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


I quoted the Code of Canon Law of Eastern Catholic Churches. THAT is what the Eastern Churches believe or they wouldn’t be Eastern Catholics.

Now where is all this pushback from you coming from? Are you in union or not?


I am in communion with Rome not union with Rome. I may have stated this in previous posts, we have the Code of Canon Law of Eastern Catholic Churches and as long as the Pope of Rome does not step on the toes of our particular Churches this is what we have to go by. It’s not a perfect communion.



:thinking: please explain

I don’t see that condition mentioned in the area of law under Supreme Authority of the Church

This was from

The Supreme Authority of the Church

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

Note how many times Roman Pontiff is mentioned.

We already talked about canon 43 and maybe 45 as well. I don’t see anywhere in canon law where your condition comes into play. But maybe I missed it. If so please correct me.


I’m not sure what you want me to say here. Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome.




  1. Then explain what you mean by (I am in communion with Rome not union with Rome.)


  1. What specific Church do you belong to?


Are you suggesting Church does not have “perfect communion” with itself? If, say, Petrine successor became Eastern Bishop and told me to abandon rosary, I would obey. Christ was faithful and obeyed Father even unto death. We are to imitate Christ. If I obey a Pope, Head of Church and Vicar of Christ, it is not a sin. If Pope however, makes me obey unreasonable command, sin is his. What comes from within defiles us, not what comes from outside. As member of the Church my role is to obey authority established by God above me and search for him. As authority established above me, bishops, Patriarchs and the Pope have duty to lead me to God. If they neglect that duty, they will be judged based on this. If I neglect my duty, I will be judged based on it.

I am not saying traditions should cease and be neglected, nor that uniformity means unity. On the contrary, I attend Novus Ordo and Byzantine Liturgy a lot, and I want to check out Tridentine Mass more. I do not think uniformity needs to exist. However, if diversity divides us and makes Church have “not perfect communion”, I think it is not good. We can be diverse in our approaches, but not in things we approach. We can be diverse in way we express things, but not in what we express.

To have or to not have idea about spiritual tradition is one’s own choice- however sad it might be. Fact Eastern Catholic also borrows from Latin traditions is not bad at all. We are united Church, we are not uniform therefore as member of this Church I do not have to be uniform either. Church is full of traditions, and it is very rich with number of traditions it has. Would it not be wrong to wrong to force someone neglect riches of other traditions (of one, universal Church of Christ)? I draw my spiritual strength from all traditions of Church I know, and I plan to expand my knowledge about those. Latinization is wrong when forced, I agree. But to shame saying rosary before Byzantine Divine Liturgy would be wrong too. Churches should return to their traditions and roots, to never neglect their tradition so that Universal Church can benefit from it and so can ALL members. We all share.

And I noticed you have not addressed my point about you uniting Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and splitting Catholic Church in two, when opposite is true. Whatever would happen, I am first Catholic then I am Latin. Eastern Catholics in my country share this approach and (other than reciting Filioque because it does NOT imply heresy in our language) do not seem latinized to me. On the contrary, they seem to be holding heavily onto their traditions and being proud of being Eastern- but even more proud of being Catholic.

Pope and Ecumenical Councils (pre or post schism) have guarantee of Holy Spirit to be infallible. Therefore, to deny they hold authority in Eastern things would be to deny authority of Holy Spirit. This is a dangerous ground to walk on.


From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

  1. A relationship of recognition and acceptance between Christian churches or denominations, or between individual Christians or Christian communities and a church (signifies by a willingness to give or receive the Eucharist): the Eastern Churches are not in communion with Rome.

Funny, it seems they don’t even recognize the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Ruthenian Church and my parish, unfortunately, is still somewhat latinized. Mainly with parishioners who have ran away from the Ordinary Form of the Mass and want a more reverent liturgy. Sure, they are part of the community and practice the liturgical cycle but believe in most things Latin such as the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory. Most have no idea what a prayer rope is but they don’t miss the Rosary before Matins. Have been in contact with the Eparchy of Newton for a possible Melkite mission.



Yes! Wouldn’t you agree? How many people on this forum bash the Ordinary Form, condemn VII and complain about the supreme leader Francis Pope of Rome? (I personally think he’s great and is one of our best chances of communion with the Orthodox)

First off, highly unlikely since the Pope is the bishop of Rome, which is a Latin diocese. Secondly, that’s laughable! You would give up your Latin traditions (rosary, stations of the cross, lectio Divini, The angelus, your liturgical Latin feast days, the divine mercy Chaplet and a ton more) all for an Eastern Pope because he said so?

Well, I’m praying for an Eastern Pope and that he changes the Latin traditions! The Roman Catholic world would run that guy out of Rome!

On the other thread? I responded some time ago.

They recite the Filioque?!?!



Canon law, is clear. If one accepts it they are in communion. If they don’t then they are NOT.


Did Rome mandate this?

Or was it the Holy Spirit working through His children?

How different is your perspective of people praying the rosary before Devine Liturgy & Roman Catholics who dont care for the Rosary being prayed before Mass (there are many)?


These latinizations happened mainly during the 18th and 19th centuries. Many immigrants that came to the U.S. during this fine had no bishops so they were under the authority of the Latin bishops. Some latinizations were imposed by Latin bishops, some, unfortunately, were self induced in order to look more “Catholic.” This stopped with Pope Leo XIII and since Vatican II the Eastern Catholic Churches have been called to return to their ancient ecclesiastical heritage.

