'I wanted seven kids but instead I became a nun

Firstly - it takes one excerpt from Jerome to try to prove its false point

You mean:

Contrary to Catholic teaching (“Since the beginning, the ordained ministry has been conferred and exercised in three degrees: that of bishops, that of presbyters, and that of deacons” — CCC 1593), the fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420), confirms,

“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope;.... When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).

Each church at first had at its head not a single chief pastor, but a plurality of elders (=bishops) acting as a college. In course of time there emerged from this presbyterial body...a permanent leader, to whom henceforth the term "bishop" tended to be restricted. This is the "monarchical episcopate" which first meets us in the letters of Ignatius, early in the second century...

....the bishops in the first instance of provincial capitals, gradually acquired control over their episcopal brethren in lesser cities, analogous to that of the civil governor over other provincial cities. Indeed, the development of the whole hierarchy above the congregational bishop was largely influenced by the imperial system, especially after church and state came into alliance under Constantine. (Hugh Chrisholm, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, University Press, 1911, p. 929)

• In contrast to Scripture, the Council of Chalcedon, which is recognized as infallible in its dogmatic definitions by Catholics, states,

29. He is sacrilegious who degrades a bishop to the rank of a presbyter. For he that is guilty of crime is unworthy of the priesthood.

• More distinctions followed. Catholic author Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions: A Popular Guide," (emphasis mine) adds,:

Priests continued to live in the same style as did the people they served. They farmed and worked at trades. They did not wear distinctive clothing. Only bishops, because of their extensive responsibilities, did not do ordinary work; and they wore a distinctive insignia. Beginning in the late 5th century, priests began wearing a long tunic to distinguish them from the laity, who wore a short one. This evolved into the modern alb (white) and the everyday dark cassock. [Which can easily be worn in order to gain the esteem and praise of men (unlike in evangelism), which the Lord condemned: "But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.," (Matthew 23:5)]

As Christianity swept through the Germanic lands, the church adopted the feudalistic structures of culture and politics that had evolved in Europe. Precise ranking, with exact privileges and responsibilities, was determined for kings, lords, knights, and, on the bottom, the peasants. A parallel ranking made clear distinction among bishops, abbots, priests, monks, and the laity on the bottom.

Clearly determined levels of authority gave rise to elaborate investiture with distinct insignia when clerics were ordained. Deacons were presented with alb and stole; priests' palms were anointed and they were then presented with chasuble and stole, along with paten, chalice, bread, and wine; bishops received the stole, ring, crozier, and eventually the miter; deacons received the Book of the Gospels; acolytes received a candle; lectors, the Book of Epistles; porters, a key. (Greg Dues, "Catholic Customs & Traditions: A Popular Guide," [1992]

this is a standard dispensationalist fallacy of excerpting the biblical books (and other works) and making strawmen

You mean you actually imagine that ignorance or denial of history. scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books did not continue down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther. Thus Luther was no maverick in this issue, which was not part of his excommunication by Rome, but had substantial RC support for his non-binding personal opinion (as he expressed it was) on the canon, being just one of many Catholic scholars to express doubt or disagreement before Trent. See Luther and the Canon of Scripture for more. * And rather than Rome being necessary to know what is of God, an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27) And writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church.

daniel, ebb tide never rejected the Biblical books.

however, Jesus Himself never said that the biblical books are sufficient. Nor does Paul

Take 2 Timothy 3:16–17, for example: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” -- if we read his words as implying that Scripture is sufficient with no need of Tradition, then he would be saying that the Old Testament is sufficient. I don’t think any conscientious Christian would want to say that we don’t need the New Testament to have the kinds of teaching and reproof that Paul says in verse 16.

The word that Paul uses here is profitable, not sufficient. The normal word for “sufficient” in Greek that Paul uses elsewhere is hikanos. In 2 Timothy 3:16, he uses the word ophelimos, which is closer to the meaning of “profitable” or “useful.” Something can be profitable without being sufficient. In other words, it can be a necessary condition without being a sufficient one. In fact, that is what the Catholic Church would say. Scripture is necessary because it is the written revelation of God himself. But that does not mean that it is sufficient for every purpose.

