Sacred Tradition...

kelly1 wrote: »

Why is tradition necessarily wrong? Sacred tradition has existed from the very beginning of the Church. Confession, ordination, confirmation, belief in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament have all existed since the beginning. So I'm asking you how this is wrong!

I’m not Catholic anymore. My faith is based on the Word of God not Catholic Tradition. Show me chapter and verse where it states that I must get my infant kids baptised? Where I must confess my sins to a priest? Where I have to be ordained in order to be a Christian? I already explained that the bread and wine are not the actual flesh and blood of Christ just like they weren’t when they first partook of it in John Mark’s mother’s HOME. They are symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus. I’ll explain more when I get to where you quoted Paul to the Corinthians further on down.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to show that it was common practice for lay, non-ordained people to take the place of the priest during the consecration in which is said "This is My Body" etc??

For years they took these elements in homes. Remembering what Christ did for them. Did they have cathedrals and church buildings in New Testament Jerusalem? It was first practiced in the home. Common sense alone will tell you that.

kelly1 wrote: »

What a load of non-sense, you've been reading too many anti-catholic diatribe. Mass comes from the latin word missa, which means dismissal/sending out.

No I haven’t. “The Divine Liturgy or Mass is of course the chief rite among the Armenians, whether Catholic or Gregorian, and it is celebrated with a form and ceremonial which partakes in a measure both of the Roman and Byzantine rites. As we have said, the curtains are used instead of the altar-rail or iconostasis of those rites, and the vestments are also peculiar. The Armenians, like the Latins, use unleavened bread, in the form of a wafer or small thin round cake, for consecration; but like the Greeks they prepare many wafers, and those not used for consecration in the Mass are given afterwards to the people as the antidoron.” Taken from The New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia relateing to Armenian Catholics. “When the time for making bread was short the leaven was omitted, and unleavened cakes were baked, as is customary among the Arabs (Gen 18:6; 19:3; Ex 12:39; 1 Sam 28:24). Such cakes were called in Heb. massa, "sweetness." Thin, round cakes made of unleavened dough were baked on heated sand or flat stones (1 Kings 19:6), by hot ashes or coals put on them-"ash-cakes." Such cakes are still the common bread of the Bedouin and poorer orientals.” Taken from Intercontinental Church of God website.

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I wasn't brought up to believe this and didn't believe it until 5 years ago.

Ok I was so I was wrong on that one

kelly1 wrote: »

Why do these have to be in scripture?

“Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”. Matt 4:4

kelly1 wrote: »

There are loads of example in acts of the imposition of hands which is the sacrament of holy orders. What do you thing the imposition of hands is about?

The laying on of hands is fine. This does not contradict scripture. It was indeed practiced in the New Testament but God is not limited to the laying on of hands. He had to go outside the original apostles and get Paul by Himself. Who laid hands on Paul in ordination?

kelly1 wrote: »

So again I ask you, is this tradition from the earliest days of the Church wrong? Was the Church wrong for 1500 years?

The fact that we are having this argument is proof enough that traditions just get in the way of God’s Word. Doing something for a long time does not make it the right thing to do. Since when is “long time” the criteria for something to be right? If it starts out wrong then won’t it be always wrong? These traditions are great if you want to do them, but don’t tell people they have to do them in order to be saved. That is wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

If the Eucharist is only symbolic, how can it be eaten and drunk unworthily? And how can a symbol bring judgement upon someone??

Excellent question. In the verse you quoted I Cor 11:26 Paul is admonishing the Corinthian Church (the Church he had the most problems with btw) to partake of the elements “worthily”. The word “worthily” is an adverb and adverbs modify verbs and verbs are action words, they have nothing to do with the actor partaking, and the action in this case is partaking of the elements. And Paul defines what partaking unworthily is later in the same chapter as not discerning the Lord’s body. When the Corinthians Church got together for what was called the “Agape” or “Love Feast” they would get drunk and show off their wealth and then tag on to this practice the table of the Lord. By the time they got around to partaking of the table of the Lord they were not able to discern what they were doing and as a result some of them were weak and sick and some even died. Paul warned them to partake worthily by discerning what Jesus had done for them and not to focus on their own worthiness to partake. When you are partaking of these elements (bread and wine) and you take your focus off Jesus and what He has done for you and put your focus on anything else including yourself then you are partaking unworthily, when your focus is on Him and Him alone only then are you partaking worthily. The Catholic Church for centuries has thought (and still does to this day) that you must be worthy in order to partake of these elements. WRONG!!! This is putting the focus on the partaker not the partaking. None of us are worthy to partake. We are “made” worthy by the blood of the Lamb and when we discern this whilst we are partaking only then are we partaking worthily. These elements are symbolic of His body and blood they are not the actual flesh and blood, sorry that is wrong, always was and will be.

kelly1 wrote: »

Please explain to me then why Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins if He only meant for us to confess directly to God. And again you're ignoring the tradition of confession.