Why would the Holy Spirit wish to change an ancient apostolic Churches traditions?

I have nothing against the rosary. It’s a beautiful prayer. We Byzantines though have our own traditional prayers to the Theotokos. And Latin devotions, which are fine as private devotions, should not be part of the Liturgical practice of the East.



I agree with the Catholics more. There both good churches. I just hope they reunify, and hope that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have a schism because some people suspect that there might be a schism in the Catholic Church because of the sex abuse crisis.


It is analogous to RC who object to the Rosary before Mass being replaced with Liturgy of the Hours before mass. I don’t call it “perfectly” analogous as the Liturgy of the Hours is part of the public liturgy of both East and West, while the Rosary is a private devotion.

The scandal here is that a Western private devotion is displacing Eastern public liturgy in Eastern churches.



Woops, my mistake. I thought it was this thread, didn’t get notification or perhaps did not notice it.

There was a quote attributed to Saint Ignatius of Loyola where he said that if Church defines grass as red, he is ready to give up his own interpretation and accept the decision of hierarchical Church. If Pope indeed defined it as a rule to abandon Latin traditions, I would follow.

I personally don’t agree with everything Pope Francis says, but would he do any of the above I would follow. I am not college of Cardinals- I do not get to choose Pope. I am bound to follow authority higher than I am. When Apostles abandoned circumcision, Jewish converts to Christianity felt betrayed, yet it was right thing to do. I do not mean to disregard mine or yours, or anyone else’s traditions. I simply say there are things ABOVE tradition.

Your comment about praying for a Pope to destroy Latin liturgical traditions is a bit unfriendly. I wouldn’t be happy if that happened, I’m just saying I would obey.

Some people bash ordinary form, some people bash things here and there, yet we are all united in Church. We are not perfect, but Church is perfect. We are not Holy, but Church is Holy. There is One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church. One. We are not divided, we are diverse.

They recite Filioque, because not reciting it is based on it’s sometimes incorrect translation. If I attend Novus Ordo and we use Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, it is same (save melody) as when I attend Divine Liturgy. It was decision of Synod to keep it, as translation to our language is simply not heretical. It makes no sense to be heretical when attending Divine Liturgy and not being heretical when attending Novus Ordo, when words are not changed at all. I don’t really see problem with that.



You’re right. I apologize. It’s hard for me to believe thought that a particular Church, in the case the Latin Church, would willingly give up all their traditions for an Eastern Pope.

It’s fine that the Latin Church recites the Filioque but the Eastern Churches are called by Rome to return to their ancient liturgical and ecclesiastical heritage and if they are reciting the Filioque in their Creed they are going against Rome. It’s just not the tradition of the East.




Which church is still using the Filioque in the Divine Liturgy?


I find that you’re in a better place if you find yourself drawn to one of these two Ancient Churches

I believe that you’ll find more of a fullness in the Roman Catholic Church. Not that we don’t currently have some problems to sort out, but I’ve found that there’s just some kind of logic behind having the Bishop of Rome and the Magisterium.

First there’s the: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Note, some nay-sayers will point out that petra and Petros (the Greek words used for ‘rock’ and ‘Peter’) are differently gendered. This ignores the fact that in Aramaic (which would’ve been Jesus’s everyday language) that it’s “Cephas” in both instances, which isn’t assigned a gender.
There are a number of post-apostle era texts that refer to Peter as the Rock of which Jesus is speaking.

A thought for you would be this: go to the local Roman Catholic parish, ask for the Sacraments (they’ll probably put you through RCIA first), start attending Mass every Sunday, look into Eastern Catholicism, and if the opportunity arises, move to an area where you can start attending their Divine Liturgies. As far as Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist are concerned, both Churches will tell you that you need them; and as far as attending weekly Mass/liturgy, both Churches will tell you to do this as well. That way you’ll be covering your bases and maybe start putting down some spiritual roots.

Either way, pray, especially for priests, get you some Sacraments, and schedule time every Sunday for Church, read the Church fathers, get familiar with the things that all of the Ancient Churches agree on, such as being pro-life (this is referenced in the Bible and the Didache) and a devotion to Mary.

Some of my favorite discussions are with my Orthodox friends, but I think after some research, you’d agree that Catholicism just has some of those things that the Orthodox still lack.



I don’t mean to be polemical when I ask this, but what do we Orthodox lack?


There was a Catholic Church at that time, up until 1053. Then in 1054, the Roman Church split off from the Catholic Church and formed the Roman Catholic Church. The Church that was left was the Orthodox Catholic Church to distinguish it from the unorthodox Roman Church which split off citing reasons such as the Orthodox Catholic Church allowed married priests and would not agree to change the ancient creed. Also mentioned in the papal bull provoking the split was the fact that the Orthodox Catholic priests wore beards and used leavened bread.


I suspect that this is not going to be accepted by the Orthodox Churches because i doubt that they would hand over to the Roman Pope the authority to change their liturgy as is implied by accepting universal and supreme jurisdiction over their Church. There are even Roman Catholics today who do not like the changes in the Roman liturgy from the Tridentine Mass to the Mass said today.
I don’t see how there could ever be reunion of East and West as long as Rome insists on the authority to have supreme jurisdiction over the Eastern Orthodox liturgy.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit