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


Yes, but we are not Calvinists. He offered salvation to everybody- but not everybody accepts it. I think that words are not really translated, they are just interpreted.



interpretations are just that, interpretations. We want to make sure we follow correct interpretations.


I don’t think that was true in every language. For example, I thought that in other languages such as Romanian for example, pro multis was translated directly as pentru multi and not interpreted.


I believe experts from every country translated those. Their judgment was that people would understand the meaning behind that. I still don’t see how would this invalidate Catholic Church at all.


I wanted to use language indifference in liturgies as parable to bread-form indifference in liturgies. Not to imply he spoke latin LOL


Lol. Ask the owner of McDonald’s if you should eat at McDonald’s or Burger King. I’m just kidding. I’m converting to Catholicism right now. I’ve been to several churches. I’ve researched and prayed. A LOT. I can tell you that I know i am doing the right and thing becoming Catholic but I also believe you need to find that out on your on as well. Best of luck and I will pray for you. “He who seeks the truth shall find it.”


Who said it would invalidate the Catholic Church. What I was asking about is whether or not there is perfect unity in the Catholic Church as someone had suggested.


Oh, my apologies. However, I don’t see how that unity is impaired by this either. We changed the words to better reflect truth in our current age.


I think that this forum is only going to encourage you to convert to the Catholic Church over the Orthodox one. It’s true that there are alot of similarities, but there are also some major differences. Probably some of the most basic involve the role of the Pope of Rome. You could research how both churches view his role.


It shows there was not perfect unity because for a time, in some countries Catholics said that the Blood was shed for all, while in other countries Catholics said that the Blood was shed for many.


We expressed same truth. Some Orthodox speak Greek some Church Slavonic and yet there is no disunity in that. Words express same truth from different point of view.


Re: the sack of Constantinople in 1204, by the Crusaders,

Why is it we always hear about THAT incident


The Orthodox never mention What THEY DID 22 years earlier in 1182

in Constantinople, 1182, where 50,000 Latins were massacred, and their children sold into slavery to the Muslims HERE .


Pope JPII apologized to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders, and the apology was accepted


Where was the Orthodox apology for the massacre of Latins in 1182?

You’re probably thinking of the Galileo incident.


You might as well say that there is perfect unity among Protestants because even though they use different words, they are all expressing the same truth, but from a different angle.


I’d put it rather that they express the same un-truth, or the same rejection of truth, or the same failure to accept truth, but . . .



Not at all. Their beliefs are different. Our belief is essentially the same, just wording differs. Protestants dissagree on validity of infant baptism for example. Catholics do not disagree on validity of those words neither do they disagree on truthfulness of Filioque or other dogmas. We just express them differently. This is taking everything out of context, which you know.


Just to add further information, sack of Constantinople was done by excommunicated Crusaders. Before Crusaders got excommunicated, they tried to get to Holy Land but Venice offered them ships in exchange for attacking their rebels. Pope excommunicated Crusaders for attacking fellow Christians (Catholics at that). They remained without any goal so Byzantine heir hired them. Ex-Crusaders helped Byzantine heir take throne for himself and he rewarded them with high positions in court, but as he was overthrown people tried to expel Ex-Crusaders. Those rebelled and sacked the city in the process. Pope was not very happy about it and told them this would impair unity with Greeks even further.

I don’t think this should be called Crusade by far, neither was Catholic Church accountable for it in any way. The fact we are blamed for it is highly unreasonable, but as Jesus said “turn the other cheek”. We apologized for something we did not do.

Massacre of Latins on the other hand… while Orthodox Church as itself is probably not accountable for it either, Orthodox Church never excommunicated anyone for it afaik. There was never formal proclamation that it was wrong nor anything else.



We (Catholics) constantly hear from one side only. The Orthodox side

The following article explains some further history

"… the Orthodox did the same sort of things; in fact, one might say they were a major precipitating cause of 1204. This is not to say that the sad events of 1204 were excusable in any way, shape or form . . . but there are causes for things as well. The sack of 1204 was abominable; unspeakably hideous and evil.
Some Orthodox who object to the above presentation need to distinguish between “minimizing” and “explaining the background of.” They are different things. I would never contend that these events didn’t have an enormously negative effect on the Eastern Christian consciousness. To do so would be sheer stupidity. Many Orthodox, on the other hand, seem to think their side has never or rarely committed any atrocities against western Christians, which is patently false. Catholic-bashing is very fashionable: secularists, Protestants, and Orthodox alike indulge in it with impunity. I think it’s time that “the other side” (ours) was heard for a change … I refuse to view the horrible event of 1204 in isolation, because that is the truly biased and unbalanced (even bordering on infantile) method of reading history, and mitigates against learning from its lessons. It is a fundamentally liberal mindset which never looks back at history to learn (and speculate) why things happened the way they did – why we are in the boat we are in now . The fact remains that 1204 was not sanctioned from the top, whereas Eastern massacres and treachery in 1171, 1182, and 1188 were… "

For context

Excerpt From: HERE


They were the same Church for 1,000 years, so similarities will be manifold. You should study resources from both sides of this issue, and not just one. Otherwise, you deprive yourself of perspective.

My greatest conundrum is Rome’s “development of doctrine,” which I find to be a clever machination to justify minor or major doctrinal alterations. For example, the transformation of the Church’s collegial structure in Acts 15 to a papal monarchy of Vatican I.


Well the Orthodox Church killed many latins in Constantinople. But we shouldn’t blame on each other or talk about the problems of each church. I think they should have a giant council with many church officials to resolve these issues and possibly reunify.


That giant council happened twice. Council of Florence and Council of Lyons both reunited Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism but then Eastern Orthodoxy broke agreement of Council and schismed again. They did not accept Council- not either of them anyway.

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