Prodigal's Isle

[tukfryer]

This thread cracks me up
Who’s the greatest among men?
I assure you its not the one boosting or insisting he is.

I’ve always been impressed with peoples ability to speak at length so elegantly yet say nothing.
When words are many sin is not absent. Proverbs 10:19

 

[paul_c]

It amazes me that Catholics use this verse to support the CC,
All you have to do is keep reading and you discover that “holding Mosses seat” was no constellation prize on the contrary, it meant absolutely NOTHING! Jesus goes on to blast them straight to hell. The 7 woes to those who hold the seat of Mosses. I do agree that there is a likeness in the catholic church and the Pharisees, or better said the seat of Peter and the seat of Mosses, I really cant tell the difference.

.

Tukfryer, why can you not understand that the entire Bible supports the Catholic position, precisely because that is why it was created. In 382 AD, the Church in Council decided on the Canon of the Bible They did this on the basis of what they recognized as Apostolic AND supporting the Catholic Tradition. It was ratified by Pope Damascus. Therefore, by definition, everything in the Bible is Catholic.

As for the seat of Moses, Jesus recognized their teaching authority and told his followers to follow the teaching, but not to follow their examples. The woes are focused on the fact that the Pharisees did not live out the teachings themselves. So you are right, being the leader does not free you from following the same teachings as everyone else. And we recognize that. No one says that every Pope goes to heaven. We know some had significant sin in their personal lives and will be held accountable for them. At the same time, we recognize their right to teach and our responsibility to follow, just As Jesus recognized the rights of the Jewish leaders of his day. In that we are consistent.

And by the way, the original quote was demonstrating that there was a right of succession. It only makes sense that authority would be passed down from generation to generation, otherwise the Christian faith would necessarily stop when the last Apostle died. As you know, it did not.

 

[paul_c]

So the Apostels cast lots and it fell to Matthias. All good and well Matthias probably went on to preach the good news. So then it looks as though Jesus called another, named Paul. So what do we now believe that because Paul was not “one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us”, that he was not an Apostle? The one that that Jesus says of in, Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. Here we see Paul called apart from every precept the church of Rome teaches. The man that the NT would be greatly reduced in volume without.

The OT example is found in Numbers 11 The seventy elders are called. Eldad and Medad did not attend the formal tabernacle with the rest but still received the Spirit. What Mosses said of this is the same way that the NT church enlist its members, in spite of Joshua’s protest.

28 So Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, one of his choice men, answered and said, “Moses my lord, forbid them!”
29 Then Moses said to him, “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!” 30 And Moses returned to the camp, he and the elders of Israel.

So where and how do these examples fit into the CC teachings? if they were true.
I like quoting this verse buy most dont know the story behind it, its a story I encourage you to read, the 11th chapter of Numbers. When I hear people say such things as salvation can only be found in our church I remember Numbers 11:23 And the LORD said to Moses, “Has the LORD’s arm been shortened?

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.

You seem to think that Paul acted outside the authority of the other Apostles. He did not. Following his conversion on the road to Damascus, he was baptized into the Church by Ananius. (Acts 9). In Acts 11 we find that Barnabus enlisted Paul to help preach in Antioch. After that, still in Acts 11, he was sent by the Church along with Barnabus to carry financial relief from Antioch to Jerusalem. In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabus are sent by the Church on their missionary trips. In Acts 15, Paul is sent by the leaders of the Antioch Church to Jerusalem to get clarity on how to treat the Gentiles. He is then subsequently sent out to preach again.

Notice also, in Paul’s account in Galatians, how despite his direct calling from Christ, he describes how he went to Peter for instruction. First at the beginning of his ministry, when he spent 15 days with him and then 14 years later at the Council of Jerusalem, where he says in Galatians 2:
1Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2 I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.

