How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

How I led Catholics Out of the Church STEVE WOOD I was a Protestant for twenty years before I became a Catholic. I led many people out of the Catholic Church. My formula for getting Catholics to leave the Church usually consisted of three steps.

Step 1: Get Catholics to have a conversion experience in a Protestant setting. Most Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and charismatic Protestant churches have dynamic youth programs, vibrant Wednesday and Sunday evening services, and friendly small-group bible studies. In addition, they host special crusades, seminars and concerts. At the invitation of a Protestant friend, a Catholic may begin attending one or more of these events while still going to Sunday Mass at his local parish. Most Protestant services proclaim a simple gospel: repent from sin and follow Christ in faith. They stress the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus and the reward of eternal life. Most of the Catholics who attend these services are not accustomed to hearing such direct challenges to abandon sin and follow Christ. As a result, many Catholics experience a genuine conversion.

Protestants should be commended for their zeal in promoting conversions. Catholic leaders need to multiply the opportunities for their people to have such conversions in Catholic settings. The reason is simple. About five out of ten people adopt the beliefs of the denomination where they have their conversion. This percentage is even higher for those who had profound conversions or charismatic experiences that were provided by Protestants. (Believe me, I know; I was a graduate of an Assembly of God college and a youth minister in two charismatic churches.)

Protestant pastors, evangelists, youth leaders, and lay ministers are acutely aware that conversion experiences in Protestant settings often lead to a Protestant faith and church membership. Why do so many Catholic leaders fail to see this? Why are they so nonchalant about a process that has pulled hundreds of thousands of Catholics out of the Church?

A genuine conversion is one of life's most precious experiences, comparable to marriage or the birth of a child. Conversion awakens a deep hunger for God. Effective Protestant ministries train workers to follow up on this spiritual longing.

Before a stadium crusade, I would give follow-up workers a six-week training course. I showed them how to present a Protestant interpretation of the conversion experience with a selective use of bible verses. The scripture of choice was of course John 3:3, the "born-again" verse: "Jesus declared, 'I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.'

I used the "touch and go" scripture technique, similar to that used by pilots training for landings and takeoffs. We would briefly touch down on John 3:3 to show that being born again was necessary for eternal life. Then I would describe conversion in terms of being born again. We would make a hasty takeoff before reading John 3:5 which stresses the necessity of being "born of water and spirit." I never mentioned that for 20 centuries the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, echoing the unanimous teaching of the Church fathers, understood this passage as referring to the Sacrament of Baptism! And I certainly never brought up Titus 3:5 ("He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit") as a parallel reference to John 3:5.

In my experience as a Protestant, all the Catholics who had a conversion in a Protestant setting lacked a firm grasp of their Catholic faith.

In twenty years of Protestant ministry, I never met a Catholic who knew that John 3:3-8 describes the sacrament of Baptism. It wasn't hard to convince them to disregard the sacraments along with the Church that emphasized the sacraments.

Proverbs says: "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (18:17). Catholics without a scriptural foundation for their Catholic beliefs never hear "the rest of the story." My selective use of scripture made the Protestant perspective seem so absolutely sure. Over time, this one-sided approach to scripture caused Catholics to reject their Catholic faith.

Catholics often consider Protestants who proselytize to be bigoted, narrow-minded, or prejudiced. This is unfair and inaccurate; a profound charity energizes their misguided zeal.

There was only one reason I led Catholics out of the Church: I thought they were on their way to hell. I mistakenly thought the Catholic Church denied that salvation was by grace; I knew that anyone who believed this wasn't going to heaven. Out of love for their immortal souls, I worked tirelessly to convert them.

I used Ephesians 2:8-9 to convince Catholics that it was imperative for them to leave the Church:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. First I would say, "The Bible says that salvation is by grace and not by works. Right?" Their answer was always yes. Then I would say, "The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by works. Right?" (I never met a Catholic who did not say yes. Every Catholic I met during my twenty years of ministry confirmed my misconception that Catholicism taught salvation is by works instead of grace.) Finally, I would declare, "The Catholic Church is leading people to hell by denying salvation is by grace. You'd better join a church that teaches the true way to heaven."

Because I would also do a "touch and go" in Ephesians, I rarely quoted verse 10 which says, "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Listen carefully to stadium evangelists, televangelists, and radio preachers. Nine times out of ten they will quote Ephesians 2:8-9 with great emphasis and never mention verse 10.

We are not slaves futilely trying to earn salvation by doing "works of the law" (Eph. 2:8-9). Yet as sons of God we are inspired and energized by the Holy Spirit to do "good works" as we cooperate with our heavenly father in extending the Kingdom of God (Eph. 2:10). Catholicism believes and teaches the full message of Ephesians 2:8-10, without equivocating or abbreviating the truth.

