This is your spin. The scriptural fact is that St. James urges to call in the priests so that the sick could be annointed; from this it is evident that the members of the household could not do so themselves.
He is talking about the 'love' feast that followed the Lord's supper. [...] It seemed that some had more then others and it was not a true case of fellowship (1Cor.11:20-22)
Again, this is your spin. St. Paul clearly distinguishes between eating for physical nutrition, done in homes ("What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God", 1 Corinthians 11:22), and the Eucharist done "to shew the death of the Lord, until he come" (v 26). S.t Paul states what the problem is, and it is not that some had more than others but rather that some eat and drink unworthily, " not discerning the body of the Lord".
That clergy class does not exist in the New Testament. [...] There are no subjects!
I showed you the clergy class in the example with the annointing; there is nothing in 1 Peter 2:5-9 to indicate he is talking of priesthood of every believer. Once more, you spin it that way because of the Protestant traditions of men that spinned the Gospel for you in order to obfuscate its meaning.
It is interesting that you bring up Hebrews 4, because having usrged the believes to go in confidence before the throne of grace it goes on to describe a priestly class (which you say does not exist) thusly:
"every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was"(Hebrews 5)
No 'spin' since no priests were called in.
All believers are priests (1Pe.2:5).
What were called in were spirit filled men (elders/pastors) to administer oil, a sign of the Holy Spirit and a form of medience of the ancient times.
Nothing mystical about it.
He is talking about the 'love' feast that followed the Lord's supper. [...] It seemed that some had more then others and it was not a true case of fellowship (1Cor.11:20-22) Again, this is your spin. St. Paul clearly distinguishes between eating for physical nutrition, done in homes ("What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God", 1 Corinthians 11:22), and the Eucharist done "to shew the death of the Lord, until he come" (v 26). S.t Paul states what the problem is, and it is not that some had more than others but rather that some eat and drink unworthily, " not discerning the body of the Lord".
What does vs. 21 say?
For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper and one is hungry and another drunken'
Then Paul states that that type of eating and drinking can be done in their own personal homes.
They were coming together in someone else's home to worship and fellowship.
That clergy class does not exist in the New Testament. [...] There are no subjects! I showed you the clergy class in the example with the annointing; there is nothing in 1 Peter 2:5-9 to indicate he is talking of priesthood of every believer. Once more, you spin it that way because of the Protestant traditions of men that spinned the Gospel for you in order to obfuscate its meaning.
And once again, you do nothing to explain what Peter means when he speaks of the priesthood of the believers-twice in the same chapter.
You have not shown that the anointing of the elders has anything to do with a special clergy class.
The sick called in his pastor to pray for him and anoint him with oil.
Yet, it is the prayer of faith that shall save the sick individual, not the anointing of the oil by the elder. (vs.15)
It is interesting that you bring up Hebrews 4, because having usrged the believes to go in confidence before the throne of grace it goes on to describe a priestly class (which you say does not exist) thusly: "every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was" (Hebrews 5)
What it discusses is the priestly class that existed in the Old Testament with the Levites and the special High Priest of Aaron.
Now, there is no special Levite priesthood (every believer being a Priest) and the Jewish High Priesthood has been replaced by the permanent Priesthood of Christ, who ever liveth to make intercession for us.
The book of Hebrews is a book about Christ being better then angels, better then the Law of Moses, better then the priesthood of Aaron, better then anything that existed under the Old Testament.
The very things that the RCC would have man return to.