First Pope

[Randy_Carson]

Regardless of how people interpret Acts 1:28, Matthias was not an Apostle. The Church has never issued any formal infallible decree on his Apostleship and I will remind you that the Church, beginning in the 16th century, also marked July 25 as the feast day of St, Christopher but then removed St. Christopher from the Roman martyrology because there was no factual historical basis for him, only legends and myths. So having a feast day is no guarantee . If the church could be wrong on St. Christopher and remove his feast day then so too it could be wrong on Matthias. Again, remember there is no infallible teaching on his Apostleship.

But there is a big reason for Matthias to not be an Apostle. His ordination, as reported in scripture, established the Apostolic Succession of bishops in the Written Tradition. That is that bishops succeeded the Apostles. That would not be the case if he were an Apostle because then an Apostle would be succeeded by another Apostle and then Apostolic Succession died out 1900 years ago for we have had no Apostles for 1900 years. Plus there is the problem with the 24 elders in the Book of Revelation which are believed to be the twelve OT patriarchs and the twelve NT Apostles. If Matthias is an Apostle then there should be 25 elders not 24 and therefore scripture contains error.

This is incorrect. Matthias was an apostle (and not a bishop) because he, like the other apostles, had seen the Lord.

The Bishops who came later were not considered apostles precisely because they had not travelled with Jesus and the other Apostles during His earthly ministry.

The Bishops succeeded the Apostles, but they were not apostles themselves.

Additionally, the Bible speaks of MORE than 12 Apostles, so even if you count Paul, Matthias could still be an apostle since there was no fixed limit to the number of Apostles…until the last of those who had seen the Lord had died.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Huh?

Matthias filled Judas’ “bishopric” as the scriptures declare in Acts 1. Peter specifically quoted the Psalm which states, “let another take his office”. So, Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas. Since he specifically filled Judas’ office, he became the twelfth apostle.

However, other men were also named apostle after Matthias.

Scripture mentions Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias, Apollos (possibly), Silas and Timothy.

Acts 1:26 – Matthias
26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Note that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Luke to qualify the election of Matthias in any way.

Acts 14:14 – Paul and Barnabas
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd,

Gee, Barnabas gets named first here so there is no doubt that the author is designating him to be an apostle, is there?

Romans 16:7 – Andronicus and Junias
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Andronicus and Junias are outstanding among the apostles. Wow. They must have been something special.

2 Corinthians 11:5-6 – Reference to Apollos who was a gifted speaker
5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.

A clear reference to Apollos (cf. 1 Cor. 1)

1 Thessalonians 1:1 – Silas and Timothy
1Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.

1 Thessalonians 2:6
As apostles of Christ we (Paul, Silas and Timothy) could have been a burden to you, 7but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children.

These two verses suggest that Paul considered Silas and Timothy to be apostles.

There’s no evidence that the number of apostles was limited to twelve during the early period of the NT.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Let’s be really clear: when God the Holy Spirit reveals by the casting of lots that Matthias was His choice to replace Judas, Matthias’ election, calling and commission as Apostle are rock solid.

 

[inkaneer]

This is incorrect. Matthias was an apostle (and not a bishop) because he, like the other apostles, had seen the Lord.

The Bishops who came later were not considered apostles precisely because they had not travelled with Jesus and the other Apostles during His earthly ministry.

Wrong on all accounts. Many people saw the Lord but that is not what makes one an Apostle. To be an Apostle one must fulfill two requirements. They must be 1. called by the Lord and sent by the Lord. Judas was called but never sent by the Lord. Matthias was neither called nor sent by the Lord. Paul was both called and sent by the Lord.

The Bishops succeeded the Apostles, but they were not apostles themselves.

That is not what Peter said in Acts 1. He specifically called for someone to fill the office vacated by Peter. The word used for ‘office’ is the Greek word episkope which the DR Bible translates as bishopric.

Additionally, the Bible speaks of MORE than 12 Apostles, so even if you count Paul, Matthias could still be an apostle since there was no fixed limit to the number of Apostles…until the last of those who had seen the Lord had died.

