Matthias vs Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter Judas_Thaddeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Judas_Thaddeus

Guest
Need some info, just out of curiosity.

I watch Heart of the Matter hosted by Shawn McCraney (an ex-Mormon) a lot, and
once and a while I’ll hear his opinion on the debatable topic of the Apostle who re-
placed Judas Iscariot.

Now I trust that God approved of the selection of Matthias as the new twelfth Apostle,
but Shawn feels more incline to think that the Apostles were taking this replacing of
Judas into their own hands, and that God had other plans: Paul.

So what exactly does the Catholic Church say on this matter?
 
Matthias was the chosen Apostle in the scriptures. Who are we to know the mind of God in this or any matter. We either accept Scripture or we substitute the facts with a manufactured history of what we want. As an ex-mormon, your friend may have experience in this regard.I am sure the Holy Spirit had a hand in guiding His church then as He does today.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Need some info, just out of curiosity.

I watch Heart of the Matter hosted by Shawn McCraney (an ex-Mormon) a lot, and
once and a while I’ll hear his opinion on the debatable topic of the Apostle who re-
placed Judas Iscariot.

Now I trust that God approved of the selection of Matthias as the new twelfth Apostle,
but Shawn feels more incline to think that the Apostles were taking this replacing of
Judas into their own hands, and that God had other plans: Paul.

So what exactly does the Catholic Church say on this matter?
Click to expand...
I believe that scripture tells us that after Pentecost happened, Peter told the remaining 11 that they needed to choose amongst them 1 of the other disciples to take the place of Judas Iscariot as an actual apostle. They gathered and prayed for God’s help in choosing and for the Holy Spirit to guide them and --as I remember—2 possible candidates were selected as possibilities. They again asked for heavenly guidance and had the 2 potential men draw straws–and Mathias was chosen. Apparently, Jesus Himself chose Paul as his special apostle to the Gentiles while Paul was on his way to perscute more Christians and when Jesus appeared to him. No offense to mormons–but in the grand scheme of things–and considering the fact that even by the year 200 or so, a mere 12 “apostles” would never have sufficed to continue the spread of Christianity and to ascertain that Christians received the Sacraments (even if the original 12 hadn’t all died by then which they had)–don’t you sort of sometimes wonder about mormons who spend a lot of time fussing about such trivia? LOL! Paul never seemed to place himself above the other apostles and did seem to recognize Peter as the leader–but the fact is that Paul was extremely well educated,an eloquent writer, and a Roman citizen (possibly why Jesus chose him as the man for the job He had in mind!) so his epistles and letters were probably held onto with some pride and much authority and thus we get the feeling that Paul actually witnessed Jesus’ life and preaching–which Paul didn’t–but Mathias may well have!
 
This shows why we need to be very wary of unreliable non-Catholic sources. Anyone who tells us that the New Testament and/or Christs’ apostles were wrong about something so important needs to be rejected. Paul was chosen directly by God as were the original Twelve. However, Paul was subject to the apostolic Church just as all Christians were, he was not opposed to the other apostles.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
This shows why we need to be very wary of unreliable non-Catholic sources. Anyone who tells us that the New Testament and/or Christs’ apostles were wrong about something so important needs to be rejected. Paul was chosen directly by God as were the original Twelve. However, Paul was subject to the apostolic Church just as all Christians were, he was not opposed to the other apostles.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Mormons are a special breed of nuts though–in the same thread though different vein perhaps as JW’s and 7th Day Adventists. I always try to avoid religious discussions with them–it’s a little like arguing reality with a schizophrenic or anything at all with a drunk! You’ll never win–and by the time you realize you’ve lost, you almost forget who’s crazy and who isn’t! LOL!
 
Yes that is wrong, because it implies that Matthias being installed was not pleasing to God, and that somehow Paul was a response or a chastisement,

Paul was a bishop but he was not one of the twelve, and Paul is considered an apostle because he was called by Christ directly.

