V
Vince1022
Guest
Then why does the Church celebrate, liturgically, the feast of St. Matthias the Apostle?
Is the Church wrong in celebrating that feast?
- Status
Is the Church wrong in celebrating that feast?
I
inkaneer
Guest
Good question. I suspect the reason is human tradition. But the fact remains that scripture does not support Matthias being one of the twelve Apostles. That is not to say that Mattias did not have an apostleship. Scripture records that Jesus send out 72 disciples which the Eastern churches refer to as the “minor apostles”. After all the word apostle means “one who is sent”. But the Twelve who were sent out by Jesus after the Resurrection when all power was given to Jesus did not include Judas nor Matthias. The original eleven received their Apostleship at the Ascencion [Mt 28:19-20] and Paul received his from Jesus as told in Acts 9:15.
No, it is not wrong to celebrate a feastday for Matthias. But I do think it is wrong to say he was one of the Twelve Apostles.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Scripture does support Matthias being an Apostle, just as it supports Paul and Barnabas being Apostles. Yes, none of them were one of the first-called 12. Jesus called 12 Apostles…that’s important. There were more than only 12 Apostles, as the New Testament witnesses. That, too, is important.
I
inkaneer
Guest
That is incorrect for the reasons I have posted already.
C
clmowry
Guest
V
Vince1022
Guest
Which posts, specifically, are you referring to? I believe we’ve already refuted them, but I would be happy to clarify. Thank you.
I
inkaneer
Guest
What’s the matter, isn’t scripture enough for you? Maybe you can quote the church proclamation specifically stating Matthias was an Apostle. The best that scripture can do is say he was, “numbered with the eleven Apostles” [Acts 1:26]. Well if he was an Apostle as you claim should not infallible scripture state he was numbered with the TWELVE Apostles? Why are there still only eleven Apostles after Mattias is elected to fill Judas’ vacancy?
I
inkaneer
Guest
See my post #20 in which I cited scriptural verses to back up my claim. Nobody has refuted it let alone provided one scriptural reference that says Matthias was the twelfth Apostle. In fact scripture states that after his election there were still eleven Apostles. See Acts 1:26
B
brianwalden
Guest
As a rule of thumb, I tend to disregard any argument that runs along the line of “I’m right, because otherwise scripture is in error.” The fact that the numbers got imprecise after Christ’s resurrection doesn’t change the meaning of Christ calling the Twelve who followed him during his earthly ministry. The Twelve were all Apostles, not all Apostles were the Twelve.
I
inkaneer
Guest
If scripture is inerrant then how could the numbers stated in scripture become ‘imprecise’? Just how is that possible? Was the Holy Spirit being lax in His inspiration of the scripture writers or what? At least we agree on the number of Apostles being twelve and not fourteen.
B
brianwalden
Guest
I’m sorry, “imprecise” was a poor way of putting it, let me try to explain myself better. The term Apostle isn’t as strict as the term The Twelve Apostles. Or if you like math, the Twelve Apostles are a subset of the set of all Apostles. The Twelve Apostles were the ones who followed Jesus throughout his three years of ministry. Paul and Matthias are Apostles but not members of the Twelve.
Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
Instruction and appointment by Jesus were, therefore, the regular conditions for the Apostolate. By way of exception. an extraordinary vocation, as in the case of Paul, or a choice by the Apostolic College, as in the case of Matthias, could suffice. Such an extraordinarily called or elected Apostle could preach Christ’s doctrine and the Resurrection of the Lord as an authoritative witness.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, there were many more than 12 Apostles. Of course Paul was one of them, but he was not “one of the 12”. God led the eleven to replace Judas, and if you look at the scripture, it is clear that “he was enrolled with the 12”. You will also see that Peter’s prayer was that God show them which one He had chosen. When the lot fell to Matthias, they accepted him as the one Jesus had already chosen to replace Judas.
Judas was an Apostle, and is referred to as such throughout the gospels. He was sent on many missions, just as all the 12 were. He had his share in the ministry, the Scripture says.
Perhaps in your mind it is not, but in the mind of the Church he was. This is why all the plates, paintings, engravings, sculptures and other historical evidence denotes him as an apostle with the eleven.
