“The leaders appointed by Jesus were called apostles. Their successors in the fullness of the ministry were called episcopoi (bishops). The Apostles themselves would establish the offices of presbuteroi (from which the English term “priest” is derived) and deaconoi (deacons) who would share in only part of the apostolic authority. As for celibacy, this is only a church discipline neither required nor forbidden in Scripture.”
I don’t have time to reply on the first part tonight, but on the second, to say it’s a “discipline” doesn’t make it God’s will. “Discipline” can sound good in a religious sort of way, as Paul wrote at one point about self-denial. And as you said, Scripture doesn’t forbid marriage among the leaders. As this is the way that Jesus Himself established the Church, wouldn’t there be good reasons for that? And one other point I’ll briefly mention is that Scripture also says to remove heretics from the Church and not even to greet false teachers as to do so is to approve of their wickedness. So how is it that the Catholic Church allows heretics to stay, including at the highest levels of leadership. A large percentage of these leaders just voted to approve of homosexuality. That’s blatant heresy.
Since it is only discipline no one said that it was God's will. Indeed married priests are allowed in the Eastern Rites. On the other hand, it cannot be shown that it is against God's will either. Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose, thus the Church possesses the authority to regulate its internal life.
I’ll briefly mention is that Scripture also says to remove heretics from the Church and not even to greet false teachers as to do so is to approve of their wickedness.
For this to be operative there must be a recognized and visible leadership in the Church with the authority to do so. This only exists in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. You cannot point to any Protestant church since their first leaders were removed as heretics. They then just set up their own churches and removed those who disagreed with them, who then just set up their own churches and removed those who disagreed with them, who then just set up their own churches and removed those who disagreed with them … ad infinitum. Thus the multitude of various Protestant churches we see today.
So how is it that the Catholic Church allows heretics to stay, including at the highest levels of leadership. A large percentage of these leaders just voted to approve of homosexuality. That’s blatant heresy.
As scandalous as their action was it was not the outright approval of homosexual activity. (This is not in any way to be seen as approval on my part of the vote of those bishops.) The inference might be made but a more explicit and unambiguous statement would need to be made for the a charge of heresy to be leveled. A sad event all around but in the end the Catholic teaching on human sexuality still stands.
Wrongly.
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors, nor does the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which He does use for NT pastors mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos, the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. It is also understood that even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.”
The Catholic titular use of hiereus/priest for presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy , since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence.
Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its original or historical meaning. However, the idea of the NT being a distintive class titled "priests" was a later development. Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s) And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html) In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states, No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people. Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description. To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm) Thus despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, reading into Scripture her own theology, supposing that the presbyters engaged in a unique and primary sacrificial function of turning bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Christ as an expiation for sins, and which is then physically consumed to gain spiritual and eternal life. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), just as David figuratively called drinking water the "blood" of men and poured it out on the ground as an ofering unto the Lord, as it represented the lives of those who risked their own blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) And in contrast to Catholicism in which the Lord's Supper is the "source and summit" of the Chirstian faith, in which "our redemption is accomplished," nowhere is literally eating anything physical the means of this, nor is any NT pastor shown even dispensing bread as part of their ordained function. Nor is the church shown making this Catholic eucharist an atonement for sin and the practice around which all else revolves, and instead the only teaching in Acts and onward (which interprets the gospels) that manifestly describes the Lord's supper to any real extent is that of 1 Cor. 11:20-34, and in which the church is the body of Christ, which is to show (declare, proclaim) the Lord's death by how they take part in the communal "feast of charity," (cf. Jude. 1:12) showing their unity with Him and each other with unselfish love, which Christ supremely showed in purchasing the church with His sinless shed blood. (cf. Acts 20:28) Thus the nature of the elements was not the focus, nor was the sin a failure to recognize them as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, but the focus was that of the coporate body of Christ, and the sin of some was not effectualy recognizing others as part of that body for whom Christ died. (See here). And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, the primary work of NT pastors is to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9) Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by it is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural.