If, if IF.
There was no "if" on my part to what you are attempting to suggest or "put words in my mouth" for. I find your proposition to be in part self-refuting...which can be seen when we recognize the meanings changed, along as the words themselves change when shifting from one to another language, even as you wrote the progression out in your own words.
The fallacy being that the usage of the word "priest" (and conceptual equivalents) as it is thought of and used today (and in some centuries past RC history) particularly in the associated "doctrines" and all the rest of the accumulated theological baggage that accompanies the word itself --- were all there from the beginning.
Acceptance for your explanations would lead right to the very etymological fallacy error which daniel1212 covered well enough in reply #182.
Found there also is trace evidence (from historians) that "priesthood" as it came to be known -- was not much at all found in the very earliest Church, even as other particular words themselves were employed as for church shepherding & oversight...which begs questions of how-where-why the later developing applications came into being, which I'll not delve much into for the time being, other than to point out that what can be looked upon as patristic fathers are not precisely the same as directly "Apostolic" ---- being as there is no real guarantee to them having conveyed what was earliest and initially established --- without additions and subtle change having been introduced, and possibly even some redaction when it comes to "tradition", with myself focusing here upon church attitudes/practices in regards to presbyters & elders as more than one of the historians daniel1212 cited has spoken towards. Read 'em and weep.
The very difference of that earliest church...one can still find traces of in the Orthodox "priesthood of believers" descriptive language -- which sort of language was for a large window of time spoken against within Roman Catholicism (and still frequently enough ridiculed on these pages by more than a few FRomans) while sacerdotalism was wielded as powerful psychological weapon against dissent, backed also by weaponry of other sort, including punitive civil aspects, which could include forfeiture of property and even a person's life.
THAT was the system which God intended? It was once vigorously argued within Roman Catholicism that it was.
The "function aspect" is part & parcel to issues of etymology concerning the words under discussion, with again this discussion on this thread being sparked by the false accusations of one of your co-religionists.
Remember too the title of THIS THREAD -- who started this thread, and what sort of other comments have been made by Roman Catholics (who are much ballyhoo'd among themselves as "all agreeing" etc.) for yet wider context.
Being as you had delved into the subject matter of word usage, priesthood & eucharist recently elsewhere, eventually wrapping and blending it all together -- I included addressing portion of of my one of my initial comments towards yourself --- naming you there -- part way through the comment, with the previous portion more addressed to the accuser, and my comments there to her serving as introduction of sorts to that which was further directed more to yourself and your "portions".
But putting that once again aside ... "the early church fathers" you mention do not support your positions to the degree that they would need to, not nearly early enough in the known history to justify Roman Catholic sacedotalism, which aspect itself is the very issue lurking beneath the word usage issue.
Regardless of the degree the various 'Orthodox' have much similar liturgy, the doctrinal differences are enough to present serious challenge to the claims Romanists often make for their own elevated "priesthood" as to those priesthood's alleged "powers" and authority.
One may be able to find liturgy itself much consistent with what is used today -- yet to go from there to assumption that is much equivalent to support of Roman Catholic doctrines concerning such as "Eucharist" (and more also) being in actual application what the Apostles first established, is the very problem I was pointing out.
You may say you "have no problem" with Orthodox approaches towards such things as Eucharist, but Romanist doctrines are markedly different, with yet more additional layers of doctrines not directly linked to "eucharist" doctrines themselves -- but which must be complied with or else one is shut off from communion.
I'm not talking about the error of support for abortion, or sin for having one, or some other sin issue -- for considerations towards those if leading to dis-fellowship are dealt with on a case-by-case basis within whichever ecclesiastical body. Everyone will do as they think they must. So be it.
What does come to mind though in regards to RCC attitudes (if not practice, even if we may need look towards history for the worst applications -- like burning people at the stake for openly disagreeing with "Rome") are dogmas such as "Immaculate Conception" and the demands "all must" submit to the Roman Pontiff and the like, with opposition towards those dogmas if openly expressed would lead to ex-communication.
IF it were true (I say it is not) that only a "priesthood" having what men view as proper enough Apostolic succession can preside over the consecration and partaking of the bread & wine, that would bar everyone not "Catholic" from participation in the Lord's Supper -- which is serious.
Such implications are why I ended a previous note to you with the quote from Kallistos -- having not first encountered that in a book, his own or any other, but told that by an Orthodox 'priest' whom I years ago had occasionally engaged in theological discussion with, with himself bringing that quote to his own lips when we were speaking of the partaking of communion, the differing doctrines associated with that, along with myself giving him testimony of my own personal experience with the Spirit of the Lord, in that type of setting and elsewhere.
Romanist sacredotalism (if it could get away with it) would have it that they alone can provide access to Christ Himself, as the OP of this thread has just repeated.
Making exception for the 'Orthodox', though possibly convenient, by default brings along with it serious challenges to Romanist claims, even as it can lend support for some aspects or limited extent of some others --such as conceptions and beliefs as towards apostolic succession, but still the rocks themselves would cry out if the children (and the throng of the thankful & disciples) didn't.
Did anyone lay hands on those and appoint them to be makers of perfect praise? I know the answer to that one.
God inhabits the praises of His people.
But as with Scripture Tradition and history, a word can mean whatever Rome says it means.
“IF it were true (I say it is not) that only a “priesthood” having what men view as proper enough Apostolic succession can preside over the consecration and partaking of the bread & wine, that would bar everyone not “Catholic” from participation in the Lord’s Supper — which is serious”
You’re right it is serious and that’s why only Catholics can participate in the Eucharist. You want to participate? Become Catholic. But in the meantime I suggest you quit criticizing Catholics for something they have been doing for 2,000 years.