This is not some situation where the apostles were seeking their own will. To suggest Matthias was a result of their own will, is to go against Acts. It was under Peter’s actions guided by the Holy Spirit. This is the kind of thinking that can arise by ignoring the primacy of Peter. So of course a non-Catholic or a non-Catholic point of view would not find how contradictory it would be to say,* “God had other plans”*

Matthias and Paul’s apostleship have nothing to do with each other, as far as conflict goes about who replaced Judas, because Acts says Matthias replaced Judas. (There was a second guy, who was almost a candidate btw)

Paul’s calling is independent from that. St. Paul’s life is a remarkable testament of God’s grace. That God had plans for him, as he was not part of the twelve demonstrates the mighty works of the Lord, as his ministry and evangelization confounds the wicked to this day.
It also is a reminder to strengthen us in understanding the Lord’s words, “vengeance is mine, I will repay” and his command to pray for one’s enemies.

That is why we hear from enemies of the Church who claim that Paul somehow hijacked the teaching or Christ’s intentions – even though that goes contrary to actual actions of the early Church as the apostles accepted him into the fold. Not too mention this was a notorious murderer and persecutor in their eyes, so how can they let his actions stand if he did so. This suggestion also ignores the fact that Paul sought Peter.
 
Starrsmother said:
I agree.
Mormons are a special breed of nuts though–in the same thread though different vein perhaps as JW’s and 7th Day Adventists. I always try to avoid religious discussions with them–it’s a little like arguing reality with a schizophrenic or anything at all with a drunk! You’ll never win–and by the time you realize you’ve lost, you almost forget who’s crazy and who isn’t! LOL!
Click to expand...
lol, reborn heresies can do that to people.
 
Petaro said:
Matthias was the chosen Apostle in the scriptures. Who are we to know the mind of God in this or any matter. We either accept Scripture or we substitute the facts with a manufactured history of what we want. As an ex-mormon, your friend may have experience in this regard.I am sure the Holy Spirit had a hand in guiding His church then as He does today.
Click to expand...
👍
Starrsmother said:
I believe that scripture tells us that after Pentecost happened, Peter told the remaining 11 that they needed to choose amongst them 1 of the other disciples to take the place of Judas Iscariot as an actual apostle.
Click to expand...
It was actually before Pentecost that they chose Matthias.

I have done alot of thinking on this topic also. In the end, i feel the Church does recognize Matthias as the 12th Apostle. Benedict XVI has acknowledged it (sorry I couldnt provide the link. Its in my thread on this subject, provided by BookCat). He then fefered to Paul as a “13th” apostle, in a sense. He was not one of the twelve on which the Church was founded on, in regard to the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul was an apostle of extension.

The apointing of Matthias is very interesting. It actually demonstrated Peter’s lead role among the others, demonstrated the authority of the whole Magisterium being God’s will, and required the first hand experience of Jesus Christ’s ministry from His Baptism to His resurrection.

Paul was an called to be an apostle as “one born untimely” and with a ministry of missionary based extension to the gentiles. The Church was already born, and Paul was persecuting her! Then blinded by Jesus and sent to the Church to be received, healed, baptized, and laid hands on to receive the HS. His gospel was in great part revealed to him by revelation, directly from Jesus. However, he was prompted to confirm his gospel with Peter and the twelve…not to receive it from them, or for them to add to it, but to be confirmed and given their hand in fellowship.

So Pauls apostleship was not inferior to the others, yet different in nature according to his mission. Only God knows who is greater in serving the Lord.

Michael
 
rcwitness said:
👍

It was actually before Pentecost that they chose Matthias.

I have done alot of thinking on this topic also. In the end, i feel the Church does recognize Matthias as the 12th Apostle. Benedict XVI has acknowledged it (sorry I couldnt provide the link. Its in my thread on this subject, provided by BookCat). He then fefered to Paul as a “13th” apostle, in a sense. He was not one of the twelve on which the Church was founded on, in regard to the 12 tribes of Israel. Paul was an apostle of extension.

The apointing of Matthias is very interesting. It actually demonstrated Peter’s lead role among the others, demonstrated the authority of the whole Magisterium being God’s will, and required the first hand experience of Jesus Christ’s ministry from His Baptism to His resurrection.

