First Pope

[inkaneer]

Let’s review:

1. 
   *]I have acknowledged that there are 12 stones and 12 names of Apostles mentioned in Rev 21:14.
   *]I have no problem with the idea that the original twelve apostles get this honor and distinction in the heavenly Jerusalem.
   *]I have no problem with the idea that other men (also known as apostles) will not have foundation stones with their names on them in heaven.

1. 
   When you say, “I have no problem with the idea that the original twelve apostles get this honor and distinction in the heavenly Jerusalem.” Do really mean that? Think about it. If Judas was one of the original Apostles. His name will be there but Paul 's name will not? Do you think that the Church would agree with that?
   

   *]You have failed to explain adequately why scripture refers to both Barnabas and Paul as “Apostles” in the same verse."

   Sure I did. I said they were sent but not by Jesus Christ. It was the church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that sent them on that journey but of the two only Paul was called by Jesus Christ. And that is what we are speaking of the **Twelve Apostles **of Jesus Christ.
   

   *]You have failed to explain adequately who the eleven were that stood up with Peter on the day of Pentecost.

   Scripture just calls them the eleven. It does not say eleven what. I am satisfied with that and don’t try to add anything to it as you do. Acts 2:4 simply says:
   
   "But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.” [Acts 2:4 RSV]
   
   the word ‘Apostle’ is nowhere to be found in that verse. In fact if you you look at the scripture in toto it goes a long way to NOT call Mattias an Apostle. It certainly had plenty of opportunity to do so. But to add the word ‘Apostles’ to the scripture in Acts 2:4 as you want to do is a perversion of the Holy Scriptures.
   

   *]You have failed to explain adequately why the six (possibly seven) other men are referred to as Apostles in scripture are somehow only “missionaries”. (The NT was written in Greek, not Latin, btw.)

   They were not called nor sent by Jesus Christ therefore their names are not in consideration to be the Twelve Apostles. That is what the church teaches, that there were only Tewlve Apostles. I call them missionaries to avoid confusing them with the Twelve Apostles as you do.
   

   The bottom line is this: You have a pet theory about Paul and Matthias, but your theory fails to address other possible scenarios. There could have been more than twelve apostles, but only twelve receive the honor of having a foundation stone with their names on them. A careful reading of scriptures proves this to be the case, in fact.

   Let’s see here. The Church teaches there were Twelve Apostles. Scripture says there were Twelve Apostles. I say there were Twelve Apostles. So far my ‘pet theory’ is in lock step with the Church and Scripture. Now eleven of these Twelve Apostles are not in dispute by anyone. But Judas is, as well as his replacement, Matthias. So follow the reasoning here. IF Judas is not an Apostle then Mattias is not one either because as Judas’ successor he cannot succeed to something Judas never was. **IF **Judas was an Apostle then Mattias is also an Apostle and that makes thirteen Apostles which is one more than what the church teaches there is. Then there is Paul who is called [Acts 9:15] and sent [1Co 1:17 ] by Jesus and who scripture calls an Apostle, no fewer than 13 times [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]. **IF **Judas is not an APostle then Paul is the Twelfth Apostle. IF Judas is and Apostle then so is Matthias and then Paul is the fourteenth Apostle. Under the weight of the scriptural evidence the case is made that Paul, not Judas or Matthias, is the Twelfth Apostle For he was called and sent by Christ. And that is something neither Judas nor Matthias were [Judas was called but never sent].
   

   My theory, on the other hand, explains ALL of the verses of scripture without being forced into explaining away those verses which do not fit.

   Hardly, You haven’t explained why Scripture specifically calls Paul an Apostle thirteen times even stating no less than eight times that Paul is “an Apostle of Jesus Christ” [See 1Co 1:17; 2Co 1:1; Ga 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:1 and Tit 1:1] But never connects the name Matthias with the word Apostle.
   

   You accused me previously of poor exegesis, but in fact, your approach is a classic example of eisegesis.

   I think these posts show that the opposite is true.
   

