Acts 6: 1-7,

1 "And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmoring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily administration.
2 Hence, the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: it is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch.
6 These they set before the Apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.
7 And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith."

Chapter 7 deals mainly with the 12 Apostles' ordaining of the 7 deacons as well as the zeal of St. Stephen.


"those days" was 33 AD.

"Hence" In order to guard against similiar oversights in the future.

"it is not reason we should leave the word of God" Here the Twelve establish a principle that has been followed in the Chruch to this day. Just as they were avid for the word of God,embracing it in its entirety, meditating on it, and studying it, generously proclaiming Christ, are the priests today. Their main responsibility is the preaching of the word, nourishing the faithful by the administration of the Sacraments and lastly, the governing of the Chruch. Any other committment they take on should be compatible with their pastoral work and supportive of it, in keeping with the example given by Christ.

"serve tables" Up to this point, the Apostles as leaders of Infant Church had superintended the distribution of alms, but as the number of the faithful increased daily, they no longer had time to look after the temperal needs of the poor without neglecting the the preaching of the word of God, the instruction of those who were preparing for Baptism, and the worship of GOd in several quarters of the city.

"of good reputation" meant they must be respected and trusted by everyone. Those chosen had also to be full of the Holy Ghost for the office which it was the intention of the Apostles to confer on them was not a civil but an ecclesiastical and spiritual office. The deacons were to combine instruction and preaching with the distribution of alms and were to minister not only to the bodily, but also to the spiritual wants of the poor. They were to be men of 'wisdom' so as to be able to direct and do everything in the best way.

"whom we may appoint"; "multitude and they chose"
Here we see the difference between election and appointment to a ministry in the Chruch. A person can be elected or designated by the faithful; but the power to carry out that ministry which implies a calling from God, is something he must receive through ordination, which the Apostles confer. According to St. Chrysostom, the Apostles leave it to the body of the disciples to select the 7 in order that it should not seem that they favor some in preference to others.

"imposed hands" The Apostles having approved the choice, they consecrated or ordained them by prayer and the imposition of hands. Those designated for ordination are ministers of GOd. They have received a calling and by the imposition of hands, God, not men, gives them a spiritual power to administer the Sacraments, and preach the word, govern and teach the Christian faithful.

"Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch."---Note that all the people chosen have Greek names. One of them is a "proselyte" that is a pagan who became a Jew through circumcision and observance of the Mosaic Law. Now, Nicolas is an ordained deacon of the early Church.

So, first we have the ministry of the Chruch being entrusted to the Apostles. Clearly these verses relate to the 12 Apostles establishing the seven as a second identifiable group of the disciples also entrusted with the ministry of the Church. The seven have been given not only a ministerial role in the Chruch community which extends beyond distribution of relief.

St.Luke uses the term "diakonia" from which we get the word 'deacon' meaning minister or helper. From this we get the later technical sense of the word "Diaconate". The 'Diaconate' is a ministerial office and a stepping stone to the priesthood. A man must be a deacon before he can be a priest. Here we are told how the 12 Apostles ordained the 7. The outward sign is the imposition of hands, with prayer, and thereby the 7 men received God's grace and authority to perform their sacred duties. The duty and the office of the deacons consisted in helping the Apostles not only in the care of the poor, but also in the care of the souls.

Later on in the chapter we read that St.Stephen, the deacon, taught and preached and in the following chapter Philip, another deacon, baptized, both men sharing in some ways in ministry of the Apostles involved in the "care of souls". Deacons are still ordained in the CChurch by the bishop, as successor of the Apostles and the order is conferred in the same way as the Apostles conferred it, namely, by the imposition of hands with prayer. Deacons are assistants to priests having authority to preach, baptize, to assist priests at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and give Holy Communion, but they have not the power to consecrate the bread and wine into the BOdy and Blood of our Lord, or to remit sins.


Now, a bit of info on verse 1.--1 "And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmoring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily administration.

Here we are introduced to 2 groups in the early Chruch community, identified by their background prior to their conversion--the Greek (Hellenists) and the Hebrews. From this chapter onwards, Christians are referred to as "disciples". In other words, this term is no longer applied only to the Apostles and to those who were adherants of Jesus during His life on earth. All the baptized are "disciples".

Hellenists were Jews who had been born and lived for a time outside Palestine. They spoke Greek and had synagogues of their own where the Greek translation of Scripture was used. They had a certain amount of Greek culture; the Hebrews would have also had some, but not as much.

