I am not sure what any of the above has to do with a specific exegesis of Acts 15.
The rest is Peter syndrome. “If a church father said something positive about Peter, it must be an advocacy for the doctrine of the papacy.”
Did you not see this :
*In those days Peter rose up in the midst of the disciples (Acts 1; 15), both as being ardent, and as intrusted by Christ with the flock …he first acts with authority in the matter, as having all put into his hands ; for to him Christ said, 'And thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren. (Chrysostom, Hom. iii Act Apost. tom. ix.) *
This and the others speak of the view Chrysostom had with regards to Peter and his authority. This places huge context on how Peter fits in his homily on the council
It is in the Acts of the Apostles that the primacy of St. Peter is seen in exercise. St. Chrysostom’s commentary on the first chapter is very remarkable. I give his words according to the Oxford translation, which renders the “short text” from good manuscripts:
"‘And in those days,’ it says, 'Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples and said:* Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ of the flock, and as having precedence of honor, he always begins the discourse.** (The number of names together were about a hundred and twenty). ‘Men and brethren,’ he says, 'this Scripture must have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before, etc.** Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas?** It is better as it is. For, in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ’s presence among them the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything
with the common consent, nothing imperiously. And he does not speak thus without a meaning. [Long text adds: ‘And he did not simply say, “Instead of Judas, we choose such a one.”’] “But observe how he consoles them concerning what had passed. In fact, what had happened had caused them no small consternation.” (Library of the Fathers, Homilies of St. J. Chrys on the Acts, Oxford 1852, hom 3, page 37; Migne, vol IX, 33[23])*
That St. Peter might have been expected to appoint a new apostle without betaking himself to lot, or consulting the brethren, is what strikes St. Chrysostom.
"Wherefore at the beginning he said: ‘Men and brethren, it behoves us to choose from among you.’ He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby making the elected objects of reverence, and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest…‘Must one be ordained to be a witness,’ that their college might not be left mutilated.* Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself**? What was the motive? This: that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And, besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit. ‘And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.’ Not he appointed them, but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy, so that he acted as expositor not preceptor." (ibid Oxford, page 40, Migne, 35-6[25])
“Again consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark, also, the great moderation of the other apostles, how they concede the throne to him [James] and no longer dispute with each other.” (ibid Oxford, page 42, Migne, 36[26])
“Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who was ordained a teacher. He did not say: ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone.** And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. ** But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that
prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are done in that fashion now; nay, quite the contrary. For observe they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right,** as having been put in charge of them for to him Christ had said: ‘And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’.”*** (Oxford, page 42, Migne, 37[26])
Thus, we have a rhetorical question with its answer: “Could Peter not have appointed Matthias himself? Of course he could.” If we prefer the short text, we have a plain statement, “And yet he had the same power to appoint as they all collectively.”
resulting in the lutheran teaching of the anti christ.