Scripture seems to suggest only the Apostles could pass on gifts by laying on of hands

[SonCatcher]

This is what my frend is saying though he inists it was absolute that they had no gifts or powers of healing/prophecy.

I think he misunderstands how those gifts are at work today. The gift of healing we do find in the sacraments of Eucharist and Anointing. I suppose, though, he means the Charism of (miraculous) healing. This also is still around in our world today, but has been witnessed less in recent centuries due to Man’s taking up of the work by natural means. The work of healing has not gone away nor will it. The form has changed somewhat. That is all.

As for the gift of prophecy, I suppose he didn’t notice the American bishops proclaim with one voice against the injustice of the HHS mandate. That is prophecy. Prophecy is not necessarily a foretelling of events.

 

[Tobias2]

I think he misunderstands how those gifts are at work today. The gift of healing we do find in the sacraments of Eucharist and Anointing. I suppose, though, he means the Charism of (miraculous) healing. This also is still around in our world today, but has been witnessed less in recent centuries due to Man’s taking up of the work by natural means. The work of healing has not gone away nor will it. The form has changed somewhat. That is all.

As for the gift of prophecy, I suppose he didn’t notice the American bishops proclaim with one voice against the injustice of the HHS mandate. That is prophecy. Prophecy is not necessarily a foretelling of events.

Yes.

it seems with the death of the last Apostle there is scant mention of healings and pphecies in early church times.

A few centuries out Augustine and others don’t even mention speaking in tongues at all. The Orthodox are very dubious on this. Not totally closing the door but implying this all may have ended with Apostolic times.

 

[SonCatcher]

Yes.

it seems with the death of the last Apostle there is scant mention of healings and pphecies in early church times.

A few centuries out Augustine and others don’t even mention speaking in tongues at all. The Orthodox are very dubious on this. Not totally closing the door but implying this all may have ended with Apostolic times.

Many of the saints through the ages have been recorded as participating in miraculous events, including speaking in unlearned tongues, healings, prophecy, etc. A small selection can be found in a single volume that is about the size of a standard Bible. While some are unverifiable due to their legend status, others are well documented.

 

[sllhouette]

Yes.

it seems with the death of the last Apostle there is scant mention of healings and prophecies in early church times.

A few centuries out Augustine and others don’t even mention speaking in tongues at all. The Orthodox are very dubious on this. Not totally closing the door but implying this all may have ended with Apostolic times.

I would suggest that you and your friend actually read the writings of the early church fathers for yourself.

Also, it should be noted that you may have a false interpretation of what a prophesy is. I have seen instances where the pope said very clearly what was going to happen in the future. He did so based on his knowledge of culture and based on reason. No one calls that a prophesy anymore even though the knowledge and insight he has comes from God. I think we sometimes think of prophesy in the context of the fortune teller, but it has never been the case that the church permits fortune telling.

Our understanding of the other gifts might be imperfect as well.

Many of the saints through the ages have been recorded as participating in miraculous events, including speaking in unlearned tongues, healings, prophecy, etc. A small selection can be found in a single volume that is about the size of a standard Bible. While some are unverifiable due to their legend status, others are well documented.

Indeed, it would be hard to say that the Catholic church has experienced no gifts of the Holy Spirit. Just because you say the orthodox aren’t experiencing them doesn’t mean we are not.

Another thing is, I think we tend to accuse people of being silly or even crazy for saying they experienced such a gift.

I myself have experienced the gift of prophesy a number of times in my life in such a way that I can not deny it is so. But it has always been of a private nature. Something that might affect me or my actions, but never something I would proclaim.

 

[edward_george]

Also, it should be noted that you may have a false interpretation of what a prophesy is. I have seen instances where the pope said very clearly what was going to happen in the future. He did so based on his knowledge of culture and based on reason. No one calls that a prophesy anymore even though the knowledge and insight he has comes from God. I think we sometimes think of prophesy in the context of the fortune teller, but it has never been the case that the church permits fortune telling.

For examples of this, read Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. And everything Leo XIII ever wrote, especially Arcanum Divinae and Rerum Novarum.

-ACEGC

 

[inkaneer]

Acts 1:26 shows Matthias succeeding Judas as an Apostle.

No, no, no, no. Matthias only succeeded to the office Judas was to have. That office is that of bishop. If you look at Peter’s words in Acts 1, he calls for one to take Judas’ office. The Greek word for ‘office’ that is used is episkope. That word is used in other parts of the NT [Paul’s epistles] and means bishop or overseer, not apostle. No one would ever succeed Judas. as Peter so states. Not one bishop has ever claimed apostolic succession from Judas. To do so one would have to have been consecrated a bishop by Judas and nobody was because Judas was dead. Matthias is the first bishop and probably the only bishop to have been consectrated by eleven Apostles and therfore can claim Apostolic Succession from eleven Apostles.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

No, no, no, no. Matthias only succeeded to the office Judas was to have. That office is that of bishop.

It is still unclear how you arrived at that conclusion.

