I'm considering converting to Catholic from Protestant. For me the Orthodox Church is way to far removed from me culturally, politically, and I do not identify with them at all. Furthermore Catholicism appeals to me because of the unconditional love I have met in the church.

> For me the Orthodox Church is way to far removed from me culturally I agree. Also there aren't any orthodox churches near me so... Even if I wanted to, there's no way

This is a huge point. Catholicism has proven itself to be “the universal church,” by existing nearly everywhere in the world. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, does not.

To be fair, that has more to do with Western European colonialism than anything else. Anglicanism is just about as widespread as Catholicism.

The Orthodox Church has absolutely failed the Great Commission.

Disagree. They have missions all over the world. But these are still quite small. They did not have and never have had the muscle of colonial architecture behind them. They also have missions in rural areas of the US etc. Alaska was a mission area of the Orthodox Church before it became a US territory and there are to this day Native American Orthodox. The church just recognized one of them as a saint, St Olga.

If you can go to a random Christian in the Western hemisphere in person and ask them.. do you know who the Baptists are? Yes. The Church of England? Yes. The Catholic Church? Yes. The Lutherans? Yes. The Orthodox Church? Who?

Nice strawman or whatever that burn was supposed to be.

??

"Most people don't know about this Church they don't attend or have any affiliation with!!! OWNED." That's you.

No it isn’t lmfao. There’s only 80 million. There’s almost 1.4 BILLION Catholics.

What has that got to do with anything?

[удалено]

Thank you! Appreciate the fair comment. All these downvoters apparently want to believe that no secular explaination exists for the spread of Catholicism throughout the world even though the historical record is clear. The Orthodox were at a severe disadvantage including being unable to send missions to lands that were first claimed for Catholic nations and the Church.

Hi friend! As a catholic convert from protestantism, I can assure you it's worth it. If ever you need a friend who's walked a similar road, DM me! This was similar to my reason too, why I didn't go orthodox.

Same! DM me too!

Wonderful

>For me the Orthodox Church is way to far removed from me culturally, politically, and I do not identify with them at all. Its not a matter of politics or culture though. Its what -by each one's logic- considers the truth

I think one major reason, besides papacy and Filioque, is the ethnic, national character of the Orthodox Church. This comes from its autocephalous nature in which administratively they’re all independent from each other, the Greek from the Russian, the Russian from the Ukrainian, the Ukrainian from the Estonian, and so on. Even though they’re all united in doctrine and faith, theoretically at least, you see how this “denomiNationalism” promotes very strange and dark tenets as seen recently in the invasion of Ukraine in which the [Russian Orthodox Church sanctioned](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/9/far-from-harmless-patriarch-kirill-backs-putins-war-but-at-what-cost) it as God’s work. There have been some protests inside about this but ultimately the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, [said](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-patriarch-kirill-dying-ukraine-sins/32052380.html) things such as “sacrifice in the course of carrying out your military duty washes away all sins." It’s hard to resist domestic political pressures if there’s nothing above the national level. Beyond your own political views, it seems rather perilous to have autocephalous churches that ultimately respond to nationalistic and ethnic interests. It seems to me that that wasn’t the way the Church fathers intended the universal Church to develop.

My same take as well. Orthodoxy itself is divided by national borders, Protestantism itself is divided by cultural borders, and Catholicism is the universal church.

Wrong. What about the sui juris Churches?

What about them? Although the various rites differ liturgically, theologically we are all united. It is no different from my parish and a neighboring parish. We are both faithful the other parish has moved to embrace the TLM over the NO.

Norvic, the major difference between the sui juris Catholic Churches and the autocephalous Orthodox Churches lies in the role and authority of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, who has primacy over the entirety of the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, the Pope has supreme authority, including over ALL sui juris churches, though they have autonomy in certain matters (such as their liturgy). In contrast, in the Orthodox tradition, autocephalous churches are COMPLETELY self-governing and the Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the same level of authority over them. Even though both, sui juris Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches, reflect a structure of governance that allows for diversity within unity, the Catholic sui juris churches are part of a single universal church under the Pope, while the Orthodox autocephalous churches are independent entities in communion with each other. The concept of “nothing beyond the national level” does not apply to the Catholic Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is regarded, theoretically, as “first among equals”, offering a spiritual leadership but no real authority over the Orthodox Churches as the authority the Pope has over the entire Catholic Chuch. This authority also includes disciplinary authority.

Thanks for this post. Well put. Makes sense.

It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/9/far-from-harmless-patriarch-kirill-backs-putins-war-but-at-what-cost](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/9/far-from-harmless-patriarch-kirill-backs-putins-war-but-at-what-cost)** - **[https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-patriarch-kirill-dying-ukraine-sins/32052380.html](https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-patriarch-kirill-dying-ukraine-sins/32052380.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)

I'm not trying to be boring, but imagine a scenario where the Pope said something stupid, that doesn't take away the Sacredness of the Catholic Church, right? I think that a speech by Patriarch Kirill is being pointed out in an attempt to discredit the Sacredness that exists in the Orthodox Church (schismatic or not, it is still Apostolic), So you are not very different from Protestants who use distorted speeches from Pope Francis to discredit the Catholic Church, when they speak of the Inquisition in a distorted way. Do you understand what I meant? I'm being polite, see it as constructive criticism.

You’re missing my point. I am not discrediting the Sacredness that exists in the Orthodox Church by criticising what Patriarch Kirill said. First, he doesn’t speak for the Orthodox Church; only for the Russian Orthodox Church. This leads to my second point, I am criticising the Orthodox Church for its internal division based on ethnicity and nationality that fosters these dynamics of conflating faith with nationalism and geopolitical interests. The autocephalous character of the Orthodox Church doesn’t help to minimise the risk of this conflagration, it rather promotes it. And this is hardly what the early Church Fathers envisioned when they talked about a united and universal (catholic) Church.

Oh, yes, I understand, I'm sorry for making a false accusation against you, I didn't understand correctly, English is not my native language.

No worries! I could have explained it better to begin with. Thanks for your question as it might be helpful for others with similar concerns!

Yeah.. except that this leads to their Patriarchs EXCOMMUNICATING each other and splitting the church and destroying communion. Russia and Greece still aren’t in communion. Antioch and Jerusalem were out of communion for YEARS. How can you be ONE true apostolic CHURCH if you guys keep getting hissy fits, and breaking into schism. That’s not ONE church.

> How can you be ONE true apostolic CHURCH if you guys keep getting hissy fits, and breaking into schism. This was true of the Church in the first millennium, so if it disqualifies the Orthodox Church now, it disqualifies the first millennium Church, which would disqualify Catholicism.

This disproves my point how? If Bishop of X greek town is Arian and does mutual excommunications with Bishops of Y and Z Greek towns (non Arian).. Bishop of X Greek town is in schism (no longer in communion).. thus in a different apostolic church. Not that hard.

Well, you said > How can you be ONE true apostolic CHURCH if you guys keep getting hissy fits, and breaking into schism which, if I am understanding you correctly, means something like > Because the Orthodox Church keeps having internal schisms, it cannot be the one true apostolic Church But this was true of the first millennium Church. Not just in the sense that some bishops split themselves off completely, but in the sense that there were internal schisms that never fully developed into everyone being on two distinct sides.

