old man and all that Jesus had to say to the churches did not include any kind of instruction on appointing a successor to Peter to guide His church.
The silence in the NT surrounding this issue is deafening.
So just where does the Catholic church get this teaching and how do they justify it?