   You may have the last word. :tiphat:

   Okay, last word is you are wrong.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From “Apostles”, The New Catholics Encyclopedia
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apostles

“The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles written by the Apostles exhibit them in the constant exercise of this office. Everywhere the Apostle governs the disciples, preaches the doctrine of Jesus as an authentic witness, and administers the sacred rites. In order to fill such an office, it seems necessary to have been instructed by Jesus, to have seen the risen Lord. And these are, clearly, the conditions required by the Apostles in the candidate for the place of Judas Iscariot. “Of the men, therefore, who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of His Resurrection” (Acts, i, 21, 22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian source, like many other details given in the earlier chapters of Acts, is ancient and cannot be set aside. It is further strengthened by an objection made to St. Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the Apostolate, he was obliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had seen the Lord (I Cor., ix, 1). 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.”

This article also relegates Barnabas to a secondary position (which Inkaneer will be happy about), but clearly supports the traditional view that Matthias replaced Judas as one of “the Twelve” as shown in the highlighted portion above.

Peter, acting as the infallible head of the Catholic Church, identified the need to fill the office vacated by Judas, and, led by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles elected Matthias to join their number. Notice, by the way, the two conditions that are required: 1) having been instructed by the Lord, and 2) having seen the risen Lord. Although Judas was “sent” by Jesus in Matthew 10, there is no mention in the article about being “sent” as a pre-requisite for the office of Apostle.

Matthias was one of two men proposed who met these requirements, and he was chosen by the action of the Holy Spirit to become one of the Twelve after Judas abdicated his office and committed suicide.

Thus, when we see the twelve foundation stones in heaven, it will not be the name of Judas on the twelfth stone (as Inkaneer mistakenly interpreted from my previous post) it will be that of the twelfth apostle, Matthias.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For the benefit of those following this thread, I also offer the following:

Acts 6:1-4
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”

My friends, who are “the Twelve” referred to here if not the twelve APOSTLES?

Remember, Judas is dead, Matthias has been elected to replace him, and Saul has not even been converted yet. How can there be “twelve” if Saul has not yet met the Lord of the road to Damascus?

Clearly, “the Twelve” mentioned here are the same group that appeared on the day of Pentecost: Peter and “the Eleven” (cf. Acts 2). The “Eleven” included ten Apostles chosen by Jesus as well as Matthias who was added to their number under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1.

And did you know that Paul himself refers to “the Twelve” which means that he could not have been one of that group??? Here’s the passage:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,**(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#fen-NIV-28708b”)] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Paul states that Jesus appeared to “the Twelve”, but Judas was dead…who was the twelfth apostle in the mind of Paul?

Matthias

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[inkaneer]

From “Apostles”, The New Catholics Encyclopedia
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apostles

“The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles written by the Apostles exhibit them in the constant exercise of this office. Everywhere the Apostle governs the disciples, preaches the doctrine of Jesus as an authentic witness, and administers the sacred rites. In order to fill such an office, it seems necessary to have been instructed by Jesus, to have seen the risen Lord. And these are, clearly, the conditions required by the Apostles in the candidate for the place of Judas Iscariot. “Of the men, therefore, who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of His Resurrection” (Acts, i, 21, 22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian source, like many other details given in the earlier chapters of Acts, is ancient and cannot be set aside. It is further strengthened by an objection made to St. Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the Apostolate, he was obliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had seen the Lord (I Cor., ix, 1). 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.”

This article also relegates Barnabas to a secondary position (which Inkaneer will be happy about), but clearly supports the traditional view that Matthias replaced Judas as one of “the Twelve” as shown in the highlighted portion above.

Peter, acting as the infallible head of the Catholic Church, identified the need to fill the office vacated by Judas, and, led by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles elected Matthias to join their number. Notice, by the way, the two conditions that are required: 1) having been instructed by the Lord, and 2) having seen the risen Lord. Although Judas was “sent” by Jesus in Matthew 10, there is no mention in the article about being “sent” as a pre-requisite for the office of Apostle.

Matthias was one of two men proposed who met these requirements, and he was chosen by the action of the Holy Spirit to become one of the Twelve after Judas abdicated his office and committed suicide.

Thus, when we see the twelve foundation stones in heaven, it will not be the name of Judas on the twelfth stone (as Inkaneer mistakenly interpreted from my previous post) it will be that of the twelfth apostle, Matthias.

