First, I credit you with a sincere post that attempts to be helpful.
Unfortunately, the post and the link are more of the poor use of the Scriptures we see on all these threads about Catholicism.
As an example, the Exodus passage is used as a faux fact, assumed as a foundation and then the article moves on with that presupposition - which is never taught in Scripture.
The foundation of the poor use of Scripture and hermeneutics in Catholicism is always extra-Biblical beliefs from syncretic paganism. These are incorporated historically into the RC church and they then feel compelled to “backfill them in the Scriptures”, attempting to form a Biblical foundation for pagan practice. And of course, the average RC is unfamiliar enough with the Scriptures and must toe the line with whatever Rome teaches.
For a very thoughtful discussion of the roles of Elders as taught in the New Testament, I commend this link to you. It is a good primer.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/christian-elders-in-the-new-testament
In short:
There are no priestly functions of sacrifice, alters, costumes, holy water, etc. in the New Testament Scriptures.
Peter and Paul provide a list of church offices. Priest is not found there.
No where in before 100 ad do we see an Elder perform a mass. All items above were added later.
I realize that to the average RC, this will not matter. They do not start with God’s revelation and see what it says. They start with Rome and try to justify it in the Scriptures.
I do thank you for furthering the discussion.
Thanks for the (relatively more than others) civil response.
I think you’re missing a crucial point though of what Staples pointed out. Re-read it. The following is of particular importance that, I believe at least, fulfills the demands you make here namely:
“The foundation of the poor use of Scripture and hermeneutics in Catholicism is always extra-Biblical beliefs from syncretic paganism.”
This is patently false, as far as, at least, the post (of Staples) to which you refer. Read and reflect:
“We should not be surprised that the noun “priest” (Gk. hiereus) was not used as a title for New Covenant ministers: This same term was used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests of the first century (cf. Lk 1:8-9, Acts 14:13). Using different titles for New Covenant priests would be one way of distinguishing them. However, the verb form of hiereus is used for New Testament ministers. It is found when Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a “priestly service”: “. . . be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk. hierourgounta) of the gospel of God…” (Rom 15:15b-16a).”
Rom 15:15b-16a (really Rom 15:16 for simplicity sake) is in the Bible.
It states, “15:16 That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles: sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost”
The term “minister” there is the word Staples said or “hierourgounta” which is Strong’s number G2418 which means “to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service”. It’s in the Blue Letter Bible look it up.
I realize Strong’s also says for this word “of the preaching of the gospel” but this is really forcing a meaning onto the word not there on Strong’s part why? Because:
This term (G2418) is only found one time in Scripture so there is no way to make such an extrapolation as to make it say “of the preaching of the gospel”. Indeed, the very term itself (G2418) is derived from the Greek NOUN for “priest” so it is more reasonable to translate it as Staples does, or “priestly service.”
Secondly, the entire context of the verse makes even more sense if read in this way, specifically because of the later phrase “the oblation of the Gentiles” (G4376, prosphora, which means “gift” or “sacrifice, either bloody or unbloody).
Given that information we can see that St Paul is actually mentioning (if only in passing) how he offers a sacrifice (in a priestly manner) for the Gentiles, in other words he’s talking about his he says Mass for his Gentile charges!
It’s only because of a Protestant corruption of that verse that many nkw read it today as St Paul “ministering to the Gentiles” as if he were only “preaching” to them.
You may disagree, if so fine. I’m not looking for a debate. I think though that (ironically) here the Scripture speaks for itself, for those who “have ears to hear”.