The Hebrews were Jews born in Palestine and spoke Aramaic and used the Hebrew Bible in their synagogues. The difference of backgrounds naturally carried over into the early Chruch community. It would be wrong to see it as divisive or to imagine that they were two opposed factions in early Christianity. Before the Chruch was founded, there existed in Jerusalem a well established, influential and sizeable Hellenist-Jewish community.

All those points cut into your use of that scripture to prove an eternal, unbroken chain of apostolic succession. They didn't say "the multitudes will pick and we'll give the final okay". They didn't say "go choose our successors".

They simply said they didn't have time to handle the squabbles over charity and told people to go find others to do the job. I find nothing there that claims these men were successors, or that those men had any task to pass the succession on to anyone else.

BAKERSTREET POSTS #51


In what way did the Incarnate Son of God before departing from this earth provide for continuum and advancement of His everlasting kingdom? He didn’t write a book or order one to be written. He founded a Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth”, and promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against her until the end of time.

Whenever I use the term “the Church” or “His Church”, I mean the Catholic Church. The Church alone claims to be founded directly by Christ, to have been given divine authority, and has been, is and shall be perpetually maintained by her divine Founder until the end of time. The Church alone extending through time and space reveals the most wonderful unity professing one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. From her solemn beginning with the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost around 29 AD through today, the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, as trustee of God’s Revelation, has not warped, veered or ceased from Christ’s mandate to go out and preach and teach all the world to the ends of the earth and to the end of time.

The fact that Christ’s Church, His everlasting kingdom,----- which sprang up from seed form, has existed continuously for this prodigious amount of time, through periods of ignorance and knowledge, through phases of popular credulity and equally alternate phases of skepticism, through struggling against endless varieties of temptation both external and within, through violent revolutions and persecution----still exists today is a supernatural phenomenon and one that defies natural explanation.

Bakerstreet, you seem to think sin operating through the Inquisition or this or that bad Pope somehow proves the Catholic Church false, illegitimate or denies Apostolic succession. It doesn’t. History records that there have been wicked men in the Church and Christ predicted that there would be bad fish in the Net. These evil men were wicked in spite of the constant teachings of the Church, not because of them. At the same time we cannot overlook that in every age there have been saints, good precisely because they lived according to the precepts of the Church. It is proof of Christ’s promise that she has survived not only attacks from external enemies, but still worse the evil of corrupt members within.


Yes, it is true that some prelates, bishops, and priests have lost their way, forgotten what they have promised to God and what He called them to do. Christ promised that His Church would never go wrong, not that individuals within the Church would never go wrong. You cannot argue from bad fish in the Net to the rottenness of the Net. A very good Net can hold some very bad fish.

Had these Popes lived up to Catholic teaching in its fullness, they would have been saints. No account of individual wrongdoing, then or today, as well as the scandals that will surely come, will change the divine foundation of the Church or the fact of her Apostolic succession. The wheat and the chaff coexist in the kingdom until the End. Christ warned that scandals would come and woe to them who create the scandals. This proves nothing more than certain individuals failed to live up to the obligations of their state in life, and some bad men were rulers of the Church. For this we cannot renounce the faith in Christ for the faults of priests are not to be ascribed to the Church herself. Because of the bad ones, we can’t reject the Papacy or the college of bishops any more than we reject the college of Apostles because of Judas, chosen by Christ Himself.

I can assure you that the bad examples by her Pontiffs and all the priesthood for that matter disgusts Catholics far more than it disgusts non-Catholics for Catholics know what is really expected of a Pope in accordance with spiritual principles set down by Christ by virtue of the keys first given to St. Peter. There are clergy today who are committed to dishonor and to deadly sin, and there are also many who faithfully and quietly persevere in keeping the precepts of Almighty God and those of His Church.

In effect, Bakerstreet, your reproach of the sinfulness of the Church’s human element bears testimony to the supernatural origin of the Church which still persists in spite of human sins among her members.

BAKERSTREET POSTS #62:


Okay, Bakerstreet, I'll give it another try this time by adding context from other chapters.

In. Ch. 6, we’re given to understand that a new segment in the structure of the development of the Infant Church is beginning to be laid. The details given concerning the Church community, the way community interacts with the Apostles who use their God-given authority to deal with the situation that has arisen and ordain ecclesiastical successors (not other Apostles) into the ministry is closely connected if not the same as is done in the CC today. The Church then was as an acorn which today is a developing oak. Her mission then as today is the salvation of men perfected by God.

Jesus chose the Apostles to be the first leaders of the Church. He gave them His authority to teach and govern, not in a dictatorial sense, but as loving fathers. That’s why Catholics call our priests, ‘father’. We follow St. Paul’s example, 1Cor.4:15. “I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel.”

Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek “Katholokis”) because she is His gift to all people. The Church was known by its common title, “the Catholic Church” at least as early as 107AD when St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, used that title in a letter to the Smyreans. The Church at Antioch (the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Syria) was where the followers of Christ were being called “Christians”. The Church at Antioch was established by those Christians who fled during the persecutions in Jerusalem after the death of Christ and the death of St.Stephen, one of the 7 ordained deacons in v. and the first martyr of the Faith.

Jesus told His Apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of all nations. For 2,000 years the CC has carried out this divine mission. Today, the Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to ‘make disciples of all nations. St.Matt. 28:19.

The Church Jesus founded is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19-20) because He appointed the Apostles to be the first leaders of the Church and their successors were to be its future leaders. The Apostles were the first overseers, (bishops) and since the first century there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the Apostle’s the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition. 2Tim. 2:2. These beliefs include the Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist 1Cor. 11: 23-26; St.John 6: 58-59, the forgiveness of sins through a priest St.John 20:22-23, baptismal regeneration St.John 3:5, the existence of Purgatory 1Cor. 3:15.

The Apostles, fulfilling Jesus’ mandate, ordained, by the laying of hands, bishops, priests and deacons and thus handed on the apostolic ministry to them--the fullest degree of ordination to the bishops, lesser degrees to the priests and deacons. Jesus said that St.Peter was to be the rock on which He would build His Church. St.Matt. 16:18. Christ, the Good Shepherd, gave St.Peter special authority among the Apostles calling him to be the chief shepherd of His Church. St.John 21:15-17. He gave him the task of strengthening the other Apostles in their faith, ensuring the faith of the Chruch (not that of the individual members) would never go astray St.Luke 22:31-32. St.Peter led the Church in proclaiming the Gospel and making decisions. Acts. 2:1-41, 15:7-12.


The writings of the Church Fathers as well as those of Pope St. Clement, tells us of St.Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome continued to exercise St.Peter’s ministry in the Church. The pope is the successor to St.Peter as bishop of Rome, and the other bishops are successors to the Apostles in general. They also prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the Apostles as their leaders of the early Church. What these first Christians were taught and believed is still taught and believed in the CC today.


Keep in mind that from this chapter onwards, Christians are referred to as "disciples". This term is no longer applied only to the Apostles and to those who were adherents of Jesus during His life on earth. All the baptized are "disciples". All Christians are therefore disciples.

In v. 1, we learn about the Greek Hellenists and Hebrews make up the community of the Infant Church. We learn that this community headed by the Apostles comes together for the daily distribution of alms and care for the needy, in this case ‘the widows’. So, here, we see that even in Jesus' lifetime and beyond, fraternal charity was a part of the work which the Apostles performed. This mission of charity in the care of the poor and needy is the essence of the mission of the Church today with her Catholic Charities, food for the poor program and St. Vincent de Paul soup kitchens, to name just a few.

The early Jerusalem community is growing with an increasing number of disciples. A difficulty over the daily care of the widows has arisen between these two groups within the community. The Apostles were aware of this and they were also conscious of performing their own special and exclusive duties essential the ministry which was to devote themselves to prayer and to the ministry of the Lord. By saying this they weren’t downgrading the charitable work, rather they were acknowledging the hierarchy of duties and the primary purpose of the task which they had received from the their Risen Lord. This is the same regulation for all priestly and ecclesiastical service today...their vocation is the proclamation of the Word, the liturgical prayer in celebration of the Holy Mass and the conferring of the 7 Sacraments.

The Twelve knew their office and also the authority joined to it, namely the right to guide and make decisions. The Apostles decide the solution for the problem of the charitable tasks which face the community. It was a decision of far reaching importance. Concerned about the dignity and co-responsibility of the entire community, they had asked for and received their cooperation in choosing certain men with certain qualifications, which the Church is at all times when she calls for men for the work of the holy ministry. Read the letters of Timothy and Titus to learn the demands which are made of those who are candidates for ecclesiastical office, whether they be bishops, priests or deacons.

The community is asked to name 7 men. The number 7 seems to be a special number. In 21:8, We realize this when the evangelist Philip is introduced to the Philippians as “one of the seven”. Scripture begins with Genesis which introduces the 7-day week of creation and ends with the 7 series of the Book of the Apocalypse. Christ instituted 7 Sacraments.

