Matthias, only a bishop?

[inkaneer]

Yeah I do. So does the Council of Trent, session 4:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. +]
Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.

Hey inkaneer, remember that line I kept giving you about the unanimous consent of the fathers regarding Matthias, that you so forcefully rejected? Well take that, add in some liturgical tradition and the current understanding of the Church, and you can play your interpret-the-Catechism game all you want, you are still in schism.

Yeah, the fly in your ointment is “the unanimous teaching of the Fathers”. Even Augustine admits to other meanings of “the Twelve”. Far from unanimous, I would say.

 

[NotWorthy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That’s right an Apostle cannot succeed another Apostle but a bishop can. Is that not what the church teaches in its doctrine of Apostolic Succession or are you saying I am wrong about that too?

But dearest Ink, YOU claimed that Judas wasn’t an Apostle. He was a novitiate… who failed. How can Matthias’ replacement of Judas be an Apostle replacing an Apostle?

According to your logic, Matthias fulfills the position that was originally chosen for Judas - Apostle.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Quote:
You humor yourself. That field of blood was turned into a cemetery by the chief priests. Hardly a desolate place in the meaning of the word which connotes a barren dessert wilderness. So the joke is on you.

No the Jews did not think of cemeteries as unclean. Think about it how did they bury anyone if cemeteries were unclean and they could not go into them? . Also Jesus entered a cemetery when Lazarus was raised along with others who moved the stone away. How about we quit making stuff up, Okay?

By the way the 'field of Blood" never belonged to Judas so how could it be his habitation? Also, do you think Catholic Cemeteries are desolate?

You are completely in error. Even contact with a body was considered defilement, and they had to be ritually cleansed by Mikveh or the water purification vessels kept in first century homes.

Read up on the Mishnah, particularly the parts in reference to dead bodies and tombs. Now go re-read the passage about the Demoniac in Mark with new eyes.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Yeah, the fly in your ointment is “the unanimous teaching of the Fathers”.

Every single father that even mentions Matthias calls him an apostle. I’ll pray for your schism.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Here’s something for you inkaneer:

Mishnah, Ohalot:

1:1. A: Two are unclean through a corpse. One is unclean with the uncleanness of seven days, and one is unlcean with the uncleanness that passes at evening.

1:2. B: Utensils which touch the corpse and utensils which touch other utensils are unclean with the uncleanness of seven days. The third, whether man or utensils, is unclean with the uncleanness that passes at the evening.

1.6. A: A man does not convey uncleanness until his Spirit goes forth

2.4: A: The rolling stone and buttressing stone convey uncleanness through contact and Tent but do not render unclean through carrying.
B. R. Eliezer says “They render unclean through carrying.”
C. R. Joshua says, “If there is dirt of graves under them, they render unclean through carrying, but if not, they do not render unclean through carrying.”

I think you get the idea, Inkaneer. It goes on to say even the corpse bearers could make other *things *unclean with their touch, which would then make *you *unclean, etc etc. I think, honestly, that you should give your interpretations on things pause. You don’t even have a grasp of basic Jewish, messianic, and OT belief/theology, so I’m not sure how you think you can go toe-to-toe with the Fathers and the Church on this issue.

 

[Spirithound]

Try thes paragraphs from the Catechism:

1087 Thus the risen Christ, by giving the Holy Spirit to the apostles, entrusted to them his power of sanctifying: they became sacramental signs of Christ. By the power of the same Holy Spirit they entrusted this power to their successors. This “apostolic succession” structures the whole liturgical life of the Church and is itself sacramental, handed on by the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1555 “Amongst those various offices which have been exercised in the Church from the earliest times the chief place, according to the witness of tradition, is held by the function of those who, through their appointment to the dignity and responsibility of bishop, and in virtue consequently of the unbroken succession going back to the beginning, are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic line.”

1576 Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the “gift of the Spirit,” the “apostolic line.” Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

1593 Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons. The ministries conferred by ordination are irreplaceable for the organic structure of the Church: without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, one cannot speak of the Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1).

None of these paragraphs say anything about whether an Apostle can succeed an Apostle.

