Should I convert to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it wasn’t true, Turkish Christians would be able to build churches, or at least try and news would hit the wire 24/7 of massive persecution (like that Protestant, except on a tremendous scale)… and Rome and the rest of the world feel obliged to shame Turkey and take active measures.

But none of that is happening. Because it IS NOT true. Nothing is happening. People get along with the State and keep their heads down. And the price is the Gospel itself.

It’s not about being uncharitable. Just recognizing the bleak situation for what it is. I want nothing more than it to change. But I wouldn’t be helping anyone by engaging in fantasy and pretending it’s good.
 
Last edited:
The tiny amount of Orthodox Christians in Turkey by no means represent the entirety of the Orthodox Church. There is simply no way you can say that the Protestant you mentioned has more courage than what is found in the entire Orthodox Church.
 
Orthodox elsewhere haven’t done much since Sts. Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavs. Then… nothing. All of the wings of orthodoxy have virtually remained the same for centuries. A few good shining lights in Asia and the Americas, but only to get completely eclipsed by the Catholic or Protestant missions (some of whom literally devoted the wealth of their country’s reserves to conversion, like Spain or Portugal). And not only that, I barely see or hear of any infrastructure built by Orthodox. I can’t even think of one Orthodox well known university outside the “old world” countries. Or the myriad hospitals and smaller schools and other social functions that Catholics are known for. Missionary work isn’t just the gospel, but this presence in the social life of the world as well.

Speaking of uncharitable: They’re so warped that they think even St. Francis of Assisi was possessed by demons or at least sick or something. Or all stigmatists are. This is how “graceless” they think the entirety of Christianity is outside of their church. I’m not the hateful one.

"Here we must note that the nature of these stigmata is well known in psychiatry. Unceasing concentration of the attention on Christ’s sufferings on the cross extremely arouse a person’s nerves and psyche, and if practiced long enough, can evoke this phenomenon. There is nothing supernatural or miraculous here. "

 
Last edited:
You do realize that John Sanidopoulos doesn’t speak for all of Orthodoxy, don’t you?
 
It’s not isolated. I’m familiar with enough of these or similar type of statements.

You think I’m hateful, but they break my heart.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I’m not saying he’s the only one, but this point of view doesn’t represent the whole of Orthodoxy.
 
I’ve encountered it enough that I can barely take it anymore tbh. I love a lot of what they offer, but I’ve learned not to really get that close to it. Even some mild-mannered ones seem keen on deconstructing things the West holds dear and providing wildly alternate views, if not outright demonize it like above. They attempt to shatter entire worldviews, rather than limit it to theological points of contention (some points of contention btw… that I agree with… like the nature of original sin). For people who have so much to illuminate on history (unlike Protestants, for example… who are kind a-historical), they end up destroying history… and do the very thing I’m saddened at many Protestants for (for having the view that somehow the church was “in darkness” for a millenia until Martin Luther dispensed his wisdom from on high in 1517). It’s not just personally insulting, but an insulting view of the Holy Spirit, whom, Jesus said would guide us into all truth. How could entire halves of the world be totally worthless in their preaching of the gospel? I can’t tolerate this.
 
Last edited:
straykat said:
I can’t even think of one Orthodox well known university outside the “old world” countries.
Click to expand...
What! Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary, Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, University of Balamand and the list goes on and on.

ZP
 
Some of those are seminaries or small. I’m talking national renown… i.e. Notre Dame, Loyola, St. Marys, etc. Those Orthodox schools don’t have a presence in the wider culture. But they sound like interesting schools (and I’ve bought some products from said seminaries). I’m not trying to be too disparaging. This is merely about presence. And I hate to use the word, but “branding”. The Orthodox brand barely exists. It has a lot of treasures, but it’s insular and serves specific communities (often for preparation for ministry… not in a general sense)…
 
Last edited:
I think the people it will attract are the Protestants who already hated Catholicism, and now have a more sophisticated theological underpinning to argue against it with. Some are a force to be reckoned with, tbh. Either that or it attracts Catholics themselves who hate V2. I disagree that it’s a bad direction in the first place, but I hope the best for them.

