First Pope

[guanophore]

 They never find evidence of species that never existed. There is no such thing as negative evidence.  Rather it is the lack of positive evidence that is the proof  that something did not exist.  And until that positive evidence is provided then no one can claim that something existed.

Just show me the empirical evidence that St. Christopher actually existed in reality and I will believe you. Thius far you haven’t done it. Like I saud in my prior post I’m not holding my breath on this one.

While I do agree with you that it is impossible to prove a negative, you are drawing a false conclusion to the contrary.

Lack of evidence does not prove something did not exist.

The paucity of historical evidence of St. Christopher does not mean he never existed.

Of course we can claim that something existed without positive evidence.

We have no historical evidence about the lives of most of the Apostles after Pentecost. This does not mean they did not fulfill their mission, and were not martyrd.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, but the church does not throw its weight behind the sainthood of the " vast majority of humanity' like they did for St. Christopher.

True, but the point is valid. There is a lack of sufficient evidence to “prove” the existence of the vast majority of humanity. This does not prove they never existed.

The lack of historical evidence of many of the saints does not prove they never existed. Nor does it prove we should not emulate their way of life.

   a St. Christopher medal pinned to the overhead  above the rearview mirror depicting St. Christopher carrying the Christ child across a river.  The Church never made the "vast majority of humanity" the patron saint of travelers. Now did they?

No, and they never said ST. Christopher does not exist, but they did say his cult should NOT be suppressed, which means any of the faithful that wish to pray to him as the patron saint of travellers is free to do so.

  Not only do I think that there was "a pious, generous, and holy man who embodied the light of Christ"  I think there were a lot of them.  And not only men but women too!  And the vast majority of them labored in obscurity and we will never know their names nor what they did.

Good. Because we are on the verge of celebrating All Saints Day, at which time we celebrate and honor all such persons who labored in saintly obscurity. I am glad you can agreee that they really exist, even though we have no historical evidence of them.

  But to have a feastday for a mere legend or to call a legend a saint is both hypocriscy and a mockery of all those unknown saints

No, INK, it is not. St. Christopher is honored among the saints of God. We do not have him any longer on the liturgical calendar because the Church wants to offer role models about which we know more.

   Yeah there certainly is a lack of historical evidence but that is no reason to be pronouncing anyone a saint.

I agree. But then, he was not honored as a St. because there was no evidence. He was honored because those who knew him wished to do so.

   At least we have peole who claim to be eye witnesses to UFO's and ET's.

So, if they were all to die, would that mean they never existed? Would it mean what they claimed to have seen never was claimed by anyone to have existed? I hope you can see the problem with your reasoning here.

But not one account of anyone who claimed to have known Christopher or witness anything in his life and that is no reason to make him a saint nor have a feastday in his honor.

I agree. There is no one left alive who can give an eye witness account of my great great grandfather, either, but for almost two centuries the family still got together on his birthday. Now that everyone who knew him, and knew the stories has passed away, does that mean he never existed?

 

[guanophore]

Of course. Exactly my point. So why do you refuse to accept the Catholic Church considering Matthias an Apostle?

Especially given that the Catholic Church accepts and teaches such both through Scripture and Liturgy?

I think that INK has made that clear. His own opinion, and private interpretation of Scripture is more important to him than what the Church believes and teaches.

 

[adrift]

You seem to believe that because you have declared that this thread has been answered you can than change the question of the thread.:nope:
I have started a thread for you.
Is Matthias an Apostle?

I ask everyone to stop indulging in this off topic and go to the link to continue this discussion.

Now back to the topic. The Popes.

 

[adrift]

This is not true. Although history (Against Heresies III.3.3) testifies by Irenaeus

"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.”

We do not have the liturgical details around this passing. we can assume that it occurred according to the model demonstrated in the NT through prayer, choosing, and the laying on of hands We are not told if there was a prophet present that said “set aside my servant Linus”, or there was another method. What is clear is that they passed on their episcopal duties and responsibilities.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That is not so. The Catholic Church does teach there were only 12 Apostles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggerdomer
Of course. Exactly my point. So why do you refuse to accept the Catholic Church considering Matthias an Apostle?

Especially given that the Catholic Church accepts and teaches such both through Scripture and Liturgy?

I think that INK has made that clear. His own opinion, and private interpretation of Scripture is more important to him than what the Church believes and teaches.