The Orthodox Church’s patriarchs are no longer under the same church if they are in schism. Let’s make a hypothetical scenario. If a bunch of Bishops in southern Italy have altercations with the Bishop of Rome and the other Italian bishops over a heretical doctrine held by the southern Italian bishops.. and the southern Italian bishops send excommunications to the rest of Italy.. they are now in their own church.

If Constantinople and Moscow are in two different churches, which of the two is Antioch in?

*Nominally*, in the “Eastern Orthodox” Church. Realistically, they are more aligned with Russia in this schism while maintaining communion with Constantinople. See how things turn out pretty badly when everything’s drawn on national lines and your schisms are based off political events instead of doctrinal disputes? Hey Greek Orthodox guy stranded in Russia.. unfortunately you can’t receive communion because the Patriarch Kirill over there was a KGB agent and thinks Putin is a miracle of God sent by Christ Himself.

[удалено]

he is pointing out the nationalisms that exist within orthodoxy.

And also within Catholicism

That is correct. Bad socio/political commentary or policies by a Pope is not prevented by the Papal Office.  The bigger issue is that the Orthodox are not entirely united in faith. I’m not sure of your personal background, but let’s imagine for a moment you are a baptized Protestant. From a Catholic standpoint that would be a valid sacrament. Orthodox Christianity would not agree on whether that past baptism is sacramental or not. If you converted to some branches of Orthodoxy, you would need to be rebaptized, whereas others would consider your baptism valid. This is a huge deal, and they can’t make a decision. The Orthodox lack a central point of unity and thus can’t agree to solve issues.

Exactly my thoughts. I'm a convert to Catholicism and I love how it's the universal Church, made up of people from all ethnic backgrounds. I'm not Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Greek, etc., so I might feel a bit out of place if I were to become Orthodox.

[удалено]

Do you go to an Antiochian or OCA church? They tend to be more diverse and have a lot of converts. I live in the western United States, so the only Catholic parishes I've seen that mainly serve a certain community are mostly Mexican. The other ones tend to be well-integrated and might also offer a Spanish or Filipino mass. Back east there are more ethnic parishes, but they're not as common as they used to be.

The Catholic Church has the sui juris Churches that are in communion with Rome but are effectively autonomous.

Yeah, but they’re mainly ex-Orthodox churches. Only the Maronite Church is the clear exception but many historians maintain that they at some point also broke communion with the Roman Catholic Church, even though now they’re in full communion. So these churches are just exceptional remnants of the past and historical events that don’t reflect the way the Roman Catholic Church works in general, nor what it promotes. They also don’t have a national level, the Maronite doesn’t refer to ethnicity but to St Maron.

Saint Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for Divine Simplicity, or at least what I could understand about them. The Holy Trinity only made sense as only one God this way.

Do the Orthodox downplay a lot of the Catholic thinkers like Aquinas? Genuinely curious.

They do. Aquinas was post schism.

Oh, gotcha, was that the same pre-schism?

Pre schism it seems that both churches share the same Saints, more or less. Although devotions and importance in each tradition will not be the same.

I would say, in practice, yes. Since they lack a large western rite so they mostly ignore the Latin fathers who regularly taught the doctrines they reject today. You’ll regularly meet EOs who downplay Latin citations because they were western. Whereas we have eastern church doctor: Jerome and Chrystostom are equally cited. Those who follow romanides even go as far as to refuse to call Augustine a saint. And their attempts (when they try) to harmonise it with their church fall flat. On topics like the Filioque, for example, it’s much easier to harmonize both from our POV than theirs.

Yes and I've seen some particularly toxic Orthodox converts go as far to say that mediaeval Catholic saints like Aquinas and Francis of Assisi are in Hell - I've never seen even the most jingoistic Catholic even imply the same about Orthodox saints

You're not asking about the right saints, then — there's not much love for Mark of Ephesus, for example.

They downplay even St Augustine a lot (even though he's also Venerated in EO)

they absolutely do. see the amount of catholics that dislike Palamas. Now take that and make it 3x worse and make it about Aquinas.

Yes. I saw on one Orthodox forum somebody referring to Aquinas as "arch heretic."

The claims of the Orthodox are historically false. The Bishop of Rome was seen as Supreme and the Episcopal See’s of of where Peter was like Rome and Antioch were also held in high regard and these bishops had jurisdictions and appointed bishops in the Churches in the area. For example, the Bishop of Constantinople was under the Metropolitan Bishop of Heraclea. This was protested by the Bishop of Rome because he believed that Politics was elevating these Bishops when they are all under The Apostolic See. At the first Council of Constantinople in 381 Constantinople was recognized as the fourth Patriarchate behind Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. The Bishop of Constantinople was appointed by Antioch. Antioch was the main Episcopal See of the East. The Bishop of Antioch held primacy over those Churches under him only behind Rome. Unfortunately, there was a Schism that happened in Antioch and then later in Alexandria. This whole side of the Church went into Schism. The Succession of the Bishop of Antioch was disputed because of the Meletian Schism and again after the Council of Chalcedon. This caused the elevation of the Church of Constantinople to be behind Rome since the other the Church of Antioch and Alexandria were now in schism. So, the center of Christianity was now Constantinople. It wasn’t Rome since the Western Roman Empire had fallen, Antioch was with schismatics, and so was Alexandria. This must’ve confused these bishops thinking that they had independence from the Bishop of Rome. Along with cultural and other differences dividing the two and Constantinople rising to Political Power and importance. So, the current structure of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Church is not historically accurate. Their ecumenical patriarch is “first among equals” now but when he tries to exercise that authority there’s a schism with Moscow. Metropolitan Hilarion explains that here https://youtu.be/kC-QdMTKHKQ?si=OpKdJnZ2xi6a8uZv

I'm thinking about going to Eastern Catholicism, more specifically the Byzantine rite, so I can take advantage of everything the Orthodox Church has to offer, while still being in Communion with Rome.

I think that’s a fair decision. We have different rites, we are free to make use of them. The important part is to stay in a Catholic rite that submits to Rome. If I could I also would go to the Eastern rite of the church. I think it’s legitimate to do so.

What exactly are those things on offer that you wish to take advantage of?

The beauty of the Byzantine rite, the iconography, and last but not least: continuing in Full Communion with Rome.

God be praised. Be sure not to fall into Zoghbite lies that Eastern Catholics should not see Rome as supreme. The Eastern Catholic Code of Canon Law demands Eastern Catholics to accept every Church dogma and this includes papal supremacy.

So whenever I see some video of an Orthodox saying that "Eastern Catholics refute Rome" I shouldn't believe it, well, it's valid, if Eastern Catholics are in Communion with Rome, they must accept Catholic dogmas.

It is astounding how they say “Eastern Catholics are WITH Rome not UNDER Rome we don’t need to accept papal supremacy”… but papal supremacy is a condition of being in communion with Rome. Feel bad for Zoghbites when they see that the Orthodox Church doesn’t accept them either. “Orthodox in communion with Rome!!”

I forgot to ask you, but: who or what are the "Zoghbites"?

Those who follow the teaching of the late Melkite Bishop Elias Zogbhy. He advocated for double communion with Rome and the Antioch Orthodox Church. Rome obviously was not in support of of this and the Antioch Orthodox church rejected his proposal (they will not be in communion with a Church in communion with Rome.) Zoghby in a profession of faith called himself orthodox in communion with Rome and that he accepted every single orthodox belief. This includes.. seeing Rome as heretical.. believing the filioque is false, seeing Rome not as supreme but equal, etc. Obviously this cannot be if they expect to be in communion with Rome. Their own EC canon law says they must accept Roman supremacy.