In your last post you said you would let me have the last word and here you are again. You know you just can’t trust anybody these days; they say one thing and do another and make liars out of themselves in the process. Oh well, must be something involving that new math I keep hearing about where 18 equals 12. As to the Catholic Encyclopedia article, the encyclopedia, to the very best of my knowledge, has never been declared inerrant as scripture has nor has it been incorporated into the Oral Tradition of the Church or Magisterium. The encyclopedia article author acknowledges that he/they have more than twelve Apostles yet are apparently ignorant of the fact that this violates the Scriptures. It also ignores the fact that Scripture does not call Matthias an Apostle as it does Paul,13 times in fact. I say there is a reason why Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes, both of Judas and Matthias that were “numbered” with the Apostles and does not say they were Apostles. I say there is a reason that Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes the Greek word episkope and not apostolos in referring to the office vacated by Judas. Episkope means bishop. Apostolos means apostle. That is why the DR Version translates this word as bishopric. Even using the newer translations that translate *episkope *as ‘office’ does not explain why Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote episkope for ‘office’ in Acts 1 while in Luke 5:27 he uses the word Telonion for ‘office’. Yet in 1Ti 3:1 the word episkope is used and is translated as ‘office of bishop.’ Episkope and apostolos are not interchangeable. In Acts 1 Peter called for someone to fill the office of bishop, episkope, that Judas vacated. He did not call for the replacement of an Apostle, apostolos.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In your last post you said you would let me have the last word and here you are again. You know you just can’t trust anybody these days; they say one thing and do another and make liars out of themselves in the process. Oh well, must be something involving that new math I keep hearing about where 18 equals 12.

Just to clarify…you had the last word in OUR dialogue. I posted additional content for the benefit of those who may be led astray by your error.

However, since you have made a point of mocking me on this, let me state that we all agree that scripture speaks of “the Twelve” referring to 12 apostles. Additionally, we must also agree that Paul both calls himself an apostle and also refers to “the twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15.

I say that Paul (writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) recognized “the Twelve” (which included Matthias) as well as himself as genuine apostles. Therefore, there are AT LEAST 13 (and possibly as many as 19) men referred to as real “apostles” in scripture.

Good luck with that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Two more points for those keeping score at home:

First, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes the following statement:
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Notice that in verse five, Paul records that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to “the twelve” (that is, twelve men whom Paul considered to be apostles) during one of his post-resurrection appearances prior to His Ascension.

Folks, if Jesus did not consider the election of Matthias to be a valid, He could have cleared the matter up right away.

Evidently, Jesus had no problem with the fact that the Holy Spirit had led the Church to choose Matthias as the replacement for Judas.

Second, take a look at the prayer offered by the remaining apostles in the Upper Room at the election of Matthias:

Acts 1:20-26 (RSVCE)
24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship (Gr. apostoles) from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Acts 1:24-26 (Douay-Rheims)
[24] And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, [25] To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles (Gr. apostolon).
Peter and company knew they were electing an Apostle, and they asked the Lord to show them whom He had chosen. The translators of these NT passages list Matthias among the apostles - not the episkope.

I think my work here is done.

 

[adrift]

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.

It depends on what translation you use. The Greek word used is sugkatapsephizo which has the meaning of to assign one a place among, to vote one a place among
Other translate it:
The RSVP

And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

NRSV

And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

NAB

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

Peter Ranks First Among the Apostles

Peter spoke with authority: “During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers” (Acts 1:15). It was not the assembly which designated him. He acted as one possessing authority. At that meeting Peter presented the problem created by Judas’ betrayal and death, which reduced the number of apostles to eleven. In fidelity to Jesus’ will, filled with symbolism about passing from the old to the new Israel (twelve constitutive tribes–twelve apostles), Peter indicated the necessary solution: appoint a replacement who, with the Eleven, would become “a witness to his [Christ’s] resurrection” (cf. Acts 1:21-22). The assembly accepted and implemented this solution, casting lots so that the choice would come from on high. Thus “the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26).

It would be rather a pointless gester to cast lots just to “number” Matthias among the Apostles.

 

[diggerdomer]

Why ask me why the church does something. Here’s an idea. Why not ask the church why they do what they do.

I do ask the Church. When I don’t know, in the end, I stick with the Church and not my personal opinion or understanding. And, by the way, that’s really not an answer to my question. But, so be it.

Why for instance did the church celebrate the feastday of St. Christopher and extoll his merits as the “christ bearer” and then drop him like a hot potato when they discovered St. Christopher existed only in legend and myth. Was the church right in celebrating all those centuries someone who never existed?

Yes, the Church was right for all those centuries and the Church is right now.

I have yet to see someone post where the Church has dogmatically stated Matthias was an Apostle.

