Matthias, only a bishop?

[JM3]

But at no time is the word apostles applied to the twelve.

Acts 15:4, 15:22, 15:23. :ehh:

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Inkaneer, I am very curious why you feel that Matthias being considered an apostle threatens the idea of apostolic succession? I remember reading this and I was curious why you felt that way?

 

[JM3]

"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.”

Just curious. When was the last time you stood with yourself?

 

[inkaneer]

Actually it’s not a novel argument at all, and I was careful to state that I was unaware whether Jesus followed a one-to-one correspondence, or took a more lax, symbolic route.
It could be he went through the mother’s lineage for one and the father’s lineage for another, wich would possibly cancel your objection anyway, although I am not too concerned with this particular issue of strict one-to-one tribal correspondence. For an excellent treatment of this, Read Dr. Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Tribulation: the end of the exile and the origin of the atonement, or Dr. Scott Hahn’s treatment of the gospel of Luke.

If you read through the prophets, a major concern of the Messiah was to reunite the twelve tribes that had been scattered. If you don’t understand this Jewish background you will not understand the majority of what Jesus accomplishes in fulfilling prophecy. If we conclude that Paul is an apostle, however, 1 Corinthians 15, Paul’s own writing, makes clear that he does not number himself among the twelve. Since they are not the twelve bishops, but the twelve apostles, it would appear that you need to broaden your terms a bit.

Scripture calls Paul an Apostle no less than 13 times. Now maybe you guys want to say scripture is wrong but not me. Now you find where scripture calls Matthias an Apostle even once. And note that Acts 1:26 does not say he is an apostle, Peter called for someone to fill the office of bishop vacated by Judas He did not call for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle. Furthermore what happens to Apostolic Succession if one Apostle is replaced by another Apostle? Which Apostle replaced Peter??? The whole argument for the Apostolic Line of Succession of Bishops hangs on Acts 1:20 for scriptural support. But if Matthias is another Apostle then Apostolic Succession means the original apostles were succeeded by their successors who were also apostles. That contradicts Church teaching.

You guys grew up thinking Matthias was an Apostle because you had a defective catechesis. Well if Matthias was an Apostle and he replaced Judas then Judas had to be an Apostle also. Therefore Mattias traces his Appostolic succession to Judas. Now find a single bishop anywhere in 2000 years of Catholic History who claimed apostolic succession from Judas. You won’t find any. And the reason you won’t find any is right there in Acts 1:20 when Peter said “Let his house be desolate and no one occupy it.” What is his house? Here’s a clue; Joseph was said to be of the house of David [Lu 1:27]. Jesus was said to be of the House of Jacob [Lu 1:69 ]. It means lineage. Peter is saying in Acts 1:20 that Judas’ lineage is desolate and no one will occupy it.

 

[NotWorthy]

It means something similar to saying what something appears to be not what it is. Notice verse 26 in Acts 1 where Matthias was numbered [enrolled or counted] with the eleven apostles. Why are there still eleven Apostles after Matthias is elected? If he is an apostle should there not be now twelve apostles. Notice also that at no time is the term “twelve Apostles” used after Pentecost. Instead the term “the twelve” is used [See Acts 6:2] or in Acts 2:14 we find:

"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.”

But at no time is the word apostles applied to the twelve.

You seem to have come up with the novel phrase that “The Eleven” and “The Twelve” do not mean the Apostles. That new to me.

One other thing, Ink.

You claim that Matthias is a bishop. Where does it say that every bishop has to be a witness to Christ’s entire ministry? Why would Peter make a ruling that is than thrown away entirely.

No, Ink, I think its clear that Matthias took Judas’ office as Apostle, not as Bishop.

 

[Spirithound]

…If you are correct, it would seem that apostles are chosen by Christ himself, whereas the bishops/successors are then chosen by the apostles.

Choosing by lot was a way that the Jews used to find out what God wanted (see Joshua 7 and 1 Samuel 10:20). In this way, I see that Matthias was chosen by Christ himself.

It seems to me that whatever Matthias was elected to, it was different from what Barsabbas would receive. Does anyone know what happened to him?

 

[NotWorthy]

The church teaches there are only twelve apostles. Para 869 of the Catechism states:

“The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.”

So, does that mean there was NO CHURCH until St. Paul was appointed Apostle? St. Paul was selected until 3 or 4 years after Pentecost. Where was the Church prior to that?

No, the Church began at Pentecost, and at Pentecost there were 12 Apostles.

When used, the term Apostle can have two meanings. Literally it can mean anyone who is sent or in its specific meaning it means those twelve people picked by Jesus to be the heirarchy of the church. It is in the latter meaning that the church says there are only twelve apostles. But there are fourteen candidates. Eleven are not contested. Judas, Matthias and Paul are. I say the twelfth apostle is Paul. Paul is the only one that scripture calls an Apostle. Judas is mentioned as an apostle only once in the gospel of Matthew. [Mt 10] where the names of the twelve selected by Jesus are first mentioned. I call Judas an Apostle in training because the Apostles were not ‘‘sent’’ until Mt 28:19-20. But by then Judas was already dead. Judas was never sent as were the other eleven. He therefore withdraws himself from the apostleship that could have been his.