G
guanophore
Guest
There is no need for an infallible degree when the Church maintains what she has believed and practiced from Apostolic times. The reason that infallible decrees are pronounced is to combat heresies. There has never been a widespread and dangerous heresy that has denied the Apsotleship of Matthias (unless yours gets off the ground
)Jesus was quite clear about setting the 12 apart from all the other disciples. When Matthias was chosen, it was to replace Judas, and when Matthias was numbered among the twelve, it was because he was considered an Apostle by the Church.
I am curious why it would be important for you to deny this small but critical aspect of the Catholic faith?
There have been many saints come and go from the liturgical celebration. By removing a feast day, the Church is not intending to communicate that the individual is not a saint. The church chooses to elevate as role models for us those about whom we know the most.
There is nothing “wrong” with a saint who does not have a feast day entered on the liturgical calendar. There are thousands of saints who never has a liturgically celebrated feast day. There is nothing “wrong” with replacing a designated feast day with the celebration of a different saint, either. If you look at at the liturgy of the hours just 50 years ago, you will see an almost entirely different selection of saints celebrated. They did not cease to be saints because the day was dedicated to someone else!
The Scriptures are considered by the Church to be inerrant and inspired. Since they are clear that Matthias is an Apostle, the only reason that an infallible teaching would be needed is widespread falling away from the faith that is portrayed there.
Yes, it is true that this event does demonstrate that the Church has authority to ordain successors to the Apostles. Most of those successors were bishops. The text is clear about the requirements for an Apostle, and although there were some at that time that met the requirements, after one generation that was not the case anymore.
No, it is your perception that Paul is one of the 12 that is the only error here.
G
guanophore
Guest
Was someone claiming he was not?
Are you unaware of the references to other Apostles in scripture? Or did you think there were only 12?
This is a good question. Jesus chose Judas, and trained him the same as He trained the others. Judas rejected the call. It think if you were to do a study of all the references to the 12 Apostles you would see that he was part and parcel of that group, and nothing was withheld from him.
It is curious that you would desire to contend with Holy Mother Church about her teaching about Jesus’ choice of an Apostle.
Well, it is an interesting though heretical argurement. I dare say it is not the first time such a story has been woven about Judas, or Matthias.
The Apostles were overseers of the flock, and their authority to appoint bishops came from their own bishopric. Matthias met the criteria for becoming an Apostle, and the Church teaches that he took Judas place among the 12.
I am curious what you mean when you say that "Judas, like the other Apostles, was a bishop and only a bishop. " It seems like you are attempting to undermine or disavow the Apostolic authority in this statement. Bishops were given charge over geographical areas, where the Apostles had the care of the whole Church.
C
clmowry
Guest
No your [anybody’s, including my own] interpretation of scripture is not “enough” for me in determining a “truth” of the faith.
It is my experience that personal interpretations of scripture are quite frequently erroneous and contradictory.
As far as I’m concerned, if the Church says it that settles it: if the Church hasn’t said it than it falls under the category of theological speculation.
That said, I think this particular item falls under the category of theological “trivia”, and as such I would not expect to find a formal pronouncement on the subject one way or the other.
I did however provide links to two documents from the Vatican web site: one referring to Matthias as an Apostle the other as the first Bishop.
Though certainly not a church document, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Matthias clearly refers to him as an Apostle.
You “may” be correct in your interpretations but then again, you may not be correct.
The only issue I have here is the same one I have whenever someone puts forth their opinion as a statement of irrefutable fact.
There are clearly “authoritative” opinions on the subject that differ from yours.
Chuck
It is my experience that personal interpretations of scripture are quite frequently erroneous and contradictory.
As far as I’m concerned, if the Church says it that settles it: if the Church hasn’t said it than it falls under the category of theological speculation.
That said, I think this particular item falls under the category of theological “trivia”, and as such I would not expect to find a formal pronouncement on the subject one way or the other.
I did however provide links to two documents from the Vatican web site: one referring to Matthias as an Apostle the other as the first Bishop.
Though certainly not a church document, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Matthias clearly refers to him as an Apostle.
You “may” be correct in your interpretations but then again, you may not be correct.
The only issue I have here is the same one I have whenever someone puts forth their opinion as a statement of irrefutable fact.
There are clearly “authoritative” opinions on the subject that differ from yours.