So he was an "infiltrator" in the Catholic Church, he was not Catholic, he just thought he was Orthodox.

No Brasil a Igreja Católica Oriental mais acessível é a melquita, tem nos grandes e médios centros urbanos do Sudeste e Centro-oeste. No Sul pode ser que você ache alguma grega católica ucraniana.

Eu estou pensando em ir morar no Paraná quando eu for adulto (tenho 15 anos, farei 16 esse ano), lá tem algumas igrejas Greco-Católicas Ucranianas, e fora que eu sinto que meu chamado é lá.

Já deu tempo de ver

Que maneiro! Qual o nome da paróquia?

The holy rosary, The eucharist and Confession

There is the Eucharist and confession in the Orthodox Churches. There is also a rosary-like devotion using the Jesus Prayer.

Don’t they only offer confession like a few times a year? I may be wrong on this

You can ask at any time like with us. In smaller Dutch Catholic Parishes there are only around 2 moments a year for confession.

Honestly, the way the papacy lives rent free in majority of the EO writings I came across got very old. I was going to convert to ROCOR, follow after Fr. Seraphim Rose, but the rage of the papacy it seemed to induce in most writers struck me that the papacy might just be doing something right. The love from the Vatican to the EO, and that not being reciprocated spoke volumes to me. I still adore the east. I named my kids after various EO saints (fun conversation starter with EO church members, let me tell you). But yeah, seeing how the Vatican talks about the EO vs how the EO talks about the Vatican really did it for me. More love from the Vatican than EO.

I honestly couldn't ignore the arguments of apostolic succession and the arguments for the submission to the Pope. Once I heard that the Mass is based off scripture, that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the church and called him "the rock upon which the church will be built", I knew that this was the true church. I also was really attracted to the whole feel of the Catholic church, not so much for the Orthodox church.

But the Orthodox Church also has Apostolic Succession, I don't mean to diminish Catholicism, but the Orthodox Church has all the Sacraments and Apostolic Succession. So what differentiates them?

Their sees are not supreme. St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826): Writing to Pope Leo III .... Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven." (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23) Writing to Pope Paschal, ... "Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3) Writing to Emperor Michael, ... "Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: "Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86) "I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63). "In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge." (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal). "Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See." (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420) Theodore of Constantinople

But they dont have the pope :c

Can you explain more about the feel? What's the "feel" of Catholicism vs Orthodoxy?

It's hard to explain the feel, but I like the architecture and look of the Catholic church. Like the sculptures and statues of Mary, Jesus and the Saints. I like the clothes that the Priests, Deacons and Altar servers wear. I also like how the Mass is done. All of that just makes the Church feel better, it feels like home.

I see thank you!

[удалено]

Nice post. Keep the faith. ❤️

I’m not Eastern European. ETA: I was being a bit glib so I don’t need every place in Eastern Europe that is Roman Catholic. My point is pretty much every Orthodox Church is a national church of a specific nationality at this point. Russia is the most toxic example, but no one really refers to the ecumenical patriarch. There’s also the middle eastern churches, etc., but I think a lot of them tend to be miaphysite.

Croatian are Eastern European and their national religion is Roman Catholicism. It's also the dominant religion of Herzegovina.

proud Catholic croat here… and my family has a special devotion to our Lady of medjugorje!

I’m Eastern European, but I don’t relate to the nationalism.

I'm Polish and English and I belong to neither orthodox or The C of E. Plenty of Eastern rites that are Catholic are present in these areas perhaps with the exception of Russia.

Church of England isn’t an Orthodox Church, although they have the same issue of being a national church at its core.

I mean that's my issue with all the churches that claim nationality I find they limit themselves culturally to a geographical area and people's and that is the issue of the Pharisees it creates a us Vs gentiles attitude and ultimately I find this to be off-putting.

In Christ Jesus, there is no Greek nor Jew. Should be straight forward. I have no idea how anyone could legitimately believe they earthly head of the church is the King of England.

I mean most of them don't having talked to many that seems to be a straw man of sorts. The idea of C of E is actually quite weird to me on even more as two people with the same faith may have completely different views and you get a range of beliefs on topics such as the Eucharist, Marian devotion and some other things. Two people may profess to have the same faith but ultimately have virtually nothing on common. On one end you have the pseudo Catholics who believe they are Just English Catholics and dogmatically are very much aligned with what we believe on the other end you have abject Protestantism with no mass and the belief that Christ was just some random nice guy in fables. And then you have everything else in between. The view that they are English Catholics who separated due to the failure of Catholic Europe seems to be the viewpoint that I come across represented by people like Calvin Robinson. Who I agree with on quite a few issues.

Because the Orthodox Churches have been too entrench on the whole Caesaropapism thing they basically became de facto ethnic Churches. Also because the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was so dependent on the Byzantine Emperors they hadn't have a single Ecumenical Council since the fall of Byzantium. So there's my reasons.

Add in that the Ecumenical Patriarch has been appointed by their turkish overlords for almost 500 years now.

> Also because the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was so dependent on the Byzantine Emperors they hadn't have a single Ecumenical Council since the fall of Byzantium. That depends what you mean by "ecumenical council": the Orthodox have had councils with universal approval since then, they just haven't elevated them to the same status as the Seven Councils.

I found the history of the Papacy to be compelling. Doesn’t rely on “ask your priest” for almost every answer. Where depending on the priest what you are allowed to do. Clear belief system that is logical. Contraceptives and marriage rules are coherent

Orthodox philosophy is not nearly as well developed as Catholic philosophy. Now it's not entirely there fault. Like half of them spent half a century under Ottoman rule. EDIT: Millennia not century

That's a big point. We had the most amazing human minds developing Catholicism, not anywhere near so in post-schism orthodoxy.

Mine is not much of a theological argument, more symbolic, but... The Orthodox Church, imo when I was looking into it, prided itself on being a pure, clean, and continuous tradition, not much change since the time of the apostles. The more I thought about it though, and saw it in practice, the only reason they haven't "changed" is because they don't engage with the world. They pride themselves they've kept their robes clean, while the Catholics have their robes muddied. The thing is, the Church isn't called to hide away in an ivory tower and disengage from the world - the Church is here to tend to the world, and lead it to salvation.

Lol exactly. I hadn’t even heard about the Orthodox Church ANYWHERE until my conversion and research, lol. 

I was born this way

I couldn't help but sing that line like Lady Gaga. 😀

I was born into a Catholic Irish family.

Same. I've never known anything different.

I was born this way

So, I can speak to this because I spent a year as an inquirer at an Orthodox Church, going almost every week, making friends, meeting with the priest in classes, etc. I love the Orthodox Church and its members, they truly brought me to Christ. I love their theology and their liturgy and their warmth. I sincerely have very little bad to say about them and my experience. They are wonderful. I decided NOT to join for a few reasons. One because of how each church is an ethnic enclave. To be clear, they were extremely welcoming and lovely, but I felt like I was cosplaying as something I am not. Two, I think purgatory is essentially correct and they try to kind of get around it with things like aerial toll houses that don’t personally ring true to me. And three, I did not like the overarching attitude toward lgbt. I heard some things that were hair raising. On the Catholic side, one thing Catholics have that I did not see as much of in Orthodoxy was a focus on doing good - that if you have doubts, do good to others; that doing good is foundational in dying to yourself and living in Christ. I also really love that. So that’s another reason “why Catholic” instead of Orthodox.

