In what order did each church appear?

[Matthew_P]

“It is not advisable to extrapolate quotes and use them in isolation in order to bolster favoured doctrines -a well established technique of the Protestants”

That is very true all Protestants of the Orthodox faith are capable of that tactic as it is very necessary to substantiate those things that do not represent the fullness of the Truth and the Orthodox Catholic Church and Apostolic faith. Recently I have heard of Protestants who protest strongly against the Latin Church say that the numerical Latin title Vicar of the Son of God in Latin adds up to the number mentioned in the Book of Revelation. The Latins acknowledge that it does and deny such attacks by stating that Vicar of the Son of God (“Vicarius Filii Dei”) in Latin is not the same as the official title “Vicar of Christ” even though one could say they mean the same thing I suppose. Well thanks be to God the Orthodox Church doesn’t concern herself with such things insofar as we are not ignorant and are guided by the Truth. For the the record so our dear Latin brothers have a stronger defense than that which is articulated in books like Pope Fiction I forget the authors name some ancient text read 667 and 616. Furthermore in Orthodox Patristic thought the right hand is symbolic of action and the forehead symbolic of thought. So the charges of mentioning the Papal miter with “Vicar of the Son of GOD” could be lessened in that way I suppose. Strange groups some of those Protestants.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

It is not advisable to extrapolate quotes and use them in isolation in order to bolster favoured doctrines -a well established technique of the Protestants.

By taking the quote out of context (it is in Saint Ambrose’s Commentary on the Twelve Psalms of David) and using it in the way you have presented it, it immediately looses any sense.

You want it to mean that “where Rome is, there is the Church.” because you want to equate the authority given to Peter with the bishops of Rome. So what does that mean? That Rome is the Church and only Rome? So, what about Athens? What about Milan? What about Venice? These are not the Church?!! Peter is not there in Athens and Milan and Venice?!

The only way to understand the quote and to make sense of it is to place it in the full context of what Saint Ambrose believed. He believes that EVERY bishop is Peter, and so what he is really saying is: wherever you find a bishop you find Peter and you find the Church (precisely what Saint Irenaeus teaches us too.) So the quote, when it is restored to its proper context is in full accord with the big-O Orthodox understanding and provides no support for the modern idea of a papacy focused in Rome.

I can balance the distortion of Saint Ambrose’s teaching by offering a balancing quote, but the best thing is to sit down with his written works and read them and gain an overall view of his theology."The gift of the keys was not bestowed on St. Peter personally or exclusively, but as the representative of the apostles and of all Catholic bishops descending from them.”

---

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
Tá Críost ar éirígh! Go deimhin, tá Sé ar éirígh!

The proper meaning of the quote is that the Church is founded on Peter and that Church can only have validity if it has communion with Peter’s successors.

Rome was not the meaning.

Rome just happened to be the city consecrated by the blood of two Titans of Faith, two imminent Apostles. It could have been any city, it just so happened to be Rome.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear Steve b,

You are introducing a narrow and overly negative understanding of bias. When a teacher wishes to teach the history of England she will refer to the history of France and Spain only insofar as it impacts on the history of England. Extraneous French and Spanish history will be left out. So she has a bias towards English history in her teaching programme.

The use of the word bias carries the same meaning in the note for the timeline. It does not mean that the timeline is false or intended to deceive, no more than the teacher’s English history lesson.

---

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
Tá Críost ar éirígh! Go deimhin, tá Sé ar éirígh!

A narrow and negative understanding? I don’t think so. Just look at the definition.
Bent, tendency b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : Prejudice c : an instance of such prejudice **d **(1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

By definition, the author bent facts, used unreasoned judgement, deviated from the expected outcome to introduced systematic error by encouraging an outcome not supported by the evidence.
How you say?

1. Ignatius, first century bishop, says, “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
2. Ignatius writes to 6 Churches, all are Catholic. Smyrnean Catholic, Trallian Catholic, Philladelphian Catholic, etc etc, and yes Roman Catholic. Catch that?
3. The Church of Rome is the the only Church Ignatius says holds the status of presider. No doubt because this is the chair of Peter, and Clement of Rome has already been involved in the inner workings of the Corinthian Church in settling their sedition.
4. So, when the author of the timeline says, the Roman Catholic Church began in 1045, he’s got no credability. Who needs bias like that? I sure don’t. Besides to the ignorant and unstable, it’s deceitful.
5. When he says his work is “neccessarily biased towards the Orthodox Church” I know exactly what he means and where he’s going with his conclusions. I would reject an author who says he’s biased in favor of the Catholic Church too especially If I’m trying to make a solid case that needs to withstand the highest scrutiny. I don’t need biased information, because it usually doesn’t stand up during cross examination. It’s like bogus footnotes. A text can be perfectly clear on its own, yet some yahoo might insert a footnote completely contradicting the plain meaning of the text in order to insert their own pholemic. No thanks.