An attentive reading of the pastoral epistles reveals that Paul is exhorting Timothy and Titus to hold fast to that which they received verbally from Paul. The word for “teaching” (didaskalia) occurs many times in these letters. Sometimes, the emphasis seems to fall on the activity of teaching, and at others on the content of what is taught. In particular, 1 Timothy 1:10 seems to emphasize the content when it speaks of “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”

Look at 1 Timothy 1:10–11 again. The last phrase of verse 10 is further defined by the first phrase of verse 11: “whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” In other words, the content of these “sound words” is the gospel—the good news about Jesus that Christ himself had entrusted to Paul. Even though Old Testament Scripture predicted the coming of Christ, the fullness of the gospel came to Paul by revelation, as Paul says explicitly in Galatians 1:12: “For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

So the “sound words” that Timothy and Titus are to hold to is the verbal transmission of the gospel that Paul had taught them. He calls them “the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13). Paul exhorts them to hold on to his verbal teachings. This is exactly what the Catholic Church believes we Christians should do. We should hold on to all that the apostles taught, whether it came in writing or in verbal form. This is exactly the same thing that Paul urges in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So, then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

daniel, ebb tide never rejected the Biblical books.

I was not saying he did. It is the position and use that is the issue. See context.

however, Jesus Himself never said that the biblical books are sufficient. Nor does Paul Take 2 Timothy 3:16–17, for example...Look at 1 Timothy 1:10–11...So the “sound words” that Timothy and Titus are to hold to is the verbal transmission of the gospel that Paul had taught them. He calls them “the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me” (2 Tim. 1:13)

All such attempts to invoke the binding oral teaching of apostles as supporting Catholic oral tradition are utterly invalid due to the simple fact that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils can nor claim to do in "infallibly" defining something to be the word of God.

Instead, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.

Contrary to the RC premise that an infallible magisterium - which she imagines herself to possesses - being essential to assuredly know what is of God - both men and writings - the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium.

And which body of Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God, and even the oral teaching of apostles could be subject to testing by noble hearers. (Acts 17:11)

Indeed, the church actually began in particular dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (Mt. 23:2; cf. Dt. 17:8-13) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, (Mk. 11:27-33) being the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Instead of Catholic submission to them, certain souls followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and which 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.)

Yet the magisterial office of church is essential to settle disputes, in subjection of Scripture, and not as superior to it, contrary to the unscriptural Catholic premise of conditional ensured perpetual magisterial veracity. Upon which premise your argument for sola ecclesia rests, with Tradition, Scripture and history only authoritatively consisting of what the Roman Catholic supreme magisterium decrees.

As Cardinal Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning summed it up,

“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” pp. 227-228)

The OT was the Bible of the first century. The first century, the church were synagogues.

Where did the Old Testament teach, “By the OT alone!”

I believe that Bible teachings are balanced out by consequences. I’m just not a men’s traditions kind of guy.

I believe that Bible teachings are balanced out by consequences.

How does that work? Are not bible teachings inerrant by themselves?

The first century, the church were synagogues.

Not true.

Liberals are religious minded, but they haven’t been trained in consequences in order to moderate themselves. That is why we are $34 trillion in debt and facing an end of society consequences from that.

If you are mindful of consequences, you might be willing to use the government to create a charitable society, but you’ll want to do it without going into deficit spending.

That did happen a lot in the Middle Ages.

Not to disparage the Middle Ages, but many people of our time have the strangest notions about this era. Many widows and widowers took up the call of Jesus Christ, and as a beautiful side effect, they were not alone and helpless when their lives came to an end.

Corret, the first century church used various 2nd temple Jewish scrolls - not only the Septuagint collection, but various writings.

The gospels were acclaimed from the time they were written around the 50s AD (except the Gospel of John dating to the 90s AD).

The key point was to have the same interpretation of core beliefs. This was important and is seen in the way that the St. Thomas church in India - separated from the Roman empire churches (that later were the Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox churches) from the 2nd century at least have the same beliefs around

1. That Jesus is God and part of the Trinity Godhead - this puts to lie the Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostal concepts

2. That baptism is part of the salvation process and key - not just symbolic

3. That the Eucharist is a key part of the salvation process and that it is the true Body and blood of Christ

Actually the first century church did have a Bible, an established authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings - thus the Lord could substantiate His mission in the light of "all the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:27) and invoke its laws, and with the NT church "shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ" (Acts 18:28) - which body simply was expanded.

