Bill is a good friend. I respect his scholarship as much as I respect Adam's which is why I encouraged each to contact the other. For a variety of reasons, Bill has a rather high concept of the Papacy and tends to view ecclesiology through Western eyes. Through direct discussions, I am sure that he and Adam could either iron out their differences, or failing that, politely agree to disagree.

Yes, and the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople during the Byzantine period (and the Ottoman period, for that matter) was a paragon of openness, transparency, and objectivity, utterly divorced from both politics, cronyism, nepotism and bribery.

I think it would be fairly difficult if not impossibile for the Papacy, at this point, to back off the idea of the direct, universal jurisdiction and primacy of the Patriarch of Rome and of his prerogative to act unilaterally, at least in theory. For the Pope to agree that he is bound to act collegially would make not very much sense of the dogma of papal infallibility, for one thing.

But one could uphold such theoreticals while ignoring them in practice. I could envision a scenario of unity in which the Papacy is allowed to maintain theoretical claims on universal jurisdiction and infallibility with the caveat that those claims are only claims from here on in, and that the Pope ceases his practice of unilateral governance of the universal Church, adopting, instead, a collegial approach by which he regards his fellow patriarchs as his peers and not as his subordinates or inferiors. Indeed, a restoration of the relationship between the patriarchs as it originally existed, only now with a more nuanced formal concept of the abilities Roman Patriarch (in theory).

The Latin Catholics are incapable of that.

Therefore the problem of schism rightly falls upon Rome and Rome alone can solve this problem. It is not a problem for Orthodoxy - they exist in correct dogma and theology.

The Roman Bishops in fact ex communicated themselves from Holy Orthodoxy and until they come to True Orthodoxy they remain in heresy.

oops did I say that?

I should say - that is the way the Orthodox view schism.

Here is a major problem with the Papacy with regard to the Consecration of a Pope = quote by Father Sergie Bulgakov

"But if papacy be understood as a special order of St. Peter (Tu es Petrus is sung when the newly elected pope is carried in procession), the difficulties which have already been mentioned stand out all the more clearly. On the one hand, bearers of lower hier­archical orders cannot ordain to higher orders, so that the consecration of a pope by bishops (cardinals) is canonically and sacramentally unmeaning: the pope ought in his life-time to consecrate his successor. On the other hand, if an order is discontinued because there is no bearer of it, there is a break in the apostolic suc­cession as a whole. The permanent miracle of the existence of a vicarius Christi requires his personal immortality. The dogmatic teaching about the pope must certainly be made less presumptuous and confine itself to regarding the pope as simply a patriarch ­but that, of course, means the fall of the whole Vatican fortress. In any case, as has been said already, the mere fact of the death of a pope has
dogmatic implications which have not yet been satisfactorily dealt with by the Roman theologians."

It's good that Russians are the most Western of the Orthodox, since such a legalistic approach to the issue could never have come from either a Greek or an Arab.

What on earth does that even mean?

Order of St. Peter? If they sing "Ave Maria" at a wedding, is the bride ordained to the order of Mary?

JBenedict

I'm not really that familiar with the liturgical actions surrounding the consecration and ordination of the Pope. According to Bulgakov Tu es Petrus is sung - referring to how they consecrate a pope.
It's a little bit different than a wedding - and a song that is a required part of the "ordination" is a lot different than something a bride might pick as a song sung during her wedding.


The major point of the quote is that the process is theologically flawed and creates momentary (if not permanent ) logical breaks in apostolic succession.

The Eastern Orthodox would "jump" on the breaks in apostolic succession as soon as they happened but they theoretically could not happen in Orthodoxy as long as 2 valid Bishops consecrate.

There's no break in the order, because it's not an order. The papacy is not like the episcopate (transmitted from person to person) it's like the office of Bishop of Passaic. The Eparchy still exists even though their are periods of vacancy. The parishes of the Eparchy can't go their own way because there was a period of vacancy.

Bulgakov tries to argue against this in the quote by arguing that the Catholic Church treats papacy like an order like the episcopate... and justifies this from the signing of Tu Es Petrus of all things.

But the coronation (and now innaguration) of a Pope doesn't really resemble an ordination, the traditional ceremony was the combination of a coronation and the enthonement of a Bishop. The singing of "Tu es Petrus" doesn't mean that people think the Pope literally is Peter... it's an analogical use of language. And the singing of "Tu es Petrus" isn't even an essential part of the ceremony. The key parts today of the ceremony are the reception of the pallium and ring, the homage of the faithful, and then in what is now again a separate ceremony, the taking of posession of the Cathedral Church of St. John Lateran.

What on earth does that even mean?

Putting it into simple terms, is the Papacy an "order", like the diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate? Or is it simply an honorific, like "protodeacon", "archpriest", "archbishop", "metropolitan" and "patriarch"?

One is ordained to an "order". Orders are divinely instituted, and it is a firm rule that one can only be ordained to an order by a member of an equal or superior order; i.e., a deacon or presbyter can only be ordained by a bishop; a bishop can only be ordained by a minimum of three other bishops. Conversely, a bishop could never be ordained by a priest, or a priest by a deacon.

Bishop is the highest of holy orders, and thus the highest order to which one may be ordained. And being ordained to an order, bishops all share in the charism of that order, and are equal in grace and dignity.

On the other hand, honorifics are merely granted. Nobody is ordained "archbishop" or "metropolitan", and nobody is ordained "Pope". Therefore, there is no "order" of Pope, which means the Pope is merely a bishop with an honorifics.

Honorifics are not divinely instituted, but were established by the Church over time to deal with matters of precedence and administration. Not being divinely instituted, their significance, prerogatives and authority can be altered or redefined according to the needs of the Church. And, indeed, this is the true, unalterable, history of the Papacy, all polemics and pious mythologizing not withstanding: the Papacy is a creation of the Church, and as such it has evolved over time in the service of the Church. When the needs of the Church changed, the definition and exercise of the Papacy also changed. As it was in the past, it is now and ever shall be--when the Papacy is no longer furthering the Petrine Ministry, then it must change.

His reasoning may be faulty, but his conclusion is largely correct, particularly for the time at which he was writing. Despite disclaimers to the contrary, the Pope can and does act as a bishop over bishops, and there is a tendency in both conciliar and papal documents to speak of the Pope as acting "with" the Episcopacy, as though, somehow, he really isn't a member of the College, but standing outside of it.

Haydukovich,

Forgive me for being dense, but how are there "momentary (if not permanent) logical breaks in apostolic succession"? The may be a papal interregnum or, more properly, a vacancy in the Holy See, as there is in any see when there is no bishop(like the current situation in the Eparchy of Passaic), but that certainly doesn't constitute a break in apostolic succession.

It's a rare occassion when a man elected to the See of Peter is not already consecrated as a bishop. The last man elected Bishop of Rome who had to be consecrated a bishop was Bartolomeo Cappellari, O.S.B., then Cardinal Priest of San Callisto. Elected February 2, 1831 during the Conclave of 1830-31, Bartolomeo Cappellari took the name Gregory XVI, and was consecrated bishop and installed as Bishop of Rome on February 6, 1831.

It used to be common for the Archdeacon of Rome to be elevated to the See of Peter--but then, it used to be common for the Archdeacon to succeed the bishop in most dioceses (which might give our resident deacons a moment of pause).

Stuart,

That's true, Saint Thomas a Becket was the Archdeacon of Cantebury (and Chancellor of King Henry II), before his being nominated as Archbishop of Cantebury.

No pause, I'm married to my lovely bride of 27 years, and there is no conventual residency in our future. It may give the celibate deacons a moment of pause.