Where is the chapter and verse that states Jesus gave the apostles authority to forgive sins? They haven’t got the authority to forgive sins only in His name. Forgiveness of sins is through Jesus Christ alone and Jesus sent them out to preach this, He never gave them authority to forgive sins in any other name including their own.

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, it is tradition and scriptural. The first three are all mentioned in scripture as in the imposition or laying of hands. The primacy of Peter is not explicit in scripture but it is clear that Peter is the first among the apostles.

We hear all too often of Jesus’ praise of Peter’s statement of faith. But not too long after Jesus’ praise of Peter’s statement of faith Jesus called him Satan because he savoured not the things of God but the things of men. Peter had rebuked Jesus when He (Jesus) spoke of His impending death saying (Peter speaking) “be this far from thee, he just didn’t understand at that point in his faith that it was necessary for Him (Jesus) to die, otherwise there is no provision for salvation. Jesus loved him though and great picture of the grace of God is seen when Jesus told the women who reported the resurrection to tell His disciples and Peter that he was going ahead of them to Galilee. Peter was included specifically because he was really hard on himself over his failings. But even after that he was still a hard head. And even after the spirit fell on him he still needed to be shown visions that he was not to call unclean what God had cleansed, this was in reference to God sending Peter to preach to a gentile. He was still caught up in traditions that make void the Word of God and jut didn’t understand God’s cleansing work in Christ as it pertained to non Jews. No wonder God went outside the original Apostles and called and sent Paul to the non Jews.

kelly1 wrote: »

The bible makes it clear in 1 Tim 3:15 that the Church, not scripture, is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

There are two words in the New Testament that are translated “Church”. One is when Jesus says “I will build my Church and he gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The word Church here in is “Ecclesia” ec = out le = called sia = ones. “I will build my “out called ones” and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” Most Latin languages (Spanish, Italian etc) still use this word to translate what we in the English call Church. The other word translated “Church” in the New Testament is “Kiriacone” (written phonetically) which means simply “The Lord’s”; it comes from the Greek word “Kirios” which means “Lord”. The Church is only the pillar and foundation of truth when it is proclaiming the truth and Jesus was the truth. He said to Pilate for instance that He (Jesus) was the truth. The New Testament Church or out called ones belonging to the Lord preached Jesus Christ crucified, buried and risen and ascended and faithful and just to forgive us our sins. All you need to so is ask Him, confess your sins to Him not to a preist. Jesus Himself said to pray in private to your Father in Heaven. He never mentioned that you need a priest.

kelly1 wrote: »

It is also clear from John 14:26, John 10:16 and Matthew 18:17 that God wants us to obey Church teachings.

You must be reading form a different Bible than me because I can see nothing whatsoever in any of thee verses that specifically states that we should obey Church teachings. I do believe what Paul says that we should obey those who have rule over us because they watch for our souls. But the Pope doesn’t watch for my soul. Only those who teach the truth about Christ watch for souls. I belong to a Church and I follow the leaders thereof as they follow Christ and I do obey those there that have rule over me for they do watch for my soul.

kelly1 wrote: »

What you've shown me if how vehemently opposed you are to the Church founded by your Saviour. All of the comments you've made are not at all based on fact but rather on nasty lies and rumours put out by the enemies of Christ's Church.

Wrong. I am not the enemy of Christ. If you had a spiritual bone in your body you would see clearly from all my post that that is certainly not the case. He gets all the glory on my post no one else. If I were of the devil could I say the things I say about Jesus?

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear that you've been reading way too many anti-catholic sites.

Nope, haven’t read one anti Catholic site. I use to be Catholic, was brought up as one. I am not against Catholics per se just the Roman Catholic Church as an institution and any other institution that does not have God’s Word as its basis without the traditions of men that make it void.

kelly1 wrote: »

The Catholic Church is the most persecuted Church in the world because the world lives in darkness and can't abide the light.

