First Pope

[clmowry]

Don’t get me wrong, by using “trivia” I don’t wish to slight Matthias in any way.

This is simply not a matter of such import to our salvation that we are ever going to get an encyclical on the “Apostleship of Matthias.”

Frankly I couldn’t see why this would be so important to someone.

Your comments help quite a bit.

As an anti-Catholic whipping boy this issue seems to me such poor choice that using Matthias as some sort of “proof” against Peter or the Catholic Church never even crossed my mind.

To stand as some kind of “proof” against Peter’s authority or “infallibility” there would need to be some clear condemnation of Matthias’ selection attributed to Peter. Clearly there is no such verse in scripture.

If you accept this “argument” as a refutation of Peter and/or the Church Christ founded through him, then you would necessarily go too far.

If selecting Matthias by praying to God and casting lots to determine who among those disciples selected by Christ to follow Him should replace Judas is a refutation of Peter’s role, then how is the selection of Judas as one of the 12 in the first place not also a refutation of Christ’s role?

Chuck

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.

 

[inkaneer]

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.

You better consult scripture before you post. Scripture does not say “he was enrolled with the twelve.” It says in Acts 1:26:

“And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:26]

And let’s be clear here. We are talking of the Twelve Apostles. Jesus sent out seventy disciples which the Eastern churches call the “minor apostles”. Obviously anyone who is sent meets the criteria of being an apostle for that is what the term means. However, we are talking about Jesus’ twelve Apostles and to be included in this group one must meet two criteria. 1. He must be called by Christ and 2. he must have been sent by Christ. Judas was called by Christ but was never sent since he died before the sending of the Apostles in Mt 28:19-20. Matthias was never called by Christ nor sent by Christ. He only replaced Judas. Therefore he cannot be something that Judas never was. Paul, on the other hand was called by Christ and sent by Christ. Paul is the twelth Apostle.

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.

Yes, a share. like the protestants have a share in the deposit of truth. But neither the protestants nor Judas had the fullness that the Catholic Church and the Apostles did.

There is another problem with Matthias being an Apostle. That involves the Apostolic Succession. If Matthias is an Apostle then the Apostolic Succession ends with him for if an Apostle, Matthias succeeded another Apostle, Judas, then what Apostle succeeded Peter? No Apostle did. Good bye Catholicism! Apostolic Succession works only if Mattias is only a bishop and takes over what the KJV as well as the Douay Rhiems bible calls the bishopric of Judas. The Greek word used there is episkope. It is the same word used in 1Ti 3:1 where Paul writes:

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”

There the term, "the office of a bishop’ is the Greek word episkope. Mattias took the office of bishop that was vacated by Judas.

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.

Maybe they only show him with the eleven Apostles because scripture says he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. But scripture does not say he was one of the twelve.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
"I submit as evidence Peter’s remark in Acts 1:17 [as quoted above] that Judas did not have a complete ministry as did the Apostles. I also submit Peter statement in Acts 1:20 to tell us what part or the ministry Judas had when he says:

" 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take." [Acts 1:20 DR and KJV]

Other translations like the RSV have “…let another take his office” The word here that is translated as ‘bishopric’ or ‘office’ is the Greek word episcope and it is the word from which we derive our word ‘bishop’ as well as episcopal, So Matthias takes over Judas’ office of bishop. The Greek word for Apostle, apostolos is not used anywhere. Matthias replaced Judas as a bishop because Judas, like the other Apostles, was a bishop and only a bishop. As Judas’ replacement Matthias can not become what Judas was not and Judas was not 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.

HERETICAL??? You throw the word out like it is water. WHO are you to call anyone heretical? I thought that was reserved for higher authority or are you presupposing you are that higher authority???

 

[Patrick_Joshua]

I think we got to calm this debate down!

Although “inkaneer” has a good argument, it is wise to except that the church’ teaching since she is alot wiser and she is guided by the Holy Spirit for the last 2000 years.

Although my person opinion is more in agreement with the church.

Peter proposed to the assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate.

This ended up to be St.Matthias, who was chosen by the Apostles to FILL the place of Judas, one of the original twelve.

St.Matthias was chosen by Jesus, just through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If St.Matthias was just a “bishop” they was no need to choose one to fill the place of Judas.

 

[guanophore]

You better consult scripture before you post.  Scripture does not say "he was enrolled with the twelve."  It says in Acts 1:26:

“And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:26]

You are right, of course. Since Matthias was the 12th, he was enrolled with 11 others.