This is not to say that Paul was not an Apostle, he most certainly was. But this is to show that he was under the jurisdiction of the Church led by St. Peter the entire time. Using Paul as an example of someone outside the Church, as you yourself are, is simply without merit.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Skimmed through several of your posts. Great stuff, all (including your posts, Tuk)! No time to reply, now. Going to my younger son’s track meet. But looking forward to continuing the dialog later with great expectations for the result.

 

[JRKH]

It amazes me that Catholics use this verse to support the CC,

And it amazes me that “Non-Cathoics” fail to read, and quote my entire post to see that I addressed the fact that Jesus did not agree with WHAT the pharisees were teaching.

I was addressing a specific point made by Soc4Jesus about the Seat od Moses being empty.

All you have to do is keep reading and you discover that “holding Mosses seat” was no constellation prize on the contrary, it meant absolutely NOTHING! Jesus goes on to blast them straight to hell. The 7 woes to those who hold the seat of Mosses. I do agree that there is a likeness in the catholic church and the Pharisees, or better said the seat of Peter and the seat of Mosses, I really cant tell the difference.

While you ave provided a plethora of bible commentary. I will only address the first one since this is the crux of the matter of teaching authority.

23:1-12 Warnings against the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. Jesus warns the crowd and his disciples not to follow the false leadership of the Pharisees (v v. 1-12), then directly pronounces woes upon those leaders for their deadly actions (see v v. 13-39).

Here is the passage:
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, “Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called “Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
Please Show me the verse that says the people are not to follow the “False leadership” of the Pharisees. People are not to follow the “Example” of the Pharisees, but they MUST follow the teachings.
Jesus is VERY Specific here. The things that the Pharisees TEACH (”…whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do…”) the faithful are to follow. However they are not to assume that the pharisees actions carry the same weight as their teachings, (”…but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.")

Yes, Jesus does go on to pronounce grave consequences upon the Pharisees for their poor example, But NOWHERE does Jesus abrogate His earlier admonishment that the People Obey the “Teachings” of those who sit on the seat of Moses.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This thread cracks me up
Who’s the greatest among men?
I assure you its not the one boosting or insisting he is.

I’ve always been impressed with peoples ability to speak at length so elegantly yet say nothing.
When words are many sin is not absent. Proverbs 10:19

Yes I agree
In fact your posts 593 and 594 seem good examples.
Sorry - I couldn’t resist.

Peace
James

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Socrates and the Protestants among our forum,

The Catholic Faith is true, whatever the status of the Bp. of Rome happens to be. Personally, I do not regard the claims of infallible Papal authority to be well founded (along with some of the minor points of Roman doctrine which are derived from Scholastic speculation), but I’ll “go along for the spiritual ride” with the Catholic Church rather than be shipwrecked in Protestantism (Lutheranism, in my case) or the sects (Baptists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, et alia), whose groups are spiritually dead, devoid of the sacraments as they are, and stuck deep in all kinds of scandalous errors.

The Pope’s primacy is one thing, his supposed infallibility another. I “keep the powder dry” on the latter and bear with it. If the Pope goes seriously awry, one can always resort to a “sedes vacante” argument to explain the situation that he would create.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[paul_c]

Socrates and the Protestants among our forum,

The Catholic Faith is true, whatever the status of the Bp. of Rome happens to be. Personally, I do not regard the claims of infallible Papal authority to be well founded (along with some of the minor points of Roman doctrine which are derived from Scholastic speculation), but I’ll “go along for the spiritual ride” with the Catholic Church rather than be shipwrecked in Protestantism (Lutheranism, in my case) or the sects (Baptists, Pentecostals, Campbellites, et alia), whose groups are spiritually dead, devoid of the sacraments as they are, and stuck deep in all kinds of scandalous errors.

The Pope’s primacy is one thing, his supposed infallibility another. I “keep the powder dry” on the latter and bear with it. If the Pope goes seriously awry, one can always resort to a “sedes vacante” argument to explain the situation that he would create.