For twenty centuries the Catholic Church has faithfully taught that salvation is by grace. Peter the first pope said, "We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved" (Acts 15:11). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, fully endorsed by Pope John Paul II, says, "Our justification comes from the grace of God" (section 1996).

Protestantism started when Martin Luther declared that we are justified (made righteous) by faith alone. At the time I was leading Catholics out of the Church, I wasn't aware that Martin Luther had added the word alone to his translation of Romans 3:28 in order to prove his doctrine. (The word alone is not found in any contemporary Protestant English translation of Romans 3:28.) I didn't realize that the only place the bible mentions "faith alone" in the context of salvation is in James 2:24, where the idea of faith alone is explicitly refuted: "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." This verse was troubling, but I either ignored it, or twisted it to mean something other that what the verse and its context clearly taught.

I have no objection to Catholics participating in Protestant-oriented events and worthwhile ecumenical activities provided that:

they have a firm grasp of their Catholic faith. they know their faith well enough to articulate it to a non-Catholic, using scripture and the Church fathers. they have the maturity to realize that the most profound presence of Christ isn't necessarily found in the midst of loud noise and high emotion, but in quiet moments like Eucharistic adoration (see 1 Kings 19:11-12). Unfortunately, the majority of Catholic men born after WWII don't meet the above conditions. For them, attending Protestant functions may be opening a door that will lead them right out of the Catholic Church.

There are now thousands of Catholic men on the brink of leaving the one Church Christ died to establish. I recently heard of a group of Catholic men who decided not to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church in their small-group bible study. They believed that all they needed was scripture alone. Three of these men claimed that they no longer believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I can tell you from experience where this group is headed: straight out of the Catholic Church.

Over the past three decades, thousands of Catholics have left the Church for Protestant pastures. The largest church in America is the Catholic Church; the second largest group of Christians in America is former-Catholics. The Catholic men's movement has a solemn obligation to help men discover the biblical and historical roots of their Catholic faith. Then, rather than leaving, they will become instruments to help others discover the treasures of Catholicism.

Remember that a man who leaves the Church will often take his family with him — for generations. It took my family four hundred years — 10 generations — to come back to the Church after a generation of my ancestors in Norway, England, Germany and Scotland decided to leave the Catholic Church.

As one whose family has made the round-trip back to Catholicism, let me extend a personal plea to Catholic men, especially the leaders of various Catholic men's groups: don't put untrained Catholics in a Protestant setting. They might gain a short-term religious experience, but they take the long-term risk of losing their faith. It would be highly irresponsible to expose them to Protestantism before they are fully exposed to Catholicism.

At my dad's funeral twenty-nine years ago, I tearfully sang his favorite hymn, Faith of Our Fathers. Little did my dad, a minister's son, or I realize that the true faith of our forefathers was Roman Catholicism. Every day I thank God for bringing me back to the ancient Church of my ancestors. Every year God gives me breath on this earth I will keep proclaiming to both my Protestant brethren and to cradle Catholics the glorious faith of our fathers.

Wood, Steve. "How I led Catholics Out of the Church." St. Joseph's Covenant Newsletter 4 no. 2 (March/April 1998).

Steve Wood is the founder of St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers (SJCK), a dynamic apostolate for Catholic men, and runs the web site dads.org.

The Priesthood was entirely filled in Christ as our great High Priest...there is no longer a need for the Priesthood. But some people have a need to have a go between since their faith in Christ is not enough to satisfy them in their thinking. ...makes one wonder then if Christ is enough to save them since He appears to need someone else as their mediator....so where then does that leave them? It would appear looking to man rather then to the Savior Himself...and that’s guaranteed not to be sufficient to save a soul.

>>Catholics believe this. Just the ministerial priests share in Christ’s one priesthood to a greater degree than the laity.
The Ministerial Priesthood

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart.” —1 Peter 2:9

With these words, the Apostle Peter describes all Christians as a “priesthood” — and indeed, that is exactly what Christians are, as the Catholic Church teaches (for the full official teaching on this see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially paragraphs 1533-1600).

The Common Priesthood of Believers

When one is Baptised in the Catholic Church, one is also “christened” with oil, and so anointed as a Priest, a Prophet, and a King. Why? Because, in Baptism, we become adopted sons and daughters of God (Romans 8:14-17); and, in this, we share in the very same Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father. Becoming members of His Body, we must act as Christ to the world. We are anointed as a King because we share in His royalty (His Messiahship); we are anointed as a Prophet because we are to speak His words and carry His Gospel to all; and we are anointed a Priest because we are to share in Christ’s own High Priesthood. In this, we are to intercede for the world.

