Mr. Lawrence Luna, a contributor to the Splendor of the Church blog, wrote a very interesting but bizarre article which identifies the priests in Acts 6:7 as Catholic priests. Mr. Luna claims:
Acts 6:7 actually referred to the Catholic priests and these are the reasons:
It is impossible in Acts 6:7 that the Judaism priests were being referred because we all know that those who are loyal to the Judaism faith don’t accept Jesus even until now in their teachings ( unless they are converted to Catholicism and ordain in Catholic priesthood). We must accept and listen to Jesus since he is the fulfillment of the law and salvation (Mat 5, Jn 1, Lk 9:35).
These are not Judaism priests, says Mr. Luna because those kind of priests don't accept Jesus. Well in all fairness the "Judaism priests" really don't accept Jesus Christ as we know it today. But are these Catholic priests? Mr. Luna has terrible apologetic mentors in providing exegesis of the text.
We must remember that in the preceding chapter (Acts 5), the apostles were preaching the gospel and were being persecuted for it. Nevertheless, their preaching continued and they were able to gain people for Christ. We now read in Acts 6:7 as a result:
The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith. [New American Bible]
We can see here that the conversion of unbelievers in Jerusalem continue including those "Judaism priest". If these were Catholic priests then what are they converting into? Bizarre, isn't it?
Well don't take my word for it. Check out these Catholic sources which has the same interpretation as mine:
New American Bible Commentary: The summary (Acts 6:7) on the progress of the Jerusalem community, illustrated by the conversion of the priests, is followed by a lengthy narrative regarding Stephen.
Catholic Answers: After some of the Temple priests converted (cf. Acts 6:7), they may have given further details on Judas’s death that were later incorporated into the Gospel accounts.
All other comments by Mr. Luna are plain begging the question (e.g. Remember also that Catholic priesthood is there since we know that Christ is the founder of the Catholic Church). He has to establish first that the church founded by Christ is actually the Roman Catholic Church (which he can never do) before making such claims; otherwise, it's spurious.