Evidence of Church heirarchy?

[josephback]

Here’s why I ask. I’ve been looking over a copy of Eusebius’ History of the Church that I bought some time ago and there’s a passage that bewildered me. At the time I was looking for evidence of papal supremacy in the early Church and I circled this passage withy a question mark by it. Here’s an excerpt:

“…Who could ever look inside the surrounding temple buildings, except the great High Priest of the universe, who alone is permitted to search out the secrets of every rational soul.
But perhaps there is one other for whom, alone among equals, it is possible to take the second place after Him. I mean the commander at the head of this army, whom the first and great High Priest Himself has honored with second place in the priestly offices here performed, the shepherd of your spiritual flock, who by the allotment and judgement of the Father was set over your people, as if He had Himself appointed him his votary and interpreter, the new Aaron or Melchizedek, made like the Son of God, abiding and guarded by Him throught he common prayers of you all. Let him be permitted alone after the first and greatest High Priest, if not in the first place at any rate in the second, to see and examine the innermost recesses of your souls; for through long experience he has made a thorough test of every man, and by his enthusiasm and attentiveness he has disposed you all in the order and teaching of true religion…”

Is this the Pope, the individual bishops, the priests, or all three? And does the office of bishop in the Catholic Church depend on the authority and office of the Pope? Catechism references for the second appreciated

 

[codefro]

Sounds more like Christ.

 

[_L]

Here’s why I ask. I’ve been looking over a copy of Eusebius’ History of the Church that I bought some time ago and there’s a passage that bewildered me. At the time I was looking for evidence of papal supremacy in the early Church and I circled this passage withy a question mark by it. Here’s an excerpt:

“…Who could ever look inside the surrounding temple buildings, except the great High Priest of the universe, who alone is permitted to search out the secrets of every rational soul.
But perhaps there is one other for whom, alone among equals, it is possible to take the second place after Him. I mean the commander at the head of this army, whom the first and great High Priest Himself has honored with second place in the priestly offices here performed, the shepherd of your spiritual flock, who by the allotment and judgement of the Father was set over your people, as if He had Himself appointed him his votary and interpreter, the new Aaron or Melchizedek, made like the Son of God, abiding and guarded by Him throught he common prayers of you all. Let him be permitted alone after the first and greatest High Priest, if not in the first place at any rate in the second, to see and examine the innermost recesses of your souls; for through long experience he has made a thorough test of every man, and by his enthusiasm and attentiveness he has disposed you all in the order and teaching of true religion…”

Is this the Pope, the individual bishops, the priests, or all three? And does the office of bishop in the Catholic Church depend on the authority and office of the Pope? Catechism references for the second appreciated

The High Priest is Christ, all authority comes from Christ, it was first delegated to the Apostles among whom Peter is chief.

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s why I ask. I’ve been looking over a copy of Eusebius’ History of the Church that I bought some time ago and there’s a passage that bewildered me. At the time I was looking for evidence of papal supremacy in the early Church and I circled this passage with a question mark by it. Here’s an excerpt:

“…Who could ever look inside the surrounding temple buildings, except the great High Priest of the universe, who alone is permitted to search out the secrets of every rational soul.
But** perhaps** there is one other for whom, alone among equals, it is possible to take the second place after Him. I mean the commander at the head of this army, whom the first and great High Priest Himself has honored with second place in the priestly offices here performed, the shepherd of your spiritual flock, who by the allotment and judgement of the Father was set over your people, as if He had Himself appointed him his votary and interpreter, the new Aaron or Melchizedek, made like the Son of God, abiding and guarded by Him throught he common prayers of you all. Let him be permitted alone after the first and greatest High Priest, if not in the first place at any rate in the second, to see and examine the innermost recesses of your souls; for through long experience he has made a thorough test of every man, and by his enthusiasm and attentiveness he has disposed you all in the order and teaching of true religion…”

Is this the Pope, the individual bishops, the priests, or all three? And does the office of bishop in the Catholic Church depend on the authority and office of the Pope? Catechism references for the second appreciated

"perhaps" is the key word… It is not a sound basis for drawing any conclusions!

 

[josephback]

Sounds more like Christ.

So are both the Father and the Son priests? Otherwise it makes no sense.

 

[tonyrey]

So are both the Father and the Son priests? Otherwise it makes no sense.

Only the Son is the High Priest because the Father did not become a human being…

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Jesus Christ is the High Priest. All other high priests (pontiffs; bishops) and priests supernaturally participate in the single Priesthood of Christ.

Without knowing the context, I would guess Eusebius was talking either about the Pope or about the diocesan bishop, depending on whether he was speaking in terms of a universal order or the local diocesan order. In either case the idea of a sort of second priest immediately beneath the High Priest doesn’t strike me as a very helpful one. At least it could be badly misinterpreted. Eusebius is important because of his antiquity, but I’ve often been rather unimpressed by what I’ve seen of what he actually wrote.

 

[SGWessells]

Here’s why I ask. I’ve been looking over a copy of Eusebius’ History of the Church that I bought some time ago and there’s a passage that bewildered me. At the time I was looking for evidence of papal supremacy in the early Church and I circled this passage withy a question mark by it. Here’s an excerpt:

“…Who could ever look inside the surrounding temple buildings, except the great High Priest of the universe, who alone is permitted to search out the secrets of every rational soul.
But perhaps there is one other for whom, alone among equals, it is possible to take the second place after Him. I mean the commander at the head of this army, whom the first and great High Priest Himself has honored with second place in the priestly offices here performed, the shepherd of your spiritual flock, who by the allotment and judgement of the Father was set over your people, as if He had Himself appointed him his votary and interpreter, the new Aaron or Melchizedek, made like the Son of God, abiding and guarded by Him throught he common prayers of you all. Let him be permitted alone after the first and greatest High Priest, if not in the first place at any rate in the second, to see and examine the innermost recesses of your souls; for through long experience he has made a thorough test of every man, and by his enthusiasm and attentiveness he has disposed you all in the order and teaching of true religion…”

Is this the Pope, the individual bishops, the priests, or all three? And does the office of bishop in the Catholic Church depend on the authority and office of the Pope? Catechism references for the second appreciated

Since it was Eusebius, always trying to curry favor, it may well have been the Emperor Constantine, who presided over the council of Nicaea (at which the Bishop of Rome was not present, though he did send delegates). But that’s just a guess. If you provide a reference (i.e. chapter and section number), we can look at the quote in context.