And this is exactly the definition of a priest: “Someone who is an intermediary and who offers a sacrifice on behalf of another.” And, as priests, all Christians do this for the world. As Christians (redeemed by the Blood of Christ), we offer Christ’s Sacrifice for the sake of the world. As Christians, we are able to pray:

“Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.” (see 1 Tim 2:1-6; 1 John 2:1-2).

And, in the Catholic understanding, this prayer is especially appropriate and powerful just after we have received Jesus in Holy Communion (the Eucharist). More on that later.

So, as Christians we are priests; and, as priests, we are intercessors between Christ and the world (Christ being the one Mediator between us and the Father — 1 Tim 2:5). And this is what the Catholic Church refers to as the “common priesthood of the laity.”

However, aside from this common priesthood — a priesthood which ministers directly to the world, there is also a priesthood which ministers to the Church itself.

Romans 15:15-16 —”But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

This is the ministerial priesthood of the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church — a priesthood which does not minister directly to the world, but which ministers to those within the Church itself, which builds up the Church and aids the “little ones” through a ministry of unity, leadership, teaching authority, and the Sacraments. A ministry which succeeds to that of the Apostles themselves.

Acts 14:23 —”They (Paul and Barnabas) appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in Whom they put their faith.”

The Word Presbyter/Priest

Now, the Greek word “presbyter” has an interesting position in the English language. While it’s usually translated as “elder,” the Greek meaning is actually more adjectival — being closer in meaning to “senior” — as in a “senior citizen” or a “father” of the community (i.e. a “patriarch”).

However, what’s most interesting for the Christian usage in English is that “presbyter” already has an equivalent word — an English word which draws its root from the Christian usage of “presbyter” in the Greek language; and that English word is “priest.”

This becomes most clear when one stops reading Scripture from the English (i.e. culturally-Protestant) perspective, and one realizes that the words “presbuteros” (in Greek) and “presbyterus” (in Latin) were used to designate the role of a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest for the first five to ten hundred years of Christianity. Indeed, if one travels to Greece today, one will notice that the Greek word for “priest” is still “presbuteros.”

The change is only apparent in English because we (as English speakers) are viewing things from an inverted perspective. When we hear of Jewish or pagan “priests,” we assume the English word “priest” pre-dates the Christian usage, when in fact the word “priest” comes from the Christian usage of “presbuteros.”

Here’s how it works:

“Presbuteros” (Greek) —> “Presbyterus” (Latin) —> “Prete” (Italian) —> “Pretre” (French) —> “Proest” (Old / Middle English) —> “Priest” (Modern English).

So, the “presbyters” we see in Scripture are the “priests” of the Catholic Church. That is, they are those who preside as “fathers” at the new Passover Meal (the Eucharist / Holy Communion). For, in the Jewish Tradition, it was always the father who presided over the Passover Feast; and this Tradition has been elevated to the status of a far greater Passover Feast (the Eucharist), where the faithful are able to partake of the ONE Sacrifice of Calvary — made present in their midst.

The Sacrifice of the Eucharist

Ah! But, in this, some might say that the Eucharist (The Lord’s Supper) is not a Sacrifice, but just a “meal of commemoration.” Well, anyone with that very non-Traditional perspective should carefully read 1 Corinthians 10:16-22:

“The Cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a PARTICIPATION in the Blood of Christ? The Bread that we break, is it not a PARTICIPATION in Body of Christ? ...Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who EAT THE SACRIFICES PARTICIPANTS in the altar? So, what am I saying? That meat SACRIFICED to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what THEY (the pagans) SACRIFICE they SACRIFICE to demons, NOT TO GOD, and I do not what you to become PARTICIPANTS with demons. You cannot drink of the Cup of the Lord AND ALSO of the cup of demons. You cannot PARTAKE of the Table of the Lord AND ALSO of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to JEALOUS anger?”

Here Paul is clearly speaking of the Lord’s Supper as a Sacrifice, a Sacrifice in which we become participants, just as the pagans participate in their unholy sacrifices.

And to back up the Catholic Church’s correct interpretation of this passage, we have St. Clement of Rome (around A.D. 90) — the same Clement who Paul calls his “co-worker” in Phil 4:3 — writing to this same church of Corinth only 30 years later, a church which Paul praises for its ability to “hold fast to the traditions he handed on to them” in 1 Corinth 11:2 (compare to 1 Corinth 11:23).

And, on this same subject of the Eucharist as Christ’s Sacrifice made present, St. Clement (who, in his letter, repeatedly refers to Paul’s two previous epistles to the Corinthians, as if they were very well known by his Corinthian readers) writes:

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate Sacrifices and services (the Eucharist), and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 17-34), but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons (the appointed presbyters) whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin (i.e., 1 Corinth 11: 27-30). For to the high priest (i.e., the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests (i.e., the presbyters) the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites (i.e., the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. ....Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate (local church) those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” (1 Clement to the Corinthians 44:4).

