Why isn't Peter listed as the first bishop of Jerusalem?

[Randy_Carson]

See #37

:nope:

Here is what I actually wrote (I’ll highlight the key bits this time):

cottice-

I know that you feel very strongly about the position you have staked out here.

Most of us who have been members of the forum longer than you appreciate the value of supporting evidence when an argument is presented.

Therefore, **would you mind providing links to Catholic websites or better yet, any Catholic books that explain the case for Matthias as you have described it?

Once we have reviewed a few quotes from www.vatican.va or some trustworthy Catholic theologians or even a magazine article or two, then we will have something more than the personal opinion of a newcomer to consider.**

I’m sure you can understand this, and I look forward to reading the documents you choose to present in support of your position.

Thanks.

Thanks again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is the footnote to Acts 1:26 from the USCCB website:

• [1:26] 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.

usccb.org/bible/acts/1

Matthias was elected an Apostle to maintain this symbolism.

Paul came much later.

Did you know that on May 15, 2015 we will celebrate the Feast of St. Matthias, Apostle?

 

[Randy_Carson]

From a website sponsored by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

CATHOLIC 101

Apostles And Disciples

“Apostle” is the title traditionally given to the twelve men specially chosen by Jesus to preach the Gospel and to whom he entrusted responsibility for guiding the early Church. The names of the Twelve are Peter, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew (or Nathaniel), Matthew, Simon, Jude (or Thaddeus), and Matthias (who replaced Judas Iscariot after Judas betrayed Jesus and then took his own life). St. Paul, though not one of the Twelve, was also called later by the Lord to be an Apostle.

“Disciple” is the name given in the New Testament to all those men and women who followed Jesus and were taught by him while he was alive. After Jesus’ death, Resurrection, and Ascension, the disciples formed the Church with the Apostles and helped spread the Gospel message. Contemporary members of the Church, as followers of Jesus, can also be referred to as disciples.

foryourmarriage.org/apostles-and-disciples/

 

[Randy_Carson]

From the **United States Catholic Catechism for Adults **
Produced by the USCCB

Apostle: the title traditionally given to those specially chosen by Jesus to preach the Gospel and to whom he entrusted responsibility for guiding the early Church. The names of the Twelve are Peter, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew (or Nathaniel), Matthew, Simon, Jude (or Thaddeus), **and Matthias **(who replaced Judas Iscariot after Judas betrayed Jesus and then took his own life). St. Paul, though not one of the Twelve, was also called later by the Lord to be an Apostle.

 

[cottice]

It is clear that Acts 1:24-25 definitely addressed the apostleship issue. The appropriate Greek word was used too: ἀποστολῆς apostolēs. You have no way of denying the substance and weight that these 2 verses carries. Remember that Jesus already gave these Apostles the binding and loosing authority. These 11 Apostles bound this decision on Earth as in Heaven. To deny their authority is to deny the authority that Jesus vested in them. And God chose Matthias.
“And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, **To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas **hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.”

You asked Randy to open his eyes( subtle inference that his were shut) and in return I am asking you to open your mind. No one is disputing Paul apostleship. Somehow you are inferring that we deny his apostleship. But his apostleship is not of the Twelve. He was never one of them. Saul never walked with Jesus, or the Twelve or the Seventy. Paul came into the picture much later. At the time of Matthias election to Judas apostleship, Paul/Saul was still out there destroying the Church. The Twelve was made whole again upon Matthias election, way before Saul became Paul. For you to claim that Paul became the Twelve apostle, you need to show that :

a) Paul either was selected by Jesus to replace the seat vacated by Judas
b) or by those He vested with proper authority i.e. the Twelve Apostles

which you can’t. Because God has chosen Matthias already.

I have shown you previously that Paul does not include himself as one of the Twelve in 1 Cor 15:5. Matthias is already in the Twelve and Luke writes it as Twelve , not Eleven.

** “and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve”**. So you have Luke acknowledging the Twelve. And in verse 8 , lastly appearing to Paul. You have no way to argue Paul is in the Twelve. If Luke intends for Paul to be in the Twelve, verse 8 would not fit in the scheme of things.

