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?
“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, again, the decision was made between two men, where the lots cast chose Mattias.
“No seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all.”
It’s right there in acts, which I did refer to. I should be admonishing protestants for omitting all references to acts, in this ‘scholarly article’
“Peter’s, on choosing a successor for him.”
Well couple things here.
1, Scripture doesn’t record Peter’s death. If it doesn’t record Peter’s death, why would it record anything from his successor?
2. Peter was martyred. I’m not really sure how he could choose his successor, being dead. The Church selected his replacement in the same manner, with the remaining apostles deciding and casting lots to choose Peter’s successor.
“If it was that critical to the church, I would love to have some Catholic give an explanation for such a serious oversight.”
What oversight? Scripture doesn’t say anything about Peter’s death. Did that not happen? Did Peter not die? Was he not crucified in Rome? What?
Yes, you are right that it is important to the church, which is why St. Clement records Linus as the second bishop and himself as the third. After Peter.
“Peter wrote a couple epistles and yet didn’t mention something so important as to procedure for replacing him when he died?”
The procedure is in Acts 1.
“The silence in the NT surrounding this issue is deafening.”
What silence? It’s right there in Acts. That’s the procedure for replacing the Apostles.
“So just where does the Catholic church get this teaching and how do they justify it?”
Gee, I seem to be repeating myself. Acts 1. Again.
It certainly is a curious thing that so much of what they believe is, according to them, from something only the higher ups know. That should be a point of caution for anyone.
I’ll have to take your questions as rhetorical since I can’t really say for certain. Besides I’m sure explanations are on the way.
**No seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all.**
Really, no seeking God in prayer on the matter mentioned at all? Really? Read verse 24
Acts 1:[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
[21] Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
[23] And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
[24] And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
[25] That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
There was no need to leave detailed instructions as the traditions had been established in the NT and followed already.
This is what comes from Sola Scriptura, the mistaken belief that ALL of salvation history is recorded in a book. All of Scripture is valuable, inerrant and infallible but it is not ALL that there is to the story. Even Scripture admits that.