Oddly enough the scriptures speaks of booth Judas and Matthias the same. In Acts 1:17 Peter speaks of Judas thusly:

“For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.” [Acts 1:17]

While Acts 1:26 says of Matthias:

“And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Note that both of them were numbered with the Apostles but are not called Apostles. But earlier, in Matthew’s gospel [Mt 10:1-4] Judas is called an Apostle. So is there a contradiction? No and here is why. Matthew records that Judas, along with the others, was called by the Lord to the Apostleship [See Mt 10:1]. Judas however never completes his Apostleship because he commits suicide before the Apostles are sent by the Lord and thereby forfeits his Apostleship. That is why Peter says Judas was only “numbered among us” and does not call him an Apostle. Matthias succeeds Judas but he cannot succeed to something that Judas never was. That is why Peter says they have to fill the office [bishopric] vacated by Judas.

 

[inkaneer]

Let’s be really clear: when God the Holy Spirit reveals by the casting of lots that Matthias was His choice to replace Judas, Matthias’ election, calling and commission as Apostle are rock solid.

Seems to me if the Holy Spirit wanted Matthias to be called an Apostle He would have inspired Luke to specifically write that instead of just “he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.” The use of that particular phraseology when it would have been just as easy to say, “he was made the twelfth Apostle” is no accident. The Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of confusion and the use of that seemingly confusing terminology should be a clue that there is something there beneath the surface.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wrong on all accounts. Many people saw the Lord but that is not what makes one an Apostle. To be an Apostle one must fulfill two requirements. They must be 1. called by the Lord and sent by the Lord. Judas was called but never sent by the Lord. Matthias was neither called nor sent by the Lord. Paul was both called and sent by the Lord.

I agree that it’s not simply “seeing the Lord” that made one an Apostle. However, the scriptures are clear that:

Acts 1:20-26
20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'d] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Later, in the account of the Day of Pentecost, we read:

Acts 2:14-15
14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!

Judas was dead; therefore, who are the ELEVEN that stood up with Peter, hmmm?

The Holy Spirit ensured that the lot fell to Matthias, and scripture records that he was numbered with the Apostles and was counted among the Eleven who stood with Peter on the Day of Pentecost.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wrong on all accounts. Many people saw the Lord but that is not what makes one an Apostle. To be an Apostle one must fulfill two requirements. They must be 1. called by the Lord and sent by the Lord. Judas was called but never sent by the Lord. Matthias was neither called nor sent by the Lord. Paul was both called and sent by the Lord.

That is not what Peter said in Acts 1. He specifically called for someone to fill the office vacated by Peter. The word used for ‘office’ is the Greek word episkope which the DR Bible translates as bishopric.

Oddly enough the scriptures speaks of booth Judas and Matthias the same. In Acts 1:17 Peter speaks of Judas thusly:

“For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.” [Acts 1:17]

While Acts 1:26 says of Matthias:

“And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Note that both of them were numbered with the Apostles but are not called Apostles. But earlier, in Matthew’s gospel [Mt 10:1-4] Judas is called an Apostle. So is there a contradiction? No and here is why. Matthew records that Judas, along with the others, was called by the Lord to the Apostleship [See Mt 10:1]. Judas however never completes his Apostleship because he commits suicide before the Apostles are sent by the Lord and thereby forfeits his Apostleship. That is why Peter says Judas was only “numbered among us” and does not call him an Apostle. Matthias succeeds Judas but he cannot succeed to something that Judas never was. That is why Peter says they have to fill the office [bishopric] vacated by Judas.

The Word of God says this:

Matthew 10:2-10
2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,**(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#fen-NIV-23426b”)]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.

The Twelve Apostles were sent out by the Lord…and Judas was among them. :yup:

 

[inkaneer]

Acts 2:14-15
14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning!

Judas was dead; therefore, who are the ELEVEN that stood up with Peter, hmmm?

The Holy Spirit ensured that the lot fell to Matthias, and scripture records that he was numbered with the Apostles and was counted among the Eleven who stood with Peter on the Day of Pentecost.

It would be real nice if scripture would tell us that these eleven with Peter are Apostles. Unfortunately it doesn’t identify them as Apostles. It just tells us there are eleven. Eleven Jews, eleven Galileans, eleven bishops, etc. But alas, here the Holy Spirit had the opportunity to say that all of the eleven were Apostles and either He failed to do so, OR He didn’t fail but chose to not call them all Apostles because not all of them were and the Holy Spirit is, after all, the Spirit of Truth. Seems to me that the Holy Spirit is going to great lengths to not call Matthias and Apostle.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It would be real nice if scripture would tell us that these eleven with Peter are Apostles. Unfortunately it doesn’t identify them as Apostles. It just tells us there are eleven. Eleven Jews, eleven Galileans, eleven bishops, etc. But alas, here the Holy Spirit had the opportunity to say that all of the eleven were Apostles and either He failed to do so, OR He didn’t fail but chose to not call them all Apostles because not all of them were and the Holy Spirit is, after all, the Spirit of Truth. Seems to me that the Holy Spirit is going to great lengths to not call Matthias and Apostle.