You asked why are there eleven Apostles before Matthias was elected and still eleven afterwards? The only time Eleven was mentioned after Matthias election is in Acts 2:14. Simple maths shows “Peter standing with the Eleven” makes twelve is it not? If Peter is standing among the Eleven, then you have a case. But it is not. He is standing with eleven others.

In addition to Paul, Barnabas is also called an apostle. Acts 14:14. why is he not considered as well?

Your persistence in promoting Paul to the Twelve is honorable but unfortunately not supported by Scriptures, Paul or the Church. I sincerely urge you to reconsider your objective to pursue this line of thinking. The question I have to asked of you is why the need to promote Paul to the Twelve? He doesn’t need it, he didn’t asked for it. But why do you think he ought to be there?

Apologies to Randy for butting in.

Apparently you do not wish to deal with Revelation 21:14. Why not? Is it because it contradicts your exegesis and therefore invalidates your position? Rev 21:14 is pretty clear that there are only twelve Apostles and you got at least thirteen. Now if you want to say that Matthias is the twelfth apostle and Paul is not an Apostle and thus come up with twelve Apostles then you got another problem in that scripture again contradicts you and thus invalidates your position because scripture calls Paul an Apostle over ten times. So I ask you the same question I asked Randy. Who is in error here, you or scripture?

 

[YADA]

Apparently you do not wish to deal with Revelation 21:14. Why not? Is it because it contradicts your exegesis and therefore invalidates your position? Rev 21:14 is pretty clear that there are only twelve Apostles and you got at least thirteen. Now if you want to say that Matthias is the twelfth apostle and Paul is not an Apostle and thus come up with twelve Apostles then you got another problem in that scripture again contradicts you and thus invalidates your position because scripture calls Paul an Apostle over ten times. So I ask you the same question I asked Randy. Who is in error here, you or scripture?

Really - your argument has been addressed - Paul is an apostle but he is never in Scripture identified as one of the Twelve Apostles - not once and in fact as has been quoted to you - the Scriptures have Paul appearing before The Twelve … Paul cannot be one of the Twelve and appear before the Twelve.

I find nothing in Revelation that argues for Paul over Matthias …

Also - you make much of the use of the Twelve and the Eleven without the word apostle following … IMHO you are doing gymnastics in order to deny the meaning of the passage being related to the Twelve Apostles - or the Eleven Apostles when Peter [or Judas ] being absent o[r Peter being identified along with the Eleven] is clearly the persons referenced …

Also - you have never offered any Catholic Tradition, Theologian, Early Church Father nor official Catholic document in support of your personal biblical interpretation that is in opposition to the Teaching authority of the Church and Catholic understanding …even though you have been asked several times …

You have offered nothing about your education that would lead one to accept your interpretation over the hundreds of theologians through the centuries that concluded Matthias was chosen to replace Judas and be numbered as one of the Twelve Apostles - absolutely zero …

So let me ask you - Who is in error here, you or scripture plus the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, 2000 years of Tradition, and very educated Scripture Scholars and Catholic Theologians?

 

[cottice]

Really - your argument has been addressed - Paul is an apostle but he is never in Scripture identified as one of the Twelve Apostles - not once and in fact as has been quoted to you - the Scriptures have Paul appearing before The Twelve … Paul cannot be one of the Twelve and appear before the Twelve.

I find nothing in Revelation that argues for Paul over Matthias …

Also - you make much of the use of the Twelve and the Eleven without the word apostle following … IMHO you are doing gymnastics in order to deny the meaning of the passage being related to the Twelve Apostles - or the Eleven Apostles when Peter [or Judas ] being absent o[r Peter being identified along with the Eleven] is clearly the persons referenced …

Also - you have never offered any Catholic Tradition, Theologian, Early Church Father nor official Catholic document in support of your personal biblical interpretation that is in opposition to the Teaching authority of the Church and Catholic understanding …even though you have been asked several times …

You have offered nothing about your education that would lead one to accept your interpretation over the hundreds of theologians through the centuries that concluded Matthias was chosen to replace Judas and be numbered as one of the Twelve Apostles - absolutely zero …

So let me ask you - Who is in error here, you or scripture plus the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, 2000 years of Tradition, and very educated Scripture Scholars and Catholic Theologians?

