Here is a commentary from Cambridge and I assume Anglican Divines which I have in Quotes.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
“16. the minister] The Gr. word (not the same as that in e.g. Romans 15:8,) is the original of our word liturgy; and is the same as in Romans 13:6; Php 2:25; Hebrews 1:7; Hebrews 8:2; &c. The word in Biblical Greek has a frequent sacerdotal reference; which is certainly present here, as the rest of the verse shews. For the word rendered “ministering” just below is lit. “doing priest’s-work with;” and it is followed, in the next clause, by “the offering-up of the Gentiles.” The whole passage is strikingly pictorial and figurative; representing the Gospel as the sacerdotal rule; the Apostle as the sacrificing priest; and the converts from heathenism as the victims of the sacrifice. A passage of somewhat similar imagery is Php 2:17, where the Gr. of “service” is kindred to the Gr. of “minister” here. There (in Bp Lightfoot’s words) “the Philippians are the priests; their faith (or their good works springing from their faith) is the sacrifice; St Paul’s life-blood the accompanying libation.”
It is clear that the Apostle here speaks of himself as a Sacrificer in a sense wholly figurative; and this passage and Romans 1:9 (where see note,) are the only examples of his application of the sacrificial idea, in even a figurative sense, to himself. Dr Hodge remarks that we here see the true nature of the priesthood which belongs to the Christian ministry: “It is by the preaching of the Gospel to bring men to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.” See Romans 12:1.”
Of course, at the end, they of course say it is “figurative” go figure, whenever something does not fit Protestant doctrine, the literal all of a sudden becomes figurative.
The structure of the text and the word use do connote priestly ministry and as I said earlier, a the Greek root from where we get the English “Liturgy” is also in the text.
I will not get into your all of sudden I am a former Catholic and reject the magisterium and I read the bible and determine for myself what is correct doctrine. As GK Chesterterton basically put it, a Catholic comes to the conclusion of the unthinkable proposition that there are those that have come before us who are smarter in matters of Theology. And in another place he states [I am paraphrasing], Tradition is the Democracy of the Dead, it means that we take that what is good from our ancestors and let it guide us rather than being ruled by an arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be alive with us at the same time. Now, I am not calling you arrogant, I think you are misguided and incorrect, but you, as all Protestants ultimately rely on your own reading of the scripture to determine what is orthodox or not.
So for me, nothing anyone living today, despite what they think they read in Scripture will cause me to reject the Council of Nicea 325AD [Condemned Arius and declared Christ Con-substantial with the Father], Constantinopile 381AD [condemned the Macedonians and declared the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son], Ephesus 431AD [Condemned the Nestorians {and Pelagians] and declared Mary {Theotokos” or Mother of God, Chalcedon 451AD [Condemned the Monophysites], Constantinopile 553 [the 3 Chapters], Constantinopile III 680 [Condemned Monothelitism and censured Pope Honorius], Nicea II 787 [condemned Iconoclasm as a heresy against the Incarnation; lots of Inconoclasts here among the Protestant FR infantry] and Constantionpile IV, Lateran I, II, and III and IV [1123, 1139, 1179, 1215] along with Lyons 1 and 2, Vienne, Constance, Basle/Ferrara/Florence, Lateran V, Trent 1545-1563. Vatican I and yes, Vatican II, although nothing dogmatic came out of that council and whether it was a good council or bad is still to be seen. As Pope Benedict noted, we have to admit that in historical analysis, some Councils proved to be a waste of time and did not get the results hoped for. I think the attempt at reununion with the Orthodox was one he was referring to [Basle-Ferrara-Florence] 1431-1445.
Now, I accept those councils because I believe Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to teach orthodoxy and to be a visible sign of that orthodoxy down thru time till the 2nd coming.
End of discussion.
Edit to earlier post:
One last thing, I agree the word hierus was not exactly used. Jerome used the Latin word “Oblatio”, that I can confirm from my own library. Still, the context of the passage still connotes a priestly context.
As all believers are.
Of course, at the end, they of course say it is “figurative” go figure, whenever something does not fit Protestant doctrine, the literal all of a sudden becomes figurative.
I see. So Paul was literally sacrificing Gentiles. The endo cannibalism has affected the Catholic cortex. Go figure, whenever something does not fit Protestant doctrine, the figurative all of a sudden becomes literal.
The structure of the text and the word use do connote priestly ministry and as I said earlier, a the Greek root from where we get the English “Liturgy” is also in the text.
So while the word Hierus was not used, the word “hierogon” is derived from its root.
Which still fails to title Paul a hierus, or show him having a uniquely sacrificial function, or hierus directly as being the root, while the root word does not necessarily mean the same thing as its derivative, or make it exclusive here to priest. Now, I accept those councils because I believe Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church to teach orthodoxy and to be a visible sign of that orthodoxy down thru time till the 2nd coming. End of discussion.
Meaning that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Which again nukes the church, which actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
End of discussion