I think Bulgakov was referring to when a Pope Dies - then the Cardinals pick a new Pope - does the Papacy then sit in a limbo (he questions that a Pope dying and everyone waiting to select a new one creates a void in succession - and a logical break because at that point their is no Vicar of Christ - no Head of the Church in the seat - he's gone)

This does not happen from Bishop to Bishop in either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. And so we Byzantine Catholics are in a sort of "in between" ecclesiatical reality - because we submit to the Pope but we give away our Orthodox Traditions by submitting in blind obedience to Rome - I'm not even sure that the position of Pope - Peter - was originally designed to be that!

I also don't think the original idea for the Byz Catholics was to submit in blind obedience to the Pope but to practice orthodoxy as it was meant to be - The Pope was a loving Patriarch of Rome - designed to be like a Mediator when problems between Patriarchs occured.

Here is another quote from Bulgakov
"According to the Vatican dogma the pope is the supreme and infallible head of the church, not respon­sible to anyone or subject to any jurisdiction, since there is no ecclesiastical authority above him. This idea is in irreconcilable contradiction to the dogmatic fact (i.e. a fact having a doctrinal significance) that in the history of the Catholic church there have been ­ and therefore may be—disturbances connected with the pope as a person. On such occasions the church, as represented by its bishops, was faced with the necessi­ty, first, of deciding which was the true pope out of two or even three anti-popes and, secondly, of judging and deposing these popes and enthroning a new one.

Indeed, if the Vatican dogma is consistently thought out, the interruptions of papacy naturally brought about by the death of a pope must cause dogma­tic perplexity: if a vicarius Christi can exist at all, how can he be mortal? How can the actual order of papacy be interrupted, as undoubtedly happens through death? A patriarchate may become vacant when a pat­riarch dies or is removed, but then patriarchy is not a special holy order, which papacy is supposed to be. Patriarchy is an ecclesiastical office with exalted rank and special jurisdiction attached to it, but as far as holy orders are concerned a patriarch is a bishop—and the order of episcopacy, like that of priesthood, is not interrupted by the death of its individual representatives, and will go on till the end of time. With papacy the case is different: a break is caused by the death of its representatives, since a pope exists only in the singular."


As StuartK commented - that is kind of remarkable logical thinking from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Fighting logical Rome with dogmatic logic!


The reason I posted this idea was to "think outside the box" when it comes to the relationship with the Pope as Eastern Catholics.

I believe that the Papacy is in need of structural reform.

I believe that the Papacy should return to it's origins and behave as the benevolent Mediator of The Church - an idealistic position.

Stuart is probably the most realistic in his reply's in that he points out the flaws of human nature and ecclesiatic dogmas.

I'm just a blue collar type guy that reads this stuff and tries to keep up with the rest of you - and I am amazed at how everyone responds - the spirit of debate on these forums is fantastic!

The conundrum is Papacy is not a Holy Order per se, but that the Latin Church acts as though it was. It is an ambiguity caused by attempts to explain the historical evolution of the definition and exercise of the papal prerogatives in dogmatic terms that would allow the accident of history to be justified as divine institution.

You quote Bulgakov, Haydukovich! But, what about Soloviev? Have you read his "The russian church and the papacy"?

I will read Soloviev as I am fascinated by the Russian Church - how it began - how it survived the Bolsheviks - The Germans - Communism - what affect those had on it - and of course the various intelligensia it produced.

Also I am on a quest for the truth in all things - which is why I like the postings of StuartK - a rational approach to religion with an eye for the "real" truth about our institutions without attacking or outright rejecting those institutions.

Most people (myself included) try to form extreme judgements about the institutions themselves without stepping back and just looking at them dispassionately