I offered you the divinely inspired Word of God as written in the scriptures and THAT is not good enough for you??? And for your information the Church has never made any dogmatic statement about any alleged apostleship of Matthias but the Catechism does call Paul an Apostle. Please refer to the following paragraphs:

1277,1616, 2636,1825, 2515, 2196, 2632, 402, 659 and 639.

I especially like the wording of para 2632 where the Cathechism calls Paul, “the apostle par excellence”. Those were the entries I found for “Apostle Paul.” When I use “Apostle Matthias” I get the following:

“No documents match the query.”

So I change my search criteria to just, “Matthias” and I get this:

“No documents match the query.”

Poor Matthias, the Catechism doesn’t even mention him. Now you wanted an “official Catholic document” and I submit to you that the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *is an “official Catholic Document”. You got your wish.

But there is more. The Catechism also says this in Para 1575:

“1575 **Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. **Raised to the Father’s right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today. Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops.”

Well now seems we have a problem here. The Catechism says Christ, Himself choose the Apostles. But what’s more it was Christ who gave them a share of His ministry. Now was Matthias chosen by “Christ, Himself”? Did Matthias receive his ministry from Christ?
No Matthias was chosen by the eleven apostles andreceived what authority he had from them when they “laid hands” on him.

There is more also:

The Catechism goes on to say this about bishops:

"The bishops - successors of the apostles

861 "In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry."374

862 "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops."375 Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."376

Is that enough? If not there is one more:

"869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

 

[YADA]

I offered you the divinely inspired Word of God as written in the scriptures and THAT is not good enough for you??? .

You offered your interpretation of the divinely inspired Word of God which others have interpreted differently …

You ignore the plan meaning and read into the scriptures your interpretation …

How can Paul be one of the “Twelve” while appearing before that same “Twelve”?

While you are correct that there is no ‘dogmatic’ statement regarding whether the Matthias was selected to replace Judas [which is stated in divinely inspired Word of God as written in the scriptures and in which those same writings make no mention of Paul replacing Judas] … evidence has been presented on how the Church understands and interprets those same passages in direct opposition to yours …

You have presented a Biblical interpretation that is a novelty - You have been asked to provide: Which Catholic Scripture Scholars support your interpretation? Which books, articles and Bible Commentaries support your claim?

Absent any support from the above … one must ask do we accept your declaration that this is the correct interpretation based merely upon your declaration

I ask - if I am to believe that your interpretation is better then mine [or Randy’s and other posters] then I need to ask … What are your credentials? What is your Major field of study and what level of degree - BA, MA, PhD - where did you study? … Because I know what my education is … you have been asked to provide your credentials …

 

[cottice]

You offered your interpretation of the divinely inspired Word of God which others have interpreted differently …

You ignore the plan meaning and read into the scriptures your interpretation …

How can Paul be one of the “Twelve” while appearing before that same “Twelve”?

While you are correct that there is no ‘dogmatic’ statement regarding whether the Matthias was selected to replace Judas [which is stated in divinely inspired Word of God as written in the scriptures and in which those same writings make no mention of Paul replacing Judas] … evidence has been presented on how the Church understands and interprets those same passages in direct opposition to yours …

You have presented a Biblical interpretation that is a novelty - You have been asked to provide: Which Catholic Scripture Scholars support your interpretation? Which books, articles and Bible Commentaries support your claim?

Absent any support from the above … one must ask do we accept your declaration that this is the correct interpretation based merely upon your declaration

I ask - if I am to believe that your interpretation is better then mine [or Randy’s and other posters] then I need to ask … What are your credentials? What is your Major field of study and what level of degree - BA, MA, PhD - where did you study? … Because I know what my education is … you have been asked to provide your credentials …

You posted while I was still editing my post. Please see the post immediately before yours. I think that answers your points very well.

 

[YADA]

You posted while I was still editing my post. Please see the post immediately before yours. I think that answers your points very well.