What do you mean by “dogmatically”? Why is that so essential? Isn’t the liturgy of the Church sufficient? The Church teaches many things other than “dogmatically.” Are you suggesting that we should pick and choose what Catholic Church teachings to follow, depending on whether they are taught dogmatically (whatever you mean by that)?

I have yet to see some show me where scripture definitely says Matthias was an Apostle.

Scripture nowhere says abortion is wrong. Does that mean that the Church’s clear teaching on abortion as an intrinsic evil is wrong?

Catholics are not “sola Scriptura.”

I have yet to see where anyone can show me why there can be fourteen Apostles when the Church and scripture both say there were only twelve.

You’ve already been shown where Scripture clearly refers to more than the 12 as “apostles.” For example, St. Paul. The Catholic Church nowhere teaches that there were only 12 Apostles, simply that the 12 Apostles are fundamentally important.

Also, I posted a few links from Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II about their comments regarding the feast of St. Matthias, Apostle. Did you read them? Comments?

 

[guanophore]

:dancing:

I think my work here is done.

And great work it is too. :dancing:

It amazes me how anyone can read all these scriptures and come up with such a bastardization, but I realize that "there are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
( 2 Peter 3:16-17)

 

[clmowry]

It amazes me how anyone can read all these scriptures and come up with such a bastardization, but I realize that "there are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
( 2 Peter 3:16-17)

For me I’m not sure if amazed is the right word: Stunned or Shocked maybe.

Verse 1: “The Sky is blue.”

Interpretation: As we can see from this verse the Apostle teaches us and the Holy Spirit confirms that we are saved by Faith Alone.

I think this is calle eisegesis [did I get that right?]

Chuck

 

[inkaneer]

Just to clarify…you had the last word in OUR dialogue. I posted additional content for the benefit of those who may be led astray by your error.

However, since you have made a point of mocking me on this, let me state that we all agree that scripture speaks of “the Twelve” referring to 12 apostles. Additionally, we must also agree that Paul both calls himself an apostle and also refers to “the twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15.

I say that Paul (writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) recognized “the Twelve” (which included Matthias) as well as himself as genuine apostles. Therefore, there are AT LEAST 13 (and possibly as many as 19) men referred to as real “apostles” in scripture.

Good luck with that.

Well I disagree. If you follow Paul’s time line in 1 Corinthians and compare it with other scripture it is obvious that Matthias cannot be included in the Twelve Let me show what I mean but first let’s fix the events of Acts 1 in time. Reading the beginning of Acts 1 it is obvious that Acts 1 occurs after the Ascencion which means it was forty days after the Resurrection. Now to the passage in question is 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 which states as follows:

“3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

This passage, with the exception of verse 8 refers to events that occurred after the Resurrection and before the Ascencion. Here’s why. Verse 5 says the risen Jesus appeared to Peter first then to the twelve. Once again the scripture does not say who this group of twelve is and it is easy for one to add the word Apostles. But that is impossible which I intend to show. Now other scripture does not mention Jesus appearing just to Peter, nor the five hundred. Other scripture also does not record Jesus appearring to James. What other scripture does record is Jesus appearing to the Apostles on the first day of the week. Luke 24 records this as being the same day that 1. the women went to the tomb and the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Now Luke 24:9-10 says the women came back from the tomb and told the eleven. That number would fit the number of Apostles assuming Judas was either already dead or absent because he felt he would be personna non grata. So assuming that the eleven are the eleven Apostles then only eleven Apostles are present in the upper room on that first day. Again Luke writes that the two disciples came back and told the eleven [Luke 24: 33]. Luke then gives a truncated version of the time between that first day and the Ascencion. Now John 20 also gives an account of that day. This is where we learn that Thomas is not with the other Apostles on that first day but he is with them eight days later. So depending on which evangelist you pick Jesus either appearred to all the Apostles the day of the Resurrection or within eight days of the Resurrection. Now if Thomas was not present one that first visitation as John says then Luke’s account of only eleven being there is correct, or is it? Now refer back to Paul’s timeline where in verse seven he says Jesus appearred to all the apostles. According to the gospels of Luke and John that happened within eight days of the Resurrection. But Mathias was not selected until after the Ascencion which was 40 days after the Resurrection. So Matthias could not be one of the twelve that Paul mentions in verse 4 of 1 Cor 15. Who was it then? Was it Judas? Matthew 27 has Judas hanging himself after finding out Jesus was condemned. Actually in his story line Matthew places Judas’ suicide before Jesus was crucified. So Judas cannot be one of the twelve. So who is No. 12? I don’t know because scripture does not tell me and once again I note that Paul only says “the Twelve” and does not say “the Twelve Apostles”. Once again it seems that the Holy Spirit is purposely not identifying this group as Apostles. Now how do we reconcile all of this. Here is my opinion. Paul does not identify these twelve as Apostles. I am willing to agree that eleven of them are indeed Apostles but one is not. That is why Paul does not call them all apostles. But singles out one person and counts that person with those other eleven. I think that one person is Matthias. Luke in his account says there were other people in the room besides the Apostles. John, in his account does not fifferentiate between apostles and others . He just says the people present were disciples. We know from Acts 1 that Mattias was a disciple of Jesus so he could have been there with the Apostles. Now Paul is writing this after the events of Acts 1 where Mattias was selected. So what Paul is doing is acknowledging Matthias’ presence as No 12 in the room when Jesus appeared to the eleven Apostles but he stops short of calling Matthias an Apostle. And mind you that Paul writes this after Matthias’ selection in Acts 1 and he still does not call Matthias and Apostle. Now this is my opinion and I am not dogmatic on it …BUT … I think it ties in what appears to be the contradictory accounts of Paul, Luke and John into a reasonably cohesive and logical explanation. If anyone has another opinion that does the same thing then post it.

