No, your argument has two flaws, one grammatical and one theological.
Your first flaw is insistence that the word "priest" can have only one unequivocal meaning. Thus if it means hiereus it cannot mean presbuteros at the same time. Language does not work that way.
Tell that to the Holy Spirit, who never uses “hiereus” for presbuteros/episkopos, but only for a separate sacerdotal class! The problem is not that presbyteros evolved into priest but that this is the same term used for a separate sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided.
If it did then please give me the one unequivocal meaning for "right" or "bow." Words can have more than one meaning.
Indeed, but that is a fallacious basis for arguing that they must have more than one meaning, and to justify using the same term for two offices contrary to what the Holy Spirit does!
Your second flaw is that because the presbyters have a different title than the temple priesthood that they could not have a sacerdotal function. Abraham and the patriarchs offered sacrifices without being temple priests.
But that was not a special ordained function as with the separate sacerdotal class: "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices.."Hebrews 10:11)
Moreover, I included presbyters in the general sacerdotal priesthood of all believers, but the objection is to making them into a separate sacerdotal class, as OT priests were,
One of the functions of a presbyter is to celebrate the Mass or Lord's Supper following our Lord's instruction of "do this in memory of me."
Wrong again! You are simply reading into the text a unique sacerdotal pastoral function which simply is not there, and is nowhere shown or taught in the record of the NT church in Scripture. Which only manifestly clearly describes the Lord's supper in one epistle (aside from simple breaking of break and the "feast of charity") , contrary to it being the priestly Queen of sacraments/sacrifice for sins around which all else revolves.
As said, nowhere in Acts onward are NT pastors shown conducting the Lord's supper as priests, offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing them to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. Nor are they charged with does so, let alone uniquely, but as said, in contrast they are charged with preaching the word, (Act 6:3,4) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28 with the word of God by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desires the milk of the word, (1Pt. 2:2) and then receives the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32)
The Last Supper (the "this" our Lord was referring to) was not just a simple meal. It was a sacrificial meal, the new Passover. It is clear from the words that our Lord spoke when he instituted the Eucharist: Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." (Luke 22:19-20)
Which vain argument by assertion is simply begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, which is that the semi-literal metaphysical (that is what it is) understanding of Catholicism is what Scripture elsewhere reveals these words to mean, versus the metaphorical meaning. But it is only the latter which easily conflates with the rest of Scripture, and John in particular. Which may be another thread.
The Didache...Pope Clement I ...Ignatius of Antioch
Which uninspired, fallible speech simply testifies to the progressive deformation of the church , if not necessarily salvifically here.
The Didache - The Complete Text
Catholic Word of the Day: DIDACHE (Teaching of the twelve Apostles), 03-20-14
Excerpt from: The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
What the early Church had to say about abortion
Church History: The Didache [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
Catholic Word of the Week: DIDACHE (Teaching of the twelve Apostles), 05-18-10
Early Christians and Abortion
The Time Capsule
The Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
The Didache - The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations
But this is not the issue. We can turn your statement around and say that the Holy Spirit never uses priest (i.e. presbuteros) for hiereus.
The problem is not that presbyteros evolved into priest but that this is the same term used for a separate sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided.
It is just as logical to say that we should then stop using priest for hiereus and start translating the latter as sanctifier as it is to stop using priest for presbuteros, translating it as elder instead. But the question is not just how to translated the NT term but what to call the present day presbyters. For a thousand years they have been called priests in English, starting centuries before the term was also used for hiereus. This is just as valid as a consideration as the translation of the terms in bible translations.
Indeed, but that is a fallacious basis for arguing that they must have more than one meaning, and to justify using the same term for two offices contrary to what the Holy Spirit does!
Not to justify but only to point out the truth that, like it or not, in English priest does, indeed, have two definitions.
You are simply reading into the text a unique sacerdotal pastoral function which simply is not there, and is nowhere shown or taught in the record of the NT church in Scripture.
While not in Scripture, it is in the historical record of the early Church.
As said, nowhere in Acts onward are NT pastors shown conducting the Lord's supper as priests, offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing them to the people to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.
Nor does the NT show anyone other than the pastors conducting the Mass/Lord's Supper. We do know that the Mass/Lord's Supper was celebrated and that someone had to do it. Here we have a problem with the Protestant attempt at sola scriptura. The NT, however, does not describe how, or by whom, the Mass/Lord's Supper was to be celebrated. It did not need to; the faithful already knew how.
Paul's letters were not intended to be a systematic exposition of the belief and practices of the Church. They were written to particular churches who had already be instructed and were living the faith. His letters were written to address specific problems that had arisen. While without dispute the divinely inspired word of God, to treat the NT as a full catechism and church ordinal is to go beyond its purpose.
This is were the testimony of the early Church Fathers is helpful. Although they are not Scripture, they do give testimony to the beliefs and practices of the early Church.
Which vain argument by assertion is simply begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, which is that the semi-literal metaphysical (that is what it is) understanding of Catholicism is what Scripture elsewhere reveals these words to mean, versus the metaphorical meaning.
Not presuming but just reading the plain meaning of the words. It is the Protestants who must force a metaphorical meaning on the words because of a pre-conceived theology based upon the man-made traditions of the Reformers. Nor is the NT without evidence of the understanding of the Mass/Lord's Supper as a true sacrifice and the sacerdotal character of its ministers:
But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the holy Spirit. (Romans 15:15-16)Grace given me by God. Paul's ministry described here is not the "common priesthood of the faithful."
Minister: leitourgos. A public minister generally but also specifically a minister of the temple (it is the word from which we get the term liturgy):
The main point of what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister (lietourgos) of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle that the Lord, not man, set up. (Hebrews 8:1-20)
Priestly service: hierourgounta. Priestly, i.e. sacerdotal, service; the service of a hiereus.
Offering, i.e a sacrificial offering.
Paul is here describing his hieratic/sacerdotal ministry in receiving the sacrificial offerings of the gentiles. This is not mere preaching. Nor should you jump to a "metaphorical" interpretation when the plain words can be taken at face value and the testimony of the early Church Fathers confirm the early Christians understanding that they were celebrating a true sacrifice.
Which uninspired, fallible speech simply testifies to the progressive deformation of the church , if not necessarily salvifically here.
I will note the dates of the Didache, Clement and Ignatius. They were describing the Church while St. John was still alive. Are you going to tell me that the Church went into heresy before the death of the last of the Apostles? And were there no "real Christians" who objected to this? And if the Church was unreliable in passing on the faith at such an early date, how could it be reliable in passing on what books are, and are not, Sacred Scripture?