And the EO's expand the RC canon a bit more. However, if by "Bible" you mean an infallibly defined canon to which all are to submit, then Rome did have a bible until after the death of brother Luther, which put an end to debate. “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the OT Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, p.26.

Regardless, it remains that neither Scripture nor Tradition is the sure supreme authority in Catholicism, as the magisterium is since Scripture and Tradition only authoritatively consist of and means what she says. And with the living magisterium interpreting the past, rather than the laity doing so despite your dissent, and apparent absence of a living pope.

Where did the Old Testament teach, “By the OT alone!”

Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. (Isa 8:16) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

Thus the Lord invoked the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings in epistemologically establishing His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to the same, who did the same. (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.)

While more wholly God-inspired words would be added, these had to be in conformity with those which were already established as being so, which itself set the standard for a true prophet. (Deuteronomy 18:21,22)

And thus it was not promulgation of some oral tradition that Ps 19 and Ps. 119 exalts, nor which resulted in great revival, but as in

"when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:14-15)

Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded Hilkiah, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Abdon the son of Micah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah a servant of the king’s, saying, Go, enquire of the Lord for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. "(2 Chronicles 34:18-21)

The prophet here spoke as wholly inspired of God but in confirmation of obedience to the Law. But unless you want to assert that your past RC magisterium spoke as wholly inspired of God as the writers of Scripture did, then you are stuck with them having non-infallible authority, by which they can even claim to "remember" what ancient history forgot, as in the case of the Assumption.

As Ratzinger states,

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 (words in [brackets] are mine).

I am not Catholic but I have found somewhere that

1) priests used to be married and their wives inherited their estate. Marriage was done away with so the Church would inherit the estate.
2) eating fish on Friday was originally established to help the Italian fishing industry centuries ago.

Am I wrong about these issues?

For 1 - the children of priests didn’t inherit church property. They would inherit family funds. Family estates were always separate from the priestly

2. regarding fish and fisherman, it is a total myth — “Many people have searched the Vatican archives on this, but they have found nothing,” says Brian Fagan, a professor emeritus of archaeology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose book, Fish On Friday, explores the impact of this practice on Western culture.

Technically, it’s the flesh of warmblooded animals that’s off limits — an animal “that, in a sense, sacrificed its life for us, if you will,” explains Michael Foley, an associate professor at Baylor University and author of Why Do Catholics Eat Fish On Friday?

Fish are coldblooded, so they’re considered fair game.

And as the number of meatless days piled up on the medieval Christian calendar — not just Fridays but Wednesdays and Saturdays, Advent and Lent, and other holy days — the hunger for fish grew. Indeed, fish fasting days became central to the growth of the global fishing industry. But not because of a pope and his secret pact.

At first, says Fagan, Christians’ religious appetite was largely met with herring, a fish that was plentiful but dry and tasteless when smoked or salted. And preservation was a must in medieval times: There was no good way for fresh fish to reach the devout masses. Eventually, cod became all the rage — it tasted better when cured and it lasted longer, too.

The Vikings were ace at preserving cod — they “used dried and salted cod as a form of beef jerky on their ocean passages,” Fagan says. And the route the Vikings took at the end of the first millennium — Greenland, Iceland, Newfoundland — matches up with the natural range of the Atlantic cod.

Back to #1 - to detail:

Priests: do not take a vow of poverty, may own things, and may leave them to whomever they wish.

Monks, nuns, and other religious give UP EVERYTHING voluntarily for the Kingdom of God, and thus do not own any world goods when they die.

Monks can become priests, and you have “friars” who you could consider monks-lite like the Franciscans and Jesuits but you have a lot of diocesan priests who aren’t monks

Interesting Providence.

This morning I spent my entire QT in Paul's greeting to Titus.

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;
To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. Titus 1:1-4 (emphasis added to save the rapid reader)

Here's a preview of what I might reach tomorrow (or perhaps Saturday):

One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. Titus 1:12-14 (emphasis added to save the rapid reader)

God is Good and His Word is True.

Priests: do not take a vow of poverty, may own things, and may leave them to whomever they wish.

That's true.

