Again we see the legalism of the Orthodox: we're without something for a couple weeks, so that's means it must be unnecessary.choy said:But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?Papist said:1. Peter was the rock and he always will bechoy said:Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church? Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now? On whom is the Church built on? And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another? How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?
2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith.
You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.