And so, the Sacrifice was clearly understood. At the Lord’s Supper, the ONE Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is made present and is offered to the Father for the sake and intentions of those present. And St. Ignatius of Antioch writing just 15 to 20 years later than St. Clement echoes this same belief:

“Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” (Ignatius to the Church in Philadelphia c. 110 AD)

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” (Ignatius to the Church in Smyrna c. 110 AD)

He then continues...

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priests) as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints (a presbyter/priest). Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Ignatius to the Church of Smyrna c. 110 AD)

All this is exactly what Catholics believe about the Mass today. And, the teaching is the same, according to Paul, Clement, and Ignatius.

Priests as “Father”

So, returning to our discussion of “presbuteros,” it is clear that the early Christians understood these individuals as the “fathers of the community” — those who offered the Sacrifice of the Mass; just as the “fathers of the tribe” offered sacrifices in Old Testament times before the Temple was built (e.g. Genesis 8:20, Genesis 15:10, Judges 13:19-20, etc). And this is the origin of calling a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest “father,” a custom we can see reflected in Scripture itself (see 1 Corinthians 4:15, 1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:18, 2 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 2:1, Philemon 10, 1 Peter 5:13, 3 John 4).

And this custom is clearly rooted in the ancient Jewish practice of referring to the Old Testament Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc), and their legitimate successors, as “father,” something we can see in the New Testament as well (see Luke 1:32, Luke 1:73, Luke 16:24, Acts 7:2, Acts 22:1, Romans 9:10, Romans 15:8, Hebrews 1:1).

Yet, doesn’t Jesus forbid us to call anyone “father” apart from God in Matthew 23:9? Apparently not, since — taken literally — this would mean that we could not even call our own biological fathers by that name. Rather, Jesus is making a point about ultimate authority coming from God (even if that authority is held by men: cf. Matt 23:1-2, 30).

And this is backed up by Paul’s saying in Ephesians 3:14-15 — “For this reason I kneel before the Father (Pater), from whom all fatherhood (patria) in Heaven and on earth is named.”

So, in calling someone our “father,” whether that be Abraham (Luke 16:24,30; Rom 4) or Stephen of the patriarchs and fathers present in Acts (7: 2,11,12,15,32,38,39,44,45,51,52) or Pope John Paul II, it is clearly understood that this is only because of the grace given their office(s) by the one and only Father we have in Heaven.

Presbyters/Priests in the Bible

Now, returning to “presbuteros,” we see another clear connection between the NT presbyters and OT patriarchs applied to the Apostles themselves in Revelation 4:4 —

“Surrounding the Throne I saw twenty-four other thrones on which twenty-four ELDERS (PRESBYTERS) sat, dressed in white garments and with gold crowns on their heads.”

These 24 “presbyters” are the 12 sons of Jacob (the heads of the 12 tribes of Israel) PLUS Christ’s 12 Apostles, bringing their number to 24. So here, the Apostles themselves are referred to as “presbyters.” And, indeed, Peter refers to himself in that way in 1 Peter 5:1 —

“So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and a witness to the sufferings of Christ...”

So Peter was both an Apostle AND a presbyter. Therefore, we can draw the conclusion that all Apostles were presbyters but not all presbyters were Apostles. Yet, did the presbyters have the same or similar teaching authority as the Apostles? Yes, they did:

Acts 14:23 —”They (Paul and Barnabas) appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in Whom they put their faith.”

Acts 15:2 — “Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them (some presbyters from Jerusalem), it was decided that Paul and Barnabas, and some of the others, should go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and presbyters about this question.”

Acts 15:6 — “The Apostles and presbyters met together to see about this matter.”

Acts 15:22 — “The Apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and send them to Antioch (i.e. to give authoritative teaching).

Acts 15:23 — “This is the letter delivered by them: ‘The Apostles and presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin...” (it then proceeds to give authoritative teaching).

Acts 21:18-25 — “The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. They praised God when they heard [what God accomplished among the Gentiles] but said to them, ‘Brothers, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews...So, do what we tell you...As for the Gentiles who have come to believe, we sent them our decision that they abstain from the meat of strangled animals” etc. (i.e. the authoritative letter of Acts 15).

1 Thess 5:12 — “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and show esteem for them with special love on account of their work.”

Hebrews 13:17 — “Obey those who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

Philippians 2:29 — Speaking of a particular presbyter, Epaphroditus, Paul tells the Philippians to: “Welcome him then in the Lord with all joy and hold such people in esteem, because of the sake of the work of Christ he came close to death, risking his life to make up for those services to me that you could not perform.”