I will give him one cudo. At least he admitted his bias.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

By definition, the author bent facts, used unreasoned judgement, deviated from the expected outcome to introduced systematic error by encouraging an outcome not supported by the evidence.
How you say?

If he did those things, he is a total idiot. Thank goodness that you were sharp enough not to be taken in by him. Is there a way of contacting him via the website? It would be a kindness if you told him how false and biased he and his website really are.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

It is not advisable to extrapolate quotes and use them in isolation in order to bolster favoured doctrines -a well established technique of the Protestants.

By taking the quote out of context (it is in Saint Ambrose’s Commentary on the Twelve Psalms of David) and using it in the way you have presented it, it immediately looses any sense.

St Ambrose is a Doctor of the Church. When you compare what he writes not just in this commentary, there is no conflict of meaning.
Fr Ambrose:

You want it to mean that “where Rome is, there is the Church.” because you want to equate the authority given to Peter with the bishops of Rome. So what does that mean? That Rome is the Church and only Rome? So, what about Athens? What about Milan? What about Venice? These are not the Church?!! Peter is not there in Athens and Milan and Venice?!

keep reading
Fr Ambrose:

The only way to understand the quote and to make sense of it is to place it in the full context of what Saint Ambrose believed. He believes that EVERY bishop is Peter, and so what he is really saying is:wherever you find a bishop you find Peter and you find the Church (precisely what Saint Irenaeus teaches us too.) So the quote, when it is restored to its proper context is in full accord with the big-O Orthodox understanding and provides no support for the modern idea of a papacy focused in Rome.

1. Every Bishop is NOT Peter.
2. Irenaeus said " Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this,** I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;** as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6** that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.**
   [*]The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren In the time ofat Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles,…" [Book III, Ch 3, vs 2-3]
   

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#TopOfPage

As a note, I left footnote 6 operative. Just click on it. Recall our brief discussion on bias? Here’s a classic example of it! As Schaff , a Protestant said, this was a difficult teaching for him. Gee I wonder why? Ignatius said the Church of Rome presided. It’s the same idea. But being a Calvin College site, footnotes and commentaries is a perfect place where Protestants can insert bias into footnotes and commentary of the ECF’s.
Fr Ambrose:

I can balance the distortion of Saint Ambrose’s teaching by offering a balancing quote, but the best thing is to sit down with his written works and read them and gain an overall view of his theology."The gift of the keys was not bestowed on St. Peter personally or exclusively, but as the representative of the apostles and of all Catholic bishops descending from them.”

---

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
Tá Críost ar éirígh! Go deimhin, tá Sé ar éirígh!

Who is that quote from?

 

[Sarah_Jane]

"The gift of the keys was not bestowed on St. Peter personally or exclusively, but as the representative of the apostles and of all Catholic bishops descending from them.”
​

​

“For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 22)

​

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

“Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal”
St Ambrose of Milan 381 A.D

I was going to reply to you, as regards this decontextualised quote from Saint Ambrose and your further quotes with a slew of other quotes from him which would provide a balance. But then we would have reached the profitless stage of simply swapping quote for quote and, to be frank, I have too much respect for my patron Saint to humilate him in such a way.

So instead I am going to provide a small paragraph from the Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno. He addresses this quote in the context of Saint Ambrose’s writings.

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…

Finally, one further text should be mentioned in connection with Ambrose since it is a text which like Roma locuta est has become something of a shibboleth or slogan. This is the brief phrase from his commentary on the fortieth Psalm: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the Church)…As Roger Gryson has shown, in his study on Ambrose and the priesthood, the context of such a statement has nothing to do with any treatise on ecclesiology. It is but one statement in a long chain of allegorical exegesis starting with the line from Ps. 41:9: ‘Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted…has lifted his heel against me.’ This is not to deny the fairly common association of Peter as the symbol of the Church, the figura ecclesiae we have seen in Augustine. But it says little that is new and nothing at all about papal authority.
~Robert Eno, *The Rise of the Papacy *, pub.1990.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Who is that quote from?

Saint Ambrose of Milan

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Fr Ambrose:

I So instead I am going to provide a small paragraph from the Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno. He addresses this quote in the context of Saint Ambrose’s writings.

