God replaced Judas Iscariot with Paul, for the ministry of the twelve apostles. That is completely different from the R.C. doctrine of so-called "apostolic succession", for which is zero scriptural evidence.
In none of these activites does the pastor act as a mediator between God and men, unlike the claimed mediatorial priesthood of Romanism.
This is the usual sophistry. The R.C.'s so-called "priests" act in the place of Christ (i.e. as anti-Christs).
John 20:23 (NASB 1995) If you forgive the sins of any, their sins [a] have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
[a] John 20:23 i.e. have previously been forgiven
The tense is ambiguous in the unnamed version you've quoted; however, here, it is clear that it is about declaring to those who believe the gospel that their sins have been forgiven; and to the unbelievers that their sins have been retained.
Yes, and...?
We know.
We know.
What does "Vicar of Christ" mean? (N.B. I'm not looking for information, since I already know the answer; I just want to see what you say.)
Only God can forgive sins; but, we can declare that those who have believed the gospel have been forgiven; and that those who don't have not.
Then why do you have a mediatorial priesthood? All Christians are priests unto God. There is no separate priesthood, in the New Covenant.
Answered above (and I note the typically vague and "open to interpretation" wording of your question - "ministerial role in reconciliation").
Answered above.
A few observations.
First, Acts 1 actually works against your claim that an office automatically ceased when its holder was gone.
The Apostles did not say, "Judas is gone, therefore the office is gone."
They said:
"His office let another take" (Acts 1:20).
And that office was filled by
Matthias (Acts 1:26), not Paul.
Whatever conclusions we draw from that, it demonstrates that the apostolic office itself was not viewed as inherently non-transferable. My point is not that Acts 1 proves the entire Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. My point is simply that the Apostles did not conclude that an office ceased to exist when its holder departed.
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 hath 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.