Sorry - I do not think that it answers this question at all … No one argues against St Paul’s importance nor that he is referred to as an apostle … you sir are making the claim that Paul is one of the Twelve Apostles - and the scriptures do not support your claim …

Matthias was the person the Scriptures denote was selected to replace Judas - you are really arguing from silence and your own interpretation of sentences … like references to groups referred to in passages as the Eleven and Twelve do not refer to the Twelve unless the word apostles follows … that sir is a novelty in biblical scholarship …

You argue that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas [in the roll/office of Bishop - Judas was never a Bishop] but not chosen to replace Judas [in the roll /office of Apostle - which was the roll that Judas held] …

You argue that one of the Apostolic Offices was left vacant for a period of years - unfilled until Jesus selected Saul on the road to Damascus and that he became the 12th at that moment … also a novelty in biblical scholarship …

The Church clearly list Matthias as one of the Twelve - that is a constant tradition in the Church through the years …

Thus … I will ask again - Where in the history of the Church do you find concurrence with your interpretation of the Scriptures? Which Theologians support your interpretation of the rolls of Matthias and Paul? What books, theological articles, statement of an Early Church Father or Biblical commentary [even a foot note in any translation of the bible] support your innovative idea?

Barring any support from the above - what are your credentials - that anyone should abandon their own or the interpretation of myriads of Theologians and Bible Commentaries and give credence to you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The question of who is an apostle is far more complex than has been suggested by one in this thread. In his usual meticulous fashion, Jimmy Akin lays it all out here (quoted in part):

How Many Apostles Were There?
by Jimmy Akin
jimmyakin.com/2014/03/how-many-apostles-were-there.html

First, the New Testament does not present Matthias’s election as invalid. It presents it in a straight-forward way with the ultimate conclusion that Matthias “was enrolled with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:26).

Second, the New Testament does not have to record an apostle as having “done something” for him to be an apostle. The New Testament records next to nothing—or, depending on how you identify different biblical figures—it event records nothing at all about what some of the apostles did. Yet it explicitly names them as apostles.

Third, if the New Testament does not record Matthias as having done anything, the Church Fathers do. For example, Eusebius records that Matthias was noted for preaching self-control to avoid sexual immorality. According to Eusebius:

But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge [Ecclesiastical History III:29].

Fourth, if the claim were to be made on Protestant premises then it would have to be defensible by sola scriptura—the claim that we should be able to prove theological points “by Scripture alone.” Yet there seems to be no place in Scripture requiring there to be only twelve living apostles.

Instead, the New Testament treats both Matthias and Paul as valid apostles. The logical way to look at Paul, therefore, is that he was a valid apostle but not one of “the Twelve.” The New Testament never refers to him as one of the Twelve apostles.

He was ordained to ministry, in Acts 13, in Antioch, not by the apostles in Jerusalem, as Matthias was. And he was not a witness of the ministry of Jesus in the way that Matthias was. Peter made it clear that this was a requirement for being one of the Twelve:

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection [Acts 1:21-22].

We thus see that the Twelve were a distinct group that accompanied Jesus during his earthly ministry and who served as witnesses of this and his resurrection. Paul did not become a follower of Jesus until after the Ascension, so he could not belong to the Twelve.

He did, however, have an apparition of Jesus (he calls it a vision in Acts 26:19), in which he was called to be an apostle, and thus he asks the rhetorical questions: “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1).

He thus appears to base his call to apostleship on his apparition of Jesus rather than of having been a follower of his during his earthly ministry. This indicates that there could be apostles beyond the Twelve, who were witnesses of Christ’s ministry.

Are there any other apostles who weren’t members of the Twelve?

Barnabas
Maybe Apostles: Silas and Timothy, Apollos
James, the brother of the Lord?
The Probably-Not Apostles: Andronicus and Junia/Junias
An Apostle in a Different Sense: Epaphroditus
Unknown Apostles?
False Apostles
The Ultimate Apostle - Jesus

Therefore, holy brethren, who share in a heavenly call, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession [Heb. 3:1].

 

[ericc]

Apparently you do not wish to deal with Revelation 21:14. Why not? Is it because it contradicts your exegesis and therefore invalidates your position? Rev 21:14 is pretty clear that there are only twelve Apostles and you got at least thirteen. Now if you want to say that Matthias is the twelfth apostle and Paul is not an Apostle and thus come up with twelve Apostles then you got another problem in that scripture again contradicts you and thus invalidates your position because scripture calls Paul an Apostle over ten times. So I ask you the same question I asked Randy. Who is in error here, you or scripture?

