www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The "Mother Church"?

Dear All:

A discussion arose on another board as to whether it is proper for an EC to refer to Rome or Constantinople (or maybe both or niether) as one's "Mother Church."

I have begun this thread for the purposes of this discussion.


Dear Latin Trad:

No one is getting hot under the collar. Just under the riassa. It is summer after all and black can get pretty hot.

Here's what I think. There is no such thing as a "Mother Church" for everybody.

The Church of Constantinople, as I understand it, did not obtain its status based upon a grant of authority from Rome. Nor was it vice-versa. Same with the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc. etc. etc.

Now in the case of the "younger" Churches (for lack of a better term) yes, they did start as an outgrowth of one of the five ancient seats of ecclesiastical power. However, over time, these Churches developed into self-governing bodies and came to stand on equal footing.

Perhaps it's less like a parental relationship than it is a metor/mentee relationship.

The analogy I like to draw is the US and the United Kingdom. We used to be a colony, but now we're "equal" States under International Law. Our laws and customs still bear the mark of British governance, but we are in no way dependent upon the Crown and its government.

Back to the topic at hand. On an individual level, I'm not sure that it is proper to refer to any "Church" except one's own as its "Mother Church." For me, that's the Church of Kyiv. Period.

Now, that's not to say that I or any other UGCC parishioner should not respect the ancient Patriarchate of Constantinople for giving us our Liturgy and Spirituality.

Also, that's not to say that we should not respect the Patriarch of Rome and the distinction the title carries.

Still, to refer to Rome as the "Mother" of any non-Roman Rite Church suggests that ALL the Churches of the world sprang up as outgrowths of Roman governance and the Latin Rite. History shows that that is not how it happened.

Yours,

kl

Very well said, Krylos Leader. I agree.

My question is directed toward the esteemed Administrator: Where has the Most Holy Father implied, directly or indirectly, that the Orthodox Churches are "fully part of" the One Church of Christ. According to Catholic teaching, the One Church of Christ is, wholly and completely, the Catholic Church. If you can reconcile these seemingly opposed theories, I would very much appreciate it. I believe this is what LatinTrad (the other LT on the forum) is asking as well. Thanks and God bless.

Kyrie Eleison,
Logos Teen

Wow,
Touching on these topics are like walking into a minefield. Please forgive me if I speculate a little.

In my opinion, I would say (OK shoot me) that the churches "in total" - all the Apostolic Church of Christ is what one might call Holy Mother the Church.

To say that Rome, or the Roman Catholic church is the "mother church" as if in comparison to a "mother house" of a religious order is incorrect. That would imply that all Christianity derived from Rome.

If any church could claim to be the mother church it would have been Jerusalem, the scene of the Pentecost. All our churches were first planted from the community of Jerusalem gathered there at Pentecost.

Simon Peter himself was bishop "overseer" of Antioch before he went to Rome. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Antioch would have had the best claim as mother church. In fact, her original Liturgy of St James is the oldest extant liturgical rite. The Liturgy of Basil the Great apparently is a derivative of it.

But Antioch probably would not have a sufficient claim either because the Egyptian church probably did not derive from Antioch. All these churches, of great antiquity, are of equal dignity.

Even the catholic communities west and north of Rome were often started as missions from Asia Minor and other points east. Their traditions such as they were did not necessarily derive from the Roman community. Because of the distance from older christian centers and the cultural background of the natives there was a good bit of innovating as well.

Romes importance was two-fold:
(1) it was the seat of government and therefore a place of great commerce and communication with a great deal of traffic. and
(2) Peter went there to work among the converts and to build up the following.

Even as dangerous as it was you could get a letter out of there or into there in a flash. It was a very practical place for Peter to be.

Many of the churches can legitimately claim to predate the Roman community, but none can claim to predate Simon Peter and the others at Pentecost in Jerusalem. It is Peters' teaching authority that is claimed by Rome.

The several other indigenous western churches did not have Patriarchs of their own and looked to Rome as the most orthodox and reliable teaching center available to them in the west.

In practice, all of the churches in the west liberally borrowed from each other early on. Rome at one point borrowed a great deal from the Frankish church (in liturgical terms). It was only later that the latin Rite came to resemble the church we know today and through local councils and unitary decisions of bishops the indigenous practices were gradually abandoned in favor of those adopted at Rome. Even today the monastic communities often maintain liturgical traditions of their own, distinct from the Missa Normativa.

I took the liberty of searching what the CCC says about the churches in the body of Christ. Please note that what I have found gives no priority to the Latin Rite church as such, but to the see of Peter.