Pax, Jerry Parker

Note, Jerry, that Papal Infallibility was made doctrine in 1870. In the 139 years since then, it has been invoked exactly once, to declare the assumption of Mary in 1950.
It is hardly a power grab by the Popes. After all, the Pope that declared it, never used it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You raise many good points that demonstrate how God led His “Stiff Necked” people thourgh many centuries of trial, success, exile and recovery. Indeed there were many “forms” of governance used. We can also see such changes in governance in the Church since Christ founded it.
But I think that when you say that, “the Chair of Moses is that it belonged to Moses alone”, you forget, or perhaps never noticed Jesus own words on the matter. I refer you to this from Matthew 23 vs 2-3: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.So your statement that the Chair of Moses had been empty is incorrect. It had been held by the Scribes and Pharisees, headed of course by the Chief Priest of the Temple. Not only that but Jesus, in spite of his distate for the scribes and pharisees sinful ways, upholds their authority to Teach, and to “Bind and loose” under the old covenent!!
Today in the Church we have the Apostolic Bishops headed by the Bishop of Rome whom carries the title of Pope.

Finally, what you say about God raising up leaders from time to time is quite correct. St Francis comes to mind as does St Catherine of Sienna, both of whom were lifted up by God to “rebuild His Church” which was mired in troubles. The raising up of these people however does not negate the authority of those who sit “On th eChair of Peter”.

What say you?

Peace
James

James:

I haven’t much to say, at the moment, but much to ask. I’m not sure of the inference you are making. Is it this? Jesus commanded the Apostles to obey those who claim to sit in the Seat of Moses, therefore, He was saying that those who claimed to sit in Moses’ Seat spoke for God.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Have you read Acts1. Peter says that the Apostles chairs need to be filled and he leads the Apostles to picking Matthias as Judas replacement.

Here it is:
20 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25 to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Yes, PC, but does the prophecy speak of Matthias or Paul? Who of these two was more likely Jesus’ choice and why? I mean, comparing Matthias and Paul is kind of like comparing PC and Mac! (Can you guess which one is PC?)

http://overheard.loveneverfails.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/getamac.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I suppose we all get mired in details. I never thought about looking at the passage without verse 18 either. It does make an interesting slant doesn’t it.

I prefer to say it brings clarity to the matter.

Actually in the case of teaching All the Apostles WERE given equal authority, (See Mt 18:15-18) but Peter was named by Jesus to be their leader. The Idea that All have a “equal authority” does not detract from Peter’s leadership.

But it *does *detract from the idea that he had the authority of a pope. Doesn’t a pope have more authority than a cardinal or bishop? Are you saying that Matthew and John and Paul were as much popes as Peter was? I’m not sure i follow you.

But it is important to tnote something here that our Protestant brothers seem to have a real problem getting past. NONE of the Apostles had (or have) the Authority to go off teaching something different than the others. NONE had authority to establish “local churches” that disagreed with each other and tell the others to go, “jump in the lake”.
This was a single and authoritative Church with a single set of leadership persons who would meet, or write and discuss sticky issues.
…

Makes sense to me. The 12 Apostles together decided what Jesus intended for them to do, though i don’t think they always correctly understood Jesus’ will, as in the case of Matthias.

Finally I will say this. The Church, given authority to Bind and loose, has held from the earliest times that the Successor of Peter, who was Bishop of Rome, is the leader of the Church. Today that leader is selected by a councilor meeting of The Cardinals. In times past other methods were used.
The Church thus has “Bound” us to follow Peter’s successor, who is thus selected.

Peace
James

But if the Apostles all had equal authority, then would there not be 12 papal successors today, instead of one (or perhaps two, if we consider the Greek Orthodox faith)?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It amazes me that Catholics use this verse to support the CC,
All you have to do is keep reading and you discover that “holding Mosses seat” was no constellation prize on the contrary, it meant absolutely NOTHING! Jesus goes on to blast them straight to hell. The 7 woes to those who hold the seat of Mosses. I do agree that there is a likeness in the catholic church and the Pharisees, or better said the seat of Peter and the seat of Mosses, I really cant tell the difference. …

I think Jesus’ words are more impressive than the marginal notes, Tuk.
13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
…

23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (Matthew 23)

I gather He was none too happy with the ones who claimed to sit in Moses’ Seat. What did He call them?

