If there are twelve apostles why did Jesus appoint Saul?

[minkymurph]

The word apostle has both a specific meaning as well as a generic meaning. Its generic meaning is the same as missionary. The only difference is that Apostle comes to us from the Greek apostolos]while missionary is from the Latin. But the church and all christianity states over and over and over that there were twelve apostles [specific sense] otherwise known as the Twelve or Christ’s apostles or simply the Apostles. So yes to be Christ’s Apostles they must be called and sent by Christ which Paul was. There are only twelve too not thirteen or fourteen or any other number. The book of Revelation confirms this in Revelation 21:14:

“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

So there are only twelve Apostles.of the Lamb who is Jesus Christ.

That being the case - the fact that there are two meanings to the term, ‘Apostle,’ one can understand why there is a degree of confusion.

It is true definitions of specific words can change when translated into another language - in this case Greek to Latin but in this case, what is the significance? In accordance with the Latin meaning, is a missionary someone who is not called and sent by Christ?

This line of reasoning suggests that apart from the 12, no one has been both called and sent by Christ. In which case, whom do we say did call and send others who followed in the footsteps of Christ? Use of terms such as; ‘Apostolic Fathers and Apostolic Succession’ further adds to the confusion.

Relying on Revelation is problematic in that it is presented in signs and symbols. Of course in the case of the Apostles there were orginally 12, and we believe these 12 are the foundation of Church. However, can it be stated conclusively no one was called or sent by Christ save the 12 by the fact John saw 12 names written on the 12 foundations of the city.

To conclude, in relation to the OP’s original question, Revelation does not tell us if one of the names is Mathias, or if one is Paul? I’m beginning to ask myself why this is important?

 

[CB_Catholic]

First you show me where the Church has formally defined as dogma that Matthias was an Apostle. [HINT: It hasn’t] The church and all christianity, has taught that there were twelve Apostles. Scripture records no less than ten times that Paul was an apostle and the best that scripture could say of Matthias was that he was only numbered with the eleven Apostles. Please refer to my earlier post wherein I quoted scripture saying that Christwas numbered with transgressors. If being numbered with the eleven apostles means that Matthias is one of them then Christ being numbered with transgressors means that Jesus is a sinner and that means He is not the unblemished lamb and that means His death on the cross is meaningless. Do you see where you position takes you? it is the highway to heresy.

Then there is this. If Matthias is an Apostle then we have the precedent established in scripture of one Apostle succeeding another. So the question then becomes which apostle succeeded Peter? Of course the church does not teach that any apostle succeeded Peter. Do you see where that leads to?

Peter was an apostle in the office of chief steward or universal bishop and he was succeeded in his office of universal bishop by a bishop, not an apostle.

You made the assertion, you back it up. I’ve asked you 3 times. I think you are the one flirting with heresy with your false analogy about Matthias and Christ. I am done here.

 

[minkymurph]

With the twelve apostles already spreading the Gospel why did Jesus appoint Saul/Paul to be his messenger to the Roman Empire? Acts chapter 9:1-19

My answer to your question is a very simple one. Jesus had 12 companions while on earth. They were not going to live forever and 12 individuals could not have spread the message of the Gospel as far as a large number of followers. As such, others were appointed to follow in their footsteps in the role of leadership - as every group of people irrespective of who or what they are have leaders and followers. In the case of the Christian Church the role of leadership also entails spiritual guidance and missionary work.

I leave it to others to debate whether they should be given the title ‘Apostle,’ who replaced who, whether they can be deemed to have been called and sent by Christ, chosen by the Apostles, or elected by popular demand as I personally have no issue with any of these matters.

 

[ezeekl]

You made the assertion, you back it up. I’ve asked you 3 times. I think you are the one flirting with heresy with your false analogy about Matthias and Christ. I am done here.

I do believe that I have backed up my assertion to the point of quoting scripture. Yet you have not provided one quote of the Holy Scriptures that says that Matthias was an apostle of Jesus Christ. Yet those same Holy Scriptures states no less than ten times that Paul is an Apostle.

 

[minkymurph]

I do believe that I have backed up my assertion to the point of quoting scripture. Yet you have not provided one quote of the Holy Scriptures that says that Matthias was an apostle of Jesus Christ. Yet those same Holy Scriptures states no less than ten times that Paul is an Apostle.

ezeekl, excuse me for jumping in on your post to someone else, but I don’t think anyone here is saying Paul was not an Apostle. I do not mean to infer that that is how you are interpreting what others say.

The dispute seems to be whether Matthias was an Apostle or whether he was not. The Scriptures do not say categorically Matthias was not an Apostle. They may not say categorically he was, but they do say he was selected as a consequence of the departure of Judas. Scripture does not say Paul was selected as a consequence of the departure of Judas, and Scripture does not say he was not an Apostle. scripture does not say the term ‘Apostle’ should be given to anyone but the 12 - Judas + Paul. Those are the facts of the written word. The interpretation of the written word can be debated, but what is actually written cannot. It can further be debated Greek words translated into Latin can have a different meaning, but can it be said if one does not understand the difference between a Greek word and a Latin word for Apostle one errs in terms of attributing the ‘title’ of Apostle to an individual, and there is a consequence for that error?

The whole hang up on this thread seems to center around the term, ‘Apostle’ and whom this title should be bestowed upon. If the term ‘Apostle’ should correctly be limited to 12 people, why? What is the significance of bestowing this title on only 12 people? What is the significance of withholding this title from anyone other than the 12?

 

[ezeekl]

ezeekl, excuse me for jumping in on your post to someone else, but I don’t think anyone here is saying Paul was not an Apostle. I do not mean to infer that that is how you are interpreting what others say.

The dispute seems to be whether Matthias was an Apostle or whether he was not. The Scriptures do not say categorically Matthias was not an Apostle. They may not say categorically he was, but they do say he was selected as a consequence of the departure of Judas. Scripture does not say Paul was selected as a consequence of the departure of Judas, and Scripture does not say he was not an Apostle. scripture does not say the term ‘Apostle’ should be given to anyone but the 12 - Judas + Paul. Those are the facts of the written word. The interpretation of the written word can be debated, but what is actually written cannot. It can further be debated Greek words translated into Latin can have a different meaning, but can it be said if one does not understand the difference between a Greek word and a Latin word for Apostle one errs in terms of attributing the ‘title’ of Apostle to an individual, and there is a consequence for that error?

The whole hang up on this thread seems to center around the term, ‘Apostle’ and whom this title should be bestowed upon. If the term ‘Apostle’ should correctly be limited to 12 people, why? What is the significance of bestowing this title on only 12 people? What is the significance of withholding this title from anyone other than the 12?

I thought I touched on this a few posts back about the generic and specific uses of the word ‘apostle’. And here the specific use is in regard to the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. So lets look at them. Eleven of them are not contested. They were called by Christ and sent by Christ. Those in contention are Judas, Matthias and Paul. Now there were only twelve apostles of Christ as the word is used in the specific sense [meaning the twelve Apostles]. So let’s look at them.

First Judas, he was called by Christ to be an Apostle but he was never sent. Judas committed suicide before Christ sent the Apostles at the Great Commission. In addition, Judas, according to Peter in Acts 1, did not have a full share of the ministry [Acts 1:17]. Consider this: Judas left the Last Supper before the Eucharist was inaugurated. Judas killed himself before the authority to forgive sins was given to the Apostles. So what kind of Apostle is it who does not have the authority to consecrate the host nor to forgive sin? Furthermore Peter, also in Acts 1:17, says that Judas, “… was numbered with us.” He doesn’t claim that Judas was one of them. He only says he was numbered with them. That same term will be applied to Matthias too for he will be, " numbered with the eleven Apostles" [Acts 1:26].

Note: some versions do not use the word numbered. Instead words such as ‘enrolled’ or ‘counted’ are used.

As a result, according to Peter, Judas will have no Apostolic Succession. No bishop will ever claim that they received their authority from Judas [Acts 1: 20]. And none has.

Now let’s look at Matthias. Matthias comes on the scene along with someone named Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus. In Acts 1:20 Peter called for someone to take over the bishopric vacated by Judas. There is an election and Matthias wins. What does he win? He wins the bishopric vacated by Judas. Does he win Judas’ apostleship? The answer is no on two counts. First, Judas is no Apostle as he fails the test because he was not sent. Second, Peter said that Judas’ apostolic linneage would be desolate. So Matthias cannot win what Judas did not have. Matthias is made a bishop to take over the bishopric that was to be Judas’ and His consecration by the eleven Apostles begins the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles.