Oh please you’re gonna have me busting out crying next. The most persecuted Church in the world? Ha ah that is a joke. It is the single richest institution in history. Did you see Pope John Paul II’s funeral Mass? Did you see all the heads of state at that were there? Tell me one other institution that has power like that. There is not one other single institution in the world that could amass such a gathering of dignitaries, even the Greek Orthodox Church was represented. Persecuted my foot. It has caused more persecution of God’s people than any other institution in the history of mankind. It has still to excommunicate Hitler. There has been known devil worship by many in its hierarchy. It has martyred more of God’s people in its ignorance than any dictator the world has ever known.

kelly1 wrote: »

You seem to have no idea just how much Satan is working to destroy the Church but he never will and we have Christ's promise for that!

Look like I said this is not an attack on you personally. But you must know that the Church institution you belong to is not infallible. Neither is the Pope. Satan will only attack Churches that are preaching God’s Word. Once he can pollute a church with teaching traditions that make void the Word of God then he will leave it alone. It is not bothering him so why would he waste ammunition on it? Same goes for all Churches that don’t stand on God’s Word alone and give it the Supremacy it deserves. How you can defend traditions over the word of God is beyond me.

kelly1 said:

How about this for starters:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bish...and_Deacon.asp

Thanks, Noel.

As you may know, Evangelical Protestantism also holds to the offices of presybter and deacon. We however point out that bishop is the same office as presbyter - elder, overseer, pastor.
Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, 19 serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; 20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. 24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

They are NEVER called priests. The word for priest is hiereus, not episkopos/presbyteros.

Note also the plurality of bishops/presbyters/elders/pastors/overseers. The church in Ephesus had several.

But let me focus on the big issue - the idea that the Church has a priesthood (other than that of all the faithful - Revelation 1:6). The priesthood is the foundation on which the Roman Catholic Church stands, the mechanism by which she exerts control over the consciences of men. It claims these priests offer Christ upon their altars and that such offerings actually atone for the sins of Christians.

That is the biggest blasphemy I can imagine. And there is not one verse on the New Testament that supports it. Neither the repeated offerings nor the priesthood itself.

I'll be glad to hear your explanation.

kelly1 wrote: »

My faith is based on both and tradition does not contradict scripture.

Tradition doesn’t contradict scripture?

Scripture says: If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness 1 John 1:9. But Catholic tradition says we must confess our sins to a Catholic priest or else they are not truly forgiven.

Scripture says: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Tom 2:5. But Catholic Tradition says that there is also Mary and the Saints.

Scripture says referring to the table of the Lord: “If you partake unworthily (i.e. not discerning the Lord’s body) then you eat and drink damnation to yourself.” 1 Cor 11.26. But Catholic Tradition says that we must be worthy to partake of the host????

Being worthy to partake and partaking worthily are two very different things. We partake worthy when we recognise that we are not worthy and that we are made worthy by the blood of the Lamb. If we were worthy then we would have no need to partake of these elements.

Scripture says: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body (substance) is of Christ” Col 2:16-17. Paul was talking about legitimate Jewish feast days that were supposed to be observed under the law, but now that Christ (the substance which cast these shadow) has come there is no need to observe these days because they have been fulfilled in Christ. Imagine what Paul would say today about lesser pagan rituals being engrafted onto Church teachings after Christ has come that we are told we must observe? But Catholic tradition says that we must observe certain days like Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas. These were pagan feasts Christianised and grafted onto Catholic Church teachings. Christ was not born on December 25th yet the Catholic Church teaches that He was. He was not crucified on Good Friday at 3pm and Risen again on Easter Sunday at 6am. That would give us a mere 39 hours in the grave. Scripture tells us that he was 3 days and 3 nights in the grave before He was raised that’s 72 hours? Plus He didn’t rise at sunrise in the morning, He rose at sundown in the evening. Jewish days start at sundown 6pm. He was crucified on the feast of Passover which fulfilled that feast day (set time) and was in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights which fulfilled the feast of Unleavened Bread. In the OT this bread was hidden for 3 days and 3 nights after Passover. He came out of the tomb on the First Day of the next week fulfilling the feast of First Fruits (first born of many brethren) which was a feast within a feast (second half of the unleavened bread week were it was unhidden). Fifty days after First Fruits the Spirit descended on the Apostles which fulfilled the Feast of Pentecost (which means Harvest, the harvest of the Church started on this day). There are 3 more feasts to be fulfilled. Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles. On the feast of the Trumpets 2 silver trumpets were to be blown all day long. One of these trumpets has been fulfilled. Christ was born on the feast of the Trumpets which is in September. You can prove from scripture that Jesus was born in September. We know from scripture that John the Baptist was born in the Spring time and that six months later Jesus was born, that does not put you in December rather sometime in Autumn. The second Trumpet has yet to be fulfilled. This is what we call the Rapture of the Church. I can go into these remaining feasts in more detail if you like but I think I’ve made my point about contradictions between Catholic traditions and scripture.

kelly1 wrote: »

Scripture doesn't say these things and neither are these contradictory to scripture. But I didn't say one must confess. I don't think it absolutely essential for salvation but it does guarantee forgiveness of all sins and as a sacrament, it confers grace helping the sinner to resist sin.