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…

Finally, one further text should be mentioned in connection with Ambrose since it is a text which like Roma locuta est has become something of a shibboleth or slogan. This is the brief phrase from his commentary on the fortieth Psalm: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the Church)…As Roger Gryson has shown, in his study on Ambrose and the priesthood, the context of such a statement has nothing to do with any treatise on ecclesiology. It is but one statement in a long chain of allegorical exegesis starting with the line from Ps. 41:9: ‘Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted…has lifted his heel against me.’ This is not to deny the fairly common association of Peter as the symbol of the Church, the figura ecclesiae we have seen in Augustine. But it says little that is new and nothing at all about papal authority.

~Robert Eno, *The Rise of the Papacy *, pub.1990.

"Sorry Mr. Eno, honor is a big word, and St. Ambrose did more than just give Rome a nod when it suited his purposes. So, we have an opinion of historian that some suggest is quite a liberal historian, who is, in the name of ecumenism, seemingly willing to give away the store simply to “get along”. What do other scholars say? I provide a few in Upon this Rock, but I will add them here again for convenience. “Miller writes, ‘Peter was the chief, the head of the apostles. According to St. Ambrose, Peter was personally the rock upon which Christ built the Church. The bishop of Milan, convinced that the responsibility given to Peter was transmitted to his successors on the cathedra at Rome, was also the first to draw together coherently the three Petrine texts of Matthew, Luke, and John. By the middle of the fourth century, the see of Peter became more simply ‘the apostolic see’ without comparison—as if no others worth mentioning existed” (The Shepherd and the Rock, 82).”

Luke Rivington wrote, “[St. Ambrose] considered that [Pope] Damasus sat in the chair of Peter, and he held Peter to be the rock in Matthew 16 and taught that from the Church of Rome ‘the rights of venerable communion flow to all’” (The Primitive Church and the See of Rome [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1894], pg. 242).

Stanley Jaki writes in The Keys of the Kingdom, “A chapter later (12:11), in reflecting on the factions among the Corinthians, Ambrose reminded them that John the Baptist obtained no power over Jesus by baptizing him. To this corrective to the Corinthians’ infatuation with the order in which various persons baptized them, Ambrose added the almost incidental remark which has the incisiveness of an entire treatise: “Andrew preceded Peter in following Christ and yet not Andrew but Peter received the primacy.’ Just as unplanned should seem the comment, soon a famed dictum, which the passage “and the persecutors fell down backward” (Ps 40:15) prompted Ambrose to make. It would have been clearly enough for Ambrose’s purpose to recall that Judas and other persecutors of Jesus drew back and fell to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemani.

But Ambrose went on:

“ ‘The persecutor falls to the ground and into hell. Christ [falls] on the risen, Christ falls on the rock, Christ falls on the Church. Hear how Christ falls on the Church! In the background was Peter who followed him as he was led by the Jews to the house of Caiaphas, the head of the Synagogue. Peter is the one to whom he said: “You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church.” *Where Peter is, there is the Church; where the Church is, there is no death, but eternal life *Ubi ergo Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi nulla mors, sed vita aeterna]. And therefore he added: “And the gates of hell do not prevail over it, and I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Blessed [is that] Peter, over whom the gates of hell do not prevail, and before whom the door of heaven does not shut itself; on the contrary he destroyed the vestibules of hell, opened the celestial ones. Being placed on earth, he opened the heaven, closed the hell. There was in all this not a hint that what performed those stupendous deeds was Peter’s faith and not Peter himself (Italics added).” "

Webster Stumbles “Upon this Rock”, Part 9: St. Ambrose
by Steve Ray

 

[StMarkEofE]

Eastern Orthodox Catholic 101:

All Bishops are Peter.

StMarkEofE

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Sarah Jane:

By the middle of the fourth century, the see of Peter became more simply ‘the apostolic see’ without comparison—as if no others worth mentioning existed” (The Shepherd and the Rock, 82).”

Does this not reveal the bias of the man writing? He is so blinkered that he has forgotten that there were (are still are) major apostolic sees in the East.

Does he think that Jerusalem had forgotten her apostolic origin by the mid fourth century? Does he think that Alexandria had renounced her apostolic origin, or Antioch, or Athens, or Thessalonica, or Ephesus, or Cyprus, or Crete, or Smyrna or…etc., etc. In the mid fourth century all these sees took a legitimate pride in being apostolic sees. Only a man totally blinkered and narrowly focused on Western Europe could make such an historical howler While such misconceptions remain rife in the Roman Catholic Church and are perpetuated by writers such as Miller the dialogue with the Orthodox will not be easy.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Fr Ambrose:

Does this not reveal the bias of the man writing? He is so blinkered that he has forgotten that there were (are still are) major apostolic sees in the East.

