BlueDragon:
Again, I am not debating the reliability of the NT. So I don’t know why you are posting this to me. Whatever word was used, presbyter which only means literally “older man” the NT very seldom fully defines what their role was. Early Liturgical evidence from Patristic sources see in terms of function, presbyters acting in priestly roles, the evidence for this is in the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc, etc. I have already covered this in numerous texts. There was no rejection of the priest and Bishop [firstmost], and then only presbyters could celebrate the Eucharist when a Bishop appointed him to, of those to offices to be the leaders of Divine worship, the Eucharist and to administer the Sacraments or Holy Mysteries.
The rejection of Bishops, Presbyters, acting as sacerdotal ministers is only found among the followers of the 16th century rebels, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. The Eastern Orthodox, of which Greek is the sort to the primarily historical theological and Liturgical language understands Bishops and Presbyters in the same fashion as the Catholic Church. So if you look at them, you can’t play the Catholics say this but we Protestants say this. The Orthodox Church reads the same 27 NT books as we Catholics and you various Protestant groups, their conclusion, not mine, not other FR Catholics, not the Pope, understood the function of Bishops and Presbyters to more than just preachers, teachers, overseers and to function as administrative elders. The Bishop, and those presbyters appointed by him were the leaders of the Liturgical worship of the Christian community and were the ones give the authority by Christ via the Apostles to administer the sacraments of Eucharist, Baptism, Confession, anointing of the Sick, etc.
I did not intend to imply that you were debating the reliability of the NT, though I did expect that sort of reaction to be part of your own reply. :^')
But thank you for the implied support for the Scriptures not having been in some way secretly altered by "Protestants" with an agenda reaching so far as to having removed the word "priest" where some *think* it should belong, or existed (in the texts) where it never did (other than in Vulgate and translations based fairly singularly upon that text).
Salvation --- Did you get that part? Though CTrent and I do disagree on much (though much of that as to "shadings" of interpretation) we can agree there was not some sort of telling bias which can impute guilt towards "Protestants" as you did appear to have alluded to.
CTrent;
I included yourself since there has been much on-going conversation pertaining to historical etymology of the various words focused upon as used in translations, which in Roman Catholic practice helped to produce/expand upon a sacerdotalism though similar in some regards to Orthodox views, are *not quite* shared with the Orthodox in regards to conceptual belief and practices, at least in regards to what came to be termed Eucharist.
"...In the East, however, the culminating point of the prayer is not in the remembrance of Christ's act but in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which immediately follows: "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon the Gifts here spread forth, and make this bread to be the precious Body of Thy Christ... ." Thus, the central mystery of Christianity is seen as being performed by the prayer of the church and through an invocation of the Spirit. The nature of the mystery that occurs in the bread and wine is signified by the term metabole ("sacramental change"). The Western term transubstantiation occurs only in some confessions of faith after the 17th century."
The above view can be seen to align moderately well [enough] with Calvin's own expression of there being pneumatic presence, in that the Real Presence spoken of in regards to Eucharist be of Spirit and not bodily carnal "real presence".
In Luther's own description (in hoping to evade what was thought to by many a "carnal" view or approach among many Roman Catholic of his time) he sought to avoid that perceived-to-be carnal view by using differing terminology than was otherwise common, ending up in net result, favorably comparable to the Orthodox view (as expressed in the above), and Calvin's later writings and description & theology concerning it.
There is room for an overview which Luther, Calvin, and the Orthodox appear to have in effect reached the same basic destination (though using differing rhetorical paths to get there) with that ending destination be in some alignment or overlap with Roman Catholic approach, at least for those Roman Catholics who's own inward thoughts would consider the "under the forms of the bread & wine" to be a "spiritual" sort of presence --- but those (Catholics) blockaded from admitting so using wording similar to Luther's or Calvin's, much for reason of all the acrimony prevalent in those eras which could lead to consequences potentially harmful to one's own health -- like -- a guy could be murdered over it --- killed just for uttering particular wording out loud, if one did so enough.
