Rather, i answered your false dilemma question, and it is you who continually have avoided answering the most fundamental question out of which premise all your argumentation flows!
The NT does not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church. It only provides scant details.
It need not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church, which absurd requirement is a desperate attempt to justify a critical aspect of a most cardinal doctrine but which the Scripture does not evidence, and which attempt reduces your already low view of Scripture.
With the Eucharist being the "source and summit" of the Christian faith, around which sacrament all else revolves, do you really think the Holy Spirit, who is faithful to record multitudes of notable details including the ordination and duties of OT priests, and even a whole chapter on the use of tongues in a church meeting, would not at least show or describe in Acts onward, NT pastors primary duty as being consecrating bread and wine and giving it to the multitudes, conveying spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the gospels? When instead He shows and teaches that their main duty is to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word"? (Acts 6:4)
And never says a word to them about feeding the flock with anything but by preaching, setting that forth as their primary function, thus charging Timothy to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2) And not saying a word to him or others about their duty to consecrate transformed bread and wine?
And by which word they themselves are "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine." (1Tim. 4:6) Meanwhile, in the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the NT church, (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's Supper shows the Lord's death by the unselfish considerate manner in which the members partake of the communal meal, manifesting the love for each other Christ showed in giving Himself for the church, which thus shows their unity with the Lord and thus with each other. With failure to do so constituting a failure to recognize the church as the body of Christ, made of up many members.
Moreover, rather than the Spirit only providing scant details, if you read more of Scripture you should see there is quite a bit, from the qualifications of pastors to ordaining others, to exercising discipline, to prayer, teaching and preaching, etc. what they did, which i can show if needed. It is your distinctively titled "priests" and their primary Cath. function that is missing.
learly the Presbyters in James Letter were charged with doing more than what the presbyters were in Paul’s pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. We have already had this discussion. Which one is normative, or does it reflect an uneven development that occurred at various apostolic Churches.
Contrary to your postulated contradiction on which one is normative , Scripture complements Scripture, and in the totality of NT church record prayer and preaching is what is normative, as all need that, which only a relative few would need intercessory prayer by pastors, which is also enjoined upon all that they may be healed by effectual fervent prayer of the righteous.
And in another contrast with Rome, what was manifestly normative was that NT pastors and apostles were married.
No I take Christ word that the Gates of hell would not prevail and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church
And God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it, provide Truth and preserve faith, and thus the church as the body of Christ has been preserved, though the visible manifestation has never been perfect, as the church itself began in dissent from a magisterium which presumed of itself above that which was written. Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, but this deformation was progressive, and as now, some souls could see thru the trappings of her institutionalized nature and find Christ by faith out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, coming to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trust Him to save by His sinless shed blood, and so live 4 Him. Thanks be to God.
I am happy you are happy. Now run along. I have said what I said before, I reject the heresy of sola scriptura and I will not analyze Catholic Doctrine from your protestant paradigm. End of the discussion
I don't want this tidbit to get away, because in speaking of origin, I think the Communion itself is the distilled blessing from the greater Agape feast, and that the feast should be brought forward to bear here. The function is not meant to be a stylized rite, but rather, the dinner table itself... The family of YHWH gathered around the dinner table.
There can hardly be a more fitting place for a family to gather together than around the table, and the evidence of that is shown around the world every single evening. The solemnity of the Communion blessing is as out-of-place without that table as 'saying grace' in the shower. And quite a bit (off the cuff, I would rather say 'all') of the governance concerning Communion reflects the table, not the blessing: Don't be a drunkard, don't be a pig, sit and participate worthily... These same conditions are at my own dinner table in my own house! People are excused and sent away for disrupting the peace of that table, that place of unity, joy, and love. I allow no argument there. No acting out. It is a place for family to remember that they ARE family!
This purpose has been lost - The function of Communion has become very personalized (which indeed, it should be). But much of it's meaning has been buried in rite. While it should be personal, when the blessing is over and one raises one's head and opens one's eyes, one should be able to look at the many, many brothers and sisters up and down the table, and know one has a seat there among the smiling faces of kith and kin. This is done better at the potluck after the service (as it began), rather than in the service itself - Then it's purpose would remain clear.