Now Paul. Scripture refers to him as an Apostle ten times. Scripture does not say he is counted as an apostle. It says He is is one. Jesus tells Annais that Paul will be his messenger to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15] so he is both called by Christ and will be sent by Christ. Paul is the Twelth Apostle.

 

[mardon2189]

Because Judas needed to be replaced

Judas was replaced by Mathias, by a lottery of votes by the original 12. Paul (Saul) was not an Apostle. He was selected by Jesus himself, to spread the word of Christianity, not as an Apostle, but as a Presbyter (priest).

 

[mardon2189]

I thought I touched on this a few posts back about the generic and specific uses of the word ‘apostle’. And here the specific use is in regard to the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. So lets look at them. Eleven of them are not contested. They were called by Christ and sent by Christ. Those in contention are Judas, Matthias and Paul. Now there were only twelve apostles of Christ as the word is used in the specific sense [meaning the twelve Apostles]. So let’s look at them.

First Judas, he was called by Christ to be an Apostle but he was never sent. Judas committed suicide before Christ sent the Apostles at the Great Commission. In addition, Judas, according to Peter in Acts 1, did not have a full share of the ministry [Acts 1:17]. Consider this: Judas left the Last Supper before the Eucharist was inaugurated. Judas killed himself before the authority to forgive sins was given to the Apostles. So what kind of Apostle is it who does not have the authority to consecrate the host nor to forgive sin? Furthermore Peter, also in Acts 1:17, says that Judas, “… was numbered with us.” He doesn’t claim that Judas was one of them. He only says he was numbered with them. That same term will be applied to Matthias too for he will be, " numbered with the eleven Apostles" [Acts 1:26].

Note: some versions do not use the word numbered. Instead words such as ‘enrolled’ or ‘counted’ are used.

As a result, according to Peter, Judas will have no Apostolic Succession. No bishop will ever claim that they received their authority from Judas [Acts 1: 20]. And none has.

Now let’s look at Matthias. Matthias comes on the scene along with someone named Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus. In Acts 1:20 Peter called for someone to take over the bishopric vacated by Judas. There is an election and Matthias wins. What does he win? He wins the bishopric vacated by Judas. Does he win Judas’ apostleship? The answer is no on two counts. First, Judas is no Apostle as he fails the test because he was not sent. Second, Peter said that Judas’ apostolic linneage would be desolate. So Matthias cannot win what Judas did not have. Matthias is made a bishop to take over the bishopric that was to be Judas’ and His consecration by the eleven Apostles begins the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles.

Now Paul. Scripture refers to him as an Apostle ten times. Scripture does not say he is counted as an apostle. It says He is is one. Jesus tells Annais that Paul will be his messenger to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15] so he is both called by Christ and will be sent by Christ. Paul is the Twelth Apostle.

 

[mardon2189]

what I meant to say, was this post answers the question way better than I did. Thank you.

 

[minkymurph]

I thought I touched on this a few posts back about the generic and specific uses of the word ‘apostle’. And here the specific use is in regard to the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. So lets look at them. Eleven of them are not contested. They were called by Christ and sent by Christ. Those in contention are Judas, Matthias and Paul. Now there were only twelve apostles of Christ as the word is used in the specific sense [meaning the twelve Apostles]. So let’s look at them.

You think correctly, you did touch on it. I responded in order to seek further clarification in regard to the line of reasoning you used.

A literary critic may argue the point you are making based on the construction of the text, but should one not cautious if the only basis for drawing a certain conclusion is an understanding of the translation of one word in a text?

He doesn’t claim that Judas was one of them. He only says he was numbered with them. That same term will be applied to Matthias too for he will be, " numbered with the eleven Apostles" [Acts 1:26].

Note: some versions do not use the word numbered. Instead words such as ‘enrolled’ or ‘counted’ are used.

I deleted the text relating to Judas as there would not appear to be any contention on that issue. From what you have said, it could be argued the terms ‘numbered,’ ‘enrolled’ and 'counted ’ are used to denote Matthias became one of the 12. Not to replace Judas, but simply to become another Apostle making up the original number of 12? I say this not because of the actual word that is used, but rather what would appear to be the intention of the user - in this case Peter. So the question is, did Peter think of Matthias was an Apostle? Perhaps more significantly, does Christ?