You may be misinformed here, Ink. The 12 were sent out earlier in Matthew.

Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.*** 2 ****** The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John;****** 3 ****** Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus;****** 4 ****** Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.****** 5 *** Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus,

 

[Spirithound]

Therefore Mattias traces his Appostolic succession to Judas.

Apostolic succession is not handed down by virtue of the See that one is selected to occupy. It is passed down through the laying on of hands. Nobody claims lineage from Judas because he never laid hands on anybody.

 

[NotWorthy]

It means something similar to saying what something appears to be not what it is. Notice verse 26 in Acts 1 where Matthias was numbered [enrolled or counted] with the eleven apostles. Why are there still eleven Apostles after Matthias is elected?

Ink, you are mystifying.

“number with” means “something appears to be not what it is”?!?!?

And then you deny your own words when you used “enrolled”. If someone is “enrolled” in a school, than they are a member of that school.

If Matthias is “enrolled” (your words, not mine) with the Apostles, than Matthias is a member of the Apostles.

And since Matthias is “numbered with” the eleven, that means “he **and **The Eleven” are now “The Twelve”.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The whole argument for the Apostolic Line of Succession of Bishops hangs on Acts 1:20 for scriptural support. But if Matthias is another Apostle then Apostolic Succession means the original apostles were succeeded by their successors who were also apostles. That contradicts Church teaching.

I disagree. Casting lots was an ancient Jewish tradition for determining the will of God, which is made apparent since they asked for the choice of God in the matter. There was no succession as in the imposition of hands, so I fail to see how this seriously undermines apostolic succession, particularly since you have not defined the meaning of apostle in an adequate enough manner to make such a dogmatic assertion. Bishopric means office, not office of bishop. The word bishop is derived from the word bishopric, which means office. Your etymology is putting the cart before the horse.

You guys grew up thinking Matthias was an Apostle because you had a defective catechesis.

You seem to be resorting to personal attacks now. Through the course of this discussion you have gone from talking about a *hypothesis *that may or may not be shared by Scott Hahn, to accusing us of defective Catechesis and going against the Magisterium? Make an assertion, defend it, and discuss. Don’t insult in the process simply because your rhetoric is unpersuasive, particularly when you don’t know my or any other person’s educational background.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Choosing by lot was a way that the Jews used to find out what God wanted (see Joshua 7 and 1 Samuel 10:20). In this way, I see that Matthias was chosen by Christ himself.

It seems to me that whatever Matthias was elected to, it was different from what Barsabbas would receive. Does anyone know what happened to him?

You beat me to it. Excellent point.

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by Spirithound forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Choosing by lot was a way that the Jews used to find out what God wanted (see Joshua 7 and 1 Samuel 10:20). In this way, I see that Matthias was chosen by Christ himself.

It seems to me that whatever Matthias was elected to, it was different from what Barsabbas would receive. Does anyone know what happened to him?*

You beat me to it. Excellent point.

Not only is it an excellent point on Christ choosing Matthias as Apostle, it also:
a) Gives Scriptural Proof to Peter’s authority to bind and loose.
b) Shows that Christ is working through the Church to do the Father’s Will. Christ could have chosen Matthias at any time, but he waited and allowed Peter to do it.

“Binding and Loosing, Baby!”

 

[JM3]

Scripture calls Paul an Apostle no less than 13 times. Now maybe you guys want to say scripture is wrong but not me. Now you find where scripture calls Matthias an Apostle even once. And note that Acts 1:26 does not say he is an apostle, Peter called for someone to fill the office of bishop vacated by Judas He did not call for someone to replace Judas as an Apostle. Furthermore what happens to Apostolic Succession if one Apostle is replaced by another Apostle? Which Apostle replaced Peter??? The whole argument for the Apostolic Line of Succession of Bishops hangs on Acts 1:20 for scriptural support. But if Matthias is another Apostle then Apostolic Succession means the original apostles were succeeded by their successors who were also apostles. That contradicts Church teaching.

You guys grew up thinking Matthias was an Apostle because you had a defective catechesis. Well if Matthias was an Apostle and he replaced Judas then Judas had to be an Apostle also. Therefore Mattias traces his Appostolic succession to Judas. Now find a single bishop anywhere in 2000 years of Catholic History who claimed apostolic succession from Judas. You won’t find any. And the reason you won’t find any is right there in Acts 1:20 when Peter said “Let his house be desolate and no one occupy it.” What is his house? Here’s a clue; Joseph was said to be of the house of David [Lu 1:27]. Jesus was said to be of the House of Jacob [Lu 1:69 ]. It means lineage. Peter is saying in Acts 1:20 that Judas’ lineage is desolate and no one will occupy it.