Though too, it is not merely a matter of wording, but what the wordings can mean as towards ecclesiological consideration, which is the point of all this writing I am here doing. Please bear in mind that 'arguments' I am here presenting, are embedded within and much contained within the supplied embedded links.
Personally, I think I understand (also going by personal experience) and can agree with the Orthodox, Lutheran, & Calvinistic views, seeing them in much agreement among themselves in final result (who can say where the Wind comes from and will eventually go? John 3:8) and with some slight but perhaps significant demurral -- can be in significant amount of agreement with Roman Catholic wording and/or description, as long as the associated theological baggage regarding the consecration and communal consumption of the remembrance of Christ's own sacrifice, "this is my body...broken for you..share this among yourselves" is not entirely Romanist in sacerdotal character.
I would hope that more of my fellow "Protestant" or nominally so, would learn and personally accept a "this IS" His body type of prayerful apprehension towards the fuller and deeper meaning which is (or can be apprehended/discerned) as central to participation in communion.
If this could be but done (and it can be, as God is my witness) while adhering to a forensic or Calvinistic view of justification, boldly approaching the throne of Grace (we are forgiven) then in the hour(s) of visitation which are awaited and sought for, there too in the taking of communion itself, corporately in conjunction with others, the culmination which is reception of the Divine can and will as David wrote, restore his (our) soul.
Yet too, this visitation/restoration of and by His Spirit is not restricted to consumption of consecrated bread, and I do believe that one desperately needs to be born of the Spirit to discern the Spirit present in conjunction with partaking of the bread and the wine, deep calling unto deep as it were, but that depth which answers back the call from Him, not ourselves, but Him (His Spirit) that is within us -- which He alone can send (in the first place) even though this can occur, be transmitted as it were by the laying on of hands by those whom are presbyters & elders of the Church.
As for portion of the remainder of your reply, setting aside considerations towards singular papacy as that came known to be, for the rest;
...I am not certain what you mean other than to be once again doubling down on sacerdotalism as formally spoken of with Roman Catholicism, there being aspects of that which were not exactly present in the earliest Church as that theology within the theology later developed into becoming.
The present day Orthodox witness much refutes (but not entirely) aspects of Romanist sacerdotal teachings & beliefs, by way of the Orthodox mysticism (in regards to Eucharist) which as witnessed --- is not a thing of a pharmacopeia confecting act singularly reliant upon priests themselves as agents whom by their words alone transform or "confect" the visitation (of the Holy Spirit).
As Kallistos wrote in The Orthodox Church page 197;
Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true. As one of the bishops remarked at the Council of Carthage in 257:‘The Lord said, "I am truth." He did not say, I am custom’ (The Opinions of the Bishops On the Baptizing of Heretics, 30). There is a difference between ‘Tradition’ and ‘traditions:’ many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental — pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the essential Christian message.
It is good to keep an eye towards what truly did come before (as regards "tradition") rather than acceptance of all or most of that which has come along since the year 257 if not before, as far back as we can well enough establish --- or else remind for reason of restraint --- to not go beyond or away from that which was presented as Gospel by Paul and the first Apostles, by either additions or redaction.
Those looked upon, became titled as "priests" among the Orthodox, fulfill liturgical leadership role (among other things) among a priesthood of believers.
You may say that this is "the same" as within [Roman] Catholicism, but there are important differences not so easily swept away by short-sightedness & rhetoric.
Protestants are not devoid of recognition towards eldership and presbytery function either, along with recognition of role for deacons, teachers, and for some -- genuine prophetic individuals also if thusly gifted (but those rarely if ever seen as infallible, for they are not) when those are at all recognized; rather than prophetic leading be only a corporate thing. Still if one prophesy, let another judge, as it is written.
As Kallistos Ware famously remarked;
"We can say where the Church is, but we cannot say where she is not"