No, Matthias was not the replacement for Judas, for several reasons:
1) Apostles were chosen by God, not men
2) The apostles tried to give God the choice between two men whom they had chosen, without any indication that God wanted either of them. They hadn't prayed about it, and they used lots to decide between the two men, so that the result had to be one or the other.
3) Matthias was only said to be "numbered" with the apostles; it does not say that he became one.
4) Matthias is never heard from again.
5) Paul was chosen by God, in a personal encounter with the Lord
6) Paul is declared to be an apostle, not merely numbered with them
7) Paul's exploits are recounted in Acts
8) Paul wrote much of the New Testament.
There were twelve apostles; and the one who forfeited his office was replaced by God.
I've already explained that the verse means that the sins they forgive have already been forgiven (in other words, they affirming an existing condition of forgiveness).
Vicar means "substitute" or "in place of", which is one of the meanings of "anti", as in "anti-Christ".
There is no evidence that the apostles were to have successors. Paul was the replacement for Judas, not a successor.
The mediatorial priesthood ended with the passing of the O.C..
Preaching the gospel is the ministry of reconciliation.
It's not merely preaching the gospel; it is also pronouncing forgiveness to those who believe it, and that those who reject it remain under God's condemnation and wrath.
A few observations.
First, regarding Matthias.
You say Matthias was not Judas' replacement because the apostles chose him rather than God.
But Acts says otherwise.
Peter declared concerning Judas:
"His office let another take" (Acts 1:20).
The apostles then identified qualified candidates and prayed:
"Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen" (Acts 1:24).
Notice they did not ask God to approve their choice. They asked God to reveal
His choice.
Scripture then says:
"And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).
So the text explicitly presents Matthias as the one chosen
"to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).
Moreover, Acts does not merely say that Matthias was "numbered" with the apostles. The office under discussion is explicitly called:
"this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside" (Acts 1:25).
Matthias was chosen to take Judas's place in that apostleship and was then:
"enrolled with the eleven apostles" (Acts 1:26).
Whether Matthias is mentioned later in Acts is beside the point. The text itself says he was chosen to take Judas's place in that apostleship.
And you may believe Paul later received a unique apostolic calling, and I agree that he did. But Paul's later apostleship does not change the fact that Acts 1 records Judas' office being filled by Matthias.
More importantly, it demonstrates that the apostles did not conclude that an apostolic office ceased to exist simply because its holder departed. They filled the vacancy.
Second, regarding John 20:23, you have offered an interpretation, but the text itself says:
"Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them; and whose sins you retain are retained."
The text does not say:
"Announce to people that God has already forgiven them."
Nor does it say:
"Inform unbelievers that their sins remain."
That may be your interpretation, but it is not what the text explicitly says.
In fact, Jesus first says:
"As the Father has sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21).
Then He breathes on them and gives them the Holy Spirit.
Then He speaks of forgiving and retaining sins.
That is a remarkably solemn commissioning if all that is meant is ordinary preaching.
Third, you ask about the phrase "Vicar of Christ."
A vicar is a representative or one who acts on behalf of another, not a replacement.
Paul calls himself:
"an ambassador for Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20).
An ambassador does not replace the king who sends him. He acts under the king's authority.
Likewise, when I say the Apostles and their successors act as Christ's representatives, I am not saying they replace Christ.
Fourth, you keep saying that Catholic priests "replace Christ," but I have yet to see you demonstrate that claim.
Catholics explicitly teach that Christ is the one mediator and the source of all grace. The question is whether Christ can choose to exercise His ministry through human instruments.
You seem willing to accept that Christ preaches through preachers, shepherds through pastors, and works through believers who intercede for one another.
Yet when we arrive at John 20:23, suddenly any participation in Christ's ministry becomes "replacement."
Why?
Most importantly, I think you're bypassing the point I raised about the context.
Jesus is commissioning men who had failed Him spectacularly. They fled, denied Him, and abandoned Him. Yet rather than discarding them, He forgives them, restores them, sends them, gives them the Holy Spirit, and entrusts them with responsibilities concerning the forgiveness and retention of sins.
That tells me Christ intended these forgiven men to participate in His ministry of reconciliation, not merely stand on the sidelines and announce information.
So my question remains:
If John 20:23 means nothing more than informing people whether they are forgiven, why does Jesus connect it to being sent as He was sent, receiving the Holy Spirit, and exercising discernment regarding both the forgiveness
and retention of sins?
That seems far more substantial than simply preaching the gospel.