“But if Matthias is another Apostle then Apostolic Succession means the original apostles were succeeded by their successors who were also apostles.”

Matthias did not ‘succeed’ Judas. He replaced him. As you said, ‘Peter is saying in Acts 1:20 that Judas’ lineage is desolate and no one will occupy it.’ So, Matthias cannot ‘succeed’ Judas. Just as you can take a plant that has died and replace it with a new living plant, So Matthias replaced Judas.

Because you want something to be true, you are reasoning in any way you can to make it true. This always leads to error.

 

[davidv]

The word apostle means one who is sent. Specifically it refers to those men selected and sent by Jesus. Judas was selected by Christ but he never lived to be sent. Matthias was neither selected nor sent. Paul was both selected and sent [See Acts 9:15]. As for today we don’t use the word apostle for those who are sent. Instead we use the word missionary which comes from the Latin word mittere meaning to emit, to send forth.

Also the apostles did not select Matthias to replace Judas as an apostle. Matthias was selected to be a bishop. That is abundantly clear in Peter’s words in Acts 1:20"

“For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and **‘His office let another take.’” **
The word office there is the Greek word episkope and it means “office of bishop.” Older translations such as the KJV or Douay-Rheims are even clearer. They have that same verse as:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take’’.

Matthias was elected to be a bishop and nothing more.

Why do you object to calling Matthias an apostle?

 

[NotWorthy]

Ink,

You may recall I mentioned that the 12 at Pentecost was crucial.

I found this quote in
The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam

They were to be twelve in number, no more and no less. By being twelve they were—so He plainly intended—to signify the new twelve-fold Israel, and to be the germ of that holy people which He, as the Son of man, foretold by the prophet Daniel, was come to establish[1] As the new Israel they were the kernel of the new Kingdom, its spiritual support, the authorized bearers of its message, the “salt of the earth,” the “light of the world.” They knew themselves as those who would one day judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt. xix, 28; Lk. xxii, 30). So deeply were the twelve permeated with the fundamental importance of their corporate union, that after the Ascension of Jesus they considered it their first business to fill the gap which the suicide of Judas had left in the apostolic college by electing Matthias (Acts i, 15 ff.). Therefore the twelve were the original form and foundation of the new Kingdom. That new Kingdom entered history as an apostolic Church, built, as the Epistle to the Ephesians says (ii, 20), “upon the foundation of the apostles.” The character of apostolicity, this real historical connection with the twelve, is essential to it and cannot be taken from it.

 

[NotWorthy]

In Catholic Scripture Study - an online Catholic Bible Study it reads

In Acts, Peter is presented again and again as the leader of the Church after Jesus ascended. Of the two present in Acts 1 who fulfilled the necessity to have been “of our company and who witnessed the resurrection,” Matthias was the one chosen by lot and so was added to the eleven Apostles.

 

[NotWorthy]

BTW, some info on Matthias

Matthias

Memorial
14 May
Profile
Apostle. As he could bear witness to the Resurrection of Jesus, he was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot. Preached the Gospel for more than 30 years in Judea, Cappadocia, Egypt and Ethiopia. Remembered for preaching the need for mortification of the flesh with regard to all its sensual and irregular desires. Martyr.
Died
stoned to death at Colchis in 80 AD; some relics in the abatical church of Triers, others in Saint Mary Major in Rome

 

[NotWorthy]

Ink, I think I might see where you may claim Scott Hahn calls Judas a Bishop. In his article, “The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church” Hahn writes:

After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort).
If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D.

Do you see what Scott is trying to claim? Not that Judas alone is Bishop, but that ALL the Apostles were Bishops. Mr. Hahn is trying to establish that the Apostles are the predecessors to the Catholic Bishops that will succeed them through the ages. He’s not minimizing Judas’ role at all, nor Matthias’.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ink, I think I might see where you may claim Scott Hahn calls Judas a Bishop. In his article, “The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church” Hahn writes:

Do you see what Scott is trying to claim? Not that Judas alone is Bishop, but that ALL the Apostles were Bishops. Mr. Hahn is trying to establish that the Apostles are the predecessors to the Catholic Bishops that will succeed them through the ages. He’s not minimizing Judas’ role at all, nor Matthias’.

Snap. Nice catch dude.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But at no time is the word apostles applied to the twelve.

Acts 15:4, 15:22, 15:23. :ehh:

Where do you see the term Twelve Apostles

Acts 15:4:

“4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.”

I see the word apostles but I don’t see any number.

Acts 15:22:

“22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab’bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,”

Again I see the word apostles but I don’t see any number.

Acts 15:23:

"23 with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili’cia, greeting. "

Once more I see the word apostles but I don’t see any number.