The community chooses its candidates and we see the situation is different from that of the election of Matthias 1:15 who completes the Apostolic College replacing Judas. The candidates are Grecian and some conjecture this was to please the Judeo-Christian Hellenists and to heal any dissension which they might have foreseen in the future. One thing that became apparent is that the Hellenist group retained its own identity within the community and later on, produced a tension which would explode into the persecution of Christians. If we read ahead to 8:1, the Apostles and the Hebrew segments of the community were ordered not to leave Jerusalem during the persecution.

BAKERSTREET POSTS:



You’re right, EXCUSE ME, they didn’t say go choose our “SUCCESSORS”. They said go choose 7 men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom. In essence, that‘s exactly what the community did...AND THEN WHAT DID THE APOSTLES DO?

Okay, let’s look at verses 5 and 6 grammatically.

5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch.
6 These they set before the Apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.

I think we may conclude that in v. 6, the "they" that follows “Apostles” refers back to the Apostles who praying laid hands upon the seven men chosen by the community (multitude). Look back in v. 3. For before the election, the Apostles told them look ye out among you seven men .....whom we may appoint ..”


The twelve Apostles, when praying laid their hands upon the 7 men, they in actuality, promulgated a law of ecclesiastical hierarchy thereby almost created in legal terms the line of succession. The Apostles received their mission and their authority from Christ and they in turn passed them on to others and in this way both the mission and the authority will continue to exist in never-ending succession until the Church will be absorbed into the consummation of the kingdom of God. In Eph. 2:20, St.Paul describes the Church, “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets and it’s chief cornerstone is Jesus Christ. In Him the entire structure is being closely fitted together and will grow into a holy temple dedicated to the Lord.” Today, we see in these same rites the Sacrament of Holy Orders men. The imposition of hands is a primitive rite by which special authority and jurisdiction have always been imparted. Moses is supposed to have laid his hands on Joshua. Num. 27:18. In like fashion, it is cited as a dictum from God. “put something of your honors upon him, so that all the congregation of the Israelites may obey him.” Num. 27:20.

The earliest witnesses of Tradition were the Church Fathers, in some cases contemporaries of the Apostles themselves, demonstrated in their numerous writings the unbroken line of succession by which ecclesiastical authority can be traced back to the mission of the Apostles.

Read v. 8-15 and learn more about St. Stephen, one of the “seven” ordained by the Apostles. Do you think he was stoned to death because ALL he did was “handle the squabbles over charity” ? Yes, no doubt,he did fill the task of seeing to the needs of the Greek speaking community at Jerusalem helping them with alms (probably food) distribution...but it was more than that that he was ordained to do. He, “full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people”. This is the same as “wonders and signs” of the Apostles, particularly St.Peter 2:44; 5:12. The doubters and detractors in the Synagogue engaged him in debate and they couldn’t withstand his wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Clearly, St. Stephen, a converted Jew of Hellenist origin, had gone from being a member of the community to a man given over with zeal of spreading the word of God. Where did he get his power of evangelism and to perform great wonders and signs? By the Apostles praying and the laying on of hands came the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the empowerment to serve the Lord see13:1-3.
Can we show that men having been ordained in a lower tier than the Apostles yet, taken up place alongside them in the mission work of the Church? You bet. Can we link St.Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin as another forward step of the Infant Church in her outward development? I think so. Theological discussions relative to the Christian message are now brought out in the open....from the testimony and proclamation of salvation which is shown to be in agreement with the Scriptures of the Apostles, and of the disciples, here as St.Stephen, an ordained deacon, there grows an endeavor to fathom more profoundly the mystery of the revelation of Christ.

Here is another link to the further development of the CC. Saul is connected to St.Stephen. His name is mentioned 3 times after that of S. Stephen. On the day of St.Stephen’s death, Saul began a great persecution against the Church...and we know that the persecution is coupled with the growth and strengthening. The stoning of St.Stephen denotes a significant stride forward in the history of the early Church. While Saul’s persecution may have appeared to endanger the Church and her growth, in reality the Church stretched into Samaria and beyond...ultimately, as Jesus promised, to every corner of the earth.

And here in Ch. 8, we are introduced to St. Philip another one of the ‘seven’. Same with him...he did more than caring for the needy, he “proclaimed the Messiah”. v. 5. The Church spread because Jesus Christ, Crucified and Risen, was and is the heart of this proclamation. So,from reading Acts 6-8, we know what happens when the Church grows in numbers....more men are added as successors to the Apostles.

