How to answer the question: “What is your Mother Church?"
Often opponents of the UOC ask questions like, ‘What is your Mother Church?’ and ‘Where is your Tomos?’, meaning that the OCU has all of these things, and therefore it is the right one. But is it?
On 13 September 2024, on the "Suspilne" channel, there was a discussion between UOC Metropolitan Clement (Vecheria) and religious scholar Liudmyla Fylypovych. Among other things, Fylypovych said: "For church life, it is very important who grants you the letter that legitimises your very right to exist – whether it is from Constantinople or from Moscow. Now, there is a Tomos that confirms that for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, led by Metropolitan Epifaniy, the Mother Church is the Ecumenical Patriarchate." Then, Metropolitan Clement was asked the question: "Which Church is the Mother Church for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?"
The logic behind such questions
The logic of this question is exactly the same as the one asked of Christ by the Pharisees: "Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?" (Matt. 22:17). It was a logical trap, which the Pharisees thought they had set perfectly for Christ.
For if He had answered, “Do not give,” they would have called Him a rebel, inciting the people to disobey Roman authority and bringing punitive sanctions on the Jews by the authorities. And if He had said: “Give it,” they would have accused him of non-patriotism, collaborationism and opportunism, because the Jews regarded the Romans as enslavers, wanted with all their might to get rid of the foreign yoke and despised all those who collaborated with the invaders.
In the same way, Metropolitan Clement had to choose between two options. If he had said that for the UOC the Mother Church is Constantinople, the questioners would have responded, "Then why did you not obey when Patriarch Bartholomew reclaimed the Kyiv Metropolis and recognised the schismatics?" But if he had said, "Moscow," he would have been accused of being unpatriotic for naming as the Mother Church the one that blesses the war in Ukraine and, consequently, all the killings and destruction that Russia is doing in our country. Additionally, they would have said, "How can Moscow be the Mother Church if the Baptism of Rus' took place in Kyiv?"
In classical logic there is the method of the excluded third (Latin tertium non datur, i.e. “no third is given”), in which it is considered that the truth lies only within two proposed statements. But often not too conscientious persons, in order to force their opponent to voice an unfavourable statement, abuse this method and offer to choose one of the two, ignoring the fact that there may be a third option or the question is initially posed incorrectly.
This is what happened in the "Suspilne" programme, where Fylypovych, as if self-evident, presented the false claim: "For church life, it is very important who grants you the letter that legitimises your very right to exist." What is truly important for church life and the very existence of Christ’s Church is revealed to us in the Holy Scripture of the New Testament. Essentially, it boils down to three key points:
- faith in Christ;
- apostolic succession of ordinations;
- life according to the commandments.
Faith in Christ
At the very beginning of Christian preaching, the confession of faith was very simple. When the apostle Philip preached Christ to the eunuch of Queen Candace, and the eunuch wished to be baptized, only one question was asked of him: "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture, he told him the good news about Jesus. As they went along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?' Philip said to him, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he replied, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'" (Acts 8:35-37).
Today, the confession of Christian faith remains essentially the same, but since the "questioners of this age" have raised many issues, this formulation has had to be expanded and explained in more detail. Today, during baptism, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which consists of 12 articles, is recited.
One of these articles says: "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." The unity of the Church is explained by the apostles using the analogy of the unity of the human body: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. [...] Now you are the body of Christ, and individually members of it" (1 Cor. 12:12, 27).
The predecessors of the OCU, the religious organisations UOC-KP and UAOC, do not belong to this Body of Christ, which was acknowledged by all Local Churches until 2018. Today, 10 out of the 14 universally recognised Local Churches continue to affirm that the OCU does not belong to the Body of the Church.
And this non-recognition refers not to administrative aspects, not to canonical statuses, but to the very essence. 10 Local Churches do not recognise the grace of the ‘clergy’ of the OCU, nor the validity of their “sacraments”. That is, the OCU does not belong to the One Body of the Church. And no Tomos, no statuses, no documents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople change the essence of the matter.
A very important point, often ignored by supporters of the OCU, is that 10 Local Churches deny the OCU’s affiliation with the Church of Christ and, accordingly, do not recognise its canonical status nor consider its hierarchs to be legitimate "bishops". Four Local Churches do recognise the OCU, though with some reservations. At the same time, these four Local Churches consider the canonical status of the UOC to be unresolved, but all 14 universally recognised Local Churches affirm that the UOC is in Eucharistic communion with the entire Church, its sacraments are valid, and its hierarchs are legitimate.
The Church is also called Catholic.
In addition to the Church being composed of representatives from various nations, social, intellectual, and cultural backgrounds, this also means the conciliar principle of Church governance.
All issues concerning the entire Church are resolved collegially, not unilaterally. An example of this is the Apostolic Council of 47 A.D., described in the Book of Acts, as well as the entire history of church councils. In the case of Constantinople's interference in Ukrainian church affairs, this principle was clearly violated. Despite the disagreement of a large part of the Local Churches and the request for the Patriarch of Constantinople to convene a Pan-Orthodox meeting to resolve the Ukrainian issue collegially, the Phanariots and representatives of the OCU stubbornly refuse to do so.
Thus, we are dealing with a clear violation of the doctrine of the Church, which is formulated in the Creed. This is to say nothing of the new teaching of Constantinople, which many define as the heresy of Constantinopolitan papism.