While in the NAB, this grouping of verses appears under the unfortunate caption “The Choice of Judas’s Successor”, the Scripture is pretty clear:

Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

BTW - in the Ignatius Press NT Study Bible, the caption is the more fitting “Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas”. One of the footnotes (to verse 26) offers that “the need to replace Judas was probably dictated by the symbolism of the number twelve, recalling the twelve tribes of Israel. This symbolism also indicates that for Luke (see Lk 22:30) the Christian church is a reconstituted Israel.”

Surely no one would assert apostolic succession from Judas, nor should the selection of a worthy replacement among the twelve be even seen as a “succession” if you will from Judas. It is pretty clear that Judas abandoned his place among the Twelve.

 

[inkaneer]

It is still unclear how you arrived at that conclusion.

While in the NAB, this grouping of verses appears under the unfortunate caption “The Choice of Judas’s Successor”, the Scripture is pretty clear:

BTW - in the Ignatius Press NT Study Bible, the caption is the more fitting “Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas”. One of the footnotes (to verse 26) offers that “the need to replace Judas was probably dictated by the symbolism of the number twelve, recalling the twelve tribes of Israel. This symbolism also indicates that for Luke (see Lk 22:30) the Christian church is a reconstituted Israel.”

Surely no one would assert apostolic succession from Judas, nor should the selection of a worthy replacement among the twelve be even seen as a “succession” if you will from Judas. It is pretty clear that Judas abandoned his place among the Twelve.

Look at Acts 1:20. The DR has this verse as:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take…’ [DR]

The RSV has the verse as:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’

Notice the different words used here. The DR has the ord ‘bishopric’ while the RSV uses the word ‘office’ Both aretranslations of the Greek word episkope. That Greek word should be familiar to you as it is used later on in the epistles of Paul to refer to bishops and our words refering to bishops are derived from it.

Peter is talking about two things, first he is talking of Judas’ Apostleship. Judas’ house is desolate. Why? Recall that while Judas was chosen to be an Apostle by Christ he was never sent which is the . In addition, Judas did not receive the authority to consecrate the Eucharist as he left the Last Supper before it was instituted nor did he receive the authority to forgive sin as he was dead when that authority was delegated. So his apostleship was desolate. BUT, Judas was also something that the other Apostleswere and that was that he held the office of Bishop. So peter is calling for someone to step into the office of bishop that was to be Judas’ But he does not call for another Apostle because to be an Apostle one has to be called by and sent by Christ.

Now to a degree we are all called to be apostles. But when we use the term Twelve Apostles we are not using it in a generic sense but rather a much more specific meaning of that select group sent out by Christ. Neither Judas nor Matthias were sent by Christ. But Paul was post certainly sent by Christ and you will find that in Acts 9:15 when the Lord speaking about Paul to the disciple Anani’as says:

"15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;” [RSV]

Paul is the Twelfth Apostle, not Judas, not Matthias. Mathias is the scriptural evidence for the Succession of bishops emanating from the Apostles. Now if you wish to maintain that he was an Apostle following another Apostle then please tell me which Apostles followed the other eleven Apostles.

 

[Godfollower]

Look at Acts 1:20. The DR has this verse as:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take…’ [DR]

The RSV has the verse as:

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’

Notice the different words used here. The DR has the ord ‘bishopric’ while the RSV uses the word ‘office’ Both aretranslations of the Greek word episkope. That Greek word should be familiar to you as it is used later on in the epistles of Paul to refer to bishops and our words refering to bishops are derived from it.

Peter is talking about two things, first he is talking of Judas’ Apostleship. Judas’ house is desolate. Why? Recall that while Judas was chosen to be an Apostle by Christ he was never sent which is the . In addition, Judas did not receive the authority to consecrate the Eucharist as he left the Last Supper before it was instituted nor did he receive the authority to forgive sin as he was dead when that authority was delegated. So his apostleship was desolate. BUT, Judas was also something that the other Apostleswere and that was that he held the office of Bishop. So peter is calling for someone to step into the office of bishop that was to be Judas’ But he does not call for another Apostle because to be an Apostle one has to be called by and sent by Christ.

Now to a degree we are all called to be apostles. But when we use the term Twelve Apostles we are not using it in a generic sense but rather a much more specific meaning of that select group sent out by Christ. Neither Judas nor Matthias were sent by Christ. But Paul was post certainly sent by Christ and you will find that in Acts 9:15 when the Lord speaking about Paul to the disciple Anani’as says:

"15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;” [RSV]

Paul is the Twelfth Apostle, not Judas, not Matthias. Mathias is the scriptural evidence for the Succession of bishops emanating from the Apostles. Now if you wish to maintain that he was an Apostle following another Apostle then please tell me which Apostles followed the other eleven Apostles.