Jesus said:

....and love the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be caled of men, Rabbi Rabbi But be not called Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ; and all you are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven. Neither be called Masters; for one is your Master even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosover shall exalt himself shall be abased....

notice who he's talking to here in Matt 23. He's speaking to "the multitude AND TO HIS DISCIPLES." He never ever intended the church to be as the RCC is today.

it's very clear he's speaking against the hierachy in the church. The desire of man to elevate himself to be the source of spiritual life of others. God alone is our source. He's saying do not seek prominence of position or titles. Be a humble servant. Spiritually speaking there is only one Father and he is not of this earth.

For the most part this here in Matthew is not a picture of the CC in most minds either today or yesteryear. The CC has for years been a powerful force to be reckoned with.

My husband just returned from Poland. The RCC has a very powerful influence there. They pretty much run the government over there. The large city he was in (Tarnow) was largely owned by the CC. If you wanted to start a business or rent an apartment, the chances were the titles of these buildings or business were held by the most powerful RCC. They owned most everything. You don't move over there without their approval.

In the middle of this town is a little Baptist church. It, not the CC, has to be licensed or registered by the government. The Pastor HAS TO register his head elder with the government. If the elder turns out to be bad (and he is dealing with this) he CANNOT get rid of him unless the government says ok. They will not let him release this (bad) head elder. My feeling is this elder is a worker for the CC somehow. This happens alot.

When the priests and nuns walk past this church and the workers say "hello" while working outside the priests and nuns put their faces in the air and walk by not saying a word. They will NOT talk to anyone that is on the property of this little Baptist church. About five years ago, one of the nuns actually spit at our Pastor's wife from here.

This is where we've come out of Lula even if you don't want to believe it. THe CC at one time was the ruling body of the day very involved in governmental affairs and still seems to be so in many parts of the world even today.

The RCC cannot trace their actual history (and I've said this before) much before 312 AD and from then on it was by force.

At one time scripture was translated into 500 languages but by a certain date all were destroyed with only one translation allowed...Latin. Any other attempts were squashed and the ones involved burned at the stake.



a lower tier? See this is the influence of the CC and proves that the influence of the RCC and its hierachy still moves in the heart and minds of its people. Lower tier?

no we are all given gifts to work in the body...we are not all arms or all feet or all ears, but each and every part of the body is needed for proper function. There is no lower tier in the body. The least attractive or hidden parts of our bodies are usually the MOST important.

"For I say through the grace given to me to every man that is among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly according as God as dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members HAVE NOT the same office." Rom 12:3.

Stephen and Paul ARE NOT connected to the RCC and you CANNOT prove this to be true Lula. You keep saying these things but they CANNOT be proven. None of the Apostles CAN BE tied to the RCC. NOT ONE. It's a fabrication of the RCC to say so.

KFC, I thought you understood Scripture better than what you are exhibiting here. This mis-interpretation comes from the Protestant oral Tradition handbook in an attempt to condemn or scorn the Church as violating Scripture by the practice of calling priests “Father”.

Yes, Jesus is talking TO the multitude and TO His disciples. He’s teaching them a thing or two. KFC, OF WHOM is He speaking to the multitude and to His disciples ABOUT and WHAT does He mean by this? What’s the lesson? Is it that literally no man on earth can be addressed as “father”? Does His teaching literally deny that Catholic priests can be addressed as “Father”? To both questions, the answer is no.

In the context of the opening verses of St.Matt 23: 2-12, Jesus is exposing the hypocritical practices of the Scribes and Pharisees. They burden men without giving them an example of how to live up to the demands they make. The Pharisees do not assume authority in order to better the condition of their people, but to lay heavy loads upon them and make themselves appear holy and righteous. V. 5 tells us their works are hypocritical, not done for God who knows what is hidden, but for men who are to be dazzled by the spectacle of their piety. With deep seated vanity behind a facade of dignity, they demanded respect in their homes, the synagogue, on the streets and in market places.

They seek to be called “Rabbi” so they can feed their self-image and so they can assume places of honor without doing the things necessary to earn such honor. They are hypocrites of the first degree. Jesus admonishes the people to follow the good doctrine, not the bad example of the Scribes and Pharisees. He warns His disciples not to imitate their conduct or ambition.

Catholic teaching on this verse is: The lesson Jesus is teaching the crowds, his disciples (us) when He levels these charges against the Scribes and Pharisees in V.13, is of the theoretical doctrine and practical realization of the will of God as represented by them. The great thing is not to be influenced by their example. Their life contradicts their teaching. They themselves do not try to practice what they demand of others. What they do in fact accomplish is inspired by vanity and a desire for praise and is valueless in the eyes of God. Jesus exposes the hollowness of a ‘justice’ which is dominant nearly everywhere and is paraded with official authority, yet is rotten to the core, permeated with distortions, vanity, and lies. Full of fine words, yet dire hypocrisy. This is the ugly counterpart of the true ‘justice’ described by Jesus in 5:20 and to which we are all bound. The example of the Pharisees is meant to be a salutary warning to Christians and a check on their behavior.

