(As if this gets strongly -- or even weakly -- communicated to the Catholic grassroots...not that the Protestant branches do all that much better, mind you...in either communication, practice, doctrine, policy, and actual fleshing out)
It’s in the catechism. All someone has to do is read it. It’s not about what is communicated so much as whether or not people are willing to do the obvious.
Does presbyter or elder mean priest?
In her effort to conform NT pastors to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism came to render presbuteros” as “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently does: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,” in order to support a distinctive NT sacerdotal priesthood in the church, but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors, nor does the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which He does use for NT pastors mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
This use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy, since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalance.
Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.
The only way NT pastors are called "priests" is by way of inclusion in the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers as they all function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) Jewish elders as a body existed before the priesthood, most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) A priest could be an elder, and could elders exercise some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, but unlike presbuteros and episkopos, the two were not the same in language or in function, as one could be a elder without formally being a priest. It is also understood that even the Latin word (sacerdos) which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter.” Despite the Scriptural distinctions in titles, Rome made the word “presbyteros” (elders) to mean “priest” by way of functional equivalence, reading into Scripture her own theology, supposing that the presbyters engaged in a unique and primary sacrificial function of turning bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ as an expiation for sins, and which is then physically consumed to gain spirtual life. However, the elements used in the commemoration of the Lord death (“the Lord's supper,” and called the “Eucharist” by Catholics) symbolically represent Christ death (see here), just as David figuratively called drinking water the "blood" of men and poured it out on the ground, as it represented the lives of those who risked their own blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) Morever, the sacrifice related to the Lord's supper is that which all communicants are to show by the communal meal is to show, by the unselfish caring for each other in the body which Christ bought with His own sinless shed blood. (Acts 20:28) For despite Rome's centralization of this act as a cardinal doctrine in the life of the church, the only teaching in Acts and onward (and thus interprets the gospels) that clearly refers to the Lord's suppper is that of 1 Cor. 11:19-34, and in which the nature of the elements is not the focus, nor was the sin a failure to recognize them as the transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, but the focus was that of the coporate body of Christ, which unity with Christ some did not recognize (as shown here). Thus formally identifying a distinctive class of Christian clergy as “priests” rather than “presbyters” (elders) is not only grammatically incorrect by it is functionally unwarranted and unscriptural. In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states, No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people. Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description. To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm) Moreover, in addition to Praying to the departed, and the hyper exaltation of and devotion to Mary above that which is written; (1Cor. 4:6) Or that regeneration cannot precede baptism (as some hold), or baptism except to those who could fulfill the stated requirements of hearing, repentance and faith; (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; cf. 8:12; 16:32-34; 19:4,5) Or the Lord's supper being the means by which souls gain life in them, or that not “discerning the body” referred to the elements of the supper versus the church; Or bowing down to icons, or believers bowing down to any other believer, (cf. Acts 10:26) Or an exalted supreme magistrate in Rome (versus warnings against such exaltation: Mt. 23:8; Jude 1:11; 3Jn. 3:9-11; Rv. 2:15) and to whom all the churches were directed to look to, Nor an assured perpetual formulaic magisterial infallibility as per Rome; Or the mention of any successors to the original apostles (such James: Acts 12:2) besides Judas, he being elected to preserve the foundational twelve apostles, (Acts 1:16-26; cf. Rev. 21:14) and that by lots, preventing political maneuverings and things that resulted in extended papal absences (a headless Roman church), and men being chosen who were not even qualified to be church members, let alone successors to Peter. Or a separate class of believers called “saints,” or the mention of the postmortem location of the saints being in purgatory versus with the Lord. (Lk. 24:43; 2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17) Or any pastored Christian bodies being called anything less than a church if they believed and preached the gospel by which men are regenerated, and who are thus baptized by the spirit into the church, (1Cor. 12:13), even when under a separatist pastor, (3Jn. 3:9-11) versus “ecclesia communities” (as Rome refers to evangelical churches as) because they do not subscribe to the unScriptural perpetuated Petrine papacy of Rome and all that which flows from it. Or conversion being the result of intellectual indoctrination and the supremacy of the church in Rome, fostering faith in the church and one's merits for salvation, versus the aforementioned conviction by the Holy Spirit such as true preaching can effect, usually resulting in conversions in the same hour (though preparation can take a lifetime), and thus souls can be saved and spiritually added to the church anywhere, even being left alone in the desert, (Acts 8:26-39; cf. 1Cor. 12:13);