Matthias, only a bishop?

[Poco]

Interesting!

For what it’s worth, I just came across this tidbit from the Catholic Encyclopedia…

St. Matthias

Apostle.

The Greek Matthias (or, in some manuscripts, Maththias), is a name derived from Mattathias, Hebrew Mattithiah, signifying “gift of Yahweh.” Matthias was one of the seventy disciples of Jesus, and had been with Him from His baptism by John to the Ascension (Acts 1:21-22). 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. (emphasis mine) 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.

And also this from the Catholic Encyclopedia…

Apostles

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 1:21-22). This narrative, which seems to come from an Aramaic Palestinian source like many other details given in the earlier chapter of Acts, was 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 (1 Corinthians 9:1). 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.

It seems to me important verses have been left out when citing Acts. That is, Acts 1:24-25.

24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship (emphasis mine), from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. Douay-Rheims version

Sure seems to me like St. Matthias was an Apostle!

Oh, and JM3!

:whacky:

:tiphat:

 

[Spirithound]

Inky, friend, you have an interesting argument. A couple questions though.

Because it was not the intent of Peter for Matthias to be an apostle. Peter only called for someone to occupy the office of Bishop.

Why was only one person to be called to the office of bishop? Why just one person at that time, and what about Barsabbas? Was he called to episcopate later on, and how was his ministry different in nature? Further, how was Matthias’ ministry different from a bishop’s today?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I’ve taken the time to look at the many threads and posts on this subject that you have posted, Inkaneer. I have seen all of your arguments, and the arguments presented against you. I posted a few quotes, within context, to show you a contrary viewpoint, but there were many, many more. I don’t post them or go digging for them for my health, Inkaneer. I take the time out of my day to find them that you may read, learn, and have peace. That’s why my citations tend to be longer than many; I’m not trying to play the proof-text game. In the course of your arguments on this matter:

You have argued against a vast number of fathers, I would say a consensus, since I have not found ONE stating your position.

You have argued against the Catholic Encyclopedia

You have argued against the liturgical calendar.

You have argued against references in the Liturgy itself.

You have argued against understandings by Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI

You have argued against good common sense.

You argue each and everyone of these points solitarily, yet I challenge you to honestly step back and take a look at it as a whole. Stop looking at the trees, and see the forrest. Lose the need to be right, and truly evaluate not just your view, but your motives for needing to hold on to it. See how tiny you are, and how vast is the witness against you. How many times have you lost charity over this very topic, and even maligned the very fathers you use on other threads? Presenting your “position” as based on infallible sacred Scripture, but ignoring the veritable tide of early (and late) witness against your view, which is ALSO based on the same Sacred Scripture. Are you aware of how incredibly protestant you inevitably begin to sound on this matter?

Luther started with an idea, just an idea, that he would not, could not let go of. He said “here I stand.” Where are you standing? What side of the Tiber is it on? God Bless, Inkaneer. I’ll pray for you.

 

[NotWorthy]

No it is the translation in the RSV. The KJV as well as the Doiuay-Rheims has “numbered with”. Neither one conveys the true meaning of the Greek but the older translations are better. Same goes for the word episkope. Bishopric or office of bishop is better than just office.

But you don’t understand. I’ve graduated from the Seminary of Inkaneer and I’ve learned that “enrolled” is synonymous with “counted with”.

Here’s the quote:

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:

 

[Poco]

Because it was not the intent of Peter for Matthias to be an apostle. Peter only called for someone to occupy the office of Bishop Look at Acts 1:20 and look at the Greek word that is translated as “office”. It is episkope That very same Greek word is used in 1Ti 3:1 and is translated as “office of Bishop” In Acts 1:20 Peter quotes one verse from two entirely different Psalms and applies both to Judas (emphasis mine). Acts 1:20 reads as follows in the RSV:

So, you don’t think Judas was an Apostle, either?

 

[NHInsider]

Two (potentially contradictory) observations-

first, is the basis of the problem here “whose names are written on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem?” If so, can we reflect on the fact that the Church is not literalistic in its reading of Scripture and especially of apocalyptic Scripture?

second, if the 12 Apostles are the successors to/parallels of the 12 Patriarchs, does the fact that the Levites are not counted among the tribes not match up quite nicely with the inclusion of Paul along with the 12?