The acts of the sinful nature (so called sins) are but the result of an inherent condition Paul calls “Harmatia” literally to “fall short of the mark of the Law” and an inch is a good as a mile. The only thing powerful enough to deliver you from the law of sin in your nature is the Holy Spirit. Confessing your sins will bring God’s forgiveness but it is the fact that you are acting on God’s Word that puts His Spirit in you. This is supposed to be a daily activity, not a once off altar call-once saved always saved-never move another muscle of faith for the rest of your life activity. Without God’s Grace already given to us in Christ while we were yet sinners then access would have been impossible. It is by Grace that we are saved through faith.

kelly1 wrote: »

I didn't say that. Ordination is necessary to become a priest.

Yes a catholic priest. But I’m talking about everyday ordinary individuals who need Christ in their lives where they live it but are denied it because they don’t adhere to Church teachings first, which as I have pointed out in several earlier posts including this one is totally wrong and against God. People need to hear the “Good News” of Christ not the “Bad News” of Church Teachings. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17

kelly1 wrote: »

You claimed that the Mass had pagan/sun worship connections. Are you withdrawing this claim?

Absolutely not.

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus sent the apostles out to teach the truth and the apostles sent their successors out to do the same thing. Now are you telling me that these successors/bishops taught error?

Yes. Its called ‘add-on’.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you not accept that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to teach the truth is His name?

I do accept that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to teach the truth is His name.

kelly1 wrote: »

Really? Ok, here's John 10:16

Doesn't this tell you that Jesus wants us to obey Church teachings?

Does it specifically mention the Catholic Church in that verse?

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you know that "confess" means confession to a lay person or to God? Tradition show that confess mean confession to a priest.

Yes tradition shows that but it is clear that the scripture fails to make that distinction and point out that it is to a priest that we must confess our sins. It merely says confess your sins and He is faithful and just to forgive them. When David penned Psalm 51 was it to God or to a Priest? Read it and find out.

kelly1 wrote: »

Scripture is true. What's wrong with asking Mary or the saints to Pray to Christ on our behalf?

Nothing wrong with it at all. Work away. I personally have no problem with it. I just know I don’t have to do it based on God’s Word. But what would happen to me if I were a Catholic in the 15th century and held a meeting in my local parish and proclaimed to the Arch Bishop and all in attendance that I don’t believe I need to pray to Mary or the Saints any more? That all I need is Christ Jesus because the Bible (if I could find one I could read back then of course) says He is the only mediator between man and God? How do you think that would that go down? I can nearly smell the flames.

kelly1 wrote: »

According to the Church, being worthy in this case means being in a state of grace.

The word Grace in the Greek is “Charis”. This word means un-merited favour which means it is the kind of favour that cannot be earned. If it could be earned then it ceases to be “charis” the reward as Paul says is now reckoned of debt. In order to get access to this Grace we must have faith. “For by Grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast” Now the word faith in the Greek is “Pistis” (the noun) “Pisteo” (the verb) and it is an action word. It is something you do, not merely something that you have. The scripture says without it, it is impossible to please God. The literal meaning of the word Pisteo in the Greek is to act upon a belief and to continue that action in the confidence that the thing being believed in is true and solid. In the Christian sense this is God’s Word of promise. So we are saved by unmerited favour through acting on God’s Word namely His promises. We are only in this state of grace when we are doing these kinds of actions daily. Merely adhering to the traditions of men with a checklist mentality will not pass muster with God. He wants faith and faith Alone!!! It is written!

kelly1 wrote: »

This verse supports the change from observing the sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday. See also:

Acts 20:7 And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread (The first day of the week is Sunday)

Is this a command from God? Did Paul say that this was to be done in response to a Word from the Lord? Paul spoke for himself and made a distinction when it came from the Lord or Him e.g. “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” 1 Cor 7:10-14
The writer to the Hebrews says that there remains a rest or “sabbathing” for the people of God Heb 4:9. That rest or “sabbathing” is what I explained above. Acting in faith on God’s Word and ceasing from your own works of righteousness which cannot save you.

