No Apostles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saint_Michael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Saint_Michael

Guest
I met with a couple of Mormon missionaries and have spent time reading the Book of Mormon, the history of the situation is I have spent much time researching Mormonism, and much of it I have been able to counter, however the one thing I have no answer to is this:

Why in the early Church did the Church clearly have Apostles, Bishops, Elders (priests or presbyters). But the Catholic Church today has no Apostles? They say it is because the Catholic Church became apostate, now I don’t believe that, but I need a good answer to why we do not have Apostles in the Church when clearly Apostles were called in the Bible after the original 12, I believe Paul, Matthias, and Barnabas were called to be Apostles. So why did the calling of Apostles stop?

It appears the early church started with Apostles who had a certain role to fill, but dissapeared shortly after the original Apostles.

Any ideas?
 
Saint_Michael said:
I met with a couple of Mormon missionaries and have spent time reading the Book of Mormon, the history of the situation is I have spent much time researching Mormonism, and much of it I have been able to counter, however the one thing I have no answer to is this:

Why in the early Church did the Church clearly have Apostles, Bishops, Elders (priests or presbyters). But the Catholic Church today has no Apostles? They say it is because the Catholic Church became apostate, now I don’t believe that, but I need a good answer to why we do not have Apostles in the Church when clearly Apostles were called in the Bible after the original 12, I believe Paul, Matthias, and Barnabas were called to be Apostles. So why did the calling of Apostles stop?

It appears the early church started with Apostles who had a certain role to fill, but dissapeared shortly after the original Apostles.

Any ideas?
Click to expand...
Matthias and Paul were both selected (Matthias by the other apostles, Paul a little later by Jesus directly) only to replace Judas Iscariot who had died and keep up the original generation/selection of 12.

There is no indication that I am aware of that Barnabas or anyone else was considered an apostle. Nor that apostleship itself was something which was intended to be passed from generation to generation.

Certainly the Catholic church is Apostolic - all bishops and priests are successors both in power, function and authority to the original 12 through the laying on of hands by those same Apostles.
 
Saint_Michael said:
Why in the early Church did the Church clearly have Apostles, Bishops, Elders (priests or presbyters). But the Catholic Church today has no Apostles? They say it is because the Catholic Church became apostate, now I don’t believe that, but I need a good answer to why we do not have Apostles in the Church when clearly Apostles were called in the Bible after the original 12, I believe Paul, Matthias, and Barnabas were called to be Apostles. So why did the calling of Apostles stop?

It appears the early church started with Apostles who had a certain role to fill, but dissapeared shortly after the original Apostles stop?
Click to expand...
Bishops are considered Successors to the Apostles. So in a sense, they are Apostles.
 
The bishops are the apostles of today. They are the successors to the original twelve. The primacy of Peter is passed down from each bishop of Rome to the next.
 
Saint_Michael said:
Why in the early Church did the Church clearly have Apostles, Bishops, Elders (priests or presbyters). But the Catholic Church today has no Apostles?
Click to expand...
This is not an official catholic answer but as I had always thought, Apostles were men who had personal contact with Jesus as he was incarnated. Barnabas was not an Apostle.

Matthias was chosen as a replacement for Judas but was a disciple of Jesus during his ministry on earth.

Paul presumably did not know Jesus before the resurrection from what we see in scripture, but Jesus did physically appear to him after Jesus’ ascension.

Barnabas was not an apostle:
Acts 4:36
Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),

If he was an apostle, Acts would have had to say he was called Barnabas by the OTHER apostles. The context indicates he was not one.

So ask your Mormon friends who today has physically seen Jesus. No early church writings refer to any other than the original 12, Matthias and Paul as apostles.

Mormonism also has the problem that if the church apostized after the Apostle John died (the last of the apostles) and was not restored until the 1800’s, then Jesus was a false prophet. He said the gates of hell would never prevail against his church. If the church failed for 1700+ years, Jesus lied.
 
Hope it’s okay for a protestant to add in here.

There are two very important requirements for an apostle.

1.) They had to be appointed by Christ himself.
2.) They had to have seen Christ.

No one today fits that description. Some say that there are “lower case” apostles still today, who have the gift of church planting, but I would disagree.