• Hypocrites
• Sons of hell
• Blind guides
• Filthy on the inside
• Whicked
• Walking dead
• Murderers
• Snakes
• Hell bound

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

 the thread is experiencing an accelerated development in this stage.  I had seen that Philthy had done my job on your premises about the rock, and before going on on that line I detect that thanks to reconsidering the "keys issue"  ( BTW it was a singular "you" in greek, no question here)  you feel you are back on solid ground about petrine primacy in itself.   Keys were key. :) we could say.

It seems we are then back to what we were starting exploring.
This was post 313.

Yes, but don’t get the wrong idea. It’s not as though we are spinning in endless circles. There may be a lot of spin being thrown into the dialog, but as far as i’m concerned, the matter of Peter’s authority is sufficiently established. It is, that is, unless Tuk or someone has something more convincing to say on the matter.

Now P7, how do you propose to bridge the gap between Peter’s primary position and the primacy of the papacy?

"

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus
So, please reassure me, P7. Tell me how you know, without a doubt, that Jesus desired Peter to be the first of many papal “kings” rather than a kind of temporary leader, such as Moses or Samuel? Tell me how you are absolutely certain the papacy is not a product of the same sin of the ancient Jewish people, who wanted a succession of kings rather than the temporary spokesmen appointed by God.

Clement, and early Church Father, that’s how! Please tell me, what was the date on which Clement was believed to have written this letter?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

By: IMHO you’re telling me that they ( ie the staff of this “super Church”):

• • claiming no more specific authority than you and I could ( you and I could quote Hebrews 1 as well, if we decided to found a denomination together , couldn’t we ?), *
• • claim (an exclusivity of) “correct judgment”, before those of other similarly self-appointed “magisteiums”, *
• • and tell us the one Magisterium able to claim to succeed the Apostles and their leader is condemned, because it manifestly preaches a different Gospel …. than the Apostles *
    I wasn’t specifically and directly saying what I have now underlined in your response.
    Let’s explore for a while the protestant situation you described.

I am first of all proposing that protestant teaching bodies have no more legitimate chrstian authority than Soc or P7.
The great fallacy here IMHO is quoting verses pointing seemingly to universal ability in getting Revelation the right way, to build the case for one’s specific authority, or the authority of a specific self-appointed ( or ultimately appointed by somebody self-appointed ) teaching body.

let’s go a step forward here. If we’re all able to understand Scripture correctly, why should I consider the readings proposed by THAT teaching body as the CORRECT ONE, to the exclusion of Soc’s reading, P7’s reading, and anybody’s reading ? What about other protestant teaching bodies ?

Are according to you Soc those teaching bodies consistent in their claims ?

Well you, P7 might be right about a logical fallacy being committed. As far as i can discern, it could be the** fallacy of composition**. That is, the fallacy where the attribute of an individual part of an object is mistakenly transferred to the entire object. An example:The bricks in this building are sturdy. Thus, the building must be sturdy.
The fact that individual bricks are of good design does not support the conclusion that the bridge which contains them are of good design.

In this case you mention, the fallacy might be:God revealed His will to the Apostles. The Apostles were members of the Body of Christ. Thus, God reveals His will to all members of the Body of Christ.
The fact that God reveals His will to certain members of the body of Christ does not support the conclusion that God reveals His will equally to all members of the body of Christ. Is this the point you are making, or do i misunderstand?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you wish to understand the papacy, you must study Judaism and the promises of God to Israel. Jesus and His Apostles were Jews, after all.

What is it about Judaism that i must (and do not) understand, Eucharisted?