Succession of ordinations
The supporters of the OCU often try to ignore this issue. If one puts on priestly vestments and take a censer, one is already a “priest”. And if he also grows a long beard, there is no doubt at all. Who, whom, when and how ordained is not so important. But in fact, it is the other way round.
In the Holy Scriptures, we find examples that show it was precisely through the laying on of apostolic hands that the Grace of the Holy Spirit was transmitted. "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed" (Acts 14:23); "This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you..." (Titus 1:5).
In the Book of Acts, there is a story about a man who wanted to buy this grace: "There was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. [...] Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. [...] Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, 'Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 8:9-19).
From this passage, it is clear that Simon understood well that grace is given through the laying on of apostolic hands, and that he could not claim this authority on his own but had to receive it from the apostles, i.e., from those who had this grace themselves and the authority to pass it on to others.
The Book of Acts also describes a case of self-appropriation, and although it does not concern the administration of the Sacraments, it may serve to illustrate that such self-appropriation does no good: "Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, ‘In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.’ Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. One day the evil spirit answered them, ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?’ Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding. When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor" (Acts 19:13-17).
However, the worst case of self-appointed priesthood is described in the Old Testament in the book of Numbers.
During the Israelites' journey through the wilderness, certain people rose up against Moses and Aaron and attempted to deny that only they had the right to offer sacrifices to the Lord: "Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites – Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—became insolent, and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, ‘You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?’" (Numbers 16:1-3).
This rhetoric is strikingly similar to the modern rhetoric of OCU supporters, isn’t it? The same rhetorical questions to the bishops of the UOC: "Why do you consider yourselves to be full of grace, while calling the hierarchs of the OCU graceless?"
It all ended very tragically not only for the impostors themselves but also for their followers: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Say to the congregation, Get away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.' [...] And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart. And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So, they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. And all Israel who were around them fled at their cry, for they said, 'Lest the earth swallow us up!' And fire came out from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense" (Numbers 16:23-35).
This story teaches us that priesthood is not just a beautiful ritual with the singing: "Axios." The grace of priesthood is not conferred merely by going through the ordination rite and performing all the prescribed actions. "For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God" (Deuteronomy 4:24). Attempts to acquire this fire by illegitimate means lead to nothing good. Not only do they fail to make impostors into priests of God, but they also bring down God's wrath on all who dare such actions.
Nearly all the "ordinations" of the OCU hierarchs were performed in this sacrilegious manner: self-declared, outside the Church, while under an anathema recognised by the entirety of the Church of Christ. How could these sacrilegious acts be retroactively transformed into legitimate ordinations full of grace? Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople simply refuses to answer this question.
The Commandments of God
This aspect is not as obvious as the previous two, but it also cannot be ignored. It’s no coincidence that the rite of the Sacrament of Confession includes a prayer from the priest over the penitent: "O Lord God of the salvation of Your servants, merciful and compassionate, long-suffering... Reconcile and unite him to Your Holy Church, through Christ Jesus, our Lord…."
Sin alienates a person from the Church of Christ, which is why there is a need for the repentant sinner to be reunited with the Church. But what if an obvious sin is not only justified by a religious organisation but even elevated to the status of virtue?
It is no secret that today the OCU is growing through churches that are seized by radicals and activists, who do not hesitate to use violence against believers and employ construction tools to break into the church. The association of the "church of crowbars and grinders" has become firmly tied to the OCU.
The leaders of the OCU not only fail to condemn these methods but even reward these radicals and activists with church honors for their "deeds". Can the Church of Christ condone such actions? The question is rhetorical.
In any case, the violent methods of acquiring new churches for the OCU are a clear sign that the people using them are far removed from upholding the commandments of God.
How should we respond?
Yes, uncomfortable questions directed at the UOC are based on manipulation, substituting what is important for what is less important. But how should we respond to them? The Gospel teaches us once again. Above, we gave one example of provocative questions posed to Jesus Christ. Here is another example, which provides an answer to the question of what to say regarding letters, tomoses, etc..
"And when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching and said, 'By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?'" (Matthew 21:23). This question seems perfectly logical and legitimate. But it was not asked with the intent to truly discover if Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah.
The chief priests had no desire for an honest, prophecy-based answer to this question. It was simply a provocation, intended to provide grounds to accuse Christ of claiming divine authority (as was eventually done during His trial before Caiaphas). But that didn’t happen.
The Lord did not fall for this provocation and instead posed a counter-question: "Jesus answered them, 'I also will ask you one question, and if you tell Me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?'" (Matthew 21:24-25). The elders realised that any answer they gave would incriminate themselves, so after conferring, they replied to Jesus, "We do not know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Matthew 21:27).
This is exactly how we should respond to provocative questions like: "What is your Mother Church?" and "Where is your Tomos?" We should ask our opponents the following:
- What makes the Church a Church: letters and tomoses or the grace of ordinations?
- Does anyone in all of Orthodoxy deny the validity of the UOC’s Sacraments?
- How did the "ordinations" of the OCU hierarchs turn from sacrilegious acts into acts filled with grace?
- How can the OCU be part of the Church of Christ if two-thirds of the Local Churches do not recognise it?
- Can the disciples of Christ break into church doors and cut off hinges with grinders?
And if OCU supporters cannot give clear answers to these questions, then we should say to them what Christ said: "Neither will I tell you..." (Matthew 21:27).