 

[inkaneer]

Interesting!

For what it’s worth, I just came across this tidbit from the Catholic Encyclopedia…

And also this from the Catholic Encyclopedia…

It seems to me important verses have been left out when citing Acts. That is, Acts 1:24-25.

Sure seems to me like St. Matthias was an Apostle!

Oh, and JM3!

:tiphat:

You know if only scripture would say of Matthias what it says of Paul Then I would agree with you 100%. Unfortunately scripture does not say of Matthias what it says of Paul.
And exactly what does scripture say of Paul you may ask?

Romans 1:1 “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God”

Co 1:1 “Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sos’thenes,”

2 Co 1;1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Acha’ia:”

Ga 1:1 “Paul an apostle–not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead–”

Eph 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus:”

Col 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

1Ti 1:1 “**Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior **and of Christ Jesus our hope,”"

2Ti 1:1 “**Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God **according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus”

Tit 1:1 “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness,”

Now then what do we have for Matthias?

…nothing here…

 

[inkaneer]

So, you don’t think Judas was an Apostle, either?

Judas was called to be an Apostle but he was never sent. That is the meaning of the word apostle, one who is sent. Judas never made it to the sending forth which was the Great Commission.

 

[inkaneer]

But you don’t understand. I’ve graduated from the Seminary of Inkaneer and I’ve learned that “enrolled” is synonymous with “counted with”.

QUOTE]

You say you would like to engage in serious discussion and then you come off with a smart alecky remark like this? Is that frustration showing?

Now instead of me rehashing over and over and over and over again the same material. Let’s do this. Give me your take on Acts 1:20. Tell me why you think Peter chop quotes the book of Psalms and joins two unrelated verses from two totally different psalms together and in the process violates a primary rule of exegesis. I’ll wait for your answer but I will not respond to any of your posts until you do answer.

 

[inkaneer]

I’ve taken the time to look at the many threads and posts on this subject that you have posted, Inkaneer. I have seen all of your arguments, and the arguments presented against you. I posted a few quotes, within context, to show you a contrary viewpoint, but there were many, many more. I don’t post them or go digging for them for my health, Inkaneer. I take the time out of my day to find them that you may read, learn, and have peace. That’s why my citations tend to be longer than many; I’m not trying to play the proof-text game. In the course of your arguments on this matter:

You have argued against a vast number of fathers, I would say a consensus, since I have not found ONE stating your position.

You have argued against the Catholic Encyclopedia

You have argued against the liturgical calendar.

You have argued against references in the Liturgy itself.

You have argued against understandings by Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI

You have argued against good common sense.

You argue each and everyone of these points solitarily, yet I challenge you to honestly step back and take a look at it as a whole. Stop looking at the trees, and see the forrest. Lose the need to be right, and truly evaluate not just your view, but your motives for needing to hold on to it. See how tiny you are, and how vast is the witness against you. How many times have you lost charity over this very topic, and even maligned the very fathers you use on other threads? Presenting your “position” as based on infallible sacred Scripture, but ignoring the veritable tide of early (and late) witness against your view, which is ALSO based on the same Sacred Scripture. Are you aware of how incredibly protestant you inevitably begin to sound on this matter?

Luther started with an idea, just an idea, that he would not, could not let go of. He said “here I stand.” Where are you standing? What side of the Tiber is it on? God Bless, Inkaneer. I’ll pray for you.

None of those sources are infallible or inerrant. What I have argued from is the scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Your sources don’t hold a candle to those sources. You follow the words of men I follow the words of the Lord. And how can you accuse me of sounding protestant when it is you who deny the Apostolic Succession of Bishops. Oh you didn’yt know that you did? Well based on your interpretation of Acts 1 you have the scriptural precedent of one apostle [Matthias] succeeding another Apostle [Judas]. Then all the other Apostles have to be succeeded by Apostles too because you just destroyed the episcopacy’s claim to being successors of the Apostles. and that my dear friend is pure protestantism. And you are welcome to it. .

