Hello, I'm new here. Currently studying and going back and forth between Lutheranism and Anglicanism, and my knowledge of church history isn't all that great I'm afraid - yet at least. What are all your thoughts of this quote from St. Ambrose? My roman Catholic friend brought it up to prove that Ambrose believed in a Roman Primacy. Would you say this proves it? "Tfw you realize St. Ambrose didn’t differentiate between Catholic bishops and the Roman Church, “He called the bishop to him [...] enquiring whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?” (Oratione de obitu Satyri)" The actual quote is from here. It was his oration to the death of his brother: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34031.htm
Why does it matter what St. Ambrose believed? I am sure there are many saints you can cite who also believed in the primacy of the papacy. The majority of Catholic-canonised saints are white, male and a significant number were bishops. I presume all, or the very great majority, of Catholic bishops alive today believe in the primacy of the papacy. What it boils down to is what's in the Gospels. Nowehere do they tell us Christ charged St. Peter with establishing anything closely resembling the papacy we see today.
It's not necessarily a matter of me caring. I was hoping to give him a response more or less. He's quoting Ambrose because he knows a great many of Lutherans and Anglicans cite him often.
Saint Ambrose is certainly very significant, but let's remember that any efforts to prove the Papacy in the early Church will be doomed to failure, since the vast majority of the Fathers declared that the faith of Peter, and not his person (much less the succession from his person) was the cornerstone of the Church. The Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed rebuke the Bishops of Rome very strongly. An early version of the Papacy first emerges with Leo I, and even then is rebuked by centuries of Bishops and Councils, before it solidifies in the 8th century. That being said, of course there were a few Fathers that did make high Roman statements: the error of the Papacy had to get its start somewhere, right? And the question here is, does that statement from St. Ambrose serve as one of those statements. The simple answer is: No. Here is how St. Ambrose would have meant his own statement, without futile Romanist apologetics: the Catholic Church was, and is, divided into Provinces. For example in St. Ambrose's era, you had the Church of France, the Church of Africa, the Church of England, the Church of Rome/Italy, etc. St. Augustine and St. Cyprian were in the Church of Africa; St. Cyprian is a famous case of a bishop who rebuked the bishops of Rome for their usurpations, and kicked out their representatives. Now the difference is, St. Ambrose was the bishop of Milan, but Milan was not its own Province. It was considered a part of the Church of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome was the primate and metropolitan. As for example, in England the Archbishop of Canterbury is the primate and metropolitan, so for Ambrose, the See of Rome was the see of the metropolitan of the Church of Rome. As for England, the primary reference point would be Canterbury, so for Ambrose in Milan, the primary reference point was in Rome. He could still do that, because the Bishops of Rome did not yet fall into heresies, as they would shortly after the writing of this letter. Philip Schaff, the original editor and translator of the letter, adds this to the passage you quoted: "At this time there was no doubt concerning the faith of the Roman Church, as there would have been later under Liberius and Honorius." https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210/npnf210/Page_168.html So it's perfectly normal, in fact necessary, that St. Ambrose measured the Church in his vicinity by his own particular primate and metropolitan, as was similarly done with Canterbury for England, and with other Provinces and their respective Metropolitans. But here are other statements from St. Ambrose, where he firmly states that it's Peter's faith, not his person, that is the cornerstone of the Church. This makes St. Ambrose the denier of the Papacy. St. Ambrose, "The Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke" Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’... Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’... Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)... Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you. -Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4 Saint Ambrose, "The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord" This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him; the Father revealed it to him. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father, received it from the Father, did not receive it from the flesh. .. Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 83-84 There is no question then that Ambrose honored the Roman see, but there are other texts which seem to establish a certain distance and independence as well. He commented, for example, that Peter’s primacy was a primacy of confession, not of honor; a primacy of faith, not rank The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 1996), pp. 62-66). Where you have that right confession you have Peter. This is explicitly stated for example by Chrysostom. Like Ambrose, he says that where Peter is there is the Church in the sense of Peter’s confession and he applies it not to Rome but to Antioch: ‘Though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter’
Incidentally, New Advent is a Roman Catholic site. When a quote of some early writing from that site is cited to prove a point favorable to the RCC, be aware that the site will choose the translation most favorable to the RCC. Thus I usually try to find elsewhere the same writing by a different translator, and compare the translations. Oftentimes the 'favorable point' does not hold up under close scrutiny.
Actually, New Advent uses the Protestant translations that were done in the late 19th century (edited by Schaff), and which are now public domain. The other main series of translations of patristic writings was done by the Catholic University of America some decades ago.
Yes and no. Yes they will certainly use whatever is free and in the public domain. But they will also suppress anything unfavorable to their agenda, such as the above anti-Roman footnote from Schaff, which I recovered by going to the original 19th century text. I highly recommend CCEL.org, which contains the complete and unedited texts from Philip Schaff himself (and many others): https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210/npnf210/Page_iii.html Google Books is also pretty good. But overall what I tell people is just to read the Fathers themselves. Don't rely even on Schaff (and certainly not on the Romans), or any other intermediary text that 'explains' them to you. The filter and seduction of propaganda is just too strong, and the modern commentators will always add something of their own agenda. Rome is particularly guilty of this, where start with the patently anti-Roman Church Fathers, and 'massage' the text until they make the Fathers be ardent Romanists. You'll be shocked by how much the Church Fathers espoused concepts like sola fide, sola scriptura, the 2 sacraments, anti-papalism, and many other non-Roman concepts. It will be shocking to you, if you read the fathers themselves without an intermediary. These days, you shouldn't trust any filter, or any 'authority'. Just pick up an edition of St. Ambrose and enjoy his wonderful mind for yourself. It's far more worthwhile than basically any modern theologian I can think of.