I have shown that both I and the Catholic Church as well as scripture are in lockstep agreement that there were 12 Apostles. You, on the other hand, say there were 19 Apostles. Now the Church has to make up its mind here who they want to be the twelfth apostle. They can have Matthias who scripture never ever once directly calls an Apostle or they can have Paul who scripture calls an Apostle over and over and over and over, thirteen times to be exact. But what the Church cannot do is say there are twelve Apostles and then say thirteen men were Apostles. And that does not include Judas

By the way, one more thing about Judas. If in Acts 1:21-22 Peter sets forth the requirements of being an Apostle as one of you stated, then Judas is no Apostle because he fails to meet the requirements. Acts 1:21-23 states:

21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us–one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." [Acts 1:21-22 RSV]

Did Judas witness the Ascencion of Jesus, as Peter says, “was taken up from us”? NO, Judas was dead already. Therefore, if these are the requirements of being an Apostle as you all claim then Judas does not meet the requirements and is therefore no Apostle. Matthias cannot succeed to something that Judas never was so he is not an Apostle either. Either way you cut it Matthias is no Apostle.

 

[kepha1]

Did Judas witness the Ascencion of Jesus, as Peter says, “was taken up from us”? NO, Judas was dead already. Therefore, if these are the requirements of being an Apostle as you all claim then Judas does not meet the requirements and is therefore no Apostle. Matthias cannot succeed to something that Judas never was so he is not an Apostle either. Either way you cut it Matthias is no Apostle.

Matthew 19
27] Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?”
28] Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

If Judas wasn’t an Apostle, and Matthias wasn’t an Apostle, then there are 11 Apostles sitting on 12 thrones.

I think the real issue here is a refusal to believe that Jesus lives in the Church, and the Church has the authority to make more Apostles.

 

[inkaneer]

Matthew 19
27] Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?”
28] Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

If Judas wasn’t an Apostle, and Matthias wasn’t an Apostle, then there are 11 Apostles sitting on 12 thrones.

I think the real issue here is a refusal to believe that Jesus lives in the Church, and the Church has the authority to make more Apostles.

You forgot Paul who Scripture most definitely calls an Apostle no less than thirteen times. Paul is the twelfth Apostle.

 

[inkaneer]

At the request of ADRIFT [See post 142] I will no longer post about Matthias on this thread but will instead post on the thread that ADRIFT created. I encourage all who wish to pursue this discussion to follow his link to the new thread. I will no longer respond to any further posts about Matthias on this thread.

 

[kepha1]

You forgot Paul who Scripture most definitely calls an Apostle no less than thirteen times. Paul is the twelfth Apostle.

Jesus chose Paul to be an Apostle, but Jesus did not ordain him, therefore he cannot be of the original 12. There is not a single verse that says Jesus directly ordained Paul. On the contrary, Paul was instructed to go to Damascus where he met Anani’as. That is the only place in scripture that I am aware of where Paul directly converses with Jesus, and at first, Paul didn’t even know who He was.

Acts 9
17] So Anani’as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

Did Paul begin his ministry when he was blind, or after he received the laying on of hands by a representative of the Church???

Let’s go back in time to *Acts 1. *

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 from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” *
26] And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

It is so obvious. Judas “turned aside” his office, it didn’t disappear. “…and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.” 11+1=12
But you say no, he was not enrolled with the eleven. This is why any meaningful discussion with you is impossible, and people are abandoning the thread.

One more thing. If Paul was the Twelfth Apostle, why does he consult with Peter and James to make sure his gospel is authentic?

In the Galatians account, he says that “immediately” after his conversion he did not confer with others but went “into Arabia” and then to Damascus for three years, after which he then went to confer with St. Peter for two weeks, during which time he also saw St. James. These two accounts are not contradictory but, as with similar examples in the Gospels, they are presenting a different set of details surrounding the same event.

Prior to the time that he went to see Peter (Gal. 1), Paul’s conversion to Christ would not have been widely known, or even known at all, among the vast majority of Christians in the region. His efforts to evangelize the Jews and his claim of being an Apostle, which he mentions in Acts, would almost certainly not have been formally recognized by the Church prior to his meeting with Peter, mentioned in Galatians 1:18.