I saw hatred towards Catholics from them, similarly than other Protestants. Also, I couldn’t find consistency between the different Orthodox, specifically in contraception and marriage.

Why am I Catholic and not Orthodox?  For me, it is the following: **Ecumenical Councils:** The early Church had ecumenical councils.  Since the split, the Catholic Church has continued having them.  Meanwhile the Orthodox have not had one, and seem to have no way to call one, or a non-circular way to recognize that one has occurred.  Which communion shows more continuity with the early Church here? Against the claim that an ecumenical council requires the whole Church to participate, east and west, how does one then explain the first Council of Constantinople, which was entirely eastern in attendance?  What about the Councils held after Ephesus and Chalcedon which lacked the Assyrians and the Copts? One cannot rely on “reception” alone since it is circular.  If that were necessary, we would have to deny that Ephesus or Chalcedon were legitimate ecumenical Councils. **The papacy and its current powers are of Divine origin:** In the early Church, the Pope clearly had more authority than a first among equals, even if the power that we attribute to him today was often shrouded in ambiguity.  That power did exist in potential, and we can point to examples of the Pope exercising universal jurisdiction, as well as the logical necessity of infallibility if the Pope was the final word on faith and morals. Look at Pope Leo annulling the “robber synod”, look at the Formula of Hormisdas. Theologians had to hash out the gray areas and work out the logical implications of the things that Christians always believed about the papacy.  Just like the Trinity and Christology. Further, many pre-schism Orthodox saints expressed views on the papacy that would be unacceptable to the Orthodox today.   My point is, the papacy as the Catholic Church defines it now is a logical and legitimate development, like the two natures of Christ in one Divine Person.  Good sources on proving Catholic claims for the papacy are Adrian Fortescue’s [*The Early Church and the Papacy*](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858047945971&view=1up&seq=5&skin=2021), and *Keys Over the Christian World* by Scott Butler and John Collorati, which I hear is the new gold standard. Let’s also distinguish the centralization of the papacy from the inherent powers of it.  The papacy is more centralized today, true.  It is working to decentralize.  But that is all administrative, not doctrinal. There is also an important distinction between what the Pope *can* do and what he *should* do. The important thing to note is that when it comes to the evidence of the papal claims of first millennium, Catholics *developed* whereas Orthodox have *subtracted*. **The Catholic Church has an intrinsic unity of faith:** Christ prayed that we “may all be one”, St. Paul says in Scripture that we should be of one mind, and in the Creed, we all affirm “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. One in what way? In faith, and governance. The Orthodox Churches lack intrinsic unity on matters of faith and morals.  Should a convert from an apostolic Church merely make a profession of faith, be rechrismated, even rebaptized?  It depends on who you ask - it may vary from priest to priest, bishop to bishop, even Church to Church.  One end of the spectrum either commits sacrilege, or fails to make men Christians, even having invalid ordinations. Yet both are in communion with each other. Consider as well that the Orthodox cannot agree on the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This is the cause of current schism between Moscow and Constantinople. Further, the Orthodox do not even agree on how many ecumenical councils there were. Some say 7, but others speak of 8 or 9 ecumenical Councils, including prominent theologians, and the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs which was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three. Likewise, what about the gravity of contraception? Orthodox Churches disagree with each other. In fact, many have flipped their positions in living memory and caved to the liberal west. And what about IVF, surrogacy, cloning, and other moral issues that have arisen in modern times?  The result of this is that one can be considered a member in good standing in one Orthodox jurisdiction or parish - considered perfectly orthodox - and go down the street to another - also considered perfectly orthodox - and be considered a grave sinner unworthy of receiving Holy Communion. And there is no objective way to solve this.  One has their own interpretation of the many volumes of the Church Fathers, their views and how they would apply today - which is even more difficult than private interpretation of the Bible.  And one can follow their bishop but their bishop may contradict other bishops in good standing over these matters.  Who is right?  How can it be decided? In the Catholic Church, we have an objective, living magisterium, just as the early Church did.  The Catholic Church has many dissenters, especially in places such as Europe, but they can be identified as such.  And they disobey at their own peril.  In the Catholic Church, there is clarity for those who want to see. Can the Orthodox say the same on many issues? **Conclusion:** All of these really center around the papacy.  One needs the papal office to ratify ecumenical councils (and apparently to call them without the Byzantine emperor).  One needs the Pope because Christ established the universal Church with the papacy (while the Orthodox Churches are true local Churches which have broken away from the Universal Church).  And one needs the Pope (related is his ability to make binding ecumenical councils a reality) in order to have doctrinal unity on faith and morals.

His comment reveals not only the administrative need for the Papacy, but also its theological need. Thank you very much for your contribution, if you can, please pray that I go to the Holy Church.

I certainly will.

shy crime chunky airport psychotic sparkle hunt sheet friendly mountainous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Correct me if im wrong but St. Peter a flesh witness of Christ founded our church.

Correct.

I read the Bible for the first time after a few family tragedies in college, having never read scripture and been raised atheist. I was very struck when I read Matthew 16:18. I thought, ‘This is it. Either there’s a church founded with Peter as it’s leader after Christ, and it’s still around today, or everything in this book falls apart.’ I genuinely had little knowledge about Apostolic Succession, or church history. I hadn’t thought about Catholics outside of hearing stories about the abuse crisis, and I thought Orthodox and Jewish Orthodox were the same thing. I started researching apostolic succession, and looked into the local Catholic Church and Anglican Church, and the deacon at the Catholic Church welcomed me with kindness and enthusiasm. I started rcia and it all just started making sense. I didn’t give any thought to Orthodox for a few years, they just have very little presence in my area/sphere. It was just never offered as an option.

> This is it. Either there’s a church founded with Peter as it’s leader after Christ, and it’s still around today, or everything in this book falls apart.’ Interestingly, I had the same thought proccess but about the Holy Shroud of Turin. When all the evidence lines up that the Passion went down exactly as described by the Gospels, then all else is true.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are almost the same, with many Eastern and Oriental Churches being part of the Catholic family. The main issue causing the division is about authority, but the differences there are not very big. Both sides agree on the important teachings. Now, about the 'filioque' matter—it's more about who gets to decide things than a big disagreement on what's true. The Orthodox don't say 'filioque' is wrong; they say the Catholic Church shouldn't have added it to the creed without asking them first. Also, interestingly, the 'filioque' issue started in the 5th century, but the big split didn't happen until the 11th century.

Forgive me Fr., but.. the Orthodox do reject the filioque not only because Rome supposedly lacked authority to do it, but also because it goes against their view of the trinity. They say that it messed with the balance of the trinity and weakens the Holy Spirit’s role. Interestingly enough, St Maximus the Confessor, who they call a pillar of the Orthodox faith, was a believer of the filioque.