Paul was an called to be an apostle as “one born untimely” and with a ministry of missionary based extension to the gentiles. The Church was already born, and Paul was persecuting her! Then blinded by Jesus and sent to the Church to be received, healed, baptized, and laid hands on to receive the HS. His gospel was in great part revealed to him by revelation, directly from Jesus. However, he was prompted to confirm his gospel with Peter and the twelve…not to receive it from them, or for them to add to it, but to be confirmed and given their hand in fellowship.

So Pauls apostleship was not inferior to the others, yet different in nature according to his mission. Only God knows who is greater in serving the Lord.

Michael
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction that it was BEFORE not after Pentecost. I knew it was around that time. And I agree with your thoughts on Paul’s role in the early church and Peter stepping up and taking the lead that Jesus had assigned him.👍
 
Starrsmother said:
Thanks for the correction that it was BEFORE not after Pentecost. I knew it was around that time. And I agree with your thoughts on Paul’s role in the early church and Peter stepping up and taking the lead that Jesus had assigned him.👍
Click to expand...
Sure 😉
I agree with the rest of your post also. But that point is kinda significant.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Now I trust that God approved of the selection of Matthias as the new twelfth Apostle, but Shawn feels more incline to think that the Apostles were taking this replacing of Judas into their own hands, and that God had other plans: Paul.

So what exactly does the Catholic Church say on this matter?
Click to expand...
Not sure about the Church (other than the obvious), but here’s my take: Matthias stepped into the role and got to work immediately. It took Paul awhile to come up to speed.

The Development of Saul of Tarsus

Acts 9:19-25
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. 23After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, 24but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. 25But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

It is thought that after his escape, Paul travelled to Arabia and spent three years there in a self-imposed exile or extended retreat before returning to Israel. The narrative in Acts picks up the trail in the very next verse:

Acts 9:26-30
26When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. 30When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

Clearly, Paul wasn’t having a lot of success in joining the Church in Jerusalem until Barnabas took him to the Apostles. I wonder if Paul was not something like Apollos at this point…preaching the gospel but making only limited progress. In fact, after a threat on Paul’s life, he was sent to Tarsus and disappears from the narrative of Acts for a second time.

At this point, we have to ask some honest questions: is there any evidence that Paul succeeded in building up the Church in Tarsus? Are there epistles from Paul to the believers in Tarsus written while he was travelling? None whatsoever. There is no record of Paul’s evangelism in Tarsus of at all. Finally, after a period of silence, Barnabas goes to Tarsus to enlist Paul’s help in Antioch where Barnabas was having great success.

Acts 11:25-30
25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. 27During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. 30This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

The Church in Antioch took up a collection for the Church in Jerusalem, and Saul is sent as a courier to deliver the gift to the elders in Jerusalem. Then:

Acts 12:25
25When Barnabas and Saul had finished their mission, they returned from Jerusalem, taking with them John, also called Mark.

It seems that Barnabas and Saul weren’t even Bishops or elders at this point; they were sent wherever they were needed. And then we read the following:

Acts 13:1-3
1In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

Notice especially that Barnabas was either A) a prophet, B) a teacher or C) both in the Church at Antioch. As a sidebar, notice that one chapter earlier, Luke recorded the following:

Acts 12:16-17
16But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. 17Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. “Tell James and the brothers about this,” he said, and then he left for another place.

What was this other place that Peter left for? Antioch. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch followed by Evodius and Ignatius (who later recorded that the Church was calling itself the “Catholic Church” in a letter he wrote in 107 AD). So, it is plausible that Peter is in Antioch at this time…and that’s where we find Barnabas and Saul.

(cont.)
 
Note further that the text tells us, “the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ 3So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

Hmmm…Saul and Barnabas had hands laid on them in preparation for the work that the Holy Spirit called them to. There’s a lot going on here, so let’s itemize.
  1. Peter may have been among those who laid hands on Saul and Barnabas
  2. Barnabas is still considered a prophet and/or teacher at this point
  3. Paul is still called Saul here (a minor point perhaps)
  4. Although Saul had seen Jesus on the Damascus Road, the Holy Spirit called him apart for a separate ministry.
Here is a question: At what point did the prophet/teacher Barnabas become an Apostle? We know that Barnabas became an apostle because later we read:

Acts 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:

Notice that Barnabas is referred to as an Apostle after the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on him.