Maybe. But we can say the same for you. You are so blinkered that you don’t see the evidence for the primacy of Peter and the primacy of the Church of Rome.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Sarah Jane:

Maybe. But we can say the same for you.:

No, there’s no comparison. I am a nobody who likes to participate on this Forum and debate with others here. Miller puts himself forward as an authority, writes books which claim to be historical fact, and people accept his errors as truth, just as you yourself did.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Fr Ambrose:

No, there’s no comparison. I am a nobody who likes to participate on this Forum and debate with others here. Miller puts himself forward as an authority, writes books which claim to be historical fact, and people accept his errors as truth, just as you yourself did.

Write a book!

 

[StMarkEofE]

Sarah Jane:

Maybe. But we can say the same for you. You are so blinkered that you don’t see the evidence for the primacy of Peter and the primacy of the Church of Rome.

The problem is that Rome saw her primacy as something different than the Patriarchates of the East did. When the west tried imposing her thoughts on the East the East just shrugged her shoulders and assumed that Rome was just boasting. You see, primacy today is a form of Supremacy and not what was during the first millenium. This can be attributed to the “development of doctrine” which is so accepted now in the west. The church in Rome was but another see of an Apostle as is the other Patriarchates. The Eastern bishops were very confused when Rome tried imposing her rules on them because this was not the norm but the exception. Rome self imposed a special place for herself and then tried imposing it on her Eastern brothers and sisters. No wonder we in the east revolted at this idea. Rome became very full of herself and liked it and wanted the other churches to bow to her wishes.

StMarkEofE

 

[Sarah_Jane]

StMarkEofE:

The problem is that Rome saw her primacy as something different than the Patriarchates of the East did. When the west tried imposing her thoughts on the East the East just shrugged her shoulders and assumed that Rome was just boasting. You see, primacy today is a form of Supremacy and not what was during the first millenium. This can be attributed to the “development of doctrine” which is so accepted now in the west. The church in Rome was but another see of an Apostle as is the other Patriarchates. The Eastern bishops were very confused when Rome tried imposing her rules on them because this was not the norm but the exception. Rome self imposed a special place for herself and then tried imposing it on her Eastern brothers and sisters. No wonder we in the east revolted at this idea. Rome became very full of herself and liked it and wanted the other churches to bow to her wishes.

StMarkEofE

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (St.Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 3:3:2)

 

[StMarkEofE]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (St.Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 3:3:2)

Superior origin, if I understand you correctly, had to do with the location of the capital of the Roman Empire which was Rome itself. This is the reason why the Church at the time use Rome as the court of last resort. But when the capital was moved to Byzantium renamed Constatinople or Second Rome this same honor was then bestowed on it. All churches at the time were of Apostolic origin. Peter founded his first see in Antioch. Maybe this should have been the center of Christendom but centers at the time were not looked upon as they are today. Peter and Paul died in Rome this is a fact but this fact does not discount in anyway the other churches as founded by the Apostles. Peter himself would not put himself above the other eleven. He had too much humility. It is only us common folks who attribute this honor and it may be even an embarassment to Peter to assume such.

StMarkEofE

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Peter himself would not put himself above the other eleven. He had too much humility. It is only us common folks who attribute this honor and it may be even an embarassment to Peter to assume such.

Peter don’t put himself above the other eleven. Jesus himself put him above the eleven.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Saint Ambrose of Milan

That’s not good enough. Here’s the quote again

"The gift of the keys was not bestowed on St. Peter personally or exclusively, but as the representative of the apostles and of all Catholic bishops descending from them.”

I couldn’t find it in any of Ambrose’s writings. Do you have the exact reference?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

That’s not good enough. Here’s the quote again

"The gift of the keys was not bestowed on St. Peter personally or exclusively, but as the representative of the apostles and of all Catholic bishops descending from them.”

I couldn’t find it in any of Ambrose’s writings. Do you have the exact reference?

I keep saying that tossing quotes at one another is unproductive. Get hold of some of Saint Ambrose’s writings. And maybe a commentary on him. His thought on the place of the bishop of Rome is a long way from the modern concept of papacy. Reading the Church Fathers takes one back into the mind of the early Church. But beware, it is amazingly similar to modern Orthodox thought!