No doubt, as word of his preaching began to spread among Christians far and wide, it seems quite likely that the news was met with suspicion and skepticism at best and disbelief at worst. For he was known as a Christian-killer, a persecutor, and an implacable foe of Jesus Christ and His gospel (cf. Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, 9:1-2). It was only after he had his two-week meeting with St. Peter, and during that time, with St. James as well, that his formal ministry, recognized by the Apostles and the Church at large, really commenced.

---

This in no way diminishes Paul’s role as an Apostle, but I have given you solid scriptural proof of the Church’s authority to ordain Apostles, including Paul. But to claim he was the Twelfth Apostle and Matthias wasn’t is just a flat out denial of the plain meaning of many scriptures. I won’t continue with this insanity either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You forgot Paul who Scripture most definitely calls an Apostle no less than thirteen times. Paul is the twelfth Apostle.

And Paul spoke of “the twelve” who came before himself, so there were more than twelve apostles as seen in scripture.

I also pointed out that Tertullian refers to Matthias as the replacement for Judas.

The Church’s teaching throughout history could not be more clear.

 

[adrift]

At the request of ADRIFT [See post 142] I will no longer post about Matthias on this thread but will instead post on the thread that ADRIFT created. I encourage all who wish to pursue this discussion to follow his link to the new thread. I will no longer respond to any further posts about Matthias on this thread.

THANK YOU:thumbsup:

 

[diggerdomer]

Are we to conclude that you do not equate abortion with killing?

Of course not. No logical, Catholic, or reasonable reason to do so.

Or are we to conclude that because God ordered the killing of people then we can play God and kill unborn babies?

If you conclude that God ordered the killing of people (which I don’t) then yes, you are free to conclude that you can kill unborn babies.

I would say there were twelve of Jesus disciples who were called to be Apostles.

Good. So does the Catholic Church. Judas, however, one of the Apostles (as the Gospels witness) failed in his calling, and so was replaced by Matthias, as the New Testament witnesses.

Because the Church says there are Twelve Apostles [CCC #'s 1577, 869, 610, 191 and 865] which coincides with Scripture [Rev 21:14] which also says there are twelve Apostles.
Like the Church and Scripture and unlike you, I say there are twelve Apostles. It appears to me that your beliefs on this as well as the issue abortion contradict the Church’s teaching.

No, I agree with the Church and the New Testament. You don’t, as you don’t accept Matthias as an Apostle.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think that INK has made that clear. His own opinion, and private interpretation of Scripture is more important to him than what the Church believes and teaches.

I agree.

No problem, that’s fine with me, but it’s too bad insofar as I wish (as the Catholic Church does) that all Christians could be united in belief.

 

[diggerdomer]

At the request of ADRIFT [See post 142] I will no longer post about Matthias on this thread but will instead post on the thread that ADRIFT created. I encourage all who wish to pursue this discussion to follow his link to the new thread. I will no longer respond to any further posts about Matthias on this thread.

Thanks for clarifying. I hope that is not a cop-out as I don’t know how many of us will find what thread you are referring to.

 

[diggerdomer]

At the request of ADRIFT [See post 142] I will no longer post about Matthias on this thread but will instead post on the thread that ADRIFT created. I encourage all who wish to pursue this discussion to follow his link to the new thread. I will no longer respond to any further posts about Matthias on this thread.

What Thread? What Forum? Or are you simply evading?

 

[adrift]

What Thread? What Forum? Or are you simply evading?

Good Grief! I have posted the address twice before.

I have started a thread for you.
Is Matthias an Apostle?

 

[diggerdomer]

Good Grief! I have posted the address twice before.

Ok. So, as the Catholic Church teaches, Matthias is an Apostle. Case closed.

 

[Vince1022]

At the request of ADRIFT [See post 142] I will no longer post about Matthias on this thread but will instead post on the thread that ADRIFT created. I encourage all who wish to pursue this discussion to follow his link to the new thread. I will no longer respond to any further posts about Matthias on this thread.

Sorry to hear that. I couldn’t follow the link you suggested. Sorry to lose this conversation, I was really interested in understanding why you disagree with the Catholic Church that Matthias was an Apostle. Best wishes.

 

[inkaneer]

Sorry to hear that. I couldn’t follow the link you suggested. Sorry to lose this conversation, I was really interested in understanding why you disagree with the Catholic Church that Matthias was an Apostle. Best wishes.

Use the link given by ADRIFT in post 142. That works for me. If it still does not work for you then go to the Apologetics forum and look for the thread, Is Matthias an Apostle.