Dude-

Luke called the Apostles “the Eleven” in Acts 1, and no one doubts to whom he was referring, do they? In this case, the “Eleven” referred to all of the Apostles who were still alive after Judas’ suicide.

Just a few verses later, Luke refers to “the Eleven” again. In this case, the “Eleven” refers to the Apostles who stood up with Peter.

Do you really need a program to know the players at this point???

Let’s look at scripture in context:

Acts 1:26-2:14
26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. 1When the day of Pentecost came, they (the Eleven plus Matthias) were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tonguesa] as the Spirit enabled them.

5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine.**("http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#fen-NIV-26952b")]" **Peter Addresses the Crowd **

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven (this is the same group referred to as “they” above; in other words, Matthias has become one of Eleven who stood with Peter), raised his voice and addressed the crowd

By the way, scripture frequently refers simply to “the Twelve”, and it is understood that these were the twelve Apostles. So, the “Eleven” in Acts 1 refers to Peter plus 10 more Apostles. The “Eleven” in Acts 2 refers to those Apostles who stood with Peter - the same men with Matthias now added among their number.

Hope this helps.

:tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

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?

No, it really does not.

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.

Unfortunately, this is a common byproduct of Modern American Fundamentalism.

Here is one society that teaches this innovation.

 

[guanophore]

  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.

No, it is really quite a modern heresy, unlike many others that are recycled ancient heresies. It may never have needed clarification because scripture is so clear that Matthias was enrolled with the Apostles.

Catholics are not permitted to pick and choose portions of the Gospel they either like, or don’t like. The faith is One, and is deposited as a whole, and received as a whole.

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.

Jesus is not separated from the HS, INK. The HS does not do something against the will of Jesus. Jesus walked with the Apostles for 40 days, and could have chosen a successor Himself, but chose to leave it to the Church. Basically what you are saying is that God did not answer their prayer.

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.

It is a good thing this is not true!

Nice try, though. Peter outlined the requirements to be one of the 12. Two were put forward that met those requirements, and from those, one was selected and enrolled.

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.”

We understand that Jesus gave the care of the Church into the hands of the Apostles. They were overseers of His flock. After them, there were no more persons who could meet criteria to be an Apostle.

What makes you think that episkope is not part of the Apostleship?

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.

INK, if you wish to reject the Teachings of the Church, that is your perogative. Have you reconsidered your religious affiliation yet? Now might be a good time.

One of the heresies you appear to have embraced is that everything about the faith is explicity mentioned in the Scripture. This is an error that leads to other errors.

If you believe the other 11 were bishops, then why are you concerned that the “office” to which Matthias was elected was episcopal?

  It is obvious that before he was elected there were eleven Apostles and after he was elected there were still eleven Apostles.

This is an example of what happens to people who read the scriptures in separation from the faith that produced them.

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.

No, INK, you have fallen into error. Besides, you said above that all the Apostles were bishops?

You seem so bent on rejecting CAtholicism that you can’t even remain consistent in your own objections!

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.

Jesus was clear that the chairs would go to the 12. There were other Aposltes, but they were not included in this plan. The Church celebrates Matthew as the 12th Apostle who replaced Judas.

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.

Maybe you can just accept that there were many more than 12 aposltes?

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, it is quite clear that you have chosen your own personal interpretation against the Teaching of the Church. This is what defines a person who has rejected the faith. One has to wonder why you would want to call yourself “catholic”, when you clearly are not.

I don’t because I don’t know why the church does that.

Just for the sake of discussion, INK, can you speculate? Can you think of ANY other reason why the Church would celebrate the feast of St. Matthias Apostle BESIDES that the Church believes and teaches that Matthias is one of 12?

Can you offer any explanation why all of the artwork and references from the beginning of the Church count Matthias as one of the 12?

Nor do I know why the church says there are twelve Apostles but apparently counts fourteen of them.

Actually, there were more than 14. The 12 were a special group among 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.

Perhaps this fact will allow you realize that the 12 are a special subset of Apostles for whom Jesus had a special purpose.

I don’t know the answer to any of this.

Clearly not, since you have rejected the Teaching of the Apostles contained in the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith. If you were to accept what the Church teaches, and you would have the answers.

 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

What you are saying is that the fantasies of your own imagination are more important to you than the Teaching of the Church.

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.

INK, I realize now that you are beyond reaching with the facts here, but for the sake of those reading, I will reiterate that there were many more than 12 Apostles.

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?

No, INK, you have been misled.

Of course the church claims that no Apostle succeeded Peter.

By the time Peter was martyrd, there was no one around that could meet the criteria that Peter HImself proclaimed.

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?

That is what the rest of us understand it to mean, INK.

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.

By all means, stick with your opinion, against the deposit of faith. What is served by such behavior?

It seems that you are looking for a reason to invalidate apostolic succession, since you have convinced yourself that it is “null and void” if Matthias replaced Judas as 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.

No, but if they “enroll” with them, they will have changed parties.

 

[guanophore]

Wrong on all accounts.  Many people saw the Lord but that is not what makes one an Apostle.  To be an Apostle one must fulfill two requirements.  They must be  1. called by the Lord and sent by the Lord.  Judas was called but never sent by the Lord.  Matthias was neither called nor sent by the Lord.  Paul was both called and sent by the Lord.

INK, you are really having to do some twisting here to support your position.
Randy is representing (as always) the infallible teaching of the Church. It is this infallible teaching that you are rejecting.

That is not what Peter said in Acts 1. He specifically called for someone to fill the office vacated by Peter. The word used for ‘office’ is the Greek word episkope which the DR Bible translates as bishopric.

Despite your mispeaking yourself, it is true that the Apostles’ held the epikopal duty to the Church. This is what it means to feed and care for the flock.

Oddly enough the scriptures speaks of booth Judas and Matthias the same.  In Acts 1:17 Peter speaks of Judas thusly:

“For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.” [Acts 1:17]

While Acts 1:26 says of Matthias:

“And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Note that both of them were numbered with the Apostles but are not called Apostles.

This is where you are inserting your conclusions into the text. Where the Church, on the contrary, has always called both Judas and Matthew Apostles. Do you have any idea how many times the group of the 12, with Judas included, was referred to as “apostles”. Nowhere does the Scripture say “the eleven apostles and Judas”. This is a modern invention.

But earlier, in Matthew's gospel [Mt 10:1-4] Judas is called an Apostle.  So is there a contradiction?  No and here is why.  Matthew records that Judas, along with the others, was called by the Lord to the Apostleship [See Mt 10:1].  Judas however never completes his Apostleship because he commits suicide before the Apostles are sent by the Lord and thereby forfeits his Apostleship.  That is why Peter says Judas was only "numbered among us" and does not call him an Apostle.  Matthias succeeds Judas but he cannot succeed to something that Judas never was.  That is why Peter says they have to fill the office [bishopric] vacated by Judas.

Ok, INK. You seem to have wrapped up a nice package for yourself. I hope you have accomplished whatever goal you had.

 

[inkaneer]

John writes in Reelation 21:10-14:

10 And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. ***14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. ***

Okay you wise guys figure it out. You got 14 Apostles and 12 foundations each with the name of an Apostle on it.

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, it is quite clear that you have chosen your own personal interpretation against the Teaching of the Church. This is what defines a person who has rejected the faith. One has to wonder why you would want to call yourself “catholic”, when you clearly are not.

Show me where the church teaches infallibly that Matthias was an Apostle. What council said this, What papal encyclical. Show me the dogma.

Just for the sake of discussion, INK, can you speculate? Can you think of ANY other reason why the Church would celebrate the feast of St. Matthias Apostle BESIDES that the Church believes and teaches that Matthias is one of 12?

Maybe it is for the same reason the church would celebrate the feast of St. Christopher and taught that he carried the Christ child across the river. Then the Church dropped him like a hot potato. So you tell me why did the Church teach that?

Can you offer any explanation why all of the artwork and references from the beginning of the Church count Matthias as one of the 12?

The artwork I have seen does not name them and besides, which of these artists really knew what the apostles looked like? And since when is artwork part of the Magisterium or treated on a par with either the Written or the Oral Tradition?

Clearly not, since you have rejected the Teaching of the Apostles contained in the once for all Divine Deposit of Faith. If you were to accept what the Church teaches, and you would have the answers.

