Exactly. I never said that there is a Scriptural reason that they must be celibate, only that the Church is free to require it as matter of discipline (the exercise of the Power of the Keys). I reject the unbiblical notion that present day disciplines all require a biblical precedent.
The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning.
In this case it is not an etymological fallacy since the term priest has continuously been used in its original sense to referred to the New Testament office of presbyter as represented by the Catholic priesthood. That it has also gathered to itself a second meaning to refer to a sacerdotal ministry does not take away from its original and continuous meaning.
Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for priest, and for NT pastors, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors.
You are attempting to use a circular definition when you use priest for hiereus in your argument. Since the original and continuous meaning of priest is NT presbyter, and not hiereus, I will restate your argument:
Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for sacerdotal ministers, and for NT priests, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for sacerdotal minister in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT priests.The proper conclusion of your argument that we need two different terms is to reintroduce sacerd into English to refer to sacerdotal ministers and stop referring to them as priests, which is a NT term for the Catholic priesthood.
Which means you simply have no real authority for your requirement. You can invoke "the Power of the Keys" but that is itself based on Scripture, and which it cannot withstand, and which refutes Rome.
Yet the validity of this claim does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, but upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares..
Meanwhile, as explained, even the EOs differ as regards making celibacy a requirement in the way Rome does, yet both claim unchanging perpetuation of apostolic tradition, .
In this case it is not an etymological fallacy since the term priest has continuously been used in its original sense to referred to the New Testament office of presbyter as represented by the Catholic priesthood.
WRONG! The so-called "power of the keys" will not allow you change Scripture or history. Even if some post-Scriptural Christians distinctively called NT pastors "priests" that does not justify them doing what the Spirit nowhere did, nor make NT pastors into Catholic priests.
The sacerdotal term priest has NOT continuously been used in its original sense to referred to the New Testament office of presbyter as represented by the Catholic priesthood, and repeating this specious claim will not make it true. The original and continuous meaning of the words in the NT for the NT pastorate were presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer), and which denote the person in the same office, (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5) the first word being one of age or position and the second denoting the function of the first. And whose primary function was that of prayer and 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) and letting it dwell in them richly. (Col. 3:16) By which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) with doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
And nowhere are NT pastors shown distinctive engaging in the distinctive sacerdotal function that denotes the office of priest, which for the Catholic priesthood is primarily that of 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. All that must be read into the record of the NT church (Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels).
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) Accordingly, as said, NT pastors were never called priests by the Holy Spirit distinct from the general priesthood of all believers. You are attempting to use a circular definition when you use priest for hiereus in your argument. Since the original and continuous meaning of priest is NT presbyter, and not hiereus, I will restate your argument: As your premise is wrong so also is your conclusion. For you can only wish that the original and continuous meaning of priest is NT presbyter, and not hiereus, denoting an office with a primary sacerdotal function, for instead the Holy Spirit never refers to NT presbyter as hiereus - which distinctive term He continues to use for sacerdotal OT and pagan priests and the general sacerdotal priesthood of all believers. Christ via His Holy Spirit is the one who chooses what words to use for sacerdotal ministers, and for NT priests, and the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for sacerdotal minister in the NT is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT priests. You own argument is self-destructive, since the Holy Spirit NEVER uses the word that even you affirm that He distinctively uses for sacerdotal minister to refer to NT presbyters, meaning they are not distinctively referred to as sacerdotal ministers, “hiereus” or “archiereus," which are only used in the NT for priests, and thus your sophistical semantics get you nowhere. The proper conclusion of your argument that we need two different terms is to reintroduce sacerd into English to refer to sacerdotal ministers and stop referring to them as priests, which is a NT term for the Catholic priesthood. Wrong again, for the proper conclusion of my argument is that presbuteros/episkopos are not distinctively referred to as sacerdotal ministers/hiereus/sacerdos/priests, and thus we simply need to respect the different terms which the Holy Spirit uses for priests and presbuteros/episkopos, respectively, rather than assigning a unique sacerdotal function to NT pastors, as those who offer sacrifices for sins.