There is no office of Apostle. There is no such term in scripture or the catechism. Showe me where office is a recognized office in the church. Look at para 1593 pof the catechism:

“1593 Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons. The ministries conferred by ordination are irreplaceable for the organic structure of the Church: without the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, one cannot speak of the Church (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1).”

Notice the reference is St. Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of the Apostle John. If there was an “office of Apostle” I would think Ignatius would have received that information from John and would have mentioned it in his writings. But according to the Catholic Church he didn’t. So forget the office of Apostle, for according to the church, it doesn’t exist.

Of course there is an office of Apostle. The Apostles occupied those offices. They are not used today.

But back to your premise, if Matthias does not get his alleged apostleship from Judas who does he receive it from? Peter? the eleven apostles? If you say no then where doesit come? If you say yes then Matthias is not an Apostle of Jesus . All the other apostles were Apostles of Jesus Christ, called by him and sent by Him. If you want to call Matthias an apostle then the best he can be is an apostle of Peter or an apostle of the apostles. But he is no apostle of Jesus or an apostle of the Lamb as Revelation 21:14 puts it. Those 12 names on the 2 foundations of the New Jerusalem are called the twelve Apostles of the Lamb in Rev 21:14and Matthias is not one of them. Checkmate!!!

Matthias got his Apostleship from Jesus, as divined through the casting of lots.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Oh and Inkaneer, in case your memory is hazy, the comment you made about Augustine having “other meanings for the twelve” is the citation I gave you, and it’s ironically the same one that says that Matthias was ordained an apostle. Here, I’ll refresh your memory:

There are other meanings, too, in this number twelve. Were not this the right interpretation of the twelve thrones, then since we read that *Matthias was ordained an apostle *in the room of Judas the traitor, the Apostle Paul, though he labored more than them all,(5) should have no throne of judgment; but he unmistakeably considers himself to be included in the number of the judges when he says, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?”

So the quote you want to use, is the same quote that destroys your point. Downward the spiral goes…

 

[NotWorthy]

OK, Ink.

I finally got off my lazy duff and looked up “numbered” in the dictionary. The one that applies to our verse in question is:
To reckon as one of a collection or multitude.

Now, if Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles, that would mean he was a part of the collection… collection of what? Collection of Apostles or multitude of Apostles.

I think its clear that Matthias was considered one of the 12 Apostles.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Just a question.

Whose Feast day is celebrated on May 14th?

I will answer for you, St Matthias, apostle.

Now if the Church has placed St Matthias on the its liturgical calendar and given him the title of Apostle and gives instructions that the Common of Apostles be used is not that the ordinary Magisterium at work?

And the second reading from the Office of Readings for the day is from a homily on the Acts of the Apostles by St John Chrysostom and it seems to me that he is saying that Matthias is an apostle because the choice of him is left to Christ rather than Peter or the other apostles.

But as you have said, the Church has not made a dogmatic pronouncement (though it does appear that the ordinary Magisterium has spoken through the liturgical calendar) we are free to believe as we wish and nothing you have said persuades me to your view.

I am just confused why you are making such an issue out of it though.

 

[NHInsider]

i was going to give the benefit of the doubt that he meant that not every one in the chruch taught correct teachings.

I think he means not every thing published by the Church is a statement of infallible dogma.

 

[NHInsider]

The circuitous arguments here are beginning to make even my brain hurt (and I’m not certainly not innocent of having created circular arguments. . .)

What I would love to ask Ink, again, is WHY this is so important to you? Important enough to take this position over and against not only the various participants in this discussion but against the myriad of citations, ancient and modern, that have been drawn into the conversation?

It seems to me that we have at the most basic level here an argument which I have otherwise only heard put forward by low-church evangelicals, which is based on the presmise that 1) a literalist reading of the book of Revelation, 2) an emotional premise that most of the time Paul was right and Peter was wrong 3) an ecclesiology that rejects the authority of the Apostles and their successors to do ANYTHING different than what any other Christian is called to do 4) a theology that says the Holy Spirit enables each individual Christian to know the Truth and obligates each Christian to interpret Scripture for himself and of course 5) a firm conviction that every truth of the faith is explicitly stated in Scripture (subject, of course, to the individual’s interpretation).

Since, brother Ink, I do not believe you hold to any of those unCatholic notions, I remain confused. . . .