Another point: When did Saul become Paul? Of course, this may simply have been his Greek name from the time of his youth (since he was a Jew raised in the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus), but the first mention of it in scripture is here:

Acts 13:9
Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,

Again, this was AFTER the Church at Antioch (Peter included?) laid hands on Saul and Barnabas in Acts 13:3.

Well, as I said, there is a lot going on here, and perhaps I have read too much into these verses. I won’t be a stickler for Peter being present or the bit about Saul’s name change, but I will hold firm on the idea that the Church laid hands on Saul and Barnabas and subsequently we see changes in the way the scriptures refer to them both.

Paul was a nobody, an assistant to Barnabas at best, until the Church at Antioch laid hands on him. After that, he begins to rise to prominence.

That’s right, Paul was of little account in the Church prior to Acts 13:13. He had an experience of Jesus on the Damascus Road (Don’t all of us have stories about when we first believed?), then he went into Arabia on an extended personal retreat, and then Saul, the brilliant student of Gamaliel, went home to momma in Tarsus. Barnabas found him living in his parents’ basement and brought him out of obscurity. Only then was he ordained by the Church and set apart for greater ministry.

God called him, the Church ordained him, the Holy Spirit inspired him. Seems pretty straight forward to me…

Yet, even after all of this, Paul himself felt it necessary to double-check his understanding of the gospel with Peter.

Galatians 2:1-2
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

Paul FEARED that he might be in error; who did He check with? Jesus? The Holy Spirit? The Bible Alone? Nope. He checked his gospel against the infallible, authoritative teaching of the living head of the Church, Peter the rock.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Need some info, just out of curiosity.

I watch Heart of the Matter hosted by Shawn McCraney (an ex-Mormon) a lot, and
once and a while I’ll hear his opinion on the debatable topic of the Apostle who re-
placed Judas Iscariot.

Now I trust that God approved of the selection of Matthias as the new twelfth Apostle,
but Shawn feels more incline to think that the Apostles were taking this replacing of
Judas into their own hands, and that God had other plans: Paul.

So what exactly does the Catholic Church say on this matter?
Click to expand...
It is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. The apostles wanted someone who had accompanied them throughout Jesus’ public ministry, from John’s baptism to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus into heaven so that the replacement would be a witness to Jesus’ resurrection. Paul was not one of these men. He actually persecuted the Church before his conversion. Paul was chosen by Christ to be the apostle to the gentiles. All this is recorded in the New Testament. I do not see what the debate is about!
 
Richca said:
It is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. The apostles wanted someone who had accompanied them throughout Jesus’ public ministry, from John’s baptism to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus into heaven so that the replacement would be a witness to Jesus’ resurrection.
Click to expand...
Another great point from Acts.
Paul was not one of these men. He actually persecuted the Church before his conversion. Paul was chosen by Christ to be the apostle to the gentiles. All this is recorded in the New Testament.** I do not see what the debate is about!**
Click to expand...
just another case of the sins from the Protestant Reformation still reverberating, both from within the Church at the time, and the scourge named Martin Luther (and company.)

really, really bad hermeneutics… One wouldn’t be shocked if they reached the levels of Ibu Al’ Quasim,

“The Resuscitations of Mohammad” AD 610

Jesus is Moses’ nephew :rotfl:
 
Every Coptic Orthodox iconostasis contains icons of the 12 Apostles, including St Matthias.

On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox have a tradition of depicting St Paul in iconographic scenes during the ministry of Christ along with the other 11 Apostles to show that St Paul was in no way short in his Apostleship and that he is equal with the others.

That said, one may take the view that all the Apostles (i.e. including the 70 [or 72 depending on tradition]) are all equally Apostles anyway. Then this debate becomes less significant.
 
In the Tridentine mass, a prayer is said by the priest after the consecration for the fellowship with the apostles and martyrs. St. Matthias is one who is specifically mentioned. The old tradition of veneration for the saints and the apostles is as old as Christianity. Trust the tradition of the church and it’s holy mass which has some of the oldest roman prayers customs known. We all know the Mormons like to play with their history!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top