"Scripture conveys Tradition, just as Tradition reflects all that Scripture is." That's not the same thing as saying the scripture is equivalent to a liturgical handbook.
I mean, just in your example we have a liturgical practice (baptism by triple immersion) that has no direct link with scripture. Just because we baptize under the three persons of the Trinity doesn't mean you have to physically do the act three times.
And we use wine and water, not just wine, and this also is supported by ancient witnesses to be apostolic and catholic.
What funeral rite is there in the bible? What wedding? This position makes no sense.
//
The canons are a clear witness as are basically numberless writings of the fathers that this is the practice of the entire church. This is the very definition of Catholic, universal. Bishops ordain priests and deacons. There's no reason to overturn centuries of consistent teaching.
There are other canons of Nicaea show a clear church hierarchy. Excommunication in canon 5 is solely regarded as the area of a bishop. Canon 20 mentions ordination by Bishops. Chalcedon in 451 Canon 2 precludes bishops from ordaining for money, which presumes that only bishops may ordain.
But I only cited the ecumenical councils because they are a witness to widespread practice. St Clement of Rome (27-97) spoke of St Peter ordaining one bishop with many presbyters and deacons at Laodicea. St Ignatius (50-117) notes a distinction between bishops and deacons in his letter to the Magnesians and to the Trallians going as far as saying "without these, it cannot be called a church". St Clement of Alexandria (150-215) notes the distinctions between priests, bishops, and deacons in the Paedagogus and Stromata. St Cyprian of Carthage (200-270) notes that the power of loosing in binding went from the apostles to the Churches and to the bishops who succeeded them by ordination. Eusebius (265-340) speaks exclusively of ordination by bishops. St Athanasius (296-373) tells a monk who is not accepting to become a bishop that if everyone thought or acted as he did "how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?" St Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) notes the separate offices of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Blessed Theodoret (393-457) notes "all the bishops of a province are ordered to be convened; again no ordination of a bishop is permitted to take place without three bishops".
Hippolytus writes in 215 "In the ordination of a deacon, only the bishop lays on his hand, because the deacon is not ordained to the priesthood, but to the service of the bishop, to do that which he commands. For he is not part of the council of the clergy, but acts as a manager, and reports to the bishop what is necessary. He does not receive the spirit common to the elders, which the elders share, but that which is entrusted to him under the bishop's authority. This is why only the bishop makes a deacon. Upon the elders, the other elders place their hands because of a common spirit and similar duty. Indeed, the elder has only the authority to receive this, but he has no authority to give it. Therefore he does not ordain to the clergy. Upon the ordination of the elder he seals; the bishop ordains."
As far as apostolic succession, St Basil writes of the Cathari schismatics "But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain."
St Jerome is a poor choice to use to attack the three-tiered clergy. If you interpret his comments that bishops and priests are the same office and differ only in age or administrative dignity, then we would expect that same saint to agree that priests and bishops have the same powers, that it's not necessary but based on circumstance, and that he would support it by showing things like... prestbyters ordaining people in the Church history.
St Jerome
says "For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position...For what function,
excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?" And goes on to say that all bishops are successors to the Apostles. What St Jerome was writing against deacons overstepping their place. If you read his letter critically, you see that the flow is something like...
1. Deacons are being ranked above priests.
2. Bishops are always above deacons.
3. Presbyters and bishops were once the same office
4. Then, if priests can be equal to bishops, priests are always above deacons.
In that same letter, he finishes by saying that the three offices are in fact an apostolic tradition. "In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple." That is, high priest, priest, deacons. The high priest did something different in the temple than the priests did, had a different role and responsibilities not just administrative but before God.
Put another way, what St Jerome is saying is that Christ instituted the priesthood, but the apostles divided the priesthood into two offices. He's not saying the bishop isn't superior, but that the superiority is small compared with the differences between deacons (established by apostles) and priests (established by Christ).
Further, note what St Jerome does
not say about priests and bishops -- that the presbyters ordain the bishop from themselves. Nope. Just that they picked. Someone else (bishops, as he notes) had to ordain.