 

[inkaneer]

Here’s something for you inkaneer:

Mishnah, Ohalot:

1:1. A: Two are unclean through a corpse. One is unclean with the uncleanness of seven days, and one is unlcean with the uncleanness that passes at evening.

1:2. B: Utensils which touch the corpse and utensils which touch other utensils are unclean with the uncleanness of seven days. The third, whether man or utensils, is unclean with the uncleanness that passes at the evening.

1.6. A: A man does not convey uncleanness until his Spirit goes forth

2.4: A: The rolling stone and buttressing stone convey uncleanness through contact and Tent but do not render unclean through carrying.
B. R. Eliezer says “They render unclean through carrying.”
C. R. Joshua says, “If there is dirt of graves under them, they render unclean through carrying, but if not, they do not render unclean through carrying.”

I think you get the idea, Inkaneer. It goes on to say even the corpse bearers could make other *things *unclean with their touch, which would then make *you *unclean, etc etc. I think, honestly, that you should give your interpretations on things pause. You don’t even have a grasp of basic Jewish, messianic, and OT belief/theology, so I’m not sure how you think you can go toe-to-toe with the Fathers and the Church on this issue.

But not only did Judas never lived on the ‘field of blood’ Judas never owned the field of Blood either. That was purchased by the priests with the money that Judas relinquished control of. Peter says specifically in Acts 1:20, " 'Let HIS habitation become desolate…" The pronoun ‘HIS’ is a possessive pronoun and shows possession or ownership. But Judas never owned nor possessed the field of blood. So your basic premise is totally wrong and you end up totally wrong.

 

[inkaneer]

Just a question.

Whose Feast day is celebrated on May 14th?

I will answer for you, St Matthias, apostle.

Now if the Church has placed St Matthias on the its liturgical calendar and given him the title of Apostle and gives instructions that the Common of Apostles be used is not that the ordinary Magisterium at work?

And the second reading from the Office of Readings for the day is from a homily on the Acts of the Apostles by St John Chrysostom and it seems to me that he is saying that Matthias is an apostle because the choice of him is left to Christ rather than Peter or the other apostles.

But as you have said, the Church has not made a dogmatic pronouncement (though it does appear that the ordinary Magisterium has spoken through the liturgical calendar) we are free to believe as we wish and nothing you have said persuades me to your view.

I am just confused why you are making such an issue out of it though.

Oh come on now. Really, since when is the liturgical calendar considered an infallible statement of doctrine? Also, St. Christopher had a feast day on the liturgical calendar on July 25, that is until he was removed when people realized he was nothing more than a mythological figure on the same level as Zeus or any of the other mythological figures that people once believed in. Why there were even churches named for him. So much for the liturgical calendar.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Oh come on now. Really, since when is the liturgical calendar considered an infallible statement of doctrine? Also, St. Christopher had a feast day on the liturgical calendar on July 25, that is until he was removed when people realized he was nothing more than a mythological figure on the same level as Zeus or any of the other mythological figures that people once believed in. Why there were even churches named for him. So much for the liturgical calendar.

Saint Christopher is still a reconized saint of the Chruch he is not consider an mythical being online with zeus. Much that is believed about him is thought to be ledgend and not fact. However he was a martry of the 3rd century. His feast day is still july 25.

For more info
newadvent.org/cathen/03728a.htm

 

[inkaneer]

The circuitous arguments here are beginning to make even my brain hurt (and I’m not certainly not innocent of having created circular arguments. . .)

What I would love to ask Ink, again, is WHY this is so important to you? Important enough to take this position over and against not only the various participants in this discussion but against the myriad of citations, ancient and modern, that have been drawn into the conversation?

It seems to me that we have at the most basic level here an argument which I have otherwise only heard put forward by low-church evangelicals, which is based on the presmise that 1) a literalist reading of the book of Revelation, 2) an emotional premise that most of the time Paul was right and Peter was wrong 3) an ecclesiology that rejects the authority of the Apostles and their successors to do ANYTHING different than what any other Christian is called to do 4) a theology that says the Holy Spirit enables each individual Christian to know the Truth and obligates each Christian to interpret Scripture for himself and of course 5) a firm conviction that every truth of the faith is explicitly stated in Scripture (subject, of course, to the individual’s interpretation).