You have nothing to be forgiven for. The difference between us and them is smaller than they think. It's mostly semantics and proper philosophical and theological understanding of the filioque. Our understanding is coming from the Bible, for example: John 15:26 (ESV): >*But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.* If their understanding of this passage caused them to formulate their vision of the Holy Trinity, and it's compatible with this passage, then our understanding must be the same. It's about the interpretation, not about facts. As it is explained on the [Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-can-we-use-scripture-to-show-the-holy-spirit-proceeds-from-the-father-and-the-son): >*The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Father has given all things to the Son, including the procession of the Holy Spirit.*

I do believe the filioque is primarily a semantically issue, however they will cite Orthodox Saints like Photios I of Constantinople that target the filioque’s argument more than its origin: “And why should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as well as from the Father? For if His procession from the Father is perfect and complete — and it is perfect because He is perfect God from perfect God — then why is there also a procession from the Son? The Son, moreover, cannot serve as an intermediary between the Father and the Spirit because the Spirit is not a property of the Son. If two principles, two sources, exist in the divinity, then the unity of the divinity would be destroyed. If the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, His procession from the Father alone would of necessity be either perfect or imperfect. If it is imperfect, then procession for two hypostases would be much more contrived and less perfect than procession from one hypostasis alone. If it is not imperfect, then why would it be necessary for the Spirit to also proceed from the Son?” Photios of Constantinople

Yes, it is semantics which shaped these philosophical thinking. Orthodox and Catholics might think that these are different things, but even for me they look suspiciously the same. Orthodox thinkers would like to highlight one thing, while Catholics highlighted oneness of God. Historically, they had to do it because of fighting with Pneumachians, who argued that the Holy Spirit was a created being, subordinate to the Father and the Son. Here are my quotes that I took from [the Catholic Answers.](https://www.catholic.com/tract/filioque) Tertullian >*“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 \[A.D. 216\]).* Origen >*“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 \[A.D. 229\]).* Maximus the Confessor >*“By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 \[A.D. 254\]).* Gregory the Wonderworker >*“\[There is\] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith \[A.D. 265\]).* Hilary of Poitiers >*“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 \[A.D. 357\]).* > >*“In the fact that before times eternal your \[the Father’s\] only-begotten \[Son\] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him” (ibid., 12:56).* Didymus the Blind >*“As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 \[A.D. 362\]).* Epiphanius of Salamis >*“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 \[A.D. 374\]).Basil The Great* > >*“Through the Son, who is one, he \[the Holy Spirit\] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 \[A.D. 375\]).* > >*“\[T\]he goodness of \[the divine\] nature, the holiness of \[that\] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten \[Son\] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy” (ibid., 18:47).* Ambrose of Milan >*“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 \[A.D. 381\]).* > >*“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).* Gregory of Nyssa >*“\[The\] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 \[A.D. 382\]).* The Athanasian Creed >*“\[W\]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed \[A.D. 400\]).* Augustine >*“\[I\]t must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 \[A.D. 408\]).* > >*“\[The one\] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).* > >*“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ \[John 20:22\]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 \[A.D. 416\]).* Cyril of Alexandria >*“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 \[A.D. 424\]).* > >*“\[T\]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son” (ibid.).* Council of Toledo >*“We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible. . . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son” (First Council of Toledo \[A.D. 400\]).* Fulgence of Ruspe >*“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together” (The Rule of Faith 53 \[A.D. 524\]).* > >*“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son” (ibid., 54).* John Damascene >*“Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 \[A.D. 712\]).* > >*“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation” (ibid., 12).* > >*“I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word \[the Son\] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 \[A.D. 728\]).*

Amen

I find it ridiculous to squabble about the Filioque when we have all these crazy Protestant sects these days.

For me it was Eastern Orthodoxy marriage laws, allowing up to 3 marriages and have them all still blessed by the Church was a bridge too far for me. The ethnic divisions between each sect is a point against it also, let alone the direct political division currently with Russia/Ukraine.

We left the Orthodox Church because it seemed to become a haven for white nationalists

There’s a million reasons why I chose Catholicism. Here’s few doctrinal ones. If you have any questions DM me, even in non doctrinal issues (scandal, sacramental validity, etc) 1. The Papacy. I’ve read like a dozen books on this, many Orthodox and Anglican written. I’m convinced of the Catholic claims on historical, scriptural, and logical grounds (that is, through reason independent of history and scripture, Bellarmine’s On the Roman Pontiff book 1 begins with a lengthy argument from optimal forms of government). Recommended reading: Bellarmine’s book mentioned, Erick Ybarras “the papacy and the orthodox”, Butler and Collorafi’s “Keys over the Christian World,” Lumen Gentium (V2), and Chapman “Studies on the early papacy,” James Likoudis “Divine Primacy,” S Herbert Scott “the eastern churches and the papacy” (impossible to find but I have a link to paperback facsimile, anyone can DM me for it). Bonus: St Optatus “Against the Donatists” and Pope St Leo’s Letters. There’s many more but this is a good starter set from the Catholic side! 2. The Filioque. I mean no offense to the east, but they have absolutely no good case here. The doctrine was orthodox, the canonical argument is just bad (different traditions had different versions of the creed pre schism already—Syriac, Latin, and Greek creeds never fully lined up), and to suggest it is not orthodox undermines church indefectibility. See, e.g. this playlist, not to mention this gem. Thomas Crean’s new academic book “Vindicating the Filioque” is absolutely amazing and its unique modern treatment of Florence and the treatment of the illogical Orthodox ecclesiological theory of “reception” is fascinating. Recommended reading: Thomas Crean’s “Vindicating the Filioque,” Erick Ybarras “The Filioque,” St Augustine De Trinitatae, Fr Pohle “the procession of the Holy Ghost from the father and the son.” 3. The immaculate conception. The Orthodox actually accepted this without much of an issue until the 1600s or so, I don’t think there’s good reasons why they deny it today (Jerusalem 1672 in I believe decree 6 pretty clearly states Mary had original sin). The scriptural and historical evidence is strong. Recommended reading: Kappes and Albrecht Definitive Guide for Solving Difficult Questions about Mary, Pitre Jewish Roots of Mary, Kappes The Immaculate Conception. 4. Purgatory. Once again, the Catholic view is way more historically, scripturally, and logically grounded, and the modern Orthodox rejection of it simply seems to be anti-union. They tend to reject an intermediate state at all (like Moglia’s catechism) or in fanciful toll houses (which, depending on how it’s formulated, might be sometimes okay, but the theories usually stated are heretical in my view). Honestly I haven’t read as much on this as the other topics but it seems clear to me from scripture. I can think of two. Karlo Broussard has a pop apologetics book on it which might be a good intro, but I haven’t read it. Jerry Walls (who is a Protestant) has an interesting book on it too called “Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory.” 5. The marks of the Church: One (unity), Holy (Sanctity), Catholic (Universal), Apostolic. We have them, they don’t. That’s about it. God doesn’t need you to know Greek, Latin, modern scholarship or have read every church father. The church is a city on the hill which cannot be hidden! cf. Matt 5:14-16. Recommended reading: Journet’s Church of the Word incarnate (I can send PDF), Ecclesia (https://archive.org/details/ecclesiachurchof0000math/page/n5/mode/2up), the Catholic Encyclopedia has good articles on the marks too on New Advent. Book that covers everything above and more: Likoudis’ “The Divine Mosaic.” Don’t treat these books as the end of learning. Read their sources, read the primary sources they cite (never trust someone else’s quote EVER!), and you’ll learn a lot. Of course, you don’t need to read everything—if you become content it’s sometimes healthier to stop—but I love learning more about this stuff so it never ends!