As a child Catholic*, I remember how important it was for Frs. Dignan and O'Connell to get over to Pimlico after the Saturday ("meet your 'Sunday obligation'") Mass.

They shared a Caddy.

.......

*
"I got better"

1. That Jesus is God and part of the Trinity Godhead - this puts to lie the Jehovah’s witnesses, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostal concepts

Yes, that is established in the light of Scripture, comparing the texts at issue, which manifests that the Lord Jesus - whom unique Divine attributes, titles and glory are ascribed - is God by nature with the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is a person, and separable from God. 2. That baptism is part of the salvation process and key - not just symbolic

No, that the act itself of baptism effects regeneration (presuming proper intent, form and formula on the part of the baptizer) even without the Biblical requirements of wholehearted repentant faith (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) is not the gospel which the apostles preached.

What the Bible teaches is that the redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith (Acts 10:43-47; Acts 15:7-9) in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account , rendering them "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6; Eph. 2:6-9) - not deserved by any merit of themselves or any church.

For this faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) rendering one to be considered positionally righteousness, “justified” in God’s sight, and (as a result) this is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb. 12:22, 23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God.

In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39)

The main difference on this versus Catholicism is that the latter believes in salvation by actually becoming good enough (via the act itself of baptism, and then via sacramentally aided attainment and - for most, Purgatory) to actually be with/see God in Heaven.

3. That the Eucharist is a key part of the salvation process and that it is the true Body and blood of Christ

Wrong again. The Catholic rendering of the words of Christ at the last supper fail from being literal, in which case "this is My Body" would refer what looked, felt, tasted etc. as human flesh would, and which manifest physicality is what Scripture emphasizes regarding the true Christ in opposing a christ whose appearance does not correspond to what He physically was.

Since Catholic priests cannot confect a literal body (neither are claimed "Eucharistic miracles" not with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means, this necessitated the contrived doctrine of transubstantiation, with its christ whose appearance, etc. also does not correspond to what He physically was in His incarnation, yet.

And which relates to another basic Catholic practice, that of mostly treating the gospels as self-interpreting in this case, rather than interpreting the gospels in the light of Acts thru Revelation, which best reveals how the NT church understood the OT and the gospels.

In which only the metaphorical understanding of the Lord's supper easily conforms to Scripture.

However, if one want to actually attempt to defend Eucharistic theology, then they face challenges such as,

1. Where in all of Scripture did Jesus Christ appear as an inanimate object0

2. Where in Scripture is the manifest physicality of Christ emphasized as establishing who the real Christ was, in contrast to one whose bodily appearance did not correspond to what He physically was? (Is. 53; Lk. 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 4:2; 5:6,8)

3. Where in all of Scripture did the words of the Lord's supper necessarily teach that the body that "is broken" and the blood that is shed, appeared as bread and wine, rather than literally appearing as the manifestly physical flesh and blood that He would be crucified with? 0

4. Where in Scripture is actual water referred to as blood, and thus poured out unto the Lord, and bread referred to as food for the people of God, and the body of Christ as the church being bread? (2 Samuel 23:16-17; Num. 14:9; 1 Corinthians 10:17)

5. Where in all of Scripture is spiritual life obtained by literally physically consuming anything? 0

6. Where in Acts and the apostles teaching in the NT (these being interpretive of the gospels) is spiritual life obtained by hearing and effectually believing the gospel of the grace of God? Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

7. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship? 0

8. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by sharing a meal together (which effectually evidences remembrance) without literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship?? (1 Corinthians 10:20) (1 Cor. 10,11 )

9. Where are distinctive Greek words for a separate class of sacerdotal believers (hiereus; archiereus; hieráteuma) distinctively used for NT pastors? 0

10. Where is a distinctive Greek word (hieráteuma) for a separate class of sacerdotal believers used for all believers? (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

11. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or uniquely exampled conducting the Lord's supper and offering it up as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food? Esp. with that being a unique active function of them? 0

12. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or exampled as preaching the Word and feeding the flock with the Word, which is what is called spiritual food ("milk," "meat") by which they are nourished? (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2 ;1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32

The Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper is just one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Of course, I am quite sure you have seen reproof of such Catholic apologetical propaganda, by the grace of God, though you yet persist in parroting it.