Gee, that is really strange. I was the one to point Rev 21:14 out to you in post #19. Now you turn around and slot Paul there and asked me to exegete that? In your post #21 how do YOU know “It is Paul whose name is on the foundation stone.”. Where is your evidence? He is not one of the Twelve. I pointed out in my post #30 Mat 19:28 where Jesus said "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His Glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones. Paul didn’t follow Jesus during his ministry. In fact Jesus yank Saul out of his persecution mode on the road to Damascus. He didn’t follow Jesus during his ministry. Jesus had to do a divine conversion to put Saul right.

In contrast Matthias is one of the seventy disciples, personally appointed and sent out by Jesus himself Luke 10:1 although you claim in post #11 “Matthias was neither selected by Christ nor sent by Christ”. You sir, are ignoring the Scriptures. You are making untruthful claims with respect to St Matthias. That is not good.

How many times do I have to say that Paul is an apostle, but he is not one of the Twelve? Don’t you read responses to your postings? Matthias is appointed the Twelfth apostle by the Lord himself to replace Judas. These are the simple facts. You can not ignore Scriptures. Your proposition that Paul is the Twelfth apostle is not scripture, ,it is your conjecture or supposition. Apostle yes, Twelfth no. The Bible is silent on what Paul’s reward/status would be, but that doesn’t mean there is none. You just can’t slot in Paul’s name every time you see a vacancy. As a consolation, Jesus did say, the first will be last and the last first. There is no need to fret over Paul’s status. God will take care of that.

You have not attempted to respond to any one of my rebuttals and I don’t think you will because you have no answers to any of them. For you to resort to my argument and use it as your own I think shows how bankrupt of ideas you are. I have answered everyone of your objections through scriptural support. You sir, have not even responded with a single rebuttal supported by scripture or Church teaching.

You say you are catholic. Then you should abide by Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that Matthias became one of the Twelfth, Luke said so too. So will you be obedient and accept Church’s teaching.?

 

[Randy_Carson]

**BENEDICT XVI

GENERAL AUDIENCE**

Wednesday, 10 May 2006

Having a "vision from on high’

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

At the last two Audiences we meditated on what Tradition in the Church is and we saw that it is the permanent presence of the word and life of Jesus among his people. But in order to be present, the word needs a person, a witness.

And so it is that this reciprocity comes about: on the one hand, the word needs the person, but on the other, the person, the witness, is bound to the word, entrusted to him and not invented by him. This reciprocity between the content - the Word of God, life of the Lord - and the person who carries on the work is characteristic of the Church’s structure. Let us meditate today on this personal aspect of the Church.

The Lord founded the Church, as we have seen, by calling together the Twelve, who were to represent the future People of God. Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place (cf. Acts 1: 15-26), thereby continuing to involve others in the duties entrusted to them so that they might continue their ministry.

The Risen Lord himself called Paul (cf. Gal 1: 1), but Paul, although he was called by the Lord to be an Apostle, compared his Gospel with the Gospel of the Twelve (cf. ibid., 1: 18), and was concerned to transmit what he had received (cf. I Cor 11: 23; 15: 3-4). In the distribution of missionary tasks, he was associated with the Apostles together with others, for example, Barnabas (cf. Gal 2: 9).

Just as becoming an Apostle begins with being called and sent out by the Risen One, so the subsequent call and sending out to others was to be brought about, through the power of the Spirit, by those who are already ordained in the apostolic ministry. And this is the way in which this ministry, known from the second generation as the episcopal ministry, episcope, was to be continued.

Perhaps it would be useful to explain briefly what “Bishop” means. It is the Italian form of the Greek term, “episcopos”. This word means one who has a vision from on high, who looks with the heart. This is what St Peter himself calls Jesus in his First Letter: bishop, “Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (I Pt 2: 25).