 

[NotWorthy]

But you don’t understand. I’ve graduated from the Seminary of Inkaneer and I’ve learned that “enrolled” is synonymous with “counted with”.

Why yes, Ink, I do like to keep it on a light mood. It helps out alot because we all tend to take ourselves a little too seriously. And please don’t deny that you haven’t been “smart alecky” to others on this thread.

But, even in my jesting, you still misread my point.

1. I asked what “numbered with” means.
2. You pointed out that it is synonymous with “enrolled”.
3. I show you that “enrolled” means “one is a member of a group”.
4. You respond with “enrolled is a poor translation”.

You continue these circular arguments and you’ve convinced nobody of your “fact”.

Now instead of me rehashing over and over and over and over again the same material. Let’s do this. Give me your take on Acts 1:20. Tell me why you think Peter chop quotes the book of Psalms and joins two unrelated verses from two totally different psalms together and in the process violates a primary rule of exegesis. I’ll wait for your answer but I will not respond to any of your posts until you do answer.

I’ll tell you what, Ink. I’ll do you a little better. You see, I don’t think you’ll agree with my exegesis no matter what. You’ve already denied Tertullian, you’ve denied St. Augustine, you’ve denied Pope Benedict, and you’ve denied the Catechism and the Church Liturgy.

In fact, you only seem to hold to the words of Scott Hahn, even bragging that you’ve listened to him instead of watching Monday Night Football (which sounds sort of like pompous boasting, but I won’t go there! ).

So, what does Scott Hahn say? Well, in his Ignatius Study Bible, Scott writes:

Peter gives free quotations from the Psalter to explain the removal (Ps. 69:25) and replacement of Judas (Ps 109:8). Psalms 69 and 109 are imprecatory psalms that curse the enemies of God and Israel. In both, the righteous man groans in agony over the treacher of the wicked. Peter reads them messianically, i.e., the suffering Psalmist prefigures the suffering and betrayal of Christ by his enemies.

Office: the Greek term refers to a position of oversight and was used in early Christianity for an episcopal office or bishopric (1 Tim 3:1). The replacement of one apostle with another is a pattern repeated in the episcopal succession of bishops from the first century to the present day (1:26; CCC 77, 860)

You see, Ink, as I mentioned in Post #38, Scott Hahn stresses the fact that the Apostles were all bishops, and that the replacement of one apostle with another prefigures the replacement of one bishop with another.

 

[inkaneer]

Inky, friend, you have an interesting argument. A couple questions though.

Why was only one person to be called to the office of bishop? Why just one person at that time, and what about Barsabbas? Was he called to episcopate later on, and how was his ministry different in nature? Further, how was Matthias’ ministry different from a bishop’s today?

Why was only one person called to the office of bishop? I don’t know, the scriptures do not tell us. The Apostles were what we would call today missionaries. Jesus, after all did tell them to go unto the world and teach the nations. Matthias is elevated to the episcopcy and is a empowered as a bishop and goes on mission. As the church grew others were trained and consecrated as bishop. Ignatius and Polycarp, Titus and Timothy, Clement, John Mark, Elvodius, etc.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well based on your interpretation of Acts 1 you have the scriptural precedent of one apostle [Matthias] succeeding another Apostle [Judas]. Then all the other Apostles have to be succeeded by Apostles too because you just destroyed the episcopacy’s claim to being successors of the Apostles. and that my dear friend is pure protestantism. And you are welcome to it. .

No, you see, as many of the Church Fathers pointed out, there needed to be 12 Apostles during the ushering of the New Covenant Church at Pentecost - the 12 that are referenced in Rev. 24:1. Matthias fills that hole, and voila! Enter the Holy Spirit!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

None of those sources are infallible or inerrant. What I have argued from is the scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Your sources don’t hold a candle to those sources. You follow the words of men I follow the words of the Lord. And how can you accuse me of sounding protestant when it is you who deny the Apostolic Succession of Bishops. Oh you didn’yt know that you did? Well based on your interpretation of Acts 1 you have the scriptural precedent of one apostle [Matthias] succeeding another Apostle [Judas]. Then all the other Apostles have to be succeeded by Apostles too because you just destroyed the episcopacy’s claim to being successors of the Apostles. and that my dear friend is pure protestantism. And you are welcome to it. .