Yet more debunking of tradtions by scripture:

“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” Col 2:20-23

kelly1 wrote: »

1 Cor 16:2 On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.

This quote has to do with giving. Do you want to talk about giving? Tithes and Offerings?

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree. Are you claiming this is what the catholic faith is like??

Absolutely not. And how can you say you agree when it is blatantly clear from your posts that you don’t?

kelly1 wrote: »

Church teachings keep Christ out of peoples lives? Are you serious??

Catholic Church teachings do. For instance; if I wanted to get my child to make his first holy communion in a Catholic Church he would need to get baptised and then he would need to confess his sins to a priest then he’d need to say a few Hail Marys and an Our Father or two and probably a decade of the rosary and only then could he be deemed worthy to make his first holy communion, am I wrong? Why can he not just take communion at home? Just get a little wine and a little bread and partake of it at home whilst discerning what Christ done for him on the cross and in so doing is discerning the Lord’s body as he partakes which Paul defines as partaking worthily? Now why can’t he do that without all these catholic add-on obstacles in the way?

kelly1 wrote: »

Which bad news are you talking about???

The bad news that God cannot accept us until we jump through several self compromising Catholic hoops en route to Him who freely gave Himself for all mankind not just Catholics, that bad news is what I’m talking about.

kelly1 wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that you came to your conclusions about the Church by yourself. Are you honestly telling me that you haven't been influenced by things you been told or read? Be honest please.

I never said that I came to my conclusions about the Catholic Church by myself. And I am honestly telling you that I have been influenced by things that I have been told and have read. What of it? Is that now a sin also that I must do penance for? My eyes were open to the truth of God’s Grace by His own word, that He takes me as I am and you as you are and you do not need to pass Catholic boot camp (or anyone else’s boot camp) before He’ll accept you. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 We did nothing to deserve it and cannot do anything now to deserve it either, all we can do is trust in His Word.

kelly1 wrote: »

Basically you're tell me me that Christ founded a Church and that His Church fell into error despite Christ assurances that the Church would keep the Church in truth and that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail and that He would be with His Church to the end of time. You don't appear to have a whole lot of faith in Christ's assurances about the Church!

It is quite evident from my posts that I have a lot of faith in Christ’s promises. Including the one that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His “out called ones” or “Church”. What you seem to be confused about is that you think that those “out called ones” that He is referring to is just the Catholic Church. Well its not. He is referring to an invisible body of believers in the world, who have one thing in common, and that is that they trust in God’s Word of promise. They could be from any walk of life including Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Mormon, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and so on they could be of any race or creed. The thing is God knows who they all are today and who they all were throughout history and I believe He is not far from making up His intended number to fill that void in heaven left by Satan and his minions. Christ died for all of us and it is the Church’s (any Church’s) primary function to proclaim this Good News to the whole world. That is what Christianity started out as and that is what it still is and that is all it ever will be. Now no matter what Church you belong to, it needs to understand this and that their house rules should only be the criteria for getting into their particular Church and those who want to be part of it should obey those rules but those rules are not the criteria for eternal life.

kelly1 wrote: »

Since apostolic succession is key to our discussion, why don't we focus on that?

God bless,
Noel.

Curiously, Could you detail the gifts of Spirit that the Pope has? and the gifts the last 10 popes have had?

Also, is the pope the only apostolic successor? Seeing how there were 12 apostles, all of whom could pass on their apostleship, who else are apostles?

Also, we seen in Acts what happened to those who sinned against the spirit, they fell down dead!

Now, if the Pope is an apostle, and they sin against the spirit, which some have done (that is if they actually had the spirit), then would they not have died instantly also? And if there is a pope in history who was corrupt and not an apostle, then surely the apostolic line ends does it not? Or are cardinals apostles too? Or does the laying of hands not actually matter in the RC church? Is it if the Cardinals decide on a new Pope/apostle, God automatically makes them an apostle?

If this can be done, then why was laying of hands needed back in New Testamant times?

kelly1 wrote: »

The pope, bishops and cardinals are not apostles.

Ok now I'm confused? We are talking about Apostles passing on their apostleship no? What is apostolic sucession then?

The Apostles were all appointed by Christ unlike bishops etc.

Matthias was chosen after Jesus had ascended. The apostles prayed and cast lots to decide on his apostleship.