“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 is also clear that there must be additional esoteric knowledge not published in the Bible, yet practiced in the early church and continued in the Catholic tradition, no?