This authority and the respect due to it (because of the office) is something very clear in the early Christian understanding:

Acts 23:2-5 — “Then the High Priest Ananias ordered his attendants to strike his mouth. Then Paul said to him, ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall. Do you indeed sit in judgment upon me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me struck?’ The attendants said, ‘Would you revile God’s high priest?’ Paul answered, ‘Brothers, I did not realize he was the high priest. For, it is written: ‘You shall not curse a ruler of your people.’ “

Yet, while the Apostles and presbyters possessed even greater authority than the High Priest of Israel (and they knew it: Acts 4:18-20 & Acts 5:29-32), they preferred to exercise their authority within the context of Christian charity (which is why modern readers of Scripture sometimes assume this authority did not exist):

Philemon 8 —”Therefore, although I have the full right in Christ to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love to [do so], being as I am Paul, an old man, and now also a prisoner for Christ Jesus.”

1 Peter 5:1-4 — “So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and a witness to the sufferings of Christ...Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit, but eagerly. Do not lord over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

The Three-Fold Ministry: Bishop, Priest, Deacon

So, the ministerial priesthood (and its authority) was clearly present in the Church from earliest times. In this, it should be noted that the ministerial priesthood actually encompasses the three-fold ministry of Bishop, Priest (Presbyter), and Deacon; and that this ministry has always been recognized in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

We have already seen how this three-fold ministry was clearly understood by the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD):

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priests) as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (St. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrnaeans)

A few years before Ignatius, we see this three-fold ministry also mentioned by St. Clement of Rome (c. 90 AD), who compares it to the ministers of the Jewish Temple:

“For to the high priest (i.e. the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests (i.e. the presbyters) the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites (i.e. the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. ....Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate (local church) those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” (1 Clement to the Corinthians)

However, does this three-fold ministry appear in Scripture itself? Yes, it does; yet one must know where to look for it.

The Very Early Church, the First 120

First of all, let’s look at the very early Church — the group of about 120 persons gathered in the upper room at Pentecost (Acts 1:15). We are told (in Acts 1:13-14) that this group consisted of the twelve Apostles (counting the newly-elected Matthias), Jesus’ Mother Mary, some other “women,” and the “brothers” of Jesus (i.e. His tribal relatives). Also, another disciple is named: Joseph Barsabbas (aka Justus), who was Matthias’ alternate in the choice for Judas’ successor. So, if we do a little math, this is how it looks:

Apostles: 12, Mary: 1, women: 5 (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, Johanna, Suzanna), brothers: 4 (Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3), Justus: 1

That’s a conservative total of 23 people, and even if we were to throw in some more women and some more “brothers” of Jesus, we’re still a long way from 120 people. So, who else was present?

Well, the answer begins to appear when we turn to Luke 10:1-12 & 17-20 keeping in mind that the author of Luke is also the author of Acts.

Here, in Luke 10, we are told how Jesus sent out 72 disciples with power and authority to preach the Word. Now, this group of 72 obviously includes the 12 Apostles (including Judas at this time). So, if we also subtract Matthias and Joseph Barsabbas (aka Justus) — who, as we are told in Acts 1:21-22, had accompanied the Apostles from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and who were therefore clearly among the 72 — we are left with 58 other men who followed Jesus and who were there in the upper room when the Spirit descended at Pentecost.

So, who were these other men? Well clearly, these comprised (at least in part) the body “presbyters” referred to in Acts 15 and Acts 21.

So, when the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost, the leadership of the Church consisted of the 12 Apostles plus about 58 other “presbyters” — a total of about 70 men (who, with their wives and children, comprise the 120 people referred to in Acts 1:15).

In this, many of the 58 presbyters, who were relatives of Jesus, seems to have been classified by the title “brothers of the Lord.” And this can be seen in 1 Corinthians 9:5, where these “brothers of the Lord” are distinguished from the Apostles:

“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the other Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas (Peter)? Or is it only myself and Barnabas who do not have the right not to work?”

So, in the very early Church, the leadership actually consisted of the 12 Apostles and 58 of Jesus’ other disciples (presbyters) — some of whom were called “brothers of the Lord” because of their blood ties to Jesus. And, among these, was James (Gal 1:19), who was to serve as Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 15 & Acts 21). More on the role of bishop in a moment.

Now, to this number of presbyters, we must add Barnabas who, becoming a believer in Acts 4:36-37, was clearly serving as a presbyter by Acts 11:22, when he is sent by the Apostles to Antioch, to be their representative among the fledging Gentile community there. This same Barnabas is also called an Apostle later on (in Acts 14:4), most likely because of his (and Paul’s) Divine commission in Acts 13:2.