Since, brother Ink, I do not believe you hold to any of those unCatholic notions, I remain confused. . . .

You ask, why is this important to me? Why am I a Catholic and not protestant? Why am I a Catholic and not Orthodox? My faith journey is a journey for the truth. And do not misstate me. I never said Peter was wrong or that Paul was right. I said Peter was right even though, in the eyes of bible scholars, he apparently committed a major faux paus in cherry picking two unrelated bible verses and joining them together. They being Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. Now I said apparently for a reason. Because I say Peter did not cherry pick these two verses. Peter is not applying these two verses to one thing but each verse applies to a different thing. Psalm 69:25 applies to Judas’ Apostlehood and Psalm 109:8 applies to his office of bishop. I do not reject the authority of the Apostles. How can you honestly say that when I have stated repeatedly that the Apostles used their authority to consecrate Matthias as a bishop?

Quite frankly I am getting a little tired of people twisting my words around or saying I said things that I never said. I have to really wonder that if you twist my words around like you do then I can only imagine the violence you do to the scriptures. And about those scriptures, What is wrong with them that you people turn away from them and go to such ridiculous lengths as to use the liturgical calendar as some sort of doctrinal source? Is that dumb or what? I use the scriptures because I am not afraid to engage protestants in apologetic discussions using the scriptures alone. I have no fear that the scriptures will contradict Catholic teaching or that Catholic teaching is outside of the scriptures I KNOW they won’t contradict Church teaching and I have enough faith in the Holy Spirit and those Catholic Bishops that He guided that those writings they selected for inclusion into the Bible contain Catholic teaching. For instance, I can show the protestants from the scriptures why Mary is Queen of Heaven without using Rev 12:1-6. I can show protestants from the scriptures why we can pray to Mary without using any of the Deuterocanonicals. Those protestants will not accept the ECF’s or Oral Tradition so I meet them with something they will accept. And by the way I do use the ECF’s but only as a historical testimony to show what the church believed in their day and I don’t ascribe inerrancy or infallibility to them and I don’t take their writings for doctrinal proof. Have no fear the scriptures are Catholic.

 

[inkaneer]

OK, Ink.

I finally got off my lazy duff and looked up “numbered” in the dictionary. The one that applies to our verse in question is:
To reckon as one of a collection or multitude.

Now, if Matthias was numbered with the eleven Apostles, that would mean he was a part of the collection… collection of what? Collection of Apostles or multitude of Apostles.

I think its clear that Matthias was considered one of the 12 Apostles.

So why does scripture say there still only eleven Apostles? One could be one of a collection multitude and still not be the same as the others. I could throw a net into the water and pull up 11 fish and one lobster. That lobster is one of the collection but is not the same as the other 11.

 

[NotWorthy]

So why does scripture say there still only eleven Apostles? One could be one of a collection multitude and still not be the same as the others. I could throw a net into the water and pull up 11 fish and one lobster. That lobster is one of the collection but is not the same as the other 11.

Where does Scripture say there are still 11? Paul refers to the Twelve and does not included himself with them, although he calls himself an Apostle.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ink,

Paul writes in Corinthians,1Cor. 15:5 “that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.”

We know that Judas was dead at this time, and we can assume that Matthias hadn’t been elevated yet… but we know that Matthias was there to witness all of Jesus’ ministry. Hence, the Twelve must be referring to the 11 Apostles plus the Apostle Matthias.

 

[NotWorthy]

So why does scripture say there still only eleven Apostles? One could be one of a collection multitude and still not be the same as the others. I could throw a net into the water and pull up 11 fish and one lobster. That lobster is one of the collection but is not the same as the other 11.

No, that depends on what you are counting.

If one is catching fish, then your statement is erroneous, but if one is asking how many did you catch, then your statement is valid.

In Acts, though, the author makes it clear what is being counted… Apostles. Look at the statement again, “and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.”

There is no indication that the author is counting bishops or anything like that.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ink,

One more thing, what would be Matthias’ See? I don’t know of any bishops that have ever been selected without a diocese, and during this time of the Church, there is only once diocese. That would be Jerusalem. There would be no reason to assign Matthias to be bishop for there is no need for a bishop at this time.