Chuck
G
guanophore
Guest
Now might be a good time for you to reconsider your affiliation, Inkaneer. Your profile says that you are Catholic, but if you reject the distinction between Sacred Tradition (the Word of God alive and active in the Church) and human tradition, then your faith is clearly not Catholic. Perhaps you have wandered away from the faith some time ago, and this is the fruit of your departure?
Catholics wrote, protected, promulgated, and canonized the New Testament. There is nothing in them that is not Catholic. Therefore, when a person comes along 2000 years after the fact and interprets them contrary to the Catholic faith that produced them. It is that persons perceptions that have fallen into error, not the Scriptures, or the Church.
You make a very important point here, and in doing so, clarify your lack of catholicity. Part of the reason for the account of the choice of Matthias is to demonstrate that the Church has the authority to implement apostolic succession.
Jesus remained with them for 40 days, teaching them. He could have chosen a successor for Judas at any time, but instead, left it to the Church as one of their first authorative acts.
I am glad that you agree that it is ok for the Church to celebrate feasts of her own choosing. This is rather extraordinary, given your rejection of Catholic faith in the next sentence.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, actually, and such a statement reflects an anti-Catholic perspective. If Scripture were “enough”, Jesus would never have chosen Apostles, or founded a Church!
We read Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition (the Teachings of the Apostles) that has been infallibly preserved in the Church.
Yes, but it appears you have already rejected it. When the Church proclaims that being “numbered with the 11” means that Matthias replaced Judas as one of the 12, you interpret the scripture differently.
Two points here. First, Scripture is not “infallible”. Fallibility is a quality of persons, not books, however Holy. Fallibilty requires the ability to act, and to make a mistake. Scripture does not have this quality. On the contrary, the Church does have this quality, which is why the choice of Matthias to succeed Judas was an infallible act.
Second, Scripture is clear that Judas rejected his share in the ministry. He “went to his own place” which he decided was not with Christ, and not among the other Apostles. After his death, there were only 11 Apostles. Jesus made it clear to them that there were to be 12. Though they may not have understood why this is the case, they were led by the HS to replace Judas.
There were not. This is why the representations of the Church from that day, until this, number Matthias among the 12 apostles. I think you are grasping at straws here, presumably in order to reject the Apostolic Succession.
Well, my dear misguided brother, I don’t know what to say. I can urge you to turn back to your early mathematical studies in grammar school. If you have eleven of something, and you add one, then how many do you have?
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think it is. I think it would be more accurate to say that the meaning of what is written may seem imprecise. However, the Church was clear that Jesus chose 12 Aposltes, one rejected Him, and that the HS led the Church to choose a successor to take Judas’ place, and that successor was "enrolled’ with them. The Church understands this account to be about the selection of Matthias as one of the 12 Apostles.
Apparently the language of the Holy Scriptures is too imprecise for you, and since you have rejected the infallible teaching of the Church in this matter, when you read the Scripture, you are blinded by anti-Catholic perspective.
I see a common calumny raised against the HS when people prefer to reject the teaching of the Church in favor of their own ideas.
But no, there was no attempt on the part of the HS to create a complete compendium of the faith in the NT. The Scripture was never to be separated from the faith of the Church that produced it. When it is separated, many heresies and errors result, as we can see from the plethora of seed spawned by the notion of Sola Scriptura.
No, actually, the NT does not include the full number of Apostles, though it is clear there were more than 12. Paul and Barnabas as well as others are referred to as Aposltes. None of those are considered part of the 12 (except in your mind).
G
guanophore
Guest
This is an accurate statement. Not all the Apostles were counted as one of the 12.
While it is true that Paul was not one of the 12 (neither was Barnabas) Matthias was considered one of the 12. It is clear from the test in Acts 1 that Matthias met the criteria for apostleship before the lots were cast.
Acts 1:16-26
16 Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.
21 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen,
25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
The only ones eligible for the drawing were those who
21 … have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.
G
guanophore
Guest
The reason I think this is not “trivia” is because it is used by anti-Catholics to deny the authority of the Church, as well as Apostolic succession. I have encountered many anti-Catholics here on CAF who claim that “God chose Paul, Peter chose Matthias. Peter made a mistake.”
They will even go so far as to say that the prayer made by the Church that God reveal the one He had already chosen for the office was not answered by God.
- Status