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by inkaneer
Why for instance did the church celebrate the feastday of St. Christopher and extoll his merits as the “christ bearer” and then drop him like a hot potato when they discovered St. Christopher existed only in legend and myth. Was the church right in celebrating all those centuries someone who never existed?

I Yes, the Church was right for all those centuries and the Church is right now.

WOW!!! So the church even when admitting St. Christopher never existed was still right in celebrating a feastday in his honor. We celebrated a nonexistant saint and were right to do so. Interesting!

Originally Posted by inkaneer
I have yet to see someone post where the Church has dogmatically stated Matthias was an Apostle.

What do you mean by “dogmatically”? Why is that so essential? Isn’t the liturgy of the Church sufficient? The Church teaches many things other than “dogmatically.” Are you suggesting that we should pick and choose what Catholic Church teachings to follow, depending on whether they are taught dogmatically (whatever you mean by that)?

Simply this, I believe the dogmatic teachings of the church, those that have been formally defined. I do this, not because I have to but because I believe them. I also believe other church teachings that have not been formally defined, again because I believe them. For instance the church teaches and I believe that there were 12 Apostles. If the church taught that Matthias was the twelfth Apostle then is it not reasonable to think that I would find that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? But when I search the catechism I don’t find the name Matthias listed at all, let alone he was an Apostle. In fact what I do find is support for my position. For instance paragraph 938 states:

"938The Bishops, established by the Holy Spirit, succeed the apostles. They are “the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches”

That fits Matthias to a “T” He was a bishop [episkope] established by the Holy Spirit who succeeded the Apostles. Paragraph 1577 also supports my position:

“1577Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” **The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. **The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible."

Notice the embolden portion. The Apostles chose bishops to succeed them. Again Acts 1. We don’t know of anyone who was appointed bishop by Matthias but we do know that Paul apointed at least two, Timothy and Titus. Then there is paragraph 1536. It states:

"1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.’

Notice the word episcopate. That is episkope in Acts 1. There is more but suffice to say my position does not contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the teaching of the Church.

Scripture nowhere says abortion is wrong. Does that mean that the Church’s clear teaching on abortion as an intrinsic evil is wrong?

WOW!!! How about “Thou shall not kill”?

Catholics are not “sola Scriptura.”

No, but we don’t ignore scripture either. In fact we say that there is no contradiction between scripture, the Oral Tradition and the teaching of the church. So the scripture and the Church both say there were Twelve Apostles and I agree. You are the one at odds with the church and scripture claiming there are now 19 Apostles. Formerly you said 18 but you apparently added one between posts.

You’ve already been shown where Scripture clearly refers to more than the 12 as “apostles.” For example, St. Paul. The Catholic Church nowhere teaches that there were only 12 Apostles, simply that the 12 Apostles are fundamentally important.