As for Matthias, I think it’s important for people to read Acts with an understanding that it is a book telling what happend. It is infallible in what it says, but not everything that the early church did was “the right thing to do.” For instance, Paul had to confront Peter (who catholics claim to be infallible) on how he was treating gentiles, and Peter recanted.

My point is, I know people that don’t think Matthias was really an apostle, and that Paul was really the 12th apostle, because he was appointed by Christ and had seen him on the road to damascus, while Matthias was sort of… randomly chosen. I don’t know if I agree with that, but it’s a possibility.

Just my two cents.
 
Hello Saint Michael,

Are some Mormons calling themselves “Apostles”?

Jesus said that He would send the Holy Spirit to the Church. Jesus said that He would be with the Church always. Jesus said that the whole world would come to know of Him. Was it the Mormon Church or the Catholic Church who fulfilled these words of Jesus?

Accordding to the book of Mormon, the Mormon Church died out within a couple hundred years of Jesus time on earth. Then, in the eighteenth century Joseph Smith, supposedly, found some golden tablets and then started the Mormon Church.

It would seem to me that if some Mormons are exalting themselves as “Apostles” one would have to ask where have all the Mormon “Apostles” been for a millenium and a half? Why do the Mormons think that the Holy Spirit would go into a milenium and a half of hideing, a couple centuries after the life of Christ?

If the Mormons are thinking they are better than the Catholics simply because they call some of their members “Apostles”, I really think this is a human desire to make themselves look good at the expense of implicating that the Holy Spirit was weak for a millenium and a half.
 
fellside said:
As for Matthias, I think it’s important for people to read Acts with an understanding that it is a book telling what happend. It is infallible in what it says, but not everything that the early church did was “the right thing to do.” For instance, Paul had to confront Peter (who catholics claim to be infallible) on how he was treating gentiles, and Peter recanted.
Click to expand...
Although this isn’t explicit from your post, make sure you don’t confuse infalliblity with impeccability. Even though Peter is surely not impeccable (denying Christ three times and messing up relations with the gentile Christians is explicit evidence of this), this does not say that he was therefore fallible in matters of faith and morals. But your point is well taken: the early Church was surely not impeccable (that is, without sin).

Sorry for straying slightly off-topic.
 
Messed the title up, Mod if you can adjust it I would appreciate it, thanks.
 
Should read “No Apostles”, not “No Apotles”, MOD if you can please change it, thanks.
 
Hey Fellside,
You are most welcome to reply to posts here. That’s what the forums are for! And Welcome!

You are correct in saying there are 2 conditons for being an Apostle - having been slected by Christ and having seen/been with Christ on his mission.

However, you seem to indicate that since Paul corrected Peter about his actions that that somehow does not make him infallible. Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccibility - which is what you are describing. The Pope is only infallible when teaching the faithful on faith and morals. Peter’s actions needed to be corrected but that has nothing to do with infallibility.

Matthias was not randomly chosen. He was chosen by the other Apostles and they “laid hands” on him. The laying on of hands is the matter involved in ordination, even now.

The Apostles were a select group of men, they were the first bishops - they died - but they passed on their “offices” to others with the laying on of hands and therefore passed on the office of Bishop. The Bishops of today are the direct successors of the Apostles.
 
fellside said:
It is infallible in what it says, but not everything that the early church did was “the right thing to do.” For instance, Paul had to confront Peter (who catholics claim to be infallible) on how he was treating gentiles, and Peter recanted.
Click to expand...
Atreyu said:
Although this isn’t explicit from your post, make sure you don’t confuse infalliblity with impeccability. Even though Peter is surely not impeccable (denying Christ three times and messing up relations with the gentile Christians is explicit evidence of this), this does not say that he was therefore fallible in matters of faith and morals. But your point is well taken: the early Church was surely not impeccable (that is, without sin).

Sorry for straying slightly off-topic.
Click to expand...
DianJo said:
However, you seem to indicate that since Paul corrected Peter about his actions that that somehow does not make him infallible. Infallibility has nothing to do with impeccibility - which is what you are describing. The Pope is only infallible when teaching the faithful on faith and morals. Peter’s actions needed to be corrected but that has nothing to do with infallibility…

…The Apostles were a select group of men, they were the first bishops - they died - but they passed on their “offices” to others with the laying on of hands and therefore passed on the office of Bishop. The Bishops of today are the direct successors of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
fellside,
As mentioned, you obviously have some confusion between infallibility and impeccablity. I find it funny that Protestants always pull this one instance to try to “prove” that Peter couldn’t have been the first Pope.