So Matthias cannot win what Judas did not have. Matthias is made a bishop to take over the bishopric that was to be Judas’ and His consecration by the eleven Apostles begins the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles.

Now Paul. Scripture refers to him as an Apostle ten times. Scripture does not say he is counted as an apostle. It says He is is one. Jesus tells Annais that Paul will be his messenger to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15] so he is both called by Christ and will be sent by Christ. Paul is the Twelth Apostle.

I see. In that case I would say the issue is not whether Matthias was an Apostle, but rather the line of Apostolic Succession? That is, does it proceed from Matthias, Paul or both? I take it your answer would be Paul not Matthias? I can understand why you would say that, but being neither a literary critic nor a scholar of Greek and Latin I couldn’t dispute that with you.

However, this line of reasoning raises further issues. In relation to being called and sent by Christ, it could be argued if only the 12 were called and sent by Christ, the authority of Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle due to the fact the fact that no one other than the 12 have been called and sent by Christ from the death of the last Apostle? In response it could be said the Apostles appointed successors, but the response to that could be the successor would carry only the authority of an individual Apostle - not Christ?

Further to this, was there any cohesion between the Apostles as to whom they chose as successors, was it simply an individual choice, were they influenced by popular demand and do we know for certain every Apostle appointed only one successor?

 

[minkymurph]

Here is a link from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which states Matthias was an Apostle and chosen to replace Judas.

newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm

 

[petra22]

Does he win Judas’ apostleship? The answer is no on two counts. First, Judas is no Apostle as he fails the test because he was not sent.

Judas was SENT out with the 70/72…

In the Luke version, there are 70 or 72. A discrepancy in early manuscripts leaves us wondering today. The Mark (Mark 6) version has no numbers. It has more of a sense of an ongoing mission. Jesus “began to send them out two by two.”

 

[ezeekl]

You think correctly, you did touch on it. I responded in order to seek further clarification in regard to the line of reasoning you used.

A literary critic may argue the point you are making based on the construction of the text, but should one not cautious if the only basis for drawing a certain conclusion is an understanding of the translation of one word in a text?

It is more than just one word, although that one word, episkope, is a key word as to Peter’s intention. Episkope is very specific in its meaning and that meaning is “the office of overseer” or bishop. There is another Greek word that has a more generic meaning of ‘office’. That word is praxis. But the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to use the word with the specific meaning of the office of bishop. That the Holy Spirit would inspire Luke to do that means that the use of the word episkope is not a trivial matter to be ignored.

I deleted the text relating to Judas as there would not appear to be any contention on that issue. From what you have said, it could be argued the terms ‘numbered,’ ‘enrolled’ and 'counted ’ are used to denote Matthias became one of the 12. Not to replace Judas, but simply to become another Apostle making up the original number of 12? I say this not because of the actual word that is used, but rather what would appear to be the intention of the user - in this case Peter. So the question is, did Peter think of Matthias was an Apostle? Perhaps more significantly, does Christ?

The answer to both questions is, no. And I will add that apparently the Holy Spirit did not consider Matthias to be an Apostle because Luke writes that after his election there were still eleven Apostles. The Apostles were the first bishops. All the authority in the church was in their hands. That authority would be passed down through a succession of bishops to the present day. Matthias is the first bishop and is the scriptural evidence that anyone needs of the Apostolic Succession of bishops. Scripture doesn’t tell us who succeeded Peter or James or John or Andrew or Thomas or any of the apostles. The only evidence we have is Matthias. Now if you want to claimthat he is an Apostle then what evidence do you have for the Apostolic Succession of Bishops? You have none. Because you then cannot answer which Apostle succceeded Peter or James or John or Andrew or Thomas or any of the others. The Apostles did not appoint other Apostles; they appointed bishops.

I see. In that case I would say the issue is not whether Matthias was an Apostle, but rather the line of Apostolic Succession? That is, does it proceed from Matthias, Paul or both? I take it your answer would be Paul not Matthias? I can understand why you would say that, but being neither a literary critic nor a scholar of Greek and Latin I couldn’t dispute that with you.