 

[paul_c]

Yes, PC, but does the prophecy speak of Matthias or Paul? Who of these two was more likely Jesus’ choice and why? I mean, comparing Matthias and Paul is kind of like comparing PC and Mac! (Can you guess which one is PC?)

http://overheard.loveneverfails.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/getamac.jpg

It clearly speaks of Matthias. At the time Judas committed suicide and was replaced, Paul was still Saul, and was about to start persecuting the Church. Beyond the 12 original Apostles, there were other men who were added to the Apostolic ranks as the church grew. In Acts 14: 14 both Barnabas and Paul are named apostles and surely, early in their career, Barnabas was the more respected. He, afterall, introduced Paul into the Chruch in Jerusalem and it was Barnabas who brought Paul into the ministry in Antioch. Paul, of course, was the Church’s first theologian and most effective missionary so his importance grew over time until he reached his current levels of respect.

So the answer is, that the Apostles needed to be replaced as they died, and Matthias replaced Judas. but they also needed to be added to since 12 men could not cover the entire world. Today, there are over 5000 Bishops worldwide who minister to the over 1B Catholics.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

I am sometimes prone to articulate things with less precision than is called for. You are right in calling me on my wording and the appropriate distinctions. Likewise, I think you get my point which I am thankful for.

“Binding and loosing” are rabbinical terms. The Pharisees and the rabinnical bodies such as the Sanhedrin exercised power and authority to bind and loose. In the NT we see an example where Jesus says the following about the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23:2-4:

So what do we see here? It is clear that the Pharisees have the authority to bind and loose and that they exercise authority because they sit on “Moses’ seat.” This reference to Moses’ seat informs us of a few important things:

1. The authority exercised extends back to Moses. The tradition of “Moses’ seat” must have some form of succession in order to exist from Moses to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus time.
2. Likewise, the authority of Moses is the authority of the scribes and Pharisees.
3. The reference and pattern established here extends to the apostles and leadership in the NT Church because Jesus gives them the power to bind and loose.

The NT Church speaks of the element of succession and the power to bind and loose. In the second epistle of Clement to James II. (“Clementine Homilies,” Introduction), Peter is said to have appointed Clement as his successor, saying: “I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall **bind **what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church.”

This seems pretty compelling especially when we also look at Isaiah and see how Eliakim serves as the chief steward of the king with the power to bind and loose which is described in scripture as follows:

Isaiah 22:19-22
I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The terms open and shut are the equivalents of “bind and loose” and we see a clear reference to the keys.

It is the pattern of the OT and the language of Jesus to the apostles in the NT that leads me to see authority, power to bind and loose, and succession.

What do you think?

I think verse 19 of Matthew 16 is the first time i’ve seen how it might be possible that the authority of the Catholic Church has support in the biblical text. And i’m reminded of the words of the blind man to whom Jesus gave the gift of sight:“Whether [Jesus] is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”

(John 9:25)
And i’m reminded of the words of Mother Teresa of Calcutta:Once you see truth, you can’t unsee it!
That being said, i’m not sure whether what i’m seeing now is truth or a deception. So i want to proceed carefully before i allow what i see to turn my world upside down!

http://www.jobriga.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/masl17_year(name removed by moderator)hotos0712.jpg

So, what can you tell me about this Clement? Did you say he was the immediate successor to Peter? How do you know? Do you have a link to anything he wrote?

 

[paul_c]

I think verse 19 of Matthew 16 is the first time i’ve seen how it might be possible that the authority of the Catholic Church has support in the biblical text. And i’m reminded of the words of the blind man to whom Jesus gave the gift of sight:“Whether [Jesus] is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”

(John 9:25)
And i’m reminded of the words of Mother Teresa of Calcutta:Once you see truth, you can’t unsee it!
That being said, i’m not sure whether what i’m seeing now is truth or a deception. So i want to proceed carefully before i allow what i see to turn my world upside down!

http://www.jobriga.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/masl17_year(name removed by moderator)hotos0712.jpg

So, what can you tell me about this Clement? Did you say he was the immediate successor to Peter? How do you know? Do you have a link to anything he wrote?