He forbids the disciples to call such people the respectful titles of “rabbi” or “father” or “master” which were in use by the Jewish-Christian community of the day. Here, the new knowledge of truth taught by Christ is the first and noblest is not necessarily he who is looked on as a superior by men. Among the disciples (all Christians), the greatest is he who humbles himself and becomes “like a child”. He who serves truly rules and he who is small in the eyes of men is great in the eyes of God. Furthermore, in the verse, “call none [no man--KJV]your father on earth”, Our Lord means no earthly father must come before God, the one Supreme Father, for “whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named” Eph. 3:15. Jesus wants His disciples to show they have rightly understood their relationship to God, the Father, since their is no Father but One.

There is no need to take offense at using the titles mentioned in this passage. These terms are to be addressed to those who deserve those titles. For example, is it “going against Scripture” if someone says, “My father is a dentist”? We are all required to fill out printed forms with a blank line marked, ‘name of father’, and no one writes down “God”. Do not Protestants call the male parent “father” ? Do they not call George Washington, “father of the country”?

I think we can agree, KFC, that God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. It’s contrary to God’s nature to contradict Himself. So, if He had intended His comments in St.Matt. 23 to be understood literally, we could expect to see the meaning followed in other incidents where this issue comes up in Scripture. We can rule this out because we have so many examples of the Apostles and the Lord doing just that.

St.Luke 16:24, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, Christ refers to “Father Abraham”. In Romans 4:17-18, St.Paul also refers to Abraham as the “father of many nations”. In 1Thess.2:11, he compared his ministry to the Thessolanians Christians to a “father of his children’. St.John uses the same term repeatedly in his first Epistle, 1St.Jn. 2:13-14. Perhaps, the most compelling biblical evidence that the religious title “father” that Catholics call their priests is not contrary to Christ’s meaning in St.Matt. 23 comes from St.Paul’s explanation of his own priestly ministry.

1Cor. 4:14-16, “I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For I become you father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.” Notice, KFC, that not only does StPaul call himself, “father” in a religious sense, he urges us to imitate him. As it would get into Tradition, I won’t bore you with quotes that support this from the writings of the Church “Fathers” as they are those who went before us and were physically closer to Jesus and the Apostles than we.

ummmmm....we have a Protestant Oral Tradition Handbook? Really? If we do, I haven't seen it. Can you tell me where to find it?



Reading it in context the case is pretty clear Lula. The Popes, Biships, and Cardinals violate this exact scripture. Don't they call the pope "Holy Father?" Did you not notice Jesus saying "you are all brethren." It's very clear he didn't set up a hierarchy anywhere.

What we're seeing here is Christ speaking disapprovingly of their liking honorary titles. "They love to be greeted in the marketplace and have men call them Rabbi."

He then turns to them and says not to be like that. "you are all brothers." So, says Jesus, "refuse all titles"; you have one teacher (Christ) and you are all members of one family. Members of a family do not address one another by formal titles even if some of them indicate high distinction. Do you think President Bush's family calls him "President?" What would happen if I went up to the Pope and called him by his first given name? Remember Jesus says.."you are all brothers." We are all one in Christ Jesus.

He's not talking about our earthly physical fathers here. He is speaking of the use of honorific titles among his people. In the spiritual sense God alone is your Father. Do not give to others the designation which in that sense belongs exclusively to him. Jesus was never called Father by his disciples; that was his designation for God.

When Paul spoke of himself as his converts' father he was using a spiritual analogy not claiming a title. He was not claiming a title but stating a fact that he was there for the spiritual birth of his converts.

When I brought up "notice he's speaking to both disciples and the multitude" I wanted you to see that Jesus didn't put the disciples HEAD & SHOULDERS above the people. In fact, repeatedly he reminds them they are to serve not elevate themselves. We, as Christians are all part of ONE body with diff functions.

Just like our human body, some parts seem more prevalent, seen more easily but it's the unseen or little parts of our body that are just as important, if not more important than others. Try breaking one of your toes and you'll see just how important that little part of the body is.