My answer would be both Paul and Matthias. Paul as an apostle and Matthias as a bishop consecrated by eleven of the Apostles. After the Apostles died there were only bishops who consecrated other bishops Matthias is the first of these.

However, this line of reasoning raises further issues. In relation to being called and sent by Christ, it could be argued if only the 12 were called and sent by Christ, the authority of Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle due to the fact the fact that no one other than the 12 have been called and sent by Christ from the death of the last Apostle? In response it could be said the Apostles appointed successors, but the response to that could be the successor would carry only the authority of an individual Apostle - not Christ?

What you are saying is that Jesus was so short sighted that He failed to see how this church He established would last only one generation. That is, when the last Apostle died the church died with him. Is that what you really want to say? If so, then I say Jesus paid a tremendous price for only one generation of mankind.

Further to this, was there any cohesion between the Apostles as to whom they chose as successors, was it simply an individual choice, were they influenced by popular demand and do we know for certain every Apostle appointed only one successor?

The scripture says that God chose Matthias. We know for certain that the Apostles appointed more than one successor. Paul for instance appointed Timothy and Titus and probably Barnabas and maybe Clement. John appointed Ignatius and Polycarp. Peter appointed Elvodius and Mark. There are 22 Rites in the Catholic Church and everyone of them can trace their Succession back to one of the Apostles.

 

[ezeekl]

Here is a link from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which states Matthias was an Apostle and chosen to replace Judas.

newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm

Unfortunately the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible. Besides the Encyclopedia says less than you think it says. It states:

"It is related (Acts 1:15-26) that in the days following the Ascension, Peter proposed to the assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate. Two disciples, Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias were selected, and lots were drawn, with the result in favour of Matthias, who thus became associated with the eleven Apostles.

First of all Peter never said anything about the “Apostolate” The word he used was Episkope which means the office of a bishop. Then the Encyclopedia says that Matthias after being elected '…became associated with the eleven Apostles" It doesn’t say he was an Apostle but only that he was only associated with them. As a bishop he could do that because he heldthe same office as they did, the office of a bishop.

 

[ezeekl]

Judas was SENT out with the 70/72…

In the Luke version, there are 70 or 72. A discrepancy in early manuscripts leaves us wondering today. The Mark (Mark 6) version has no numbers. It has more of a sense of an ongoing mission. Jesus “began to send them out two by two.”

But were they fully empowered? No, that did not happen until the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.
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.”

This is the sending forth of the Apostles. Note that in verse 16 Matthew does not call them Apostles but disciples and there is only 11 of them. With regard to the 70 or 72 disciples [which the Eastern churches refer to as the **MINOR apostles] they were not fully empowered. They could heal and cast out demons but could they forgive sins or consecrate the Eucharist? That authority had not yet been delegated by Jesus. They came back to Jesus whereas in the Great Commission they were sent out pon their own.

 

[ezeekl]

Okay I have defended my position regarding who is the twelfth Apostle and I see no point in continuing to rehash prior posts. So to get back to the original poster’s question of :

“If there are twelve apostles why did Jesus appoint Saul?”

The answer is because there were only eleven Apostles and Paul was the twelfth. Twelve were called originally and of these only eleven were sent. Jesus then called and sent Saul as the twelfth.

 

[minkymurph]

It is more than just one word, although that one word, episkope, is a key word as to Peter’s intention. Episkope is very specific in its meaning and that meaning is “the office of overseer” or bishop. There is another Greek word that has a more generic meaning of ‘office’. That word is praxis. But the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to use the word with the specific meaning of the office of bishop. That the Holy Spirit would inspire Luke to do that means that the use of the word episkope is not a trivial matter to be ignored.

Given that I have little knowledge of Greek, I am not in a position to comment. Neither do I feel I am in a position to comment on what the Holy Spirit may or may not have inspired Luke to do.

And I will add that apparently the Holy Spirit did not consider Matthias to be an Apostle because Luke writes that after his election there were still eleven Apostles.

Again, I do not believe I have the credentials to comment.

The Apostles were the first bishops. All the authority in the church was in their hands. That authority would be passed down through a succession of bishops to the present day.

Do you mean the first bishops did not need Christ’s authority? They needed only the authority of the Apostle who appointed them bishops? The authority of the Apostle alone was enough?