And let's be clear here.  .  1.  He must be called by Christ and 2. he must have been sent by Christ.  Judas was called by Christ but was never sent since he died before the sending of the Apostles in Mt 28:19-20.

It is interesting that you personal criteria differ from what the scriptures provide. It is also intersting that the Scriptures show Judas to be one of the 12, and yet you do not accept this.

Matthias was never called by Christ nor sent by Christ. He only replaced Judas. Therefore he cannot be something that Judas never was. Paul, on the other hand was called by Christ and sent by Christ. Paul is the twelth Apostle.

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, of course. You have chosen one that is not Catholic.

Yes, a share.

When the Apostles spoke of having a share in the ministry, they are speaking of the ministry of Christ, in which they were permitted to share through His divine grace. We become partakers through Him. It does not mean that the “share” is deficient or partial. Each person has the share that is appropriate for what he is called…

There is another problem with Matthias being an Apostle. That involves the Apostolic Succession. If Matthias is an Apostle then the Apostolic Succession ends with him for if an Apostle, Matthias succeeded another Apostle, Judas, then what Apostle succeeded Peter? No Apostle did. Good bye Catholicism!

Your premise is false, and therefore, the conclusion also. However, you have proved my point that it is essential for anti-Catholics to deny the meaning of this passage of scripture to support separation from the succession and to invalidate the authority of the CC.

Apostolic Succession works only if Mattias is only a bishop and takes over what the KJV as well as the Douay Rhiems bible calls the bishopric of Judas. The Greek word used there is episkope. It is the same word used in 1Ti 3:1 where Paul writes:

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”

There the term, "the office of a bishop’ is the Greek word episkope. Mattias took the office of bishop that was vacated by Judas.

Indeed, the Apostles filled the office of the bishopric. And those they ordained, the Bishops, also filled that office.

Maybe they only show him with the eleven Apostles because scripture says he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. But scripture does not say he was one of the twelve.

When you read it, apparently you do not understand it this way. HOwever, the Church understood him to be and Apostle, and that is why he is historically and liturgically presented that way.

 

[guanophore]

"I submit as evidence Peter’s remark in Acts 1:17 [as quoted above] that Judas did not have a complete ministry as did the Apostles.

Yes, you certainly have. It is a testimony to your lack of Catholicity.

Other translations like the RSV have "...let another take his office" The word here that is translated as 'bishopric' or 'office' is the Greek word episcope and it is the word from which we derive our word 'bishop' as well as episcopal, So Matthias takes over Judas' office of bishop. The Greek word for Apostle, apostolos is not used anywhere. Matthias replaced Judas as a bishop because Judas, like the other Apostles, was a bishop and only a bishop. As Judas' replacement Matthias can not become what Judas was not and Judas was not an Apostle.

I understand your reasoning, though it is inconsistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

HERETICAL??? You throw the word out like it is water.

Indeed I do not!

WHO are you to call anyone heretical? I thought that was reserved for higher authority or are you presupposing you are that higher authority???

I did not call anyone heretical. I called the belief heretical. The position you have espoused is heretical. It is quite clear that you don’t believe it is.

 

[Vince1022]

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

I did see that post, and responded to it. You are welcome to interpret Scripture that way, but you didn’t show that the Church agrees with your interpretation, i.e. that Matthias (not to mention Judas) was not an Apostle. It seems logical to interpret Acts 1:26 to mean that Matthias was an Apostle, though I see how you could interpret that differently.

Again, given that the Catholic Church liturgically celebrates the feast of St. Matthias, Apostle, I really don’t see why it’s such a problem for you to understand that the Church recognizes that Matthias was an Apostle. It’s not just a feast of “St Matthias”, it’s the feast of St. Matthias as an Apostle. Right?

 

[Vince1022]

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?

No, Scripture is not enough for Catholics. Essential, but not enough. God has given us so much more. Catholics are not “sola scriptura”

 

[diggerdomer]

You better consult scripture before you post. Scripture does not say “he was enrolled with the twelve.” It says in Acts 1:26:

“And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:26]

So you’re suggesting that Scripture saying “he was enrolled with the eleven apostles” means he was something other than an apostle? Really? Does that make sense?

And let’s be clear here. We are talking of the Twelve Apostles. Jesus sent out seventy disciples which the Eastern churches call the “minor apostles”. Obviously anyone who is sent meets the criteria of being an apostle for that is what the term means. However, we are talking about Jesus’ twelve Apostles and to be included in this group one must meet two criteria. 1. He must be called by Christ and 2. he must have been sent by Christ. Judas was called by Christ but was never sent since he died before the sending of the Apostles in Mt 28:19-20. Matthias was never called by Christ nor sent by Christ. He only replaced Judas. Therefore he cannot be something that Judas never was. Paul, on the other hand was called by Christ and sent by Christ. Paul is the twelth Apostle.

Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach Paul was the “twelfth Apostle”. Actually, I don’t know of any Christians who count him as such. Seems a rather novel interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Where do you get this idea from? I’d appreciate any references.

Yes, a share. like the protestants have a share in the deposit of truth. But neither the protestants nor Judas had the fullness that the Catholic Church and the Apostles did.

So…you’re saying Judas was not an Apostle? Is that backed up by Scripture?

There is another problem with Matthias being an Apostle. That involves the Apostolic Succession. If Matthias is an Apostle then the Apostolic Succession ends with him for if an Apostle, Matthias succeeded another Apostle, Judas, then what Apostle succeeded Peter? No Apostle did. Good bye Catholicism!

You seem to seriously misunderstand apostolic succession as the Catholic Church understands and teaches it. Bishops succeeded the Apostles. Bishops succeeded Peter et. al. Matthias did not succeed Judas, he replaced him. Paul (and Barnabas etc.) were named “Apostles” not because they succeeded anyone, but because that was the office/ministry they were recognized to have, as called by Christ, by the early Church.

Maybe they only show him with the eleven Apostles because scripture says he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. But scripture does not say he was one of the twelve.

Sure it does. See Acts 1:26

 

[Patrick_Joshua]

Lets make it clear for our brother.

(Acts 1:26) " They then drew lots for them and as the lot fell to Matthias, he was*** listed as one of the twelve apostles***"

 

[inkaneer]

I think we got to calm this debate down!

Although “inkaneer” has a good argument, it is wise to except that the church’ teaching since she is alot wiser and she is guided by the Holy Spirit for the last 2000 years.

Although my person opinion is more in agreement with the church.

Peter proposed to the assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate.

This ended up to be St.Matthias, who was chosen by the Apostles to FILL the place of Judas, one of the original twelve.

The church has not made any definitive statement requiring any Catholic to believe that Matthias was an Apostle. In fact I don’t know if the matter has ever come up since I can find nothing on point of it.

St.Matthias was chosen by Jesus, just through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is not what scripture says at all. Scripture says the Apostles prayed to the Holy Spirit then they draw lots. You added Jesus to it.

If St.Matthias was just a “bishop” they was no need to choose one to fill the place of Judas.

Unless, of course, the purpose was to establish Apostolic Succession in the Written Tradition. The only way that could be done is if a bishop was ordained to succeed another bishop because if an Apostle succeeded an Apostle then the whole idea of Apostolioc succession as it is known in the Catholic Church is pure fiction. And why do you all ignore what Peter says in Acts chapter one. He says, quoting the OT, “Let another take his office”. The word translated as office is the Greek word episkope which is the very same word Paul uses in 1Ti 3:1 where Paul writes:

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop [episkope], he desireth a good work.”

Nowhere does scripture say Matthias was an Apostle. Acts 1:26 only says that after he was ordained to the episcopcy he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. Of course he was numbered with them because he, like them, was a bishop. But scripture does not call him an Apostle. It is obvious that before he was elected there were eleven Apostles and after he was elected there were still eleven Apostles. Peter only speaks of filling Judas’ office of bishop not adding to the Apostles. The twelfth Apostle was added by Jesus in the person of Paul of Tarsus.

Now if anyone wants to still claim Matthias was an Apostle then let them explain who the 24 elders in Revelation 4:4 are as the church has traditionally said these were the 12 OT patriarchs and the 12 Apostles. Matthias and Paul added to the eleven Apostles makes thirteen Apostles, at least according to the math I learned long ago from Sister Joan Marie. Maybe one of you can explain it.

 

[clmowry]

Actually, no where does scripture call Matthias a Bishop.

Scripture does say however say “he was added to the 11 Apostles.”

Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.-NIV

Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. - NAB

And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. – NASB

And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. – KJV

And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. – ASV

Why use:

apostolwn
apostolOn
G652
n_ Gen Pl m
commissioners
apostles

If you meant:

episkophs
episkopEs
G1984
n_ Gen Sg f
ON-NOTing
Supervision

Here’s the Pope counting Matthias among the 12.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19890125en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19921216en.html

This would have probably been a good time for the Pope to correct the “error” this Parish made in naming their Church.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_14031999_en.html

And the USCCB seems to have gotten it “wrong” on the Liturgical Calendar as well.
usccb.org/nab/051410.shtml

Chuck

Nowhere does scripture say Matthias was an Apostle. Acts 1:26 only says that after he was ordained to the episcopcy he was numbered with the eleven Apostles. Of course he was numbered with them because he, like them, was a bishop. But scripture does not call him an Apostle. It is obvious that before he was elected there were eleven Apostles and after he was elected there were still eleven Apostles. Peter only speaks of filling Judas’ office of bishop not adding to the Apostles.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
You better consult scripture before you post. Scripture does not say “he was enrolled with the twelve.” It says in Acts 1:26:

“And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” [Acts 1:26]

So you’re suggesting that Scripture saying “he was enrolled with the eleven apostles” means he was something other than an apostle? Really? Does that make sense?

Sure does. The Apostles were bishops. Peter prpoposed that one take the office that Judas vacated. The word that scripture uses for “office” is the Greek word *episkope *which is the same word that is translated as *office of bishop *in Paul’s epistle to Timothy. There is no way to deny that Matthias was ordained a bishop and as such He would be. like the eleven Apostles, a bishop. That is how he could be numbered with the eleven Apostles but there would still be only eleven Apostles not twelve…

Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach Paul was the “twelfth Apostle”. Actually, I don’t know of any Christians who count him as such. Seems a rather novel interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Where do you get this idea from? I’d appreciate any references.

Really? Are speaking of the same Paul aka Saul of Tarsus whom the Church calls the “Apostle to the Gentiles”? I believe we are. I can give you references. How about scripture? Is that good enough? Here you go, Ro 1:1; Ro 11:13; 1Co 1:1; 1Co 15:9; 2Co 1:1; Ga 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:11 and Tit 1:1. Now you show me where scripture calls Matthias an Apostle.

So…you’re saying Judas was not an Apostle? Is that backed up by Scripture?

Let’s be specific here. We are speaking of the Twelve Apostles who were called by Christ and sent by Christ. The eastern churches refer to the 70 disciples sent out by Jesus as the minor apostles and I am aware that in Matthew’s gospel Judas is referred to as an Apostle [Mt 10:3]. Even Paul refers to Christ as an apostle [Heb 3:1]. But we are discussing the Twelve Apostles. The ones who, along with the twelve OT patriarchs, are referred to in Revelation 4:4 as the 24 elders. Now the last time I checked, the church still taught there were twelve Apostles.

You seem to seriously misunderstand apostolic succession as the Catholic Church understands and teaches it. Bishops succeeded the Apostles. Bishops succeeded Peter et. al. Matthias did not succeed Judas, he replaced him. Paul (and Barnabas etc.) were named “Apostles” not because they succeeded anyone, but because that was the office/ministry they were recognized to have, as called by Christ, by the early Church."

OKAY, let’s see here, Judas dies and vacates his office. Matthias replaces Judas but does not succeed Judas . OKAY, I got it. Peter dies and vacates his office. Linus replaces Peter but does not succeed Peter. OOPS!!! There goes Apostolic Succession. We now have Apostolic Replacement.

No, you got it wrong. The Apostles were bishops. Bishops succeeded the bishops who were Apostles. But because these bishops were not called by Christ nor sent by Christ they were just bishops. The eleven were called by Christ and sent by him. Judas was called by Christ but was never sent . Matthias was never called nor sent. Paul was called and sent by Christ as scripture attests:

"13 But Anani’as answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name.” 15 But the Lord said to him, **“Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;” ** [Acts 9:13-15]

 

[inkaneer]

Sure it does. I will ask, however, that you please read my other posts as I am getting a bit tired of repeating myself. But here goes. Peter says in Acts 1:20"

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ [Acts 1:20]

Look up the word 'office" there and you will find it is the Greek word episkope this is the same word that Paul uses in 1Ti 3:1 where he says:

“The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.” [1Ti 3:1]

There the word episkope is translated as office of bishop.

 

[Vince1022]

The church has not made any definitive statement requiring any Catholic to believe that Matthias was an Apostle. In fact I don’t know if the matter has ever come up since I can find nothing on point of it.

See the Church’s liturgical calendar. The Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias, Apostle. Look at your Ordo or liturgical calendar for May 14, 2010.

