I think the right answer is:
Not a refutation, just Protestant heresy.Maybe what you typed makes you feel better or certifies you in your opinion. But unless discussion is not discussion, it's pointless because, surprise surprise, we don't find "church teaching" a proof that an argument is invalid.
Consequently we have to address the actual content of the argument, while sweeping characterizations like your relieve one of the burden of thought.
It is a matter of independently verifiable fact that the NT uses priestly language about Jesus and about believers. In spite of the witness of the NT your side says that Jesus has ended all priesthood, while we say he fulfills (and this ends) the priesthood of the OT. Your side says everyone has the same spiritual gifts and the same roles in the Church, despite the clear witness of Paul that while there is one Spirit there is a diversity of gifts and roles.
Your side contradicts Scripture. That may be Church teaching, but it's just as true as if it weren't church teaching.
If the witness of Scripture and Sacred Tradition contradicted my arguments as much as it does yours, I'd be tempted to try to find some word to dismiss it with.
I think it is funny that protestants that hold scripture as the final authority in all matters are told THEY CONTRADICT the scriptures by people that have spend 1900 years making up their own non scriptural doctrine.
You have a priesthood by tradition NOT scripture, you have apostolic succession by tradition,not scripture you have a pope, not by scripture but by tradition, you have a priesthood by your tradition not by scripture, you have statures and a queen of heaven..not by scripture but by your tradition..
Now if you all want that ..it is a free country..but please do not try to sell us on “we were the one true church that Christ founded”... cause Christ never taught any of that stuff .
You are a non scriptural church without any scriptural authority