That is not so. The Catholic Church does teach there were only 12 Apostles. Please read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the paragraphs 1577, 869, 610, 191 and especially paragraph 865 which restates the words of Revelation 21:14:

"865 The Church is ultimately one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in her deepest and ultimate identity, because it is in her that “the Kingdom of heaven,” the “Reign of God,” already exists and will be fulfilled at the end of time. The kingdom has come in the person of Christ and grows mysteriously in the hearts of those incorporated into him, until its full eschatological manifestation. Then all those he has redeemed and made “holy and blameless before him in love,” will be gathered together as the one People of God, the “Bride of the Lamb,” “the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God.” For “the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

 

[adrift]

WOW!!! So the church even when admitting St. Christopher never existed was still right in celebrating a feastday in his honor. We celebrated a nonexistant saint and were right to do so. Interesting!

QUOTE]
Where did you get this false information? The Church removed St. Christopher from the Chruch Calandar which does not equate to saying he didn’t exist. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.
Christopher’s cult was not suppressed but it is confined to local calendars (those for a diocese, country. Others weere suppressed like St. Ursula which demonstrates the opinion of the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I stand corrected.

In post #104, I stated that according to Paul, Jesus appeared to “the Twelve” after his resurrection but before his ascension. In fact, Matthias was elected after the ascension but before the Day of Pentecost.

Nonetheless, Paul is clear that “the Twelve” had seen the Lord prior to His Ascension. From this, we may infer that he had some knowledge that Matthias was with the Eleven when the Lord appeared to them but prior to his election as an Apostle. This is speculative, but it works. In other words, the importance of “the Twelve” Apostles was so significant, that many years after the fact, Paul cannot help referring to the original Eleven plus Matthias as “the Twelve” even though Matthias had not been elected, yet.

However, even if we set that aside, there is still the fact that Paul could refer to himself as an apostle and to a group known as “the twelve”. This suggests that there were more than 12 apostles during apostolic times.

The Church speaks of twelve apostles obviously referring to that subset apostles made up of the eleven Jesus chose plus Matthias.

Finally, much is being made of the distinction between epsikope and apostole. As I stated previously, it appears to me that the Eleven prayed specifically for someone to join them as an apostle - not as a bishop.

Acts 1:20-26 (RSVCE)
24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship (Gr. apostoles) from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Acts 1:24-26 (Douay-Rheims)
[24] And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, [25] To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
[26] And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles (Gr. apostolon).
Peter and company knew they were electing an Apostle, and they asked the Lord to show them whom He had chosen. The translators of these NT passages list Matthias among the apostles - not the episkope.

Matthias was numbered with the Apostles - not with the Bishops (like Titus, Ignatius and Irenaeus, etc.).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is it true that Judas was not really an Apostle? Much has been made of the fact that Judas was never “sent” by Jesus. This ignores the sending of the Twelve in Matthew 10 and relies solely on the fact that Judas was not present at the Great Commission in Matthew 28. However, does this disqualify Judas as being a legitimate Apostle and, by extension, disqualify Matthias who took his place? Consider:

"…the Evangelists insist on the status as an Apostle that Judas held in all regards: he is repeatedly called “one of the twelve” (Mt 26: 14, 47; Mk 14: 10, 20; Jn 6: 71) or “of the number of the twelve” (Lk 22: 3).

"Moreover, on two occasions, Jesus, addressing the Apostles and speaking precisely of Judas, indicates him as “one of you” (Mt 26: 21; Mk 14: 18; Jn 6: 70; 13: 21). And Peter will say of Judas that “he was numbered among us and allotted his share in this ministry” (Acts 1: 17).

“He is therefore a figure belonging to the group of those whom Jesus had chosen as strict companions and collaborators.”

BENEDICT XVI
*GENERAL AUDIENCE *
Saint Peter’s Square
*Wednesday, 18 October 2006 *vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061018_en.html

According to the Holy Father, the Gospel writers considered Judas to be an Apostle. Thus, the office that Matthias filled was that of Apostle and not a Bishop or “Missionary”.

 

[inkaneer]

inkaneer;7210702:

WOW!!!

So the church even when admitting St. Christopher never existed was still right in celebrating a feastday in his honor. We celebrated a nonexistant saint and were right to do so. Interesting!

QUOTE]
Where did you get this false information? The Church removed St. Christopher from the Chruch Calandar which does not equate to saying he didn’t exist. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.
Christopher’s cult was not suppressed but it is confined to local calendars (those for a diocese, country. Others weere suppressed like St. Ursula which demonstrates the opinion of the Church.