Maybe you have the answers? Explain the Trinity for me then. Augustine couldn’t do it. Neither could Thomas Aquinas. But you seem to have all the answers so please enlighten us all with your expanation of the Trinity. Then you can explain why you think artwork is to be taken as part of the Deposit of Faith. I’d like to hear that one.

What you are saying is that the fantasies of your own imagination are more important to you than the Teaching of the Church.

Naw, you are the one saying that and trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of the church. Tell me something. Am I going to hell because I don’t think Judas and Matthias were Apostles?

INK, I realize now that you are beyond reaching with the facts here, but for the sake of those reading, I will reiterate that there were many more than 12 Apostles.

Revelation 21:10-14 says you are wrong. John wrote:

"10 And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11 having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. ***14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. ***

Let’s see here guanophore says, “…there were many more than 12 Apostles” but scripture says there were only twelve. Now who are we to believe???

By the time Peter was martyrd, there was no one around that could meet the criteria that Peter HImself proclaimed.

That is correct so if, as you allege, an Apostle succeeded an Apostle and there is no Apostle to succeed Peter, then Apostolic Succession stops. But if Matthias is ordained a bishop as I maintain, then the episcopal succession from the Apostles is documented in scripture. I hope you can understand that because I really can’t make it any simpler.

It seems that you are looking for a reason to invalidate apostolic succession, since you have convinced yourself that it is “null and void” if Matthias replaced Judas as an Apostle.

Actually you have it reversed. It is you who invalidates Apostolic Succession by insisting that an Apostle follow another Apostle.

 

[inkaneer]

Dude-
…
Hope this helps.

Sorry, Calling me a DUDE does not help and I answered this before. This is poor exegesis on your part. You are inserting the word ‘Apostle’ into the scriptures where it does not exist.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, Calling me a DUDE does not help and I answered this before. This is poor exegesis on your part. You are inserting the word ‘Apostle’ into the scriptures where it does not exist.

Not much of a response to the scriptures presented. Who were the eleven who stood up with Peter? You have no answer for this.

But okay, you assert that Matthias was not an Apostle. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Best of luck making your case.

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t because I don’t know why the church does that.

Ok, fair enough. You don’t know why the Church does that and so…you reject it? Or you accept it? I mean, in the end, if you don’t know…whom do you trust?

And by the way, plenty of comments on this thread have given you evidence for why the Church does that.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

You seem to misunderstand how the Church understands the use of “Apostle” referring to the New Testament and the 1st century Church.

On one hand, yes of course Jesus called 12 Apostles (including Judas). This is symbolically important. At the same time, the New Testament (and so, all Christians) recognize that the term “Apostle” was not limited to only those 12 by first century Christians (as attested in the New Testament).

So yes there are 12 Apostles, and yes there are additional Apostles beyond the 12.

This is completely coherent with Christian tradition.

 

[kepha1]

What makes the original 12 Apostles (or 11) different from their immediate successors? It’s not a matter of authority but of personal perogatives. They were abundantly infused with grace, and they had no territorial limits, as we read in the Acts and the Epistles. Each had personal infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

In order for inkeeper to support his contention that the apostles of Acts and Epistles were somehow lesser than the original 12 (or 11), he would have to acknowledge the personal perogatives of the 12 (or 11).

OR

Reduce the ROLE of succeeding Apostles to suit an opinion. Inkeeper may agree with me that the original 12 (or 11) were grace filled, but may disagree of a sort of universal jurisdiction and most likely would not agree that any human can be infallible. (He who hears you (Apostles) hears Me.)

The unoriginal A(a)postles of Acts and the Epistles were “the man of God” that Paul mentions in 2 Tim 3. The ROLE of an ordained A(a)postle is to teach the Gospel that had been handed down to him. Nowhere in the Bible is this role given to individual believers. You had to be :

1. ordained
2. called by God.

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

There is the relationship: the Scriptures are a tool for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” but who is to use this tool for these purposes? That is, who has the authority to teach, reproof, correct, and train others in righteousness? The “man of God” has this authority. Nowhere in the Bible is this role given to individual believers.

When St. Paul imposed his hands on St. Timothy, he passed on a legitimate apostolic authority, “entrusted” the “truth” to him, and imparted the gift of “the Holy Spirit” for the safekeeping and preservation of the Gospel. (2 Tim. 1:6, 14)

Only a superior can do this, and not an inferior, since an inferior cannot pass on what he does not already possess.

newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/authority.html