And according to this new model of the Lord, who was the first Bishop, Guardian and Pastor of souls, the successors of the Apostles were later called Bishops, “episcopoi”. The role of “episcope” was entrusted to them. This specific role of the Bishop was gradually to evolve, in comparison with the origins, until it took the form - already clearly attested to by Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century (cf. Ad Magnesios, 6, 1: PG 5, 668) - of the threefold office of Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

This development was guided by God’s Spirit who helps the Church in the discernment of the authentic forms of Apostolic Succession, ever more clearly defined among the plurality of experiences and charismatic and ministerial forms present in the earliest communities.

In this way, succession in the role of Bishop is presented as the continuity of the Apostolic ministry, a guarantee of the permanence of the Apostolic Tradition, word and life, entrusted to us by the Lord. The link between the College of Bishops and the original community of the Apostles is understood above all in the line of historical continuity.

As we have seen, first Matthias, then Paul, then Barnabas joined the Twelve, then others, until, in the second and third generations, the Bishop’s ministry took shape.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s boil this down so that no one can possibly miss it:

BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday, 10 May 2006

“Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place…first Matthias, then Paul, then Barnabas joined the Twelve.…”

End. Of. Discussion.

 

[cottice]

Sorry - I do not think that it answers this question at all … No one argues against St Paul’s importance nor that he is referred to as an apostle … you sir are making the claim that Paul is one of the Twelve Apostles - and the scriptures do not support your claim …

Let me stop you right there. That is flat out wrong. The scriptures state no less than ten times that Paul is an Apostle. I can provide tjhe scriptures for you to look up if you wish.

Matthias was the person the Scriptures denote was selected to replace Judas - you are really arguing from silence and your own interpretation of sentences … like references to groups referred to in passages as the Eleven and Twelve do not refer to the Twelve unless the word apostles follows … that sir is a novelty in biblical scholarship …

Not as an Apostle. Like your pal Randy quoted Pope Benedict XVI in tjhe tread on Apostoloic Succession . An apostle is one who is called and sent by the Risen One. Does that fit Matthias? Not in the least. Now you have it from scripture, You have it from the Catechism and you have it from Pope Benedict XVI.

You argue that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas [in the roll/office of Bishop - Judas was never a Bishop] but not chosen to replace Judas [in the roll /office of Apostle - which was the roll that Judas held] …

Peters call was to replace Judas in the episkope not the apostlos. Episkope means overseer or bishop not apostle.

You argue that one of the Apostolic Offices was left vacant for a period of years - unfilled until Jesus selected Saul on the road to Damascus and that he became the 12th at that moment … also a novelty in biblical scholarship …

Not according to the Catechism. Check out Paragraph #659

"659 “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” Christ’s body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys. But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity. Jesus’ final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God’s right hand. Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul “as to one untimely born”, in a last apparition that established him as an apostle."

By the way,waiting for the right guy apparently didn’t bother Jesus. Judas killed himself before Jesus’ resurrection. Yet Jesus remained on the earth for another forty days. He could have called Matthias then and sent him with the others BUT He didn’t. So apparently Jesus was in no hurry.

The Church clearly list Matthias as one of the Twelve - that is a constant tradition in the Church through the years …

Yeah he is right up there with the St, Christopher medals

Thus … I will ask again - Where in the history of the Church do you find concurrence with your interpretation of the Scriptures? Which Theologians support your interpretation of the rolls of Matthias and Paul? What books, theological articles, statement of an Early Church Father or Biblical commentary [even a foot note in any translation of the bible] support your innovative idea?

Pope Bendict XVI. Thanks again Randy!

Barring any support from the above - what are your credentials - that anyone should abandon their own or the interpretation of myriads of Theologians and Bible Commentaries and give credence to you?

I haven’t seen anybody give any quotes from any theologian that supported your position. Everyone seems tobe shooting from the hip or beating strawmen to death. The one quote that was given from Pope Benedict XVI, I agreed with because it supported my position. Now will you anser my point about Rev 21:14 and how in light of that passage you can have more than 12 apostles?

 

[cottice]

Let’s boil this down so that no one can possibly miss it:

BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday, 10 May 2006

“Faithful to the Lord’s mandate, after his Ascension, the Twelve first made up their number by appointing Matthias in Judas’ place…first Matthias, then Paul, then Barnabas joined the Twelve.…”

End. Of. Discussion.