I quote from the Catholic website catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36

“Before the formal canonization process began in the fifteenth century, many saints were proclaimed by popular approval. This was a much faster process but unfortunately many of the saints so named were based on legends, pagan mythology, or even other religions – for example, the story of the Buddha traveled west to Europe and he was “converted” into a Catholic saint! In 1969, the Church took a long look at all the saints on its calendar to see if there was historical evidence that that saint existed and lived a life of holiness. In taking that long look, the Church discovered that there was little proof that many “saints”, including some very popular ones, ever lived. Christopher was one of the names that was determined to have a basis mostly in legend. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.”

Saint Buddha? We made Buddha a saint? Christopher was allegedly a martyr from the third century. I say “allegedly a martyr” because this is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about him:

“A martyr, probably of the third century. Although St. Christopher is one of the most popular saints in the East and in the West, almost nothing certain is known about his life or death.”

HUH? If we know nothing about his life or death then why do we say he is a martyr??? I mean to call someone a martyr implies that we know how he died, doesn’t it? The encyclopedia then says in the next paragraph:

“The legend says:…” and it goes on repeating a legend. Nowhere does it offer any historical evidence. In the second to last paragraph in the article it states:

“The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied…” It then tries to show that St. Christopher, who allegedly died in the third century, existed because a sixth century church is dedicated to him and a seventh century monastery is named after him. But these are not empirical evidence that he actually lived. In the The Martyrology
of the Sacred Order of Friars Preachers there is this notation:

"In Lycia, St. Christopher, martyr. In the reign of Decius, he was beaten with iron rods and was preserved by the power of Christ from being burned in raging flames. At last, pierced through with arrow-wounds, he was beheaded, thus completing his martyrdom. A memory."

Notice it says a memory. In other words a legend. This is no empirical evidence that this is historically correct. In addition the preface to this martyrology states the following:

“The most famous of the general martyrologies was the one compiled about the year 475 and which was erroneously attributed to St. Jerome. In the Middle Ages, varying versions of the so-called Hieronyman Martyrology were in circulation, the most popular being the one edited by the monk Usuard (d. c. 875). It was his version the Dominican Order adopted in the thirteenth century and which several centuries later became the official version of the Church.”

So this was comprised originally in 475 AD. and edited 400 years later. So when was Christopher’s name added to the list, in 475 AD or 875 AD or later? I can see why, if added in 875 AD or later, that with no historical evidence it was only a memory or legend. But if added in 475 AD there should be more than just mere legend. Still the information is listed as just a memory.

 

[inkaneer]

Is it true that Judas was not really an Apostle? Much has been made of the fact that Judas was never “sent” by Jesus. This ignores the sending of the Twelve in Matthew 10 and relies solely on the fact that Judas was not present at the Great Commission in Matthew 28. However, does this disqualify Judas as being a legitimate Apostle and, by extension, disqualify Matthias who took his place? Consider:

"…the Evangelists insist on the status as an Apostle that Judas held in all regards: he is repeatedly called “one of the twelve” (Mt 26: 14, 47; Mk 14: 10, 20; Jn 6: 71) or “of the number of the twelve” (Lk 22: 3).

"Moreover, on two occasions, Jesus, addressing the Apostles and speaking precisely of Judas, indicates him as “one of you” (Mt 26: 21; Mk 14: 18; Jn 6: 70; 13: 21). And Peter will say of Judas that “he was numbered among us and allotted his share in this ministry” (Acts 1: 17).

“He is therefore a figure belonging to the group of those whom Jesus had chosen as strict companions and collaborators.”

Judas was indeed called to be an Apostle but he was never officially sent. Yes there is a ‘sending’ in Mt 10 but there is another sending in Luke 10 involving 70 disciples. Yet these are not considered to be Apostles. I already commented on how the Eastern Church refers to these as the ‘minor apostles’ so they are not confused with the Twelve Apostles. Mt 28 is the actual sending of the Apostles into the world. What occurred in Mt 10 was no more than a training mission. Consider this. In Mt 10 Jesus gave the called Apostles very limited power. Verse 1 says:

“1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.”

then verse 5-8 says:

"5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying, give without pay.”

Noticeably absent is the authority to forgive sin. Now compare that to the sending in Mt. 28:

"18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Notice the first sending in Mt 10 was limited both in territory as well as authority. They did not have the authority to forgive sin or to consecrate the bread and wine. However, in Mt 28 they are fully empowered and sent to the whole world.