Also, we must consider that, in Acts 2:41, 3000 people were Baptized; and in Acts 4:4, 5000 more were added to the Church. Surely, there were presbyters appointed from among these especially among the Jewish pilgrims who were converted at Pentecost (Acts 2:9-11). These would need presbyters to preside over their communities when they returned home to their own countries to spread the Gospel there. (Here it should be noted that none of the regions mentioned in Acts 2:9-11 are ever established as churches by Paul, but already have established churches when he arrives there.)

Also, we find other presbyters named throughout the course of Acts. Examples of these are Ananias of Damascus, who Baptizes Paul (Acts 9:10-19); Agabus the Prophet (11:27); Symeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, who are fellow-presbyters with Paul & Barnabas in Antioch (Acts 13:1); and Judas Barsabbas and Silas (Acts 15), this same Silas becoming a fellow-Apostle with Paul in Acts 15:40.

We return to our saying above: “All Apostles were presbyters, but not all presbyters were Apostles.” And indeed, this saying can be modified to reflect the situation in Luke 10, which it mirrors: “All Apostles were disciples (the 72), but not all disciples were Apostles.”

And this very same thing can be said about the structure of the Church (as we will soon see): “All bishops are presbyters (priests), but not all priests are bishops.” But as I said, we will deal with the subject of bishops in a moment.

Deacons

Firstly, let’s tackle the issue of deacons (the third office of the ministerial priesthood). Clearly, this was an office created by the Apostles themselves in Acts 6. Yet, notice how the office was created:

“So the Twelve (the Apostles) called together the COMMUNITY OF DISCIPLES (aka, the PRESBYTERS: the 58 disciples of Luke 10 PLUS Barnabas and any others added to their number) and said, ‘It is not right for US (the Apostles AND the disciples / presbyters) to neglect the Word of God to serve at table...”

And the next line must be understood in context:

“...Brothers, select from among you (i.e. from among your followers) seven reputable MEN (the Greek implies YOUNG MEN — the young disciples of these presbyters, e.g. Timothy’s relationship to Paul), filled with the Spirit and with wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, while WE (the Apostles and the presbyters) shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the Word.”

So, these seven men (Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch) were ordained as the first deacons — a ministry of service to support the fatherly, preaching ministries of the Apostles and the presbyters.

Apostles, Bishops, and Presbyters

Yet, what of the Apostles and presbyters? What was their relationship? Was it one of equality? Clearly not, since in Acts 6:6 itself we see that final authority always resided with the Apostles, who held the role of bishops in the early Church.

Now, what is a “bishop”? Well, the Greek word for “bishop” is “episkopos” (i.e. “overseer”) — a term that describes a shepherd (John 21:15-17). And, indeed, the Apostles were shepherds of the early Church, even above the other Jerusalem presbyters (Acts 9:27).

And indeed, if one knows what to look for, one can see this “episcopal” role of the Apostles referred to from the very beginning of the Church. For example, when Peter stands up in Acts 1 and quotes the Psalms in order to call for a successor of Judas, one of the Psalms he quotes is usually translated like this:

“And: ‘May another take his office’” (Acts 1:20).

However, in the original New Testament Greek, this is not the word for “office” at all. Rather, the Greek uses a term which fits the original Hebrew. And, the word which the Greek text uses is: “episkope.” So Acts 1:20 should read:

“And ‘May another take his << episkope >>.’ “ — that is, his “bishopric,” his role as a “shepherd” or “overseer,” a role that was distinct from the other 58 or so “presbyters” who were present.

Indeed, if we recall that there was a total of about 71 disciples of Christ (i.e. “presbyters”) present in the upper room at this time (including the Apostles), it is clear — given the fact that Peter is calling for the election of an “overseer” to replace Judas from among their number — that the office of an Apostle was one which “oversaw” even the other presbyters.

And this practice continued when Apostles (such as Paul and Barnabas) established new churches throughout the Mediterranean. For example, you will recall that, on their first missionary journey through the interior of Asia Minor, Acts 14:23 records how:

“They (Paul and Barnabas) appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in Whom they put their faith.”

However, just before Paul and Barnabas start out on their second missionary journey, Acts 15:36 says:

“After some time, Paul said to Barnabas, ‘Come, let us make a return visit to see how the brothers are getting on in all the cities where we proclaimed the Word of the Lord.’ “

Now, what is not readily apparent here is that the Greek word implies more than “visit.” Indeed, it is not the word for “visit” at all. Rather, the word is: “episkepsometha” (to oversee / inspect). Look familiar? Clearly, Paul and Barnabas were the “overseers” (i.e. “bishops”) of the churches they established throughout Asia Minor.

