No Apostles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saint_Michael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The crucial criteria for being an apostle as opposed to a bishop is that an apostle had to be an eyewitness. Clearly, Matthias was an eyewitness to Jesus. Likewise, Paul was granted a special privelege of apostleship by way of Jesus appearing directly to him and giving him the gospel and his apostolic commission. It is very likely that Barnabas was also an eyewitness like Matthias. Also note that the word bishop means overseer and the word bishop is used in scripture in the NT church. Moreover when Matthias is chosen scripture says “and his “bishoprick” let another take.”[KJV Acts 1:20] It is clear that the office held by Judas was not only known by that of “apostle” but was also known as that of “bishop.” The greek word used is “episkopenautou” from which we get the word episcopate which we associate with the office of bishop.

Ordination is the key to passing on apostolic power and authority. We see that in the appointment of Matthias and Paul. Also read Acts 8:1-24. The narrative involves Simon the Magician’s conversion and then his desire to “buy” from the apostles the power associated with the “laying on of hands.” This of course he was denied and Peter heavily reprimanded him. Paul also cautions Timothy not to be hasty in the “laying on of hands.”[1 Tim 5:22]

There is more in the NT mentioning bishops and it clear that they are the successors to the apostles. The apostles had to be eyewitnesses as is made clear in the selection of Mathias[see Acts 1:21] Their non-eyewitness successors are referred to as bishops.

Mormon practices do not follow the practices of the earliest Christians during the lives of the apostles or during the immediate post apostolic period. In dealing with Mormons you need to have researched the ECF’s to show that the earliest Christian practices in the post apostolic period are the same as that during the time of the apostles and that they are the same practices found in the Catholic Church today. They will argue for the “great apostasy” but there is absolutely no evidence that any such thing occurred. Their idea that there should be apostles today simply isn’t consistent with the data.
 
Pax said:
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,
Click to expand...
I think you meant Acts 14:14
 
It will also be of use to remind them, and possibly yourself, that “Apostle” is a title of function, not a mandated word for a hierarchical position. Bishops are the inheretors of the ecclesial authority of the Apostles, and are the necessary result of “one who is sent” (an apostle) settling down in a region to establish a permanent community, and therefore “oversees” (now a bishop) the established community. Their authority has not changed, just the functionality of its use.

We could call all the cardinals “Apostles”, if we wanted to, in a false appeal to being “more” correct in an erroneous belief that any true church must have a body of people called “Apostles”, just as the mormons did.

As to the requirement for being an “eyewitness” to Christ’s ministry, ala Acts, if you read it without assuming too much, you can readily see that they were making up that requirement on the spot, and such would be a normative one as at that time there was still hundreds of Christ’s followers currently available for such an appointment; if you had such a reseource, it only makes sense to utilize it. HOWEVER, that does not mean that it is an absolute requirement to hold the title of “Apostle”. Technically, EVERYONE sent on a mission, or more especially to establish a community, is entitled to the descriptor “Apostle”. See Francis Xavier, the “Apostle of the East”…

Besides, it is the false idea of the Mormons that Apostles had a specifically distinct authority from other “callings” like bishops, that creates this false “problem”. Thus, when the apostles all died, they claim the authority inherited from, and held by, the Bishops was not the full authority of the Apostles, thus that authority was lost. Unfortunately this concept is contraditory to their “revealed” truth that the Aposlte John is still living and roaming the world in secret. If this is true, then the authority was never lost… (and round and round it goes…). You will also find, if you push enough, that one of the current mormomyths is that the LDS Apostles have had direct contact with Jesus, in the same manner as Paul, and such a contact is a secret requirement for the calling, and is how they know who is going to become an apostle.

When the mormons want your to read the NT passages, they want you to believe, as they do, that each functionary title mentioned, like “prophet”, is a necessary and literal part of the “true” hierarchy established by Christ.

Perhaps use a tactic of Jesus and ask them two things:
1.) What persons in the Bible do they believe are Prophets?
followed by:
2.) Which of those prophets actually presided as the LEADER of the Church?

Yes, they can point to the obvious one, Moses, but they will be lost otherwise, as the bible clearly indicates the prophets were on the fringe of the Hierarchy, not the center.
3>) How then can the lds church insist that it is both a.) the true continuation of the eternal church b.) while being organized in contradiction to clear scriptureal reference within their own “versions” of the scriptures (thus not allowing the “translation error” dodge). When this is adequetly explained, then answer them regarding the supposed “lack” of Apostles…
 
That said, don’t waste too much energy rationalizing with the irrational. If you are seeking the resolution to this issue for your own edification, perhaps reading the articles at New Advent would help a strong bit. (as they define the use and meaning of the title Apostle).

However, you aren’t going to convince a mormon missionary you are right, as making them see the truth of this matter requires them to reshape nearly every aspect of their knowledge and understanding of the Preisthood, the Church, and their restored versions thereof. This requires far more foundational work than an occasional conversation will allow.

In essence, you are both using the same terminology while meaning fundamentally and irreconcilably distinct things by them. Its like speaking french while using english words! As such, until you both have a true understanding of the words you each are using, and have a mutually agreed upon definition, only then will you have a chance at a real debate. However, you cannot rely upon their definition of Apostle to defend why the Catholic Church does not have “Apostles”. You have to force them to use Catholic definitions when you are demonstrating a Catholic fact, otherwise you will accomplish nothing except help them feel vindicated in their error.

If you want more examples of this, research the Church’s official answer to the question as to why the Church denies the validity of mormon baptism, despite their usage of the “correct” Trinitarian formula. Do not rely on anyone’s water-downed answer, find the Church’s complete answer. If you consent to allowing the mormons to define (or more accurately, redefine) ecclesiastical terms, you will always be speaking past each other, and will only continue to be frustrated at why you cannot get through to them. You may even eventually consent to their being correct about some point or another, despite their actual error on the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top