Clement was the 4th Pope. here’s the Catholic encyclopedia account of his life and it includes his epistle to the Corinthians.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It clearly speaks of Matthias. At the time Judas committed suicide and was replaced, Paul was still Saul, and was about to start persecuting the Church. Beyond the 12 original Apostles, there were other men who were added to the Apostolic ranks as the church grew. In Acts 14: 14 both Barnabas and Paul are named apostles and surely, early in their career, Barnabas was the more respected. He, afterall, introduced Paul into the Chruch in Jerusalem and it was Barnabas who brought Paul into the ministry in Antioch. Paul, of course, was the Church’s first theologian and most effective missionary so his importance grew over time until he reached his current levels of respect.

So the answer is, that the Apostles needed to be replaced as they died, and Matthias replaced Judas. but they also needed to be added to since 12 men could not cover the entire world. Today, there are over 5000 Bishops worldwide who minister to the over 1B Catholics.

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May **his **place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
" ‘May another take **his **place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

(Acts 1:20-22)

Well, i can understand how the *his *in the passages Peter quoted from Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 might be Judas. I can also understand that the *another *in the passage Peter quoted from Psalm 109 would be someone to take Judas’ place. Yet, i don’t understand why the prophecy applies to Matthias and not to Paul. I mean, think of all that was accomplished by Paul! Now, try this: Think of one–just one thing Matthias did. Can you? I’ve read Acts several times, and i cannot. Yet, more than half of the Book of Acts is devoted to the ministry of the Apostle Paul, and nearly half of the New Testament was written by him. When i think of Matthias, this comes to mind:Like a bad tooth or a lame foot is reliance on the unfaithful in times of trouble.

(Proverbs 25:19)
Surely if God had intended for Matthias to be the one to take Judas’ place, He would have done some great work through him! Wouldn’t he? Compared to Paul, one must admit that Matthias is just lame.

http://www.themaclawyer.com/uploads/image/Mac vs PC 3.png

But, let’s say you are correct. Let’s say there’s more to Matthias than meets the eye that reads the New Testament. You still cannot say that the prophecies of Psalms 69 and 109 speak of the papacy. Notice the words Peter quoted. They do **NOT **say:May [others] take [their places] of leadership.

Rather, the prophesies say this:May **another **take **his **place of leadership.Thus, the prediction was that only one man’s place would be taken by another man’s place. And the replacement of one man does not a papacy make. Does it?

 

[paul_c]

“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May **his **place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and,
" ‘May another take **his **place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

(Acts 1:20-22)

Well, i can understand how the *his *in the passages Peter quoted from Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 might be Judas. I can also understand that the *another *in the passage Peter quoted from Psalm 109 would be someone to take Judas’ place. Yet, i don’t understand why the prophecy applies to Matthias and not to Paul. I mean, think of all that was accomplished by Paul! Now, try this: Think of one–just one thing Matthias did. Can you? I’ve read Acts several times, and i cannot. Yet, more than half of the Book of Acts is devoted to the ministry of the Apostle Paul, and nearly half of the New Testament was written by him. When i think of Matthias, this comes to mind:Like a bad tooth or a lame foot is reliance on the unfaithful in times of trouble.

(Proverbs 25:19)
Surely if God had intended for Matthias to be the one to take Judas’ place, He would have done some great work through him! Wouldn’t he? Compared to Paul, one must admit that Matthias is just lame.

http://www.themaclawyer.com/uploads/image/Mac vs PC 3.png

But, let’s say you are correct. Let’s say there’s more to Matthias than meets the eye that reads the New Testament. You still cannot say that the prophecies of Psalms 69 and 109 speak of the papacy. Notice the words Peter quoted. They do **NOT **say:May [others] take [their places] of leadership.

Rather, the prophesies say this:May **another **take **his **place of leadership.Thus, the prediction was that only one man’s place would be taken by another man’s place. And the replacement of one man does not a papacy make. Does it?

I don’t get this. Are you arguing with Scripture, which is inspired and said that Matthias was Judas’ replacement?