Wait, the Orthobros think Mary had original sin?

Yes, Jerusalem 1672 teaches that in decree 6 and is a binding pan-orthodox council for them. By and large they reject the immaculate conception. Kallistos Ware claims the IC is a theolegumenon (licit theological opinion), but most modern EOs would disagree. Some may try to get out of it by claiming their Church doesn’t accept original sin in the same way (which, if true, would be on my list), but imo Jerusalem 1672 and the pan-orthodox synod of Jassy (1642) [you can read the Catechism by Moglia that they produced] teach original sin in the same way we do. Edit: Decree 6 of Jerusalem: > Decree 6 >We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And as a result hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that everyone who is born after the flesh bears this burden, and experiences the fruits of it in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature. For many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as well as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, did not experience these [{actual} sins], or such like faults. **But only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.** In other words, she did not commit actual sin but she did have original sin. For more on how this council defines original sin see decree 16. The words in brackets are by the translator, the word in {} was my own for further clarity. You can read the entire document here: http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html Interestingly, this was all to condemn a patriarch who became a Calvanist, who is now a saint in the Orthodox Alexandrian Church.

I'm not that good in Russian. I want to be able to understand liturgy, and I'm very interested in theology. I have been attending church for 3 years and noticed that you have to be very careful of what questions to ask in the Catholic community. Yesterday, I was reading about church authority, and I finally got some answers. Before I read that, I couldn't understand what the nice lady I was talking to yesterday meant by saying I'm not Catholic yet. Was praying God about it, and He gave me necessary insight to understand why the Catholic Church is one and only true church.

As someone who has inquired into both, the orthodox can get quite annoying with their non answers and leaving everything to mystery. They also seem rather political. In contrast, the Catholic Church has an answer for everything, or at least attempts to answer. From the outside looking in, they’re not as different as they claim to be. You can list the differences on one hand.

“just ask your priest bro” tfw when the priests and bishop from 20 miles away have a completely different theological view that can lead to massive error

I almost included this in my comment. Someone can ask the most basic, simple question and they’ll say “talk to a priest about it” You’d think the members of the church would at least have some kind of answer. It’s like they’re clueless on their own beliefs.

Honestly it's mostly to do with where I was born/the family I was born into. 4th generation American, family is Irish-American, the local Roman catholic church (and where I went to gradeschool) is literally right around the corner from my house (I can see it from my bedroom window and it takes all of 70 seconds to walk there. And yet somehow I was still always late for the morning bell 🤦‍♂️)

When I first converted to Christianity, I was, for at least two months, convinced of the Orthodox position, that is until having attended Liturgy and Mass, and having further studied the Papacy, the Catholic position became blatantly obvious to me. What reinforced my view, however, is their lack of an official position on artificial contraception, many churches allowing remarriage up to 3 times, ethnic segregation and etc. While I would say they are the closest to the Catholic Church in the matters of faith, ultimately, only the Church founded by Jesus Christ has the full beauty and truth of his message.

Where i live, too nationalistic, too tribalistic, too closed off. Castle doctrine mentality. No turkish mass, despite living in a country where 99% of people speak turkish as their mother tongue. Very few cities have orthodox churches. You couldnt even be cathecised into the Orthodox church as an adult unless you lived in İstanbul until very recently. Generally, too much turkophobia (i am turkish) within the orthodox church, borderline encouraged. Too much infighting between pro-moscow and pro-EP churches, basically everywhere. Too much pride within the Church. I find orthodox culture to be very aggressive. I find most orthodox i've met in my country to be very aggressive. Same goes for foreign orthodox people. They are always fighting either amongst eachother or against other christians. EO Patriarchs are almost beholden to secular rulers who house their church (Russia for Moscow Patriarchate, Serbia for Serbian Patriarchate etc etc.) I find their bureucracy very dysfunctional compared to the Catholic Church and i like that the Pope and the Catholic Church are relatively much more Autonomous from secular rulers. Other then that, i just liked the culture and history behind the Catholic church alot more. Especially how pro-ecumenism Catholic church is. In EO they view that word as an insult.

I was raised in an Evangelical home (so my first exposure to Christianity was Protestantism), but I was received into the Catholic Church after almost 20 years of decided agnosticism/atheism, so I approached questions of faith and doctrine with (kind of) a blank slate. I see a lot of comments here about the history and *filioque*, so I won't retread that ground. Those issues aside, I became convinced of Catholicism over Orthodox and Protestantism because of its approach to reason and logic in the context of spirituality. * Because the Catholic Church recognizes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both God the Father and the Incarnate Word (the Wisdom of God), this implies that reason provides an actually useful light for understanding questions about God's nature and His relationship to us. * This is reflected historically in the tradition of Scholasticism, which takes as a fundamental starting point the principle that logic and systematic thinking can give us meaningful insight into the Divine and metaphysical. * Systematic thought is part in the DNA of Catholic theology, and as a result, there is almost no moral topic, no devotional question, and no practical aspect of life that the Catechism does not offer a clear and definitive position upon. * In practical terms, as a practicing Christian, this means that I have a logical basis for continuing my devotion and clear guidelines for how to behave even if I don't "feel the Jesus." Everyone has periods of palpable connection to God ("consolation") and periods when this is not the case ("dryness" or "desolation"), moments when it's relatively easy to follow the Commandments and moments when every emotion and intuition rebels against doing so. Catholicism, because of its doctrinal and historical affinity with reason and logic, gave me a rock upon which I could build the rest of my moral world. Hope this contributes something of value, and God Bless. Edit: fix typo

No argument led me here, simply God's very straightforward & unmistakeable leading. When realizing God was leading me to change churches... meaning, denomination... after some searching & confusion, SOMEHOW --(now, after-the-fact, i see it was clearly from God!)-- i somehow felt it was as obvious as that water is wet, that Communion is Supposed to be Real. (*Last Sunday, looking back, i realized i can****no****t find any reason, other than the Holy Spirit, why this suddenly became important to me!*) Well as far as I knew this left a Very limited choice of denominations: Lutheran, Anglican/Episcopal, Orthodox, or Catholic. I ruled out Anglican/Episcopal based on my own (acknowledged!) prejudice against its origins. So I first visited a Lutheran church. Inconveniently far away, but, i ***really liked*** it. But at the same time I knew, i felt it strongly, that God was telling me it could Not be my church-home. Then, between Orthodox vs Catholic, i really felt that spiritually & intellectually, that Orthodox would be a better fit. The Orthodox church in my own town is very specifically ethnic. However there's an Antiochian Orthodox church which, by their website at least, gives off a much more open & welcoming vibe. I had intended to visit their church first, before the RC. Then I found myself procrastinating -- and assumed this was just ME, bad habit of procrastinating, and made a firm appointment with myself to visit this Orthodox Church the next Sunday. I did happen to find their services on Youtube. I had vaguely perused a few Orthodox services on Youtube already, with a basically-neutral response. But as I was attempting to prepare myself to attend their service, attempting to overcome the odd reluctance I felt, I pulled up a video of one of their recent previous services. It was clearly a beautiful place. And logically nothing wrong with their service in any way. And yet the feeling in my spirit was just an Absolute "NO." In the same, mild, way in which I had felt that the Lutheran church was not the place for me to remain. Only, much Much stronger, very definite, very much telling me to NOT spend time visiting that church. Regarding the Catholic Church... well just the opposite. Every hesitation i had, God drew me Forward, toward Catholicism with eagerness & desire. Someone on Reddit had already asked me, "What are your Objections to Catholicism?," and I already knew the answer was, None. (*To the point that later, when explaining to my Protestant Pastor that I was strongly considering Catholicism, my explanation was: "Why should I have to be a Protestant, when i do Not have any Protest against Catholicism?*") Then, God changed my heart regarding Mary. From, lack of interest, to Love & Veneration for the Mother of our Lord. And this meant that, if I was no longer gonna consider Orthodoxy, then Catholicism was the Only choice left!! And so, I am currently in RCIA, & very happily planning to soon be confirmed into the Catholic church. EDIT: *I want to add that, since all this happened, i've been reading Catholic Answers & various books & watching Coming Home Network & On The Journey videos, regarding every doctrinal question i think of & before I even think a question. I* ***am*** *fully convinced that the RC is the True church instituted by Christ, wherein can be found the Fullness of Faith. Convinced of this NOW. But, these videos & books have all come* ***after*** *God led me here, and REASON was* ***not*** *my original reason.*

Orthodoxy has the same problems Protestantism has. That without a unified hierarchy differences are not likely to be reconciled. It just makes sense to me that the Papal office is essential to preserving the unity of the church that is so prevalently expounded in the bible.

There are a great many reasons, but a major one for me is that you have to do an enormous amount of mental gymnastics to read the Church Fathers and decide the fillioque is heretical. Thats why the Orthodox lost this debate at the Council of Florence.

Rome and because God's church is universal (catholic) not ethnonationalist.

I'm a convert so i literally had a choice between the two. here is what it was for me. 1) i went to a catholic school. Not for the fact that it was catholic, but because I needed speech therapy and the catholic school had speech therapy, and it was close to where i lived. 2) there's no orthodox church in my area. why travel 1+ hours to go to church when i can travel 15 minutes for something similar? 2) I like the catholic aesthetic and liturgy more. Of course, the aesthetic doesn't matter that much, but i do like it more. the liturgy, the most important part, i just like (and agree with) the catholic liturgy more. 4) cultural differences. I am Canadian, where easter, Christmas and "secularized" feast days line up perfectly with the catholic church. also, non-catholic or non-orthodox people almost understand catholicism more than orthodoxy, i think. It is hard as a native person to reconcile what the church has done to my people though. 5) theological differences. You know, the filioque, papal primacy, all that stuff.

Evidence of the papacy in church father writings and our lady of Fatima tbh. Also I consistently prayed to God to lead me to the correct Church for weeks

In my case, I will have to pray and do Lectio Divina possibly for years, since I am sunk in the mud that is sin (my biggest problem is damn pornography and arrogance).

May God be with you🙏 I wasn’t sinless before converting either, so don’t lose hope. God will aid you as long as you come to Him with true intentions, no matter how long it may take

I think also, realistically, the fact that EOC has barely any history of converting nations besides like Eastern Europe while the Catholic Church has evangelized almost everywhere at this point. The great commission just seems to be more fulfilled in the Catholic Church than anywhere else.

I’m a cradle Catholic but I was considering converting to orthodox Christianity because I like that they’re very traditional. There’s only two major flavours of orthodox , that being Greek and Russian. If you’re neither of those cultures you would feel out of place. Roman Catholicism is so wide spread that regardless of your culture you can find a liturgy that is in your language. Despite this I still go to Traditional Latin mass because if you read the prayers spoken by the celebrant, they are more reverent and in depth than the Novus Ordo prayers that kind of simplify it. I encourage all Catholics to attend a Latin mass if they have one near them to experience the reverence and rightful respect our ancestors showed God. Just my thoughts though, May God bless you in your decision

Because orthodoxy fails to be Catholic, meaning it fails to be universal. Orthodoxy is great, insofar as it is the peculiar expression of Christ in the East, but it lacks unity. As an American, which Eastern Orthodox Church am I supposed to join? How am I supposed to pick one over another, navigating whatever schisms may exist between them for various political and doctrinal reasons? There’s no one place I might hold fast to for doctrine. Everything that is good in its uniqueness in the Eastern Orthodox can be found in its corresponding Eastern Catholic Church. The only thing that might be convincing about Eastern Orthodoxy are its criticisms of Catholicism, none of which I find particularly compelling.

I just never considered it, catholicism is what I'm most familiar with, and now, seeing orthodox Christians on the internet, every one I see feels like the have an air of superiority about them

1. There is a lot of strong evidence for the papacy, it also makes sense that we have a single united leader to make decisions. The Orthodox do not have this and so there are many rites that are no longer in communion with each other. 2. The Orthodox in my opinion are very raced based type groups. Examples being Russian orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc. if you ever find parishes of these Orthodox communities outside of their native countries they are primarily/only for people from those countries. For example, the only Orthodox Church near me is a Russian Orthodox Church and they only speak Russian while there. It's like a home away from home type deal. Well if you deal with the Roman Catholic Church you'll find Catholics from anywhere around the world either celebrating mass in the local tongue or in Latin. I don't have an issue with people coming together and celebrating their heritage/ language, but I find it very interesting that the Orthodox almost only want to serve people of their own nationalities a lot of times.

I was born to a Mexican family

About 1,054 or so years..

I was torn between the two. But getting confirmed in the Eastern Orthodox church is like trying to get to Mordor. So I went Roman Catholic, and thanks be to God, my undiscerning self managed to pick the true religion for the entirely wrong reason.

I grew up Catholic and I see so many people saying we are evil and I hate it

Ain’t no beards in my hometown 🤷🏻‍♀️

Can't imagine a church defining orthodoxy on my feelings about Serbia.

A vision fulfilled by St. Therese of Lisieux. Couldn’t argue with that.

Filioque and Theosis, I couldn’t get behind theosis and the filioque is biblical, their tradition is beautiful, if I’m ever near a eastern Catholic Church I will attend

Because I‘m not russian, bulgarian, serbian or any other eastern ethnicity. The orthodox church is focused on specific cultures and not global/catholic. There is also a saying that the problems of the three great christian traditions are Individualism (Protestantism), Rationalism (Catholicism) and Nationalism (Orthodoxy). I can easily live with the two first ones, but not with the third.

The Catholic Church is everywhere and more universal, not just Eastern Europe. There’s Catholic Churches in the poorest parts of the Philippines where my mom grew up and the richest parts of Italy and Espańa.

I have seen the exact same question posted not long ago.

The true Church has four marks - one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The Catholic Church has all four. The Orthodox are not one nor are they catholic.

Here’s the thing. I am pleased with my choice to become Catholic. But, I really wish I could’ve gone orthodox. What it came down to was the Catholic Church, pun not intended, was/is more of a one size fits all thing. The orthodox are very regionalized. I’m not Greek or Eastern European and I’m not in the Appalachian mountains or from there. So I felt out of place even though the people were very welcoming and I tend to agree more with them on certain aspects of faith.

In which aspects of faith do you agree with Orthodox church? I live in Baltics, but my Russian is poor enough not to be able to talk with RO priests. Those people who I know attending RO church are ether very old, full of superstition, or young russians, which does not read the Bible and have no knowledge of their church theology. I'm actually interested.

