I don't know what you mean by "distinctively titled". Priests in the NT are called presbyteroi. Priests in the Greek church today are called presbyteroi. Is that straightforward enough for you?
"Uniquely sacerdotal"? What does that mean? See Ignatius of Antioch if you think ancient Christians didn't view presbyteroi as those who offered the Eucharistic sacrifice on behalf of the assembly.
Clerics in the early church were not "normatively celibate" because they were obviously all adult converts. However, since you seem to think you know all about Catholicism and are qualified to lecture the rest of us on its alleged "errors," you obviously must know that celibacy is not an intrinsic requirement for the reception of Holy Orders, but only a disciplinary one, so that the absence of celibacy as a requirement for the presbytery in the NT merely proves that that discipline hadn't been established yet.
The book that Rome assembled says that ALL believers are 'saints'; not just some SPECIAL group, appointed by men.
Phil. 4:21-22: “Greet every saints in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you,
1 Cor 1:2: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints , with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
2 Cor 1:1: with all the saints who are in all Achaia:
Rom 1:7: To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints :
Phil 1:1: To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi,
Col 1:2: To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse:
Eph 1:1: To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:
Eph. 5:3: “But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be mentioned among you, as becomes saints”
Jude 1:3 the faith-which was once for all delivered to the saints.”
It means as a separate class from the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)
I don't know what you mean by "distinctively titled". Priests in the NT are called presbyteroi. Priests in the Greek church today are called presbyteroi. Is that straightforward enough for you?
Irrelevant. In the NT church presbyteroi are NEVER would called priests. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests *, is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest."
The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros, if with uncertainty," with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, based on Latin biblical and ecclesiastical language, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and evidently finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
Etymologies are not definitions (examples: "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy..
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 [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html) "Uniquely sacerdotal"? What does that mean? It means they are distinctively called priests mainly due to the idea that only they can offer the Lord's supper as a sacrifice, which is also something NT pastors are never shown engaging in the life of the NT church, or being manifestly charged with doing. See Ignatius of Antioch if you think ancient Christians didn't view presbyteroi as those who offered the Eucharistic sacrifice on behalf of the assembly. What Ignatius said or is said to have said is not determinitive of Truth, but what Scripture says and teaches. And instead of showing the pastors officiating or ministering the Lord's supper as would be the case if the Holy Spirit was describing the Catholic church, He only manifestly describes the Lord's supper in one epistle (besides Jude 1:12, "feast of charity"), and in which not recognizing the church as the body of Christ is the issue. And nothing is said of a pastor/priest and his incantations. And instead of charging them with such, the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "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) Meanwhile a all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church Clerics in the early church were not "normatively celibate" because they were obviously all adult converts. That excuse fails because there were young converts as Timothy among whom there could easily be single men, and Paul would have surely mentioned that class in 1Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1, and taught that this was preferable for such pastors. Yet the only place celibacy is advocated is in 1Co. 7, and which applies to all in general, such as have that gift, and to presume that basically all pastors have that gift is presumptuous and dangerous. Moreover, fatherhood is invoked as test for pastoring. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? (1 Timothy 3:5) In addition, rather than being under vows, Paul and Barnabas, as the only two apostles who were single, had the option to take a wife. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5) However, since you seem to think you know all about Catholicism and are qualified to lecture the rest of us on its alleged "errors," you obviously must know that celibacy is not an intrinsic requirement for the reception of Holy Orders, but only a disciplinary one, Sure i know this apologetic. It is church law and thus could be changed, but regardless, it is law. And sure, while not being an " intrinsic" requirement, the reality is that apart from certain clerical converts (who must never marry but become celibate if their wife dies) then RC priests must be celibate. so that the absence of celibacy as a requirement for the presbytery in the NT merely proves that that discipline hadn't been established yet. What kind of argument is that? The absence of something in the NT church hardly "proves" that it later should be. Mormons could argue like as you for their magic underwear. You cannot read later additions back into the church.