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

Dear Friends:

The Idea of Rome being the "Mother Church" is an exceptionally western and ultra montane concept.

Quite understandable if you were raised in a pious Roman Catholic family.

I can still hear my childhood parish priest express it so beautifully (and to a child it was beautiful).

But if the Church is taken as the five ancient Patriarchates and their descendants then no one can make a complete claim to Christian paternity (maternity).

Rome is the Mother church of all western Christian Churches (possibly also some north African ones too) but the eastern Churches also have their own legitimate progeny.

Thankfully Christ is still the head of our Church.


defreitas

Friends, I am not satisfied with this analysis. Christ established one Church. In the Nicene Creed we profess one Church, not five (or fifteen for that matter). The Catholic position is that Christ committed the unity of the Church to St. Peter, His "al-bayit" or steward (symbolized by the keys).

While there is legitimate diversity among the particular churches (keep in mind that "particular churches" is not a univocal use of the term "Church") there has to be one Church who is the Mother of them all--NOT the Roman particular church, insofar as it is a particular church, but the One Church, who _just so happens_ to be headquartered in Rome. The Latin axiom "Where Peter is, there is the Church" would apply even if St. Peter's successor were (hypothetically) to leave Rome and establish his see somewhere else.

Does that distinction make sense?

Otherwise we might as well throw out Christ's prayer that His followers would be one as He and the Father are One.

Thoughts?

LatinTrad

LT,

Your distinction does not make sense. Peter is the eldest brother, not the mother.

We Americans in Byzantine Churches of Slavic origin received Christ from the Slavs. The Byzantine Slavic Churches are, therefore, our Mother Churches (respective to the ethnicity of each local Church). The Byzantine Slavs received Christ from Byzantine Constantinople. Therefore, Constantinople is the Mother Church to the Slavs.

Rome can only claim to be the Mother Church for Roman/Western Catholics. The idea equating Rome with the �Mother Church� does indeed have its origins in an ecclesiology in which the Latin Church is considered superior to all the others. This ecclesiology was declared flawed some generations ago.

The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the oneness of the Church. If one insists that there is only one �Mother Church� to all the local Churches then one must ascribe that title to the Church of Jerusalem.

Admin

My Latin Brother,

IMO the Mother Church would be the location of the first established Church, be it by St Peter or Paul or ?. Was not Jerusalem the location of the Church's first Council ?

James

Wasn't St. Andrew the first called and eldest brother?

Was Andrew the one to whom Christ said,

OF whom Ephraim the Syrian said:

Bretheren,

We are using different meanings of the word Church and it is getting frustrating.

My brother, Administrator, I NEVER SAID "ST PETER" WAS THE MOTHER. I said THE ONE CHURCH IS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE PARTICULAR CHURCHES. You told me to meditate on OL and LG, and I thank you , but I think we also might meditate on Dominus Iesus which teaches this clearly. I also never said the the East received her traditions from Rome, or that the Faith originated in Rome, or anything else like that.

Why is this so controversial?

Admin, what do we mean in the Creed, "I believe in One . . . Church," if there are five (or more) Churches and they are all equal to one another? Why couldn't we then create an even greater multiplicity of Churches? Can I be my own Church? Why not, except because CHRIST ESTABLISHED ONLY ONE?

There is one Church. That's all I'm saying. That's what Christ taught, that's what the Nicene Fathers taught, and I don't understand why it's a matter of controversy here.

I'm sorry to all for not getting it--rough day.

Latin-T

Some days, just saying "The sky is blue" is controversial, Trad.

I totally understand - for some reason this day feels like a "Monday"!

Admin,

this point was underscored by the Holy Father inhis trip to Jerusalem in 1997:

Holy City is Mother of All Churches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter to the Patriarch, the Auxiliary Bishops, the priests and deacons, the men and women religious, and the faithful of the Patriarchal Diocese of Jerusalem for Latins
Pope John Paul II November 28, 1997

1. As the celebration of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 approaches, my thoughts turn again to the Holy Land and to Jerusalem, "Mother of all the Churches". It was in this region, where Christ's words resounded and the great events of the Redemption occurred, that the first Christian community came into being and has continued to live down the centuries without interruption.


(Fr. Dcn.) John

Dear Latin Trad:

I don't think that you are getting the point we are trying to make.

There are not five churches (re the five Patriarchates) but one church, "The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Orthodox Church" to which we all belong.

If we all say the same creed, and we do even if there is still a slight translation problem, then we all belong to the same church.

If our brethren the Orthodox are not in full communion with the Roman or Greek Catholic Churches they still retain a "comunio in sacris", through the validity of their sacraments.

Just because there does not exist an administrative union amongst all the Patriarchates does not mean that they are somehow not part of the Church.

I don't think that even the Holy Father thinks that the Church only includes those directly under his primacy.

It has been his great concern and effort to try and find a language of communion, where the definition of the Petrine ministry can have a solid validity throughout the Church.

When this language is finally understood by all, then he will become the visible symbol of the unity of all Christians

A symbol which at present he only represents imperfectly because of this lack of communion.

Your interpretation of the One Holy Church of God is somewhat narrow.

Funny, I read Dominus Iesus but didn't come to the same conclusions that you do.

There is no controversy, we just don't speak with the same words.


defreitas

TG, no he wasn't the one to whom was said the Scriptures you mention. I don't see what you are getting at.

Historically St. Andrew is reputed to have evanglized England, Constantinople, Kyiv, etc. and was the first called in Scripture as an Apostle. He was first CALLED, not Peter. You notice that was what I said.

Since we were talking about "firsts" and origins I was just throwing that out. You wouldn't know this but as Byzantine Christians we have a great devotion to St. Andrew.

Dear defreitas:

Can you or someone please explain how it can be inferred from the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" of our Creed your term the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church"?

Amado

Actually, I *do* know this. I'm not as dumb as I look.

However, because Byzantine Catholics have a devotion to St. Andrew does not take anything away from the primacy of St. Peter.

TG, I didn't up the issue, pro or con, of primacy. We were discussing 'firsts' and origins, and I threw out the fact that Andrew was the first called and the elder brother. I don't recall ever mentioning "primacy of Peter" nor looking for an argument there.

Actually it is probably more proper to refer to primacy as the primacy of the Church through the Petrine ministry, or the primacy through the Petrine succession or similar since without a successor there can be no primacy transferred.

Whatever. May God continue to richly bless our wonderful Pope, John Paul II, and may He give us many more like him.