805 The Church is the Body of Christ. Through the Spirit and his action in the sacraments, above all the Eucharist, Christ, who once was dead and is now risen, establishes the community of believers as his own Body.

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions." The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

I don't know what the Holy Father has recently said about these things.

Finally, if we were to say for the sake of argument that Byzantine-Slavonic Rite Catholics should have a mother church, it would have to be Constantinople because it is from there that the tradition and liturgy derive. The missions to the Slavic North were launched from there. Even as a Catholic, I would declare the church of Constantinople as my mother church, with which I am unfortunately separated from presently.

Using this same argument, the western rite Orthodox would have Rome as their mother church. With whom they are unfortunately separated.

Just my opinions here.

In Christ,
Michael

CIX!

Michael, that was very well said. I don't agree with it all, but it was well said.

Christians were first called such in Antioch, not Jerusalem or Rome according to St. Paul. But I think there is more to it than just the historical origins.


Dear KL, our Kyivan Church leaders saw the mother church as Greek (Constantinopolitan) which is well documented in the statement of Union of Brest, Article 1: Article 13:
In Slavonic the term "hreko" is used to describe the religion in the articles of Union, not "Kyivskij" or anything like that. And this was 1596, 600+ years into Kyivan Christianity.

I would posit this relationship. Kyiv is a daughter Church of Constantinople, as is Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, etc. But all of these received the faith and liturgical tradition originally from Constantinople. That is the essence of a mother church. She can have many daughters, but there is only one mother in the sense of liturgical and spiritual tradition.

Likewise amongst the Romans, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, all have Rome as their mother church. The Ambrosians would not have Milan as the mother church, but Rome. Likewise the Copts and Ethiopians would have Alexandria as the mother church.

Just some thoughts. As a member of the Kyivan Church I acknowledge that the faith was received to my church in Kyiv, Cherson, Tmutorokan Rus' and elsewhere from Constantinople. While we do have particular Kyivan usages liturgically which have developed at the heart we are still basically following a Constantinopolitan liturgical framework. Many of our existing liturgical usages were shaped by the Great Church (Hagia Sophia), the Studion in Constantinople, St. Sabbas, etc.

As I see it mother church transcends particular church and ethnic boundaries. Mother church is related to the liturgical "home" of the rite used. In our case in the UGCC we say we follow the Byzantine-Constantinopolitan Rite, not the "Kyivan Rite". We have adopted some unique Kyivan usages, but at heart it is still a Constantinopolitan rite.

That is why also I like our title as Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church as this expresses the identity of both the particular and mother church all in one name.

Krylos, thanks for starting the thread.

Michael, you took the words right out of my mouth when you said that the Latin Rite does not have priority as such, but the See of Peter does have priority.

I think the last paragraph of that quotation from the CCC pretty much rules out what the Administrator said on the other thread--that all the Orthodox were "fully part of the One Church."

Regarding the term "Mother Church," I think there has been a little unintentional equivocation. What I was saying on the other thread was that the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church is Mother to all Particular Churches--and sister to none. She is Mother in a univocal sense of the term. It is in *another* sense that Constantinople is the Mother of KHIB, etc.

Happy discussion.

By the way, Krylos, I knew you weren't getting hot under the collar--I just didn't want people to get upset.

LatinTrad

LT, are you saying that the Orthodox were never part of the One Church? Not even before 1054 or 1204? I'm a bit confused. "Communion in sacris" implies just that, communion.

In 1965 Patrtiarch Athenogoras of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI mutually rescinded the excommunications of each other of 1054.

Members of a family are still family when disagreements, divorce or other issues separate them. There is always the possibility of reconciliation in a family.

"LT, are you saying that the Orthodox were never part of the One Church? Not even before 1054 or 1204?"

Of course not--I am just saying what the CCC says. The Orthodox have been separated from us, by the most tragic split in the Church's history. JP2 is now trying to heal that split, as were Patriarch Athanagoras and Pope Paul VI. But a lot of work still has to be done.

It will take a lot of work to get guys like Alexei II to believe that they can be in Communion with us. Or Alexei's enemies the ROCOR, for that matter.

We cannot ignore that the split is still there. To recognize the split is the first step toward healing it.

For example, even OrthoMan and I can discuss things fruitfully, because each of us knows exactly where the other one stands.

Thoughts?

Since it seems that some only respect the Latin texts on this topic I will quote the Catholic Catechism:

Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound �that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord�s Eucharist.� (Par 838, quote is from Paul VI, Discourse, Dec 14, 1975).