Popes in their general audiences or homilies often refer to this Apostle, too, see for example what Benedict XVI had to say:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060510_en.html
and
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061018_en.html

or Pope John Paul II: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19890125en.html

 

[diggerdomer]

Sure does. The Apostles were bishops. Peter prpoposed that one take the office that Judas vacated. The word that scripture uses for “office” is the Greek word *episkope *which is the same word that is translated as *office of bishop *in Paul’s epistle to Timothy.

Are you saying Acts 1:26 (or around there) used the Greek word “episkope” to describe Matthias’ role?

There is no way to deny that Matthias was ordained a bishop

Sure there is. Where does the New Testament say he was ordained a bishop?

Now you show me where scripture calls Matthias an Apostle.

Acts 1:26

OKAY, let’s see here, Judas dies and vacates his office. Matthias replaces Judas but does not succeed Judas . OKAY, I got it. Peter dies and vacates his office. Linus replaces Peter but does not succeed Peter. OOPS!!! There goes Apostolic Succession. We now have Apostolic Replacement.

You seem to misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches about Apostolic Succession. Bishops succeeded the Apostles.

The Apostles were bishops.

Based on the New Testament? No. Based on what then?

Matthias was never called nor sent.

That’s your opinion. Which seems to diverge from what the Church teaches, that Matthias was an Apostle.

 

[inkaneer]

Are you saying Acts 1:26 (or around there) used the Greek word “episkope” to describe Matthias’ role?

Sure there is. Where does the New Testament say he was ordained a bishop?

Acts 1:26

You seem to misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches about Apostolic Succession. Bishops succeeded the Apostles.

Based on the New Testament? No. Based on what then?

That’s your opinion. Which seems to diverge from what the Church teaches, that Matthias was an Apostle.

I answered all of this already [sometimes more than once]. Please see my prior posts. Thanks!

 

[diggerdomer]

I answered all of this already [sometimes more than once]. Please see my prior posts. Thanks!

Oh…I see. Ok, no more dialogue. Oh well.

But I don’t think you’ve ever addressed why the Church liturgically celebrates St. Matthias as an Apostle in any of your previous posts. How do you explain or get around that?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
I answered all of this already [sometimes more than once]. Please see my prior posts. Thanks!

Oh…I see. Ok, no more dialogue. Oh well.

I am willing to dialogue but why should I have to repeat prior posts. If you want to dialogue then shouldn’t you follow the dialogue from the beginning?

But I don’t think you’ve ever addressed why the Church liturgically celebrates St. Matthias as an Apostle in any of your previous posts. How do you explain or get around that?

I don’t because I don’t know why the church does that. Nor do I know why the church says there are twelve Apostles but apparently counts fourteen of them. Nor do I know why the church says the 24 elders in Revelation 4:4 are the 12 OT patriarchs and the 12 Apostles if there are 14 Apostles. I don’t know the answer to any of this. The only thing I know is eliminating Judas as an Apostle because he was never sent and eliminating Matthias because he replaced Judas [who was not an Apostle] nor was he called or sent by Jesus and inserting Paul who was called and sent by Jesus and who Scripture, on several occasions calls an Apostle fits with the teaching of the Church that there were twelve Apostles and fits in Rev 4:4 with the 24 elders. I also know that Matthias replacing Judas in his office, episkope, of bishop supports Apostolic Succession where bishops were ordained to succeed the original bishops but having one Apostle succeed another Apostle kills it outright as the question then becomes which Apostle succeeded Peter? Of course the church claims that no Apostle succeeded Peter.

And read Acts1:26 correctly. Before Matthias was elected there were eleven Apostles. After Matthias was elected there were still eleven Apostles even with Mattias “numbered” with them. Why was he "numbered with them? Why doesn’t scripture just say he was made an Apostle? I say he was numbered with them because he, like them, was a bishop and a leader in the church but unlike them was not an Apostle.

Think of it this way, when Congress votes on an issue usually they vote along party lines. But sometimes a few Democrats will vote with the Republicans. That does not make them Republicans even though their votes are numbered with the Rebublicans.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I disagree. Matthias was not an apostle. He was a bishop. Paul was the twelfth apostle. To be an Apostle one must have been chosen by Christ and be sent. That is what the word apostle means, one who is sent. Matthias replaced Judas who was selected by Christ but Judas was never sent. The “sending” of the Apostles was done by Jesus just before His Ascension [See Mt 28:20] But Judas committed suicide before that and thus was never sent. Paul was selected by Christ and sent to the Gentiles. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle but scripture only says of Matthias that he was “numbered with the Apostles.” That is not the same as calling Matthias an Apostle.

If you’re numbered among those guilty of robbing a bank, you are a bank robber.