I’m sorry, but Judas was one of the Twelve. Twelve what? Apostles. “Apostle” means “one who is sent” – and Judas was one of the Twelve who were sent by Jesus. The fact that he dishonored his office doesn’t mean he didn’t hold it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Paul is the Twelfth Apostle,

 

[SonCatcher]

While the Eleven chose Matthias to take Judas’ place among them prior to Pentecost, he is curiously not mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. Meanwhile, Paul is called “Apostle to the Gentiles”. There is some speculation, then, that Matthias was chosen by men and Paul by the Holy Spirit. Both of them are validly ordained bishops, at least.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

While the Eleven chose Matthias to take Judas’ place among them prior to Pentecost, he is curiously not mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. Meanwhile, Paul is called “Apostle to the Gentiles”. There is some speculation, then, that Matthias was chosen by men and Paul by the Holy Spirit. Both of them are validly ordained bishops, at least.

Agreed, but where is the evidence that Paul was the twelvth? And what about the seventy?

 

[SonCatcher]

Agreed, but where is the evidence that Paul was the twelvth? And what about the seventy?

I think by the time Paul came on the scene, they had lost their fascination with the number. I have no idea what happened to the 70.

 

[edward_george]

I think by the time Paul came on the scene, they had lost their fascination with the number. I have no idea what happened to the 70.

I don’t think they “lost their ‘fascination’ with the number,” as the Book of Revelation still uses the parallelism between the Twelve Tribes and the Twelve Apostles, i.e. the Church as the new Israel.

-ACEGC

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t think they “lost their ‘fascination’ with the number,” as the Book of Revelation still uses the parallelism between the Twelve Tribes and the Twelve Apostles, i.e. the Church as the new Israel.

-ACEGC

I meant the attachment to 12 Apostles/Bishops. In Acts 9, Paul is not only baptized but also receives the Holy Spirit. This seems to indicate that Ananias was also a bishop/apostle. They may have recognized that a growing church needs more leaders.

 

[inkaneer]

Agreed, but where is the evidence that Paul was the twelvth? And what about the seventy?

Well for starters scripture calls Paul an Apostle no less than ten times. As for the seventy, nowhere does scripture call them apostles. That is something the Eastern Church concocted. But in a generic way we are all apostles. However, when referring to the Apostles in a specific sense there are only twelve. These were the men selected and sent by Jesus. Judas was selected but never sent. Matthias was neither selected nor sent by Jesus. Paul was selected and sent by Christ.

 

[TimothyH]

While the Eleven chose Matthias to take Judas’ place among them prior to Pentecost, he is curiously not mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. Meanwhile, Paul is called “Apostle to the Gentiles”. There is some speculation, then, that Matthias was chosen by men and Paul by the Holy Spirit. Both of them are validly ordained bishops, at least.

Matthias was not chosen by men but by God working through men.

Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24-26)

Scripture is clear that God chose Matthias. The Apostles pray and ask God to identify the person He has chosen.

Scripture is equally clear that Matthias was “Counted with the eleven apostles.”

-Tim-

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well for starters scripture calls Paul an Apostle no less than ten times.

Where does it call him the twelfth?

As for the seventy, nowhere does scripture call them apostles. That is something the Eastern Church concocted.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 10:1[/BIBLEDRB]

Thanks for interjecting!

 

[inkaneer]

Matthias was not chosen by men but by God working through men.

Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24-26)

Scripture is clear that God chose Matthias. The Apostles pray and ask God to identify the person He has chosen.

Scripture is equally clear that Matthias was “Counted with the eleven apostles.”

-Tim-

Okay, Let’s say God did choose Matthias. But choose him for what? An Apostle? Scripture does not say that. Peter’s call was for someone to take over the office held by Judas and the word used there for office is episkope not apostolos. Episkope means bishop. Matthias was consecrated a bishop by the Apostles the same way bishops are consecrated today, by the laying on of hands.

And yes Matthias was indeed counted with the eleven but if he was an apostle then should not scripture say he was counted with the twelve? Why, if Matthias is an Apostle, are there still only eleven apostles?

Now here is the big one. If Acts 1 provides the scriptural precedent of where an Apostle is succeeded by another Apostle then what Apostles succeeded the other eleven Apostles? And more specifically which Apostle succeeded Peter? The answer is, of course, that no apostles succeeded the original ones. Their successors were bishops and Matthias is the scriptural precedent for the Apostolic Succession of bishops in the church. That is, that the Apostles appointed bishops to take their place as overseers of the church.

 

[inkaneer]

Where does it call him the twelfth?

It doesn’t but simple arithmetic tells me that if you go around saying that there are twelve apostles which the Catechism of the Catholic Church states specifically in several places, and scripture tells me that at the sending forth of the Apostles at the great commission there were only eleven apostles and then scripture tells me, no less than ten times, that Paul was an Apostle and also chosen as well as sent by God, then 11 +1 =12.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
As for the seventy, nowhere does scripture call them apostles. That is something the Eastern Church concocted.

[BIBLEDRB]1 And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.

Luke 10:1[/BIBLEDRB]

Thanks for interjecting!

Scripture does not call these people apostles. The Eastern Church refers to them as the “minor apostles” but the Western Church, as well as scripture, affords them no such title. Notice that Luke records these people going out in chapter 10 but in chapter 9 Luke records Jesus sending out the twelve apostles by themselves. Obviously Luke differentiates between those who he calls Apostles in Chapter 9 and these other 70 disciples he speaks of in chapter 10.