Then stay with the Greek, rather than defining presbuteros by what is morphed into! In reality, RCs do not want to stay with the Greek, but want to define it by what it came to denote due to imposed equivalence, not what it originally meant, which made distinction btwn hiereus and presbuteros. .
. But there was in the New Testament the offices of epsicopos, presbuteros and deaconos. This second office continues today and in English is call "priest", a word which is indeed derived from the original Greek term for the office.
It indeed was derived, via Latin, yet even a Catholic forum will tell you that “the Latin word presbyter has no lingual or morphological relationship with the Latin word sacerdos, but only an inherited semantical relationship.” - http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=744379.0;wap2z
Instead presbuteros became priest under the premise that the primary function of NT pastors was that of engaging in the "sacrifice" of the mass, an imposed functional equivalence that the Holy Spirit did not make by ever titling presbuteros/epsicopos (one office: Titus 1:5-7) hiereus,
And having presumed to help the Holy Spirit (again), RCs defend it by or and in a un etymological fallacy "that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. This is a linguistic misconception.."
Dues is speaking here of the use of the term heireus/sacerdos not the English term "priest" thus it does not apply to the use of the word in English for the office of presbuteros.
Of course it applies, as the presumed primary sacrificial function denotes priests is behind a distinctive class of clergy being titled that. Yet for NT pastors it is prayer and preaching the word, (Acts 6:3) which they are abundantly shown doing and instructed to do, and never even shown officiating a the Lord's supper in bread making and dispensing. All the believers were to told to to share food, showing the Lord's death by that communal meal, as described here .
. As for his claim that the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice only later in the 3rd century he is just wrong: ]
He did not even say claim that the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice only later in the 3rd century, but that "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity," and " When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension."By the third century bishops were considered priests."
Thus he says by the 200 AD+ period, and as , even praise is a sacrifice ,Dues may be referring to a more widespread understanding of the Eucharist as an atonement for sin, offered by priests, as per Hebrews 5:1 regarding OT priestly duty, , "that he [the HP] may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.' (Hebrews 5:1) In any case, that the Lord's supper is an sacrifice for sin, versus declaring it, is not what it is manifest to be in the NT., which is the unchanging standard regardless of the varied and changeable misunderstandings of pious men.
Irenaeus
Came across this but have not read it all , and though you might want to: http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/
I never said that it did.
Instead presbuteros became priest under the premise that the primary function of NT pastors was that of engaging in the "sacrifice" of the mass, an imposed functional equivalence that the Holy Spirit did not make by ever titling presbuteros/epsicopos (one office: Titus 1:5-7) hiereus,
You have it backwards. The word "priest" came into existence in English as the equivalent to presbuteros not hiereus. It was the lack of an English equivalent to hiereus that caused "priest" to be used also for hiereus. I will admit that this was helped by the identification of the sacrificial role of the presbuteros with that of the hiereus. But what you should then be complaining about is the use of "priest" for non-Christian sacrificial ministers rather than its use for presbuteros which was its original use. That being said, this confusion of terms only exists in English. Catholic theology developed in Latin and Greek were the distinction of the two terms were kept. The Catholic understanding of the office of priest was not determined by the usage in English.