And we see this term in many other places throughout Scripture: Phil 1:2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 5:2, and even in 1 Peter 2:25, where Christ Himself is called the Episkopos (Bishop) of our souls.

For our purposes, however, it should be mentioned (and admitted) that a problem arises with episkopos (bishop) and presbyter (priest), since — within Scripture itself — the terms are frequently interchangeable. For example, we already presented 1 Peter 5:1-4:

“So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and a witness to the sufferings of Christ ...Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing (episkope) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit, but eagerly. Do not lord over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

So, while Peter uses the term “presbyter” here, it is fairly clear given the context that he is actually speaking to the bishops of the various regions to which he writes (1 Peter 1:1).

Also, Acts 20:17-28 speaks about the “presbyters” of the Church of Ephesus coming to see Paul off at Miletus. Here, Paul tells them:

“Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (i.e. bishops), in which you tend the Church of God that He acquired with His own Blood.”

Similarly, the Apostle John, who we know served as the Bishop of Ephesus in the late 1st century, refers to himself as “the Presbyter” in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1. This was clearly his episcopal title.

However, the fact that each city-church possessed a single bishop (i.e. a “chief presbyter”) among its body of presbyters is also evident in Scripture.

For example, in Acts 15 and Acts 21:18, it is clear that James headed the body of presbyters at Jerusalem, serving as the bishop (overseer) of that city ever since Peter fled Jerusalem in Acts 12:17, leaving James in authority there. (Note: Peter was merely visiting Jerusalem during the Council in Acts 15. He was not the resident bishop there, yet his ultimate authority is still recognized). Indeed, this role of James as head and bishop of the Jerusalem church is even reflected in Galatians 2:12, where Paul does not say how the Jewish Christian trouble-makers came “from the church of Jerusalem,” but rather “from James.” James was clearly in authority there. He was bishop over the body of presbyters.

The singular role of the bishop can also be seen in 1 Timothy, which depicts Timothy as the bishop of Ephesus. In this, it must be realized that Ephesus was a leading church in the province of Asia, responsible for overseeing the surrounding cities and towns. Thus, Paul speaks of Timothy’s need to discern who is (and who is not) qualified for the office of bishop (overseer) in 1 Tim 3:1-7. Therefore, when Paul speaks of the qualifications of a “bishop” here, he may be referring to leading ministers for the surrounding towns, or he may be referring to other presbyters in Ephesus; but, in either case, it is more than clear that Timothy possesses the singular authority to choose and appoint them.

And this is made even clearer in 1 Tim 5:17-22, where (in verse 19) Timothy is presented as a singular judge who should not “accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.” He is also told (in verse 20) to “Reprimand publicly those who do sin,” and (in verse 21) Timothy is charged by Paul not to show favoritism among the presbyters. Most strikingly (in verse 22), Timothy is told not to “lay hands too readily on anyone,” thus showing that Timothy (the Bishop of Ephesus) had the singular authority to ordain presbyters (Acts 14:23). And despite Timothy’s youth (1 Tim 4:12), it is clear that he held singular authority over the Ephesian church. In other words, he was its bishop.

Turning to Paul’s Epistle to Titus, we find that Titus (a companion of Paul since his early days in Antioch, cf. Gal 2:3) possessed similar episcopal authority to ordain presbyters throughout the island of Crete (Titus 1:5) :

“For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you.”

In the next verse (verse 6), we see Paul interchanging the term “presbyter” with “bishop” (episkopos: overseer), yet it is clear that Titus is the actual Cretean bishop, possessing both the authority to appoint presbyters (and city bishops), and the authority to give these men instruction (Titus 2 & 3).

And so, the three-fold ministry outlined by Clement and Ignatius is found in Scripture as well. In all the city-churches established by the Apostles, it is clear that there was a principal overseer (a bishop), presiding over a body of presbyters (priests), and supported by deacons in service to the flock.

Were all these Christians “priests” (1 Peter 2:9) ? Yes, they were. However, not all were “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel of God.” (Romans 15:15-16). This was the role of the ministerial priesthood, of which Scripture commands us to:

“Respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and show esteem for them with special love on account of their work.” (1 Thess 5:12)

And...

“Obey those who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

Amen.

Mark Bonocore

MJBono@aol.com

Back to Apologetics Articles

Back to Home Page

What Church claims infallibility even though they have made mistakes in the past?
>>Infallibility is not the same as impeccability.

And besides infallibility is limited to matters of theological importance and not how dumb priests, bishops, or Popes misbehave.

Infallibility versus Impeccability

One of the most commonly-leveled charges against the Catholic Church is based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility. It is important to understand what this doctrine means, and what it does not.