Matthias is the first bishop and is the scriptural evidence that anyone needs of the Apostolic Succession of bishops. Scripture doesn’t tell us who succeeded Peter or James or John or Andrew or Thomas or any of the apostles. The only evidence we have is Matthias.

I don’t understand this. Can you explain?

Now if you want to claim that he is an Apostle then what evidence do you have for the Apostolic Succession of Bishops?

I do not recall making this claim or claiming I had evidence of Apostolic Succession of Bishops. In fact, I cannot recall using the term Apostolic Succession of bishops, or even the term bishop.

Because you then cannot answer which Apostle succceeded Peter or James or John or Andrew or Thomas or any of the others. The Apostles did not appoint other Apostles; they appointed bishops.

Of course I can’t, but then I don’t believe claimed or inferred I could. To clarify my question - did those whom the Apostles appointed carry the authority of Christ, or the authority of an Apostle?

What I am trying to do is understand your line of reasoning by asking questions and asking you to clarify certain points you make I do not understand, not make claims. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on Matthias or Paul. What I do have difficulty with, if I understand what you have written correctly, is no one was called or sent by Christ other than the 12. I understand that to be a Protestant belief and as Catholic, I would have difficulty accepting it.

My answer would be both Paul and Matthias. Paul as an apostle and Matthias as a bishop consecrated by eleven of the Apostles. After the Apostles died there were only bishops who consecrated other bishops Matthias is the first of these.

Again, I would understand that as a Protestant belief.

What you are saying is that Jesus was so short sighted that He failed to see how this church He established would last only one generation. That is, when the last Apostle died the church died with him. Is that what you really want to say? If so, then I say Jesus paid a tremendous price for only one generation of mankind.

If that’s what you think I really want to say then I would say you have a very vivid imagination. The questions I posed are not a representation of what I think. They are question that could, and have been, asked on this issue. I have been asked some of the questions I wrote by others. I wanted to read what you would say because you line of reasoning was different to mine.

The scripture says that God chose Matthias.

Now I’m really confused. You are now saying God chose Matthias. Is that different from being called by Christ? Was Matthias not an Apostle because he may have been called but not sent?

 

[minkymurph]

Unfortunately the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible.

True, but than neither are we. I would also be more inclined to have greater confidence in the Catholic Encyclopedia than a stranger on an internet site.

Besides the Encyclopedia says less than you think it says.

What do I think it says? The heading is, ‘Apostle.’ Admittedly it does not say ‘generic term’ or any similar statement in brackets immediately after the word Apostle.

I won’t quote the citation as belief it or not, I did read it.

First of all Peter never said anything about the “Apostolate” The word he used was Episkope which means the office of a bishop. Then the Encyclopedia says that Matthias after being elected '…became associated with the eleven Apostles" It doesn’t say he was an Apostle but only that he was only associated with them. As a bishop he could do that because he heldthe same office as they did, the office of a bishop.

How do you know Peter never said anything about the ‘Apostolate?’ Because it’s not in the Bible? What I can state with certainty is there are statues of 12 Apostles, one of them being Matthias, on St. Peter’s Basilica. One has to wonder why Matthias? You can understand why some may think, mistakenly or otherwise, the Church recognizes Matthias was an Apostle. If they do not, then why did they choose to erect a statue of Matthias and not Paul?

 

[minkymurph]

First of all Peter never said anything about the “Apostolate” The word he used was Episkope which means the office of a bishop. Then the Encyclopedia says that Matthias after being elected '…became associated with the eleven Apostles" It doesn’t say he was an Apostle but only that he was only associated with them. As a bishop he could do that because he heldthe same office as they did, the office of a bishop.

I’d like to add two more questions:

1. Would it be a big deal if there were more than 12 Apostles?
2. Is it possible to ‘succeed’ someone, yet be something different to the person you succeed?

 

[minkymurph]

I actually did bother to do a bit of searching in relation to Matthias and whether or not he was an Apostle.

Here is what I found.

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-biblical-support-for-apostolic-succession

This article clearly states the position of the Church is Matthias received Apostolic authority.

Now one could argue this article says he received Apostolic authority, not he was an Apostle. If that proves to be the case, one would have to ask what more one would have to do in order to be recognized as an Apostle than receiving all the authority of an Apostle, and what the difference is between having all the authority of an Apostle and not actually being one?