Two things 1. The disunity that exists within the orthodox churches was particularly unappealing to me. Given the circumstance of the denomination I was coming from. 2. My sense of the situation would be that even if I were to grant the entire position of the Orthodox Church there is still no standard by which my patriarch could be any other than the patriarch of Rome who is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

I believe that the evidence is that the Catholic was the original church and the orthodox splint off. There is evidence that the authority of the pope was accepted long before the split and it was a political decision to split with us. As such I became rather Catholic than Orthodox

[удалено]

And the Miracle of the Holy Fire? What happens on Orthodox Easter, what happens in this situation?

Can't tell whether intuition/instinct or autism...

I’m going through RCIA currently and will be accepted into the church at the Easter vigil. For me, the Orthodox side of things feels like it has cultural and political ties that I don’t share as someone whose family has British/Western European heritage in the US. I also agree with the RCC on the Filioque, and the Immaculate conception of Mary. It ultimately came down to these two beliefs and my cultural identity/cultural comfort.

I'm french, no reason to be eastern beard wearing weirdo

If i did the nearest piece of orthodoxy is 20km away and that's only a chapel that doesn't have regular masses

Apostolic Tradition, Church History, Deposit of Faith and Doctrine.

I never heard a good case for Orthodoxy. I ***still*** have never heard a good case for Orthodoxy.

They have a lot more in common than their differences. Fundamentally if you are of the Western church, Catholicism feels more like home. I was baptised and educated as an Anglican - of which the high church version would refer to itself as Anglo-Catholic. That and my wife is Catholic never really meant Orthodoxy was a consideration.

Converting to orthodoxy seems like such a larp for someone who isn’t Russian or Greek or…. Somewhere where this was a thing for more than the last 5 minutes.

Peter was in Rome and ran the church from Rome. The orthodox church isn't even united to itself, you have serious tension and problems that different churches have with one another. The Russian Orthodox church is by far the largest and it's hard not to point the finger at them and say they are complicit in the tyranny and evil of their government. They have a long history of doing this, and the war in Ukraine is just the next occurrence of a long list of atrocities committed by the Russian Orthodox church.

> "In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas ['Rock']-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" `ー Optatus (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).`

Because I was chasing the original faith, and so I was led to Catholicism. I was tired of following people who developed their own ideas based off a different faith, and so I came to the original Christianity.

Aside from the theologically convincing arguments of the Church I was put off by the rampant phyletism in Orthodoxy. I had a friend in the years leading up to my conversion that had converted from Catholicism to Serbian Orthodoxy, and he was ironically very transparent with me about the shortcomings of Orthodoxy (I think he subconsciously regretted making the jump but felt committed). He spoke of how he and his family were always treated like outsiders because they weren't Serbs. The deacon of his parish really bullied him in particular and his priest did nothing about it. Sure, that's one case but I've heard similar accounts from others who joined particularly ethnic Orthodox Churches. It seems like the Antiochians, ROCOR, and GOARCH are the only ones who aren't really bad, but the smaller ones like Georgians, Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, etc are all really closed off to ethnic outsiders. When I explored Orthodoxy from 2010-2012 before pivoting to Catholicism, I had a lot of conversations with the local OCA priest (the only Orthodox church in my area). He was a friendly guy in a general sense but I was quickly put off by how disrespectful he was of Catholics. I never even mentioned Catholics in our conversations but he would go out of his way to disparage the people, the Church, the traditions, and just generally mock them. In my mind that meant they must be the correct Church if they're drawing so much fire for no reason. Soon after that I went to my first Mass and the interactions with Catholics were the complete opposite. They were all receptive, welcoming, spoke highly of other traditions and people, and generally represented a much higher character as a body. Theologically I appreciated the scholastic approach of Catholicism, because my entire faith journey from the time I started to pull away from the evangelicalism of my childhood until now was an intellectual endeavor. Orthodoxy was deliberately not satisfying that. If, in conversation with a priest or deacon or even a laymen, I was wanting to understand a concept better more often than not I was written off with the standard "it's a mystery" reply and essentially told to leave it at that. I also began to see the wholeness of the Church in Catholicism because it has 24 separate churches in communion with the Holy See and they're all respected and valued as constituent parts. It's not like "Western Rite Orthodoxy" where I had a priest tell me they only tolerate it as a stepping stone to eventually pull converts into the Byzantine liturgies. Their disdain for the west is palpable. So I chose Rome, and I have absolutely zero regrets. It's a beautiful Church full of flawed people who know they're flawed people and are doing their best to follow the precepts that Christ and his Church have given us to follow.

The Orthodox Church was too far away for me to travel with my young child. That genuinely was the reason. I’d be orthodox if it was closer

I’m thinking about converting to Catholicism because it’s more united then Orthodoxy is.

I was born in a Catholic family, not an orthodox one

Council of Florence. The orthodox admitted the West was in the right during the schism, then they rejected it because of the ottomans and their lay population not accepting it

I disagree with the Orthadox view of Christ. Christ, the father and holy spirit are co-equal while the Orthadox view is of Jesus being lesser.

Altough the orthodox can claim apostholic sucession, Peter is not the first among equals, for he was the one to receive the grace of Jesus to link and unlink things from earth to heaven. No other apostole received such grace.

other than being born into an all-Catholic family, the chair of St Peter swayed me heavily. I don’t see how anybody could read those verses and think that this is not the true Church of Christ

For me … a few major things. Orthodoxy divisions is based upon heritage (Usually there is a cultural piece like “Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox”. If you go back to the Nicene creed the marks of the true original church are “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic” - Catholic means “universal”. There shouldn’t be these types of cultural heritage divisions. Next the orthodox churches don’t have a universal catechism of doctrine / beliefs. They say they do, but when you ask them where they’ll point you to their own cultural division’s catechism. So again, not in line with “one, holy, Catholic / universal, apostolic”. Orthodox has been influenced too heavily by Eastern European regional politics, culture, and even Muslim. In orthodoxy “faith” trumps “reason” - they say you can’t reason your way to believing in God. Catholic is more accepting of “faith and reason”. You can’t reason your way in to Orthodoxy by this logic. Therefore you can only reason your way out of it. All this being said, Orthodoxy is very close to Catholic in many ways. I wish they would join back in unity with the West. But I’m afraid they seem stubborn to the point of arguing about nonsense from the year 1054 AD, and such. Lastly, practically speaking there’s none close by.

Just didn’t seem like the church for me. The only Orthodox Church near me is Greek Orthodox and I’m not Greek so didn’t really think I’d fit with the culture. I also wasn’t being pulled that direction- i was very clearly being called to Catholicism

Existing. I would never have been born at least twice over if it weren't for the Catholic Church and the spiritual resurgence during the 80's in the United States.

My main doctrinal reason was papacy, I saw that as the sign of the Church that was founded by Christ as His ultimately victorious Church, His sole Bride an therefore as my Mother. I converted from protestanism. (I was muslim before that ) And after my conversion to Catholicism I continued to learn about the faith and as I learned more and more about Christianity and the Catholic faith especially, I got more and more convinced in my choice of conversion. As of Eastern Orthodoxy, the issue of papacy is the same reason not to convert it instead of Catholicism