KFC POSTS:

I'd love to visit Poland, the birthplace of Pope John Paul II, of happy memory. Now, there's a country with a rich, rich history. Catholics missionaries arrived in the 900s and have been there ever since surviving even Communist atheism from 1939-65.
So your husband and the little Baptist Church was surrounded by Catholics, huh? That must have been tough going, you know us awful Catholics. Gee, KFC, I'm sorry about that very not nice spitting nun.

So you think the CC still seems to be the ruling body in many parts of the world? This is news to me. I know Poland is majority Catholic, but you're saying the Church, itself, is involved in government. I'm most interested to hear specifically, how so. I understand from their history that individual Catholic Poles are governmentally involved and rightly so....but the Church itself, I'd like to hear that.

Catholics do not call Pope Benedict XVI, "Holy Father" in the same sense as that in which we call God our Father. The same goes for priests, calling them "Father". A priest by GOd's providence and by the authority of Christ is a father in the spiritual sense, just as a male parent is the is a "father" in the natural sense.

The word Pope means Father or head Bishop of the Church as an ordinary father is head of the family. St.Peter was appointed by Christ as the first head and as foundation rock of His Church. By legitimate succession the one who succeeded as Bishop of Rome after St.Peter's death became head of the Church or if you wish, head of the whole Christian family. The Apostles were told to propagate the Chruch Christ had established and of course, according to the constituion given it by Himself.

Christ is the one principal Mediator. He Himself chose to dispense His mediation through secondary agents...from this resulted the CC heirarchy. After choosing St. Peter, Christ delegated His power and authority to His chosen Apostles and they, in turn, while praying to the Holy Spirit laid on their hands thus ordaining men whom we bishops, priests and deacons.

So, Christ delegated His power and authority to men we call priests and as the one Mediator, acts through many channels. St.Paul tells us, "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." In Hebrews, we read that the Priest "ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." This doesn't refer to Christ, who certainly had not to offer for His own sins. This means the Priests are God's ministers and dispensers of the mysteries of God which are the seven Sacraments.

The priesthood is a form of secondary mediation appointed by Christ. To ignore His provision for the Chruch is to ignore Christ. Yes, of course, Catholics directly approach Christ. We unite ourselves by prayer whenever we wish. In many other matters, especially Christ's seven Sacraments which are administered by Priests. Christ identifies Himself with the Chruch and He meant what He said when He said, He who hears you, hears me." That implies the doctrine, he who comes to you, comes to Me. In fact, when Saul was persecuting the Church, Christ appeared to him and said NOT Saul, Saul, why persecutist thou the Chruch, but, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?"

The Church is a spiritual family...as baptized members, we are all brethren, all part of the Mystical Body of Christ. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. The Pope, Cardinals, and bishops are all Priests. We call them 'Father" in the spriritual sense. They nourish our spiritual life by preaching the Word and conferring the Sacraments. They also warn, teach, help, correct and does all in the spriritual life of the family that a father does in the temporal order.

Calling Priests "Father" was urged by St.Paul and is therefore biblical and not against St.Matt.23. So much so that he attributed a true paternity to himself, saying of his own priestly ministry,

1Cor. 4:14-16, “I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For I become you father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.”

Do you believe in Christ on your own conditions or on His conditions? Christ decided that Priests are necessary in the New Covenant of His Blood and He gave them His authority. The Holy Spirit guides His Chruch and also His Priests and will do so until the consummation of the world. You profess to believe in Christ, yet deny His appointments.

KFC POSTS:


Okay, if this way suits you, then, in keeping with St.Paul, when Catholics call Priests 'Father', it isn't claiming a title, rather we are using a spiritual analagy as they are certainly there for our spiritual birth. The Church, is one big happy spiritual family...a many splendoured ancient and yet, new, Thing. Praise God.

LULAPILGRIM POSTS:

I understand and agree that the Church has many members in the one Mystical Body of Christ. He loves us equally and together, equally, we make up the Body with Christ as HP and Chief Cornerstone. This all speaks to unity and not so much to the fact that each member also has a specific function according to his calling. Some members of the one Body have ordinary functions and others have ministerial functions. There is a heirarchy of functions within the ministerial level. (This is where I chose to use the term "tier"). When the Lord founded His CHruch, He decided to give His power and authority to only a chosen few of His Body thereby setting up the ministerial level and there are different functions within the mimisterial level as well (tier).


It seems to me that Rom. 12:3 makes my case.
"For I say through the grace given to me to every man that is among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly according as God as dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members HAVE NOT the same office." Rom 12:3.