My point, which I should have stated more clearly, is that the one cannot state that the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church because there is so little which continues to separate us. One can state that the communion is imperfect but one cannot reduce the relationship to �either they are or they are not one with the Catholic Church�. It is a matter of degrees and the degree of communion here is almost perfect. I again recommend to LT that he spend some time studying both Orientale Lumen and Lumen Gentium to get a better understanding. There are also statements by Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and the various Vatican offices on this topic.

I guess I missed what exactly this is an example of or what it has to do with a clarification of the comments on the CCC above. I would not exactly call that fruitful dialogue when one party continues to attempt to justify the liquidation, subjugation and assimilation of another. Which is ironic, since this is often one of the Orthodox allegations of the Roman Church regarding the Greek Catholics. Knowing where one stands is not quite the same in my mind as engaging in fruitful ecumenical dialogue in love and charity with another church of apostolic succession.

We as Greek Catholics have not denied that there is a separation. It is unfortunate and tragic.

As the Admin has above, I will stay within the realm of the Roman teaching. Look at the CCC language again so graciously priovided by our Michael:
1399: 838: If you have an understanding of the sacramental and ecclesial nature of communion, even viewed from the Roman perspective you will know the profundity of what these articles are suggesting. "Communio in sacris" is indeed "communio". The term used in 1399 is "encouraged".

Common celebration of the Eucharist? This is the full visible manifestation of communion in the Church. "Lacks little" does not in my mind seem to be accentuating differences but rather the inverse. Just a few observations on the above posts.

Salva Isusu Kristu,

Personnaly, I see Constantinople as the "Mother Church" of ECs. Though Ruthenian by tradition, it is Holy Constantinople from where I get me belief structures and praxis - not Rome.

Dmitri

Dmitri, I believe your opinion is consistent with the vision the Union Fathers of Brest had in mind from the documents of the Union as I discussed above. They firmly saw themselves as inheritors of the Byzantine liturgical and spiritual heritage. I think this line of thought was also present with the framers of the Union of Uzhorod.

Maybe we're just emphasizing different aspects.

"Lacks little." Of course I believe that.

Admin, thank you for clarifying your position. That was the first time the degrees of communion were brought into the discussion. I don't think that what I've said contradicts that. I just didn't understand your post on the other thread.

Diak, about Orthoman--I was just saying that we've been able to discuss some things by PM despite the fact that there is a recognized split between us, and that there has been some fruit because we both recognize the split. I did NOT imply that I even understand (let alone accept) his positions regarding Ukraine. He claims that the ROC did all they could to "save" the UGCC. I know that you disagree with him strongly. I respect you a great deal, and I know that I should not enter that debate.

SO, a final clarification: the Orthodox have more in common with us than not, but there is still work to be done. I admit that I have been focusing on the work that still has to be done. Rome's strategy in recent decades has been to emphasize what we have in common. We must pray to the Holy Spirit that the strategy bears fruit.

I hope I have not offended anyone, particularly the ecumenical posters who are known for their charity (Alice!).

LatinTrad

LT, we are there in agreement, man.

The divisions between the MP and two other Ukrainian Orthodox jurisdictions will ultimately need to be settled by the Orthodox Ukrainian faithful. I only intended the other thread to be a news article reporting objectively on the visit of Patriarch Filaret to a UGCC parish as there are those on this thread, present company included, who are interested in the development of the Kyivan Patriarchate.

There indeed remains a separation which is tragic and we must do everything humanly and even above humanly possible to restore full and visible communion between Catholics and Orthodox. Nothing less will do. But it is also evident that there are deep and unfortunate divisions even within Orthodoxy, with situations such as two parishes down the street from each other who celebrate the same Liturgy and have the same apostolic succession and are not considered as "canonical" or "Orthodox" by the other.

It really is very complex, and very tragic. May God and His Holy Spirit guide our paths towards charity, love, and communion.

"According to Catholic teaching, the One Church of Christ is, wholly and completely, the Catholic Church." No, not precisely. Lumen Gentium (Vatican II) teaches that the One Church of Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church; this phrase was deliberately chosen so as not to exclude others - the Orthodox in particular - from the One Church of Christ. Check the commentaries on Lumen Gentium for the history and development and significance of this phrase. Incognitus

Dear Incognitus, great point. Lumen Gentium speaks to the Catholic Church as a communion of churches, not one centralized institution. The idea behind using "subsists" is very profound in its implications of the nature of the Church and is very much a return to the ideas of the first 1000 years of Christianity.

It's a good thing the Council Fathers had amongst themselves Eastern bishops like Hermaniuk, Raya, Zogby, and Patriarchs Josyp and Maximos IV to help them out with some of those parts...