Atreyu,
This was probably a slip on your part but the early Church was indeed impeccable. The Church itself is, although the humans in it are not.
 
RCCDefender said:
Atreyu,
This was probably a slip on your part but the early Church was indeed impeccable. The Church itself is, although the humans in it are not.
Click to expand...
Ah - didn’t notice that! Thanks for that clarification!
 
Ace86 said:
I’m not a moderator, but there is usually an edit button somewhere that you can use. Unless they took it off.
Click to expand...
I think there’s a time limit for the edit button, after that only a MOD can edit it I think. Thanks though, I’ll just look illiterate for a little while longer…😃
 
Atreyu said:
Although this isn’t explicit from your post, make sure you don’t confuse infalliblity with impeccability. Even though Peter is surely not impeccable (denying Christ three times and messing up relations with the gentile Christians is explicit evidence of this), this does not say that he was therefore fallible in matters of faith and morals. But your point is well taken: the early Church was surely not impeccable (that is, without sin).

Sorry for straying slightly off-topic.
Click to expand...
Good digression. I am reading a great book by Pope John Paul II entitled Crossing the Threshold of Hope . The first chapter (or question) beautifuly discusses the issue you raised.
 
The issue concerning who is and who is not an apostle is not so clear as the two earlier criteria would indicate.

Barnabas is referred to as an apostle in Acts 14:1 which says:

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying,

Here is another verse that could be interpreted to indicate that Barnabas may have been referred to as an apostle:

1 Corinthians 9:5-6
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

There is of course the possibility that bishops may have sometimes been referred to as apostles but in a looser sense than that applied to the twelve.
 
Pax said:
The issue concerning who is and who is not an apostle is not so clear as the two earlier criteria would indicate.

Barnabas is referred to as an apostle in Acts 14:1 which says:

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying,

Here is another verse that could be interpreted to indicate that Barnabas may have been referred to as an apostle:

1 Corinthians 9:5-6
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

There is of course the possibility that bishops may have sometimes been referred to as apostles but in a looser sense than that applied to the twelve.
Click to expand...
Thanks Pax, I thought Barnabas was refered to as an Apostle but didn’t look it up.

This is the argument that I received from the missionaries. They claim if Paul, Matthias, and arguably Barnabas were made Apostles after the original 12 and 2 not called by Christ why did the calling of Apostles stop? And why is there no explanation as to why it stopped? It shows biblically that people were named to the position of Apostle in the early Church after the original 12. While an exact break down isn’t shown in the Bible it does show people were made Apostles rather than not made Apostles after the original 12. So why doesn’t the Catholic Church have Apostles? They claim their church has a quorom of 12 Apostles and 70 disciples.

To counter some of the things I’ve heard here of Apostles having to be called by Christ, they say "what about Barnabas and Matthias? They were not called by Christ, and there is nothing in the Bible claiming that Apostles had to have been called by Christ and Matthias shows that.

So Mormons’ claim that they at least have the actual set up of the early church.

I don’t know, it’s just one of those things, why don’t we have Apostles? What got lost in the shuffle along the way that shows the clear passing on of Apostolic authority? There’s no documentation of Apostles laying on of hands to ordain Bishops and given them the same power of the Apostles? If Apostles and Bishops’ existed in the early Church wouldn’t they have different functions? So why are there no more Apostles?
 
Saint_Michael said:
I don’t know, it’s just one of those things, why don’t we have Apostles? What got lost in the shuffle along the way that shows the clear passing on of Apostolic authority? There’s no documentation of Apostles laying on of hands to ordain Bishops and given them the same power of the Apostles? If Apostles and Bishops’ existed in the early Church wouldn’t they have different functions? So why are there no more Apostles?
Click to expand...
I really think the basic answer to this is that the bishops today are the apostles. They are not of the Twelve - but neither is Paul (I think) nor Barnabas. If you look at the position of James the Just (bishop of Jerusalem) in the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, then that is the same function that bishops have today. I think there is a difference between the original Twelve and the rest of the apostles (or bishops), but the rest of the apostles are exactly the same as the bishops of today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top