There is no essential disagreement between Sullivan and Eusebius or Jerome. The term 'presbyteros' was used in multiple senses originally, sometimes simply to refer broadly to the leaders of the church. And early on, as I pointed out above, there were in some cases multiple bishops along with multiple priests in the same church; the entire leadership could then be called 'presbyteois' in this broader sense. But the Church from the very beginning has understood the difference in sacramental *orders* between those who could ordain (i.e. bishops) and those who could not (priests), and those who could not offer the Eucharistic sacrifice (deacons). The problems that Clement of Rome addresses in his letter to the church at Corinth may very well have been on account of Corinth for some reason not having a bishop. (I don't know the early clerical history of the church at Corinth.)
-A8
Did you say that you teach LOGIC or RHETORIC. Because that was a lot of RHETORIC and made no sense. Perhaps some more from F. A. Sullivan in
From Apostles to Bishops:
"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul'. Here, we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul"
Once again an honest Catholic scholar admitting that Irenaeus, and subsequently Eusebius and Jerome, were mistaken. Whos is the scholar here and who is the rhetorician?