It shows gaps in this supposedly perfect chain from Jesus to now. Don't pretend that there were just a few bad eggs in each era's carton. Those eggs ALL followed the misguided and unchristian papal policies during these eras, or they would have been considered heretics and suffered the fate of a heretic. They did not possess the characteristics the original apostles tasked the multitudes to find in men to be chosen.

You are the one claiming that succession is constant down through the ages. I am showing you that it isn't constant and unbroken, rather there are huge gaps when the norm was very unchristian and totally counter to the role. Jesus would not have approved of popes that executed Jews simply for being Jews. Jesus would not have approved of popes and bishops that sold forgiveness of sin.

So... given the fact that there are many, many people who are links in this "chain" that are illegitimate and can't be called bearers of the holy task given the original disciples and apostles, you can't claim that succession has been preserved in the RCC from the beginning until now.

lula: Your church beatifies people who were antisemites. Do you really believe that an antisemite is a successor to the apostles? Do they remove that status when someone is found to have been antisemitic? Nope. More often they continue to fight for the person.

I would point out that you still persist in separating "sin" and the "inquisition". The inquisition WAS a sin. Under no circumstances was the Inquisition a valid Christian practice, and I defy you to prove it was. The Church started executing people in 385 for their beliefs, and continued their persecution well into the modern era.

So, this isn't really about a few bad eggs down through the centuries. The authoritarianism in the church became abuse almost from the beginning. Jesus never chose to strike dead people who believed in heretical beliefs. What gives you the idea men have the right to?

KFC POSTS:

You make these charges using the vaguest of terms. Could you be more specific? What time was Scripture translated into 500 languages? By whom was it translated? When were they destroyed?

KFC POSTS:

If you are referring to Bible-burning, then yes, the CC has burned Bibles and for good reason. The Church took this action to prevent the spread of error among the faithful from heretical versions that omitted passages, added spurious passages, altered the words of Scripture and included misleading or outright incorrect footnotes that would confuse the reader and lead them away from Biblical truth.

One of the most notorious examples of this disception appears in St.John 1:1, where the Jehovah’s Witnesses added the indefinite article “a” in the English translation. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was “a” god. Another example is Martin Luther's tranlation. For purely reasons of bolstering up his own new-found doctrine "justification by faith alone", he added the word "alone" to St.Paul Rom 3:28.

For decades the printing of any Bible in English was illegal in England. Only the King James Bible could be printed and then only by printers authorized by the government. All other Protestant Bible versions were confiscated and destroyed. In 1631, one Bible burning incident involved the KJV itself. Someone goofed and Exodus 20:14 was found to be missing the word “not” whihc changed the Commandment to “Thou shalt commit adultery.” The king of England, Charles I, ordered those Bibles burned. This was the start of a deluge of erroneous versions.

This is the reason why the Church burned defective Bibles. It wasn’t an effort to keep people in the dark about what the Bible says. Ask yourself----given that the Catholic Church in her monasteries and universities, whose monks, priests and nuns labored diligently during centuries between the Apostolic age and the invention of the printing press (by Catholic Gutenberg) to preserve, multiply and perpetuate Sacred Scripture throughout all parts of the known world----does it really make sense that the Chruch would then go around burning them? I hope not. Over the course of history, Sacred Scripture has had no greater champion and defender than the Catholic Church.

Yet, with hardly an exception, this period is dismissed by most Protestants who tend to jump from the inspired writers themselves, or perhaps from the 4th century when the Canon was fixed to John Wycliff, "The morning star of the Reformation".

You know, of course, that Protestants themselves were responsible for quite a bit of Bible burnings. Religious spirit of intolerance and violence tainted every stream that I know of within Protestantism. Which, when you think of it, is all the more disgraceful when coming from people who profess to base their religious beliefs of the right to private judgment!

To cite a few cases, after King Henry VIII abandoned the Catholic Church and set himself up as head of his own Protestant enterprise, the Church of England, he ordered wholesale burning of all Catholic Bibles and other religious writings in Churches, convents, monasteries across the realm including Ireland (and Ireland is a whole other story). During this phase of madness anyone found with a Catholic Bible was executed including St. Thomas More. Queen Elizabeth I followed his murderous policy against Catholics in 1582 by mandating the burning of the all Catholic Bibles especially the DouayRheims edition which had just been translated into English. She executed St. Edmund Campion. Protestant Reformer John Calvin , a self proclaimed lover of the Bible, didn’t care for a version of Scripture of a rival. He had Michael Servetus executed. Martin Luther advocated the killing of Anabaptists leaders and the burning of Jewish synagogues, and Anabaptists seized the town of Munster in 1534 and killed many people.