That is reserved to the priests – ‎כֹהֵ֖ן  ἱερεὺς. The only office of priests in the NT is reserved to Jesus as the High Priest ‎הַכֹּהֵ֣ן הַגָּדֹל  ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας / ἀρχιερέυς  and he was a priest of the order of Melchizek (not Levitical), and to the “royal priesthood” (βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα (1 Pet. 2:9 BGT) as part of the “holy nation, a people for God’s own possession.”

The problem comes for English in that the word priest derives in once instance and sense from presbyter  / זָקֵן πρεσβύτερος who is an elder from any tribe and who serves no sacerdotal function. It also derives from the classic words for priest כֹהֵ֖ן  ἱερεὺς (kohen and hiereus).

In most catholic apologetics this is either willfully or ignorantly conflated which has led to confusion on both sides of the issue.

The necessity of altering the definition of the word זָקֵן / πρεσβύτερος and endow it with the defintion of כֹהֵ֖ן  ἱερεὺς is given a laboring and lengthy exposition on Called to Communion’s web site –

(https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/05/holy-orders-and-the-priesthood/#footnote_9_4667)

Their conclusion lays it out –  

“We have argued first that

the mission of the Church is to save souls,

souls are saved by grace,

and grace is received through the sacraments.

Therefore the sacraments are integral to the mission of the Church.”

They are essentially arguing that “you can’t be saved without the sacraments and the sacraments are administered by one who holds a sacerdotal office and so we had to change the meaning of the word to maintain the necessity of our position and authority.” All that to say that there position is that salvation is not by grace through faith but rather through the performance of the works of the sacraments administered by (or overseen) by a “כֹהֵ֖ן ἱερεὺς.”

The word change is necessitated by the need to maintain an office of authority no where found in the NT.