In addition I want you to notice one more thing that I just realized. Jesus did not give the authority to forgive sin until after his resurrection. Judas, as I pointed out was already dead so how could he receive this authority? Additionally, Judas is not present at the point in the Last Supper when Jesus institutes the Eucharist. If Matthias inherits Judas’ ministry it is a ministry devoid of the authority to forgive sin and to celebrate the Eucharist. Matthias can’t receive that authority from Judas as Judas’ successor. He can only receive that authority from those who possessed that authority. Matthias can only receive that authority from the other Apostles just like all the other bishops that were consecrated by the Apostles. He is just a bishop and not the Twelfth Apostle.

BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Saint Peter’s Square
*Wednesday, 18 October 2006 *vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061018_en.html

According to the Holy Father, the Gospel writers considered Judas to be an Apostle. Thus, the office that Matthias filled was that of Apostle and not a Bishop or “Missionary”.

I hope that you are not offering this as an example of papal infallible teaching as it certainly does not meet the requirements thereof.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I hope that you are not offering this as an example of papal infallible teaching as it certainly does not meet the requirements thereof.

Nope.

Just pointing out that the Holy Father recognizes that Judas was considered to be an Apostle by the Gospel writers; His Holines wrote:

“the Evangelists insist on the status as an Apostle that Judas held in all regards”

 

[adrift]

WOW!!! So the church even when admitting St. Christopher never existed was still right in celebrating a feastday in his honor. We celebrated a nonexistant saint and were right to do so. Interesting!

QUOTE]
Where did you get this false information? The Church removed St. Christopher from the Chruch Calandar which does not equate to saying he didn’t exist. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.
Christopher’s cult was not suppressed but it is confined to local calendars (those for a diocese, country. Others weere suppressed like St. Ursula which demonstrates the opinion of the Church.

This was also from the site you linked.

Some saints were considered so legendary that their cult was completely repressed (including St. Ursula). Christopher’s cult was not suppressed but it is confined to local calendars (those for a diocese, country, or so forth). His name Christopher, means Christ-bearer. He died a martyr during the reign of Decius in the third century.

Please note that your source does not say he did not exist. There is legend and myth about him but that does not mean he did not exist. In fact your source, indicatesthat he did exist but we know little fact about him. Your statement that the Church honors a nonexistant saint is false.

I quote from the Catholic website catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36

“Before the formal canonization process began in the fifteenth century, many saints were proclaimed by popular approval. This was a much faster process but unfortunately many of the saints so named were based on legends, pagan mythology, or even other religions – for example, the story of the Buddha traveled west to Europe and he was “converted” into a Catholic saint! In 1969, the Church took a long look at all the saints on its calendar to see if there was historical evidence that that saint existed and lived a life of holiness. In taking that long look, the Church discovered that there was little proof that many “saints”, including some very popular ones, ever lived. Christopher was one of the names that was determined to have a basis mostly in legend. Therefore Christopher (and others) were dropped from the universal calendar.”.

 

[inkaneer]

This was also from the site you linked.

Please note that your source does not say he did not exist. There is legend and myth about him but that does not mean he did not exist. In fact your source, indicatesthat he did exist but we know little fact about him. Your statement that the Church honors a nonexistant saint is false.

If I were to ask you to list all the historical evidence for Christopher’s existence what would you list? Go ahead, I’ll wait but I’m going tell you right now not to expect me to hold my breath on this one. By the way I am serious on this request. I really do want to see your list. He supposedly lived in the third century. Do any of his contemporaries mention him? Is he noted in any written histories of the time such as along the line of historical accounts written by Josephus or Eusubius. A birth Certificate or Death Certificate would be most helpful but I doubt if any exist. Anyway show me what you got and I want evidence not legend or myth. I want good historical and empirical evidence. Okay?

The fact is that St. Christopher was a legendary figure in Lycia which is in Turkey. The Great Catholic Encyclopedia says he was a martyr but then says that almost nothing is known about his life or his death. So what do they know and how do they know it. Is it historical evidence or is it mere legend and/or myth How do they know he was a martyr. The only evidence for him is listed in the earliest Martyrology some 200 years after he died as “a memory” What the heck is that? I know what it is not. ‘A memory’ is not historical evidence.