I dealt with that argument. Casting lots was done to determine the will of God in Jewish tradition, and as evidenced by their prayer. Attempting to say that Jesus cannot choose an apostle from beyond the grave is to deny that he can choose Paul or act in Pentecost. Saying that he can’t do so through the casting of lots (working through the physical) is in danger of denouncing the basis of the Sacraments. So your claim does not stand.

The traditions of men, now is it? They are using the same Sacred Scripture as you, and they all say the same thing. Have you ever heard of a little something called the “consensus of the fathers?” The Catechism hasn’t helped your case any more than your frightfully errant interpretation. More than that, as I have already pointed out, it’s the fathers, Sacred Scripture, liturgical tradition, liturgical calendars, etc. You want to throw it all away for the interpretation of Inkaneer. Here’s some advice: Know when to let it go. This is my last post, because you are convinced you are right, and I am honestly getting frustrated. It’s no longer productive to continue this with you. God Bless.

 

[NoelFitz]

Ink
I do not really think it is important whether Paul or Matthias was number 12, but I am hugely impressed with your scholarship and perseverance.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ink, you still haven’t answered one of my queries. If there were 12 Apostles in the Foundation Stone in Revelation, and you claim Paul is one of those 12, then the Church started with an incomplete foundation until about 3 or 4 years later (when Paul was converted). Well, no, I take that back, the Church Foundation was incomplete for about 17 years until Paul is finally called an Apostle, when the Holy Spirit sends him to Crete. Wow, that’s a long time without a complete foundation… unless one considers that Matthias is that 12th Apostle in Revelation.

 

[Spirithound]

Why was only one person called to the office of bishop? I don’t know, the scriptures do not tell us. The Apostles were what we would call today missionaries. Jesus, after all did tell them to go unto the world and teach the nations. Matthias is elevated to the episcopcy and is a empowered as a bishop and goes on mission.

But this is something that the theory of Matthias as Apostle covers that yours does not. You mentioned earlier that Matthias had to have been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry because the Apostles did not have time to train someone else. That really prompts the question of why they needed to have somebody right at that time. Remember Judas had been dead for 50 days already. Why hadn’t Matthias been elected earlier? Why not later? They didn’t need a bishop at that time. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.

 

[NotWorthy]

But this is something that the theory of Matthias as Apostle covers that yours does not. You mentioned earlier that Matthias had to have been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry because the Apostles did not have time to train someone else. That really prompts the question of why they needed to have somebody right at that time. Remember Judas had been dead for 50 days already. Why hadn’t Matthias been elected earlier? Why not later? They didn’t need a bishop at that time. James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.

Wow! You bring up a very good point. There was no need for bishops at this time, so why the need to make one. Matthias the Bishop wouldn’t have a role in the Church for a long long time, as the Church only resided in Jerusalem until Paul’s persecutions (3 or 4 years later).

One minor correction, I wouldn’t have listed James as the Bishop of Jerusalem for a few years… until the Church started spreading out, and many of the Apostles leaving James behind in Jerusalem. But don’t let that detract from your valid point, my brother.

 

[JM3]

And how can you accuse me of sounding protestant

‘The Protestant rejects what he does not find formally in the Scriptures.’

‘“Tradition”…was first the pure and simple transmission of the sacred deposit. It is also the explanation of this deposit, elaborated through its being lived, defended and explained generation after generation by the People of God. Scripture, the prophetic and apostolic witness to God’s plan, is explained by tradition; in this respect there is more in the Church’s word than in the text of Scripture studied philologically and understood historically.’

The Meaning of Tradition by Yves Congar, O.P.

P.S. - Where in scripture does it say that angels dance?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Paul was personally chosen by Jesus.

Since, the Apostles in Acts 1, were not full of the Spirit, I think they may have been acting on their flesh. Also, Peter tore two scriptures compeletely out of context in Acts 1.