Yes, I ignored most of your post because it did not relate to the question at hand.
You —— correct me if I’m wrong —— do not recognize that the Sacred Scriptures are an essential part, yet only a part, of the larger Apostolic Tradition. That makes issues like parsing the word *presbuteros* kind of off-topic.
A Scripture Sola perspective makes all questions concerning the hierarchical structure of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Century Church literally unanswerable.
As far as anybody would know or care, the whole shebang “petered out” about 100 AD. Went dark. Went kaput. You couldn’t prove anything different from Scripture.
But that is blinkered ignorance.
At any rate, the question is, “In actual historic fact, in the early Church period or at any other time, did any of the ranks of deacons, presbyteroi, episcopoi, get married *after* their laying on of hands?
Far as I know, the answer is No.
I do not reject that some things can be passed on orally, but not passed as the wholly inspired of God, and unlike the apostles Rome does not speak as wholly inspired of God, while even the preaching of the apostles was subject to testing by the established wholly inspired of God. Thus how much more must the veracity and validity of the non-inspired words of Rome as well as the truth claims of SS preachers by subject to Scripture.
Thus your appeal to purported "Apostolic Tradition" is in vain, for it is not supported by Scripture. Zero occurrences of NT pastors being called priests, zero occurrences of them engaging in the unique sacerdotal function of changing bread and wine and offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, or being charged with doing so in the life of the NT church (Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels). And despite the charges and exhortations given to them, and examples thereof, and with their primary active function being that of preaching the word, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) with the word of God, which uniquely is called "milk" and "meat" by which they are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
Zero occurrences of celibacy being required of NT pastors, despite the stated requirements for such, in which physical fatherhood is set forth as credentials for caring for the flock of God. While in contrast most pastors and apostles were married, or free to be so.
Zero occurrences in all of Scripture of anyone but pagans praying to created beings in Heaven, despite prayer being a most basic common practice and thus the Spirit provides approx 200 prayers in Scripture. And the list goes on.
Therefore appeal to later church tradition to support what is not seen in the life of the NT church and militates against ip impugns the Holy Spirit and testify to the progressive accretion of traditions of men.
A Scripture Sola perspective makes all questions concerning the hierarchical structure of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Century Church literally unanswerable. To the contrary, the answer is to "prove all things" by the wholly inspired word of God. God did not wholly inspire 28 chapters to Acts and 22 other books after that so that later churches can invent all sort of things in things the Scripture clearly deals with.
As far as anybody would know or care, the whole shebang “petered out” about 100 AD. Went dark. Went kaput. You couldn’t prove anything different from Scripture. But that is blinkered ignorance.
Wrong again, for by doing as the noble Bearans did, then we can see salvific Scriptural truths being kept as well as the adoption of unScriptural traditions.
The response of Rome and RCs is to resort to one of said traditions, that only what Rome says Scripture, tradition and valid history consists of and means is true in any conflict!
At any rate, the question is, “In actual historic fact, in the early Church period or at any other time, did any of the ranks of deacons, presbyteroi, episcopoi, get married *after* their laying on of hands?
>At any rate, the question is why should what extra-scriptural, post-apostolic non-inspired men did be the standard for Truth? Far as Scripture knows, the answer is No.