Not so fast. You got eleven then you want to add Matthias, Paul and Barnabas. That is fourteen. Fourteen Apostles eh? And, of course, we completely ignore Rev 21:14. Nice, real nice.

Revelation 21:14, Randy. Deal with it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope Bendict XVI. Thanks again Randy!

My pleasure. I’m always happy to show someone the truth. However, I did spend some time correcting your misunderstanding of the Pope’s words in the other thread.

I haven’t seen anybody give any quotes from any theologian that supported your position. Everyone seems tobe shooting from the hip or beating strawmen to death.

Really? Gee, I have quoted from the USCCB as well as from Benedict XVI…

The one quote that was given from Pope Benedict XVI, I agreed with because it supported my position.

No, just as you have twisted scripture so you twisted Benedict’s words. Corrected by me in the other thread.

Now will you anser my point about Rev 21:14 and how in light of that passage you can have more than 12 apostles?

Answered in the other thread. Sheesh.

Not so fast. You got eleven then you want to add Matthias, Paul and Barnabas. That is fourteen. Fourteen Apostles eh? And, of course, we completely ignore Rev 21:14. Nice, real nice.

There are more than 14, cottice. Benedict stopped at Barnabas, but he could have mentioned Timothy, Andronicus, Junias (possibly), Apollos…

Revelation 21:14, Randy. Deal with it.

I did. Paul’s name is not mentioned in that verse, chapter or Book. Deal with THAT.

Man, this is truly bizarre. For no reason that I can fathom, you join the forum and start a fight with just about anyone who will listen over some personal opinion that is easily refuted.

What the hey, cottice?

 

[YADA]

Let me stop you right there. That is flat out wrong. The scriptures state no less than ten times that Paul is an Apostle. I can provide tjhe scriptures for you to look up if you wish.

…

I haven’t seen anybody give any quotes from any theologian that supported your position. Everyone seems tobe shooting from the hip or beating strawmen to death. The one quote that was given from Pope Benedict XVI, I agreed with because it supported my position. Now will you anser my point about Rev 21:14 and how in light of that passage you can have more than 12 apostles?

Sorry - no - not me not any poster here has said that Paul is not an apostle … he is not numbered among “The Twelve” a distinct group - and you can twist the scriptures and the Pope’s quote all you want - but you are in error … Paul - though an Apostle and a prominent person in Christian history was not counted as one of “The Twelve” … that all to Matthias who according to Scripture took the place of Judas - not as a Bishop Judas was not ever a Bishop but as one of “The Twelve” Apostles

Nothing in the Scriptures indicates that the Twelve Apostles were numbered at Eleven for long then the period of time between the Resurrection and the Ascension.

The Scriptures state clearly that Matthias was chosen to replace Judas - not scripture pairs Paul with Judas

The scriptures state clearly that Paul was presented before the Twelve - he cannot be one of the Twelve and yet before the Twelve …

Please list on source that supports your position - it is not the Pope who clearly stated that Matthias replaced Judas and then presented the names of ‘other’ apostles as Randy has clearly articulated to you numerous times … any theologian early Christian writing where the list of the Twelve Apostles has Paul and not Matthias because you have been given sources that list Matthias … and if you cannot show any support from others - present your credentials …

Otherwise what you have is your personal interpretation of scriptures and well … as most here have a vastly different interpretation - and one that is supported outside our own sphere … you are not going to influence others to your novelty of thinking …

 

[Ignatius]

See #37 And I am waiting also for you to explain how Rev 21:14 fits into your scenario without destroying it all together. Rev 21:14 fits my position perfectly.

cottice, He asked for a Catholic exposition of your points. Something from the vatican, a well known Catholic Author, or some other Catholic publication in support of your position. He asks this because your profile says you are a Catholic and so would be expected to be able to provide Catholic support.

 

[Randy_Carson]

cottice, He asked for a Catholic exposition of your points. Something from the vatican, a well known Catholic Author, or some other Catholic publication in support of your position. He asks this because your profile says you are a Catholic and so would be expected to be able to provide Catholic support.

cottice is no longer with us.