But I’m not going to dismiss Orthodox if they bring people to Christ. They are trinitarian and (funnily) very orthodox, so despite the differences, it sounds like a good idea! Maybe not the fulness of everything the church teaches, but it doesn’t hurt. May God have mercy on all of us! I just can’t stand this idea of looking at everyone else as graceless. I would show everyone a video of Miryam. To me, she’s the perfect example for all of us that “unless we become like children, we shall not enter the kingdom of heaven”. Call me a heretic, but I’m sick of so much the Church breaking apart like this, over theology. Want the true Church and true Theology? She is an Eastern Catholic, so maybe I’m biased… but to me, this is it:

 
Last edited:
DictatorCzar said:
I have a very bad problem of making decisions and it makes me stressed out so please help me decide which church to convert and why.
Click to expand...
Considering that this site is a Catholic site, I"m pretty sure what kind of answers you’re going to get. Don’t expect an impartial weighing of the pros and cons of each church. 😁
 
straykat said:
Orthodox elsewhere haven’t done much since Sts. Cyril and Methodius converted the Slavs. Then… nothing.
Click to expand...
Good grief. Try evangelizing when the Muslims and communists are actively working to exterminate you.

Further speaking of a charitable attitude, one of your fellow Catholics here has insisted I’m condemned to hell simply for being an Orthodox Christian. Fortunately I realize that person was off base and many Catholics here, especially the Eastern Catholics came to my defense.

Not that it matters much, but the folks at my parish don’t exhibit any of the wild attitudes you claim define us Orthodox. It could be that there are more than a few Orthodox/Catholic married couples and we really do have to confront in a very real way what is different and more importantly what is so very similar between our churches.
 
I’ll agree with that. I rarely have difficulty seeing Christ in Eastern Catholics.
 
Because of the independence of the new Ukrainian Orthodox Church, there may be ways for Catholic and orthodox churches to United. As of now, the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are having a good time with the new indepdents Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Relations are getting better. I hope Rome could get involved with this alongside with Constantinople. This could be it, this could be one step closer to Christ’s plan. Rebuilding his church is our main goal.
 
I agree the EO has a LOT of problems(the looming schism being a BIG one, IMO.)
However, I agree more with a Lot of their teachings then the RCC in some areas too. (I realize it isn’t what I think but what is true)
It’s a slow process for me, as I want to make sure I land in the right place, if if don’t stay where I am.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me, but what do you base your belief of keys (given to Peter) being same as authority to bind and loose (given to Peter then the rest of Apostles) ?

Rome was declared successor of Peter many times in pre-schism writings of Fathers aswell as some Ecumenical Councils. To deny that was tradition is incorrect- and from the context surely it was different than “every bishop, including Roman Bishop, is successor to Peter”. As Christians in the manner of living for Christ we are successors to Apostles too- but in their sacramental power, most of us are not. In royal pristhood we are successor of Apostles too, just not in ministerial one (again, most of us atleast). Same way Bishops are successors to Peter in manner of authority over their own diocese/eparchy and faithful in it, but not in manner of holding Petrine Office and having the keys of authority over the Church nor being earthly head of it.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Forgive me, but what do you base your belief of keys (given to Peter) being same as authority to bind and loose (given to Peter then the rest of Apostles) ?
Click to expand...
First off, I base it on Scripture, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). Christ’s promise to Saint Peter has two elements, the “keys” and “binding and loosing.” They are connected. Two chapters later all the apostles are give the authority to “bind and loose” which the keys are connected.

Second, the witness of the Church Fathers.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Rome was declared successor of Peter many times in pre-schism writings of Fathers aswell as some Ecumenical Councils.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you on this.

ZP
 
Vanny said:
I agree the EO has a LOT of problems(the looming schism being a BIG one, IMO.)
However, I agree more with a Lot of their teachings then the RCC in some areas too.
Click to expand...
If I might ask

could you just list those teachings you have problems with?
40.png
Vanny:
(I realize it isn’t what I think but what is true)
Click to expand...
Well said 🙂
40.png
Vanny:
It’s a slow process for me, as I want to make sure I land in the right place, if if don’t stay where I am.
Click to expand...
Prayers ascending for you in your journey.
 
Last edited:
I dissagree on your point of binding and loosing being connected with keys. To explain my phrase- I believe they are connected in Peter but not that Apostles received keys also. May I ask why do you believe Our Lord left out this part of phrase said to Peter when he talked to the Apostles? After all, I do not believe he also said “you are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church and gates of hell shall not prevail against it” to all Apostles when he implied binding and losing. After all, only one of them received name Peter (Rock)- one with keys, not everyone who would bind and lose. Based on this, I believe that keys are connected to being “Rock” and also Church being built upon Peter instead- of being connected to binding and losing, which was given to all of them. Of course, that is just my impression that right now became a theory.

Also, while Patristic scources claim that Apostles received keys they mostly claim it in context of Church having the keys (therefore all Apostles as guardians of truth having them, but in sense of having them through unity with Peter). Patristic scources also claim that to be united in Church, you should be in unity with See of Rome and submit to Bishop of Rome in his Cathedra estabilished by Our Lord.
Then again, I know Church Fathers are witnesses to the life of Church and are great models for us Christians- yet they are not infallible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top