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


Who taught you that ?

Splitting from Peter is NOT orthodox it is unorthodox to do that by definition and by definition it is schism theologically.

celebate priesthood is a discipline not a dogma.

Re: unleavened bread vs leavened bread

speaking of Catholics

“The West uses unleavened bread because that is what Jesus used in the Last Supper.”
For context HERE


He couldn’t have. The Last Supper was before Jewish Easter. Before Easter it was accustomed to raise all unfeavened bread and save it for Easter. The only thing to be consumed would leavened bread which is what Jesus used because He never broke any Jewish law.
“The Orthodox Church uses leavened bread for, according to the Gospel of Saint John, Last Supper and Passion, took place during the evening, night and day time of Passover Day, therefore leavened bread was eaten in Last Supper. According to the synoptic Gospels, last Supper, Lord’s trial and crucifixion took place during next day, the first Day of Unleavened Bread feast, but according to Lev 23:7, any work on that Day was forbidden. Clearly, the synoptic Gospels are in error on the day of Last Supper and Passion.”


Historically At the Passover, they were only to eat unleavened bread. The Eucharist is a Passover meal

Be sure to read this Ex 12:14-20 and note the insistence of unleavened bread


Lk 22:

7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 So Jesus[a] sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it.” 9 They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” 10 He said to them, “Behold, when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house which he enters, 11 and tell the householder, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?’ 12 And he will show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready.” 13 And they went, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the passover.

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it[b] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[c] 21 But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” 23 And they began to question one another, which of them it was that would do this.

Who is the Passover lamb?


Why did Rome split off from the Orthodox Catholic Church and list the married priesthood of the Eastern Churches as a reason to break off and excommunicate Michael Cerularius?

Is it Orthodox to make essential changes in the Nicene Creed?
Many would say that essential doctrines should never change. But Rome added the filioque and the Orthodox Catholic Church would not go along with any essential changes to the creed. That is why Rome split off from the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Catholic Church remained and held to the creed as it was written without the essential and unorthodox addition of the filioque.

  1. They aren’t Catholic. They are separated from Peter’s successor & those who are united to him.
  2. The excommunication has been dropped. The schism remains.

Since you ask, maybe you haven’t seen an explanation. HERE

Explained in the above link,

shortened to

Dual procession ≠ dual source
JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds

BTW, The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin.


You are in error according to the Encyclopedia Britannica online which says " The official designation of the church in Eastern Orthodox liturgical or canonical texts is “the Orthodox Catholic Church.”"

And you are in error according to Ellwood, Robert S.; Alles, Gregory D. (2007). Ellwood Encyclopedia of World Religions . p. 128. ISBN 978-1-4381-1038-7. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are properly known as the “Orthodox Catholic Church”

Why did the Roman Church separate from the Orthodox Catholic Church in 1054 when they accused the Orthodox Catholic Church of allowing married men to be priests? Was the requirement of mandatory celibacy by the Roman Church a valid reason for the Roman Church to separate from the Orthodox Catholic Church? It is true is it not that St. Peter was a married man. If St. Peter was a married man and Jesus chose him, why in 1054 did the Roman Church excommunicate those in the Orthodox Catholic Church who followed the example of St. Peter and allowed married men to be priests?


You are in error according to Catholic Answers, Trent Horn who says:
"Ecclesiastical Latin, or “Church Latin,” is the official language of the Holy See, or the Vatican city-state. It is not the official language of the Church as a whole but is instead a traditional language that has been used in the liturgy and ecclesial documents since it was gradually introduced in the fourth century.


Actually, Latin is the official language of the Holy See and the Roman rite but not the Church as a whole.



DictatorCzar . . .

I been researching for quite some time. And I can’t decide wether to decide to convert to the Catholic or Orthodox churches.


Praying for you DictatorCzar.

Would you mind referring to me all the writings that explicitly mention “Orthodox Churches” over the first three hundred years of Christianity?

Naturally I am going to say you should become Catholic since you asked (Full Disclosure: I am Catholic).

In 2000 years we have had great popes, good popes, mediocre popes and bad popes.

But they have always served as the visible sign of unity.

And they always have the ability and supernatural protection to solve doctrinal conflict authoritatively if necessary.

Not that everything they say is under that level of protection (nobody teaches that–not even Catholics).

We are not ultramontanists.

But the Pope has the Keys of authority.

In a sense ALL bishops (and their successors) have access to the keys (if they did not, we could not have new Popes).

But in another sense, the keys are ONLY entrusted to ONE–St. Peter (and his successors).

God bless.


PS By the way. You can still join one of the Eastern Rite (“Roman”) Catholic rites and still attend Mass at your local Latin Rite Catholic Church.

Then when you are on the road, etc. or if you move, or whatever, you can attend the Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgy.


Actually, we are not Eastern rites of the Roman Catholic Church. We are particular Churches that are in communion with Rome.



ziapueblo . . .

Actually, we are not Eastern rites of the Roman Catholic Church. We are particular Churches that are in communion with Rome.

Thanks ziapueblo.

(That’s part of why I put the “Roman” in quotes. Not only for the people here, but for lurkers that may scatter read in the future.)


Jesus Christ, the Son of God.


Catholic Church uses both forms of bread, it was other way around- Patriarch Michael of Constantinople stepped on Latin Eucharist and implied it is not really Eucharist because it was from unleavened bread. Then Pope send legates to investigate issue, they overstepped their authority and boom, schism.

I am inclined to believe, as ZP pointed out, that if Orthodox return to Catholic Church, Papal Supremacy would be in a manner where Pope would only intercede if he was asked to, or if it was really needed (for example if any particular Church went to heresy). I wouldn’t deny Papal Supremacy nor limit it’s use (so if particular church goes to heresy, Pope can actually act)- but more autonomy in Eastern Churches would be fine. In the end, Catholic Church acts like that anyway (from my perspective at least). Pope can act if he wishes to, but generally he wouldn’t abuse his power and rights just to diminish Eastern traditions. Process of Latinization was done by many Latin Bishops in Americas and afaik Popes never seemed to be guilty of it (but they should have stopped it).


Hm, I see your point now. By reciting Filioque, they don’t follow Vatican 2 call of Rome to return to their ancient traditions. However, I would present my opinion that tradition changes over time- we don’t all use same liturgy as Apostles did, many things changed. From time of schism or from time of returning to Catholicism, Eastern Churches could change. I get that Filioque is more of a latin thing to say, yet Bishops of Synod decided unilaterally that they want it in their Divine Liturgy.

But it seems to deny article of Union of Brest too. I’m kinda divided as to whether Holy See has authority to dictate what tradition should be for East or to let Synod include Filioque by their wish.

Actually, I’ve actually seen term “Roman Catholic” be used as “in unity with Rome” Catholic, and also as is interchangeable with Latin Catholic. By first definition Eastern Churches would be “Roman” Catholic (in unity with Rome), by second they wouldn’t. Eastern Christians used to refer to themselves as “Romans” for a time, but during Union of Brest word “Romans” would be used as “Latins” would be used earlier on. Terminology can be a mess too.


Greek Catholic Church of Slovakia. If I have a chance to ask one of their bishops about it, I will. For now they seemed to cite their right to include it as per decision of their own synod, but I want to ask about implications of Vatican 2 for such decision. Funnily enough, bishops seem to stress Greek tradition of their Church more than often and seem to dislike latinizations of Churches, but they don’t mind Filioque.


The Church is organic, always adapting to what is around her yet the essence of her liturgical life stays the same. Rite is much more than a liturgical patrimony. It includes theology, spirituality and rule of prayer, all of which make up ones belief.

I know you are not saying this I can only speak as I once thought but before I discovered the Eastern Catholic Churches (I of course knew of the Eastern Orthodox). I was heavy into Roman Catholic apologetics. It was through this love for apologetics that I discovered the Eastern Catholic Churches. I assumed they were “Roman” Catholics with a different looking “Mass.” it was in discussions on this forum that I discovered that this was not the case. It forced me to study the East and read what Rome had to said about these things. I was blown away. For so long I had thought the Church was only Roman and know discovered it was much, much more. At first I felt like I had been betrayed. How could I have learned all this apologetical stuff and come to find out that Rome encourages the Eastern Churches to live out their lives theologically, liturgically and spiritually like their Eastern Orthodox brethren? I began to understand the context of most Roman Catholic apologetics and that is the Protestant Reformation. I joined a Byzantine parish and went native if you will and have been there for many years now.

Sorry for the long and drawn out probably morning response :sleeping: but the Catholic Church is much more than Latin and if you read what the Popes since Leo XIII have said, it is basically, believe as you Easterners always have.



That’s a beautiful story. My understanding of Latin Doctrines was coming along with my discovery of Eastern Catholics. I studied many historical things from Eastern Orthodox perspective and almost became Eastern Orthodox in the proccess. I looked into basics of Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, but I sticked to Catholicism. I do understand theologically and liturgically, and almost in every aspect Eastern Churches differ from Latin Church, but we can not contradict each other. I too find Eastern tradition more appealing to me in some aspects, but Latin in some others. I just can’t seem to choose and might suffer from “spiritual schizophrenia” as it’s called, but in my case I feel enriched by it. We can agree that differences in interpretation make us rich, and agreement in truth makes us united. (Theologia Prima-Theologia Secunda distinctions)


And Protestant Anglicans, call themselves Catholic as well. Are They? Nope!

celibate priesthood explained HERE


It does not answer the question as to why in 1054 the Roman Church split from the Orthodox Catholic Church listing as one of the reasons that the Orthodox Catholic Church allowed a married priesthood.


Source for this allegation?

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