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


Nope! Not true. It was the forcing of leavened bread by Patriarch Michael on Latin Churches in his jurisdiction that sparked this, as well as rumor of him stepping on Eucharist. I insist that Patriarch Michael should have debunked the myth if it was myth indeed and he didn’t stand by such decision.(stand, hah, get it?)


The Church changed its disciplinary practice. It wasn’t a doctrinal matter. No teaching was changed.


Here is the statement of the papal bull:
"we thus subscribe to the following anathema which the most reverend pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers unless they should repent.

Michael, neophyte patriarch through abuse of office, who took on the monastic habit out of fear of men alone and is now accused by many of the worst of crimes; and with him Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of this Michael, who trampled the sacrifice of the Latins with profane feet; and all their followers in the aforementioned errors and acts of presumption: Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN."


No, I say this Papal Bull was not legitimately used. Cardinal Humbert had no authority to issue it. Bull was a draft and by wording, I would suggest a theory that Cardinal Humbert himself composed it.


very valid reason for excommunication (if true) , don’t you agree? Patriarch Michael chose not to deny it.


If it was invalid, then why was it not revoked or denied by any Pope for 900 years? And why did Pope Paul VI think it was necessary to revoke the excommunication in his meeting with the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras?


It did not need to be revoved- understand this, Great Schism was not felt until at least 1200s and even then intercommunion was not uncommon. Pope died, therefore his authority ceased on anything not released yet. Cardinal Humbert released bull after he was called back from Constantinople, therefore there he had absolutely no authority to do so. This is why Melkite (Greek) Patriarchs of Antioch rejected quarrel of Pope and Patriarch and remained in dual communion- anathemas were never legitimate from Latin side and to excommunicate Cardinal had no real impact. Patriarch Michael’s letters were even critized by John of Antioch who said " I am covered with shame that your venerable letter should contain such things. Believe me, I do not know how to explain it for your own sake, especially if you have written like this to the other most blessed patriarchs". Emperor of Eastern Roman Empire also wanted Cerularius to revoke his statements.

There is a funny story about Latins asking Constantinople why are they not on dyptychs of their Church, and Byzantines actually did not know and had to check archives to find out. When Ex-Crusaders sacked Constantinople and appointed Latin Bishops, local populace did mind occupation but generally speaking they attended Latin Liturgies (or Masses) and viewed bishops appointed by occupants as “spoils of war”. Local population did not mind unleavened bread nor did they mind it’s use.

Pope Paul VI did it as friendly act towards Patriarch Athenagoras and Eastern Orthodox brothers. After all Latins never got excommunicated either and Patriarch reversed their own anathemas towards them. Only ones who got anathemazied by Patriarch Michael’s synod were Legates and deceased Pope (might be wrong, but I do not think living Pope was excommunicated).


If you are right, why did not Pope Paul VI say that the excommunication was invalid and did not need to be revoked. Was Pope Paul VI wrong to lift an excommunication that never happened and that never needed to be lifted?


When I was growing up we had the Filioque in the Creed. I was extremely distressed when our retired Archbishop (whom I love dearly) said that we would no longer have it in the Creed. I still have copies of the booklet issued in 2004 explaining this issue.

Privately, I still say/sing the Filioque. In church, I generally do not. One fellow who occasionally attends has a deep bass voice (you can hear him clearly even though he sits in the back) and he says the Creed with the Filioque, and if I hear him, sometimes I end up saying the Filioque too.


I’m quite aware of that.

And I’m not saying that this makes sense.

Yet it was always an aberration.

Yet the translation from the first formal (rather than interim) translation into English after Vatican II, until the most recent versions, did indeed translate it to “for all” . . .

In all probability, he, as well as everyone else in the region, spoke very small amounts of greek, and enough latin to obey the commands and demands of Roman soldiers. (As are former priest used to comment in his exasperation with those who thought he spoke Latin, “What would he have used it for? Cussing out Roman Soldiers?” :scream::scream::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:)

The Eastern Catholics will offer a cantor and a deacon to be named later :scream::roll_eyes::rofl:

(actually, I think that’s roughly what our then-bishop did with the Ukrainians in Canada when one of our seminarians fell in love during his parish assignment . . . I would later mention that phrase in a conversation, to be told “that was me”. [he later came back, is a deacon and presbyteral candidate for us again])



“Much”, Father?

The only Eastern use of leavened bread of which I’m aware among EC or EO is the Romanians (but that hardly means it doesn’t exist!).

Tough to choose between power-hungry, bigoted, and pig-headed . . . especially given the history both in the West and in Rome entering Communion with Eastern churches who adhere to their ancient practice of leavened bread . . . .


Would that mean that Roman Catholic latin scholars were unable to translate pro multis correctly? Or would it mean that the Roman Catholic liturgical experts, knew very well that pro multis meant pro many and were attempting to promote a more inclusive atmosphere, contrary to what might have been implied by the original pro multis.


I am guessing that this might be a misprint. I thought that all EC and EO use leavened bread. But the Armenians (who are OO) use unleavened bread.


It sounds like it :slight_smile:

Whether unable, error, or agenda is way above my pay grade. We have bidsops for that :slight_smile:

They found the need to change from “for all” to “for many” in the “recent” changes.

What liturgical experts know about translation and what their translation “means” has no appropriate role in liturgy, which is greek for “work of the people.”


Oh, dear. Even for spellcheck, that’s a doozy . . . we really need to keep the EPA out of liturgy! [my original referred to “unleaded” bread!!!]


It is not my right to judge Pope whether he was right to do so, but my opinion is that excommunications did not need to be lifted. Patriarch Athenagoras lifted non-existing anathemas too. Either we are in full communion and he lifted everything bearing Catholics from receiving Eucharist in Orthodox Churches, or he lifted thousand years invalid anathemas invoked by Patriarch Michael, notable for being power-hungry and abusing his power. Those anathemas in-fact were issued on then-dead Pope Saint Leo, therefore excommunicating someone in Heaven, and Papal Legates.

If he lifted anathemas on Papal Legates, they are in the Church therefore they are either in Purgatory (or in state of purification of soul, in Eastern view), or they are in Heaven. However, we know Church is in Heaven too, as it is in state of purification of souls. Therefore either Papal Legates, after dying, went to Hell and then Patriarch Athenagoras estabilished communion with those in Hell, or they went to Church and therefore excommunications were already lifted by God. I view revoking anathemas as symbolic, from both parties. In the end Patriarch Michael, if he did step on Eucharist, excommunicated himself. If I sin, I jeopardize my own salvation. Anathemas are done by people who sin, decrees of excommunication basically say “hey dude, careful you kind of went out of communion with Church, fix your ways and return please”.


Perceiving of written words changes with generations. In essence of the word, nothing changed. No one ever said Jesus did not die for all neither did anyone say he did not die for many. If someone says “2 is even number”, did the person imply 4,6,8 aren’t? Church judged “for all” to be more appropriate and spiritually enriching to the faithful at current time. Perhaps it isn’t word-by-word translation, but meaning does not change.


I think your last sentence makes a lot of sense. I haven’t heard it expressed quite that way but seems to be a good way to assess it.


“The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist.
The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist’s licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act.”


As to your questions on limbo, it’s always been considered a theologians theory to deal with death of infants who are unbaptized

" It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo , understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC , 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.



Note: The current CCC doesn’t mention limbo


Re: the subject of unleavened vs leavened, bread when people ask,

As one can see, from scripture Jesus used unleavened bread.


It’s the difference between a direct translation of pro multis , (Many) vs interpretive translation (All) explained Here .

After all

Jesus didn’t say ALL are saved. He said few are saved

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