Papal infallibility means that the pope, when pronouncing definitively and dogmatically on matters of faith and morals is protected from teaching errors. This protection comes from the Holy Spirit and was promised by Jesus Christ when He said that He would send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to teach them all truth. The pope only enjoys this special protection when he is speaking in union with the other bishops (the successors of the Apostles) as the successor to Saint Peter (the leader of the Apostles).

This is what infallibility means, but there are many things which it does not mean, although a number of non-Catholics would like it to mean this – as these things are easy to argue against!

Firstly, infallibility is not the ability to always be right or know the correct answer to a matter of history, science or some academic discipline. Although the popes are generally very well-educated men their intellects are not perfect, and they are capable of having gaps in their knowledge or of making mistakes. Thus, if a pope were to say that two plus two is five this would not mean that, for Catholics, two plus two equals five. It would mean that the pope has to take some more math lessons! The pope is only infallible when he speaks on matters of faith or morals – he is not always right and the Holy Spirit does not “teach him all truth” when it comes to academic matters.

Secondly, infallibility is only conferred on papal pronouncements which are solemnly and dogmatically defined, and does not apply to remarks made by the pope as a private individual, or even as a priest, the bishop of Rome or the pope. Only when he speaks as the pope ex cathedra (literally “from the chair” - meaning that he is formally defining something as infallible) is infallibility invoked. Such instances are very rare indeed – far rarer than many non-Catholics think.

Thirdly, and most importantly, infallibility should not be confused with impeccability. Impeccability is best defined as being sinless, or never making a moral mistake – Jesus and Mary were impeccable, for example. As we read in Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, all have sinned and fallen short of the grace of God. We read in the Gospels how Peter himself sinned by denying Christ, and in Acts how he fell short of his own teaching regarding eating with gentiles and had to be rebuked by Paul. But infallibility and impeccability are not the same thing, and Jesus never promised that the pope would be impeccable. The number of times Jesus speaks of there being sinners in the Church (such as the tares among the wheat, or the bad fish in the catch) should be enough to make this clear.

In point of fact, it is interesting to note that the bad popes stand out precisely because there are so few of them – out of over 250 popes, only a handful can be shown as being examples of “bad popes”. This, of course, does not prove infallibility, but is interesting as it shows that so few popes have been “bad”.

There are a number of specific cases which are cited where popes are shown to have disagreed with each other, or seem to have changed their minds or taught something else. Each and every one of these cases can be shown to be either a complete falsehood, or a misunderstanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Most of the time, the pope was not speaking on a matter of faith or morals, or was simply not solemnly defining something, but was simply speaking as a private individual rather than ex cathedra. There is no space to speak of each and every case here – but we will quote from Robert Knox in a letter to Arnold Lunn, speaking of the very few cases of “non-infallible” popes;

“Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!”

Although this is hardly a totally solid argument, it should certainly give pause for thought. After 2000 years of the Catholic Church, there should be more than a few alleged failures which are not very clear cut at all!

The favorite argument of the non-Catholics is one which we will touch on briefly, and have in fact mentioned above. It concerns the first pope, Saint Peter, and his not eating with the gentile converts. This is mentioned in Galatians 2:11-14; Saint Paul says that he corrected and rebuked Peter. Surely, the argument goes, if Saint Peter were not infallible, then how could he be the first pope (if the pope is infallible) or, if Saint Peter were the first pope and was not infallible, how could all the other popes be infallible?

This argument is easy to refute by a close reading of the text. It is made very clear in the Scripture that Saint Peter did not in fact teach or solemnly define something which was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite – Saint Peter had argued that Jewish and Gentile Christians should eat together – but he just wasn’t living up to his own teaching! Saint Paul rebuked him not for an error in teaching, but rather for hypocrisy. This is a clear – and probably the first – example of infallibility versus impeccability.

Those people who deny papal infallibility often do so not out of a desire to understand it, but rather out of a belief that it is something it is not. This is called the “straw man” argument, as it involves setting up a false argument and then defeating that. The argument does not put up a fight and is, therefore, a “straw man”. Catholics do not believe the pope is omniscient or that he is impeccable. We believe he is, generally speaking, a wise man and a good man. But we also believe that he is infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals which he solemnly pronounces.

This is entirely in accord with the Scriptures – as we read in the great Petrine defense of Matthew 16:18, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. The Church will last forever – but how can she last forever if her teaching is in danger of being corrupted and changed? Then she would not be Christ’s Church. If the Church is to endure forever, protection of her doctrines and teachings must be invested in something or someone. As Peter was the rock upon which Christ built His Church, it is clear this protection is invested in the pope, Saint Peter’s successors.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4i.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.