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


yes, correct.

Well, most of the time.

Striking another patriarch from the diptych and not commemorating him was hardly rare, as is the current case with Moscow and Constantinople (and all EC and Rome).


Is this contrary to the Roman Catholic teaching that the Pope has supreme universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, East and West? It is a defined dogma, is it not?
If I recall there are many Roman Catholics who objected and who still object to the New Mass. In fact, one archbishop was sanctioned since he refused to agree to the changes in the liturgy. If the Pope made changes in the liturgy then, contrary to the wishes of some Catholics, why would he not have the power to change other liturgies since he has the supreme, universal jurisdiction over the whole Church?
Vatican I:
" Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world…This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.… So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."
IOW, it appears that you are anathematized if you deny that the Pope has the absolute fullness of supreme power over all Churches, East and West. I don’t see the Eastern Orthodox agreeing to this teaching, since it would mean that they are handing over control of their liturgy and other disciplines such as fasting to the Roman Catholic pope.
Sorry, but I think you are absolutely wrong if you believe that the Orthodox would ever agree to this teaching.


Which is a wonderful way to introduce yourself on a Catholic forum. :roll_eyes:

You’re a guest here. We’re not Satanic, and it isn’t kind to spread lies and slander your host. Last I checked, that’s actually sinful. If you believe half of what I suspect you believe about Catholics, then the majority of those beliefs are also lies and strawmen against actual Catholic beliefs. I think you’ll find our real beliefs to be anything but Satanic. So stick around, and knock that language off before you get kicked off of here.


Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.” Christ choose Peter to be the first pope and not a patriarch in the east. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and his successors are the true Vicars of Christ through an authentic succession line guided by the Holy Spirit. Hence the popes are the only true successors of Saint Peter and that is why you should convert to Roman Catholicism. Please read Matthew chapter 16 in the Bible. You are in my prayers, God bless you.


That’s not true. The Church of Antioch was also founded by Saint Peter so he left a successor there as well.



I love many, many, MANY things about the Orthodox, but if there’s something that incenses me deeply (and I dare say, it’s the incensing of the Holy Spirit), it’s that they can’t even decide if outsider/convert’s baptism are valid. You’ll be entering a church where some of it’s members won’t even accept your confession of faith or chrismation and insist you need to be fully re-baptized. Taken to it’s full conclusion, these people must think everyone, not just in our age, but through the centuries of the church, are all lost unless you properly followed some formula. They accuse the West of legalism, but this has no equal.

We ARE NOT baptized into any Church. We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was one grace, one baptism, that even the church fathers recognized as valid even from heretics. If it were not so, so many would be lost. Even saints in the Orthodox church, funnily! There’s a story of a young boy Athanasius who was play acting with friends, pretending to baptize. The bishop got wind of it, and was amused, and simply chrismated Athanasius and took him under his wing. According to these Orthodox, even Athanasius isn’t a Christian! The very man who built a bulwark and saved the church from heresy in his later life.

So tell me… do you want to deal with this? If these people don’t stir up the Spirit in you, it will at the very least depress you.


Successors of Peter in a general sense.

The specific sense of the Petrine Office belongs by right to the Roman See.


As a newly devout Roman Catholic can you explain this to me?

It is my understanding the Church in Rome was established before Peter. & I agree that Constantine moving his capital to Constantinople had nothing to do with the center of God’s kingdom.

But Peter Established many churches, instructed many disciples. How is it that it is only his successor in Rome holds the keys of the kingdom here on earth.

So much about Catholicism makes sense to me. This however, doesn’t.


I would say Rome has a most special place simply because Peter and Paul were martyred in it. Even Orthodox would agree here (and both Apostles btw, were prominent in Antioch as well). But there’s no denying Jesus giving special attention to Peter in gospels and focused so much on his ups and downs. It’s absurd to think the Gospels just placed it in there to “tell a story”. Everything has sacred purpose in the scriptures.


Saint Peter founded indeed the Church of Antioch, but the bishop of Rome has been granted primacy over the whole Church. Pope Linus was the successor of Saint Peter, the patriarch of Antioch was subordinate to the bishop of Rome. Saint Peter didn’t left a pope in Antioch, he left a patriarch (not the only patriarch, there were four other patriarch in the Church). He could not have divided the primacy amoung all patriarch, there is sufficient evidence proving that the bishop of Rome has the primacy over the whole Church. Hence pope Francis is the true vicar of Christ.


The Apostles as a college hold the keys… But Peter holds the keys in a special manner carrying out the Petrine Office. Peter is the Chief Apostle and Head of the College of Bishops.

It’s somewhat analogous to the way that all baptized faithful are part of the priesthood of Christ, but only sacramentally ordained priests and bishops carry out the ministerial priesthood.

There are the successors to the apostles who hold the keys in general, all the Bishops and also the Priests who are attached to their Bishops.

Then there is the successor to St. Peter who carries out the Petrine Office, having the keys in a special sense.

Read Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 back to back.

Haydock commentary on Matthew 18:18 -

18. Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. The power of binding and loosing, which in a more eminent manner was promised to S. Peter, is here promised to the other apostles and their successors, bishops and priests. Wi. — The power of binding and loosing, conferred on S. Peter, excelled that granted to the other apostles, inasmuch as to S. Peter, who was head and pastor of the whole Church, was granted jurisdiction over the other apostles, while these received no power over each other, much less over S. Peter. T. — Priests receive a power not only to loose, but also to bind, as S. Ambrose writeth against the Novatians, who allowed the latter, but denied the former power to priests. Lib. i. de pœnit. c. ii. B.


The Catholic Church is quite literally the instigator of modern science. One can make many claims against the Catholic Church, but one can not make an anti-science claim and be true to history. All of the people who were precursors to modern scientists were priests. The church created the great University systems of Europe which allowed science to blossom. The church is perhaps the one religion who claims the dogma that there can be no contradiction between faith and reason. There have been hundreds of modern scientists who were priests. Do some research, you will find the widely held assumption you made is utterly false.


Got it. I understand all this. The question is why does this primacy rest with Peter’s successor in Rome, not his successor in Antioch or any other successor of Peter.


Even in practical terms, the Church of Antioch sadly doesn’t exist anyways. It’s actually in Damascus now, and it’s been long time since it’s actually been in Antioch. And even so, they’re surrounded by Islam (even if the Alawaite branch is friendlier than usual Islam territory). That’s no place for a center of Christ’s church. Same goes for Constantinople, which is completely ludicrous to me that it behaves as if it has any say on anything. Erdogan has built a whopping 9000 mosques in Turkey in the last 10 years. While churches are forbidden to be built… and ones that get renovated are only if Erdogan feels happy about it (which he doesn’t and won’t). Christians are forbidden from preaching the gospel in public in Turkey (that one Protestant who recently got arrested has more courage than the entirety of the Orthodox church btw). And THIS is the center of Christianity? I don’t think so. It’s nearly dead and on life support.


I understand your point about the Pope of Rome and successors of that See, I was just commenting when you said, “popes are the only true successors of Saint Peter . . . “ The Patriarch of Antioch, whether Melkite Greek Catholic, Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, and Syriac (Catholic and Orthodox), see themselves as successors of Saint Peter, since all for of these Churches trace their lineage to Saint Peter. As a matter of fact, don’t the early fathers write that all bishops, in a sense, are successors of Saint Peter (I could be wrong but I’m pretty I’ve read this from some of the early church fathers commentary)?



I think we all need to remember that the “keys” were given to all the apostles. The “keys” of Matthew 16 are linked to “binding and loosing.”



This may sound silly, but one thing that I always nudged me is the shape of crosses.

I think it’s a little interesting that the Latin cross is the template for the rest. As much as I love cross variations in design, I feel a little odd centering with anything but a simple cross (like in a personal prayer area or necklace pendant) .

And in practice, I feel this is true as well. The Orthodox have an ethnocentric problem and bring a lot of their own cultural trappings into each wing, whether consciously or not. They say they are Catholic and universal, but it’s not that way once you get “boots on the ground”. Nor do they have a good sense of mission (if they’re not being sadly isolated like Turkey above). It’s a haven for natives and outside, immigrants and diaspora first and foremost… while Catholics are legendary missionaries and welcome all. As rich as they are in many mysteries of the church, they are not the “city on the hill” and forget the last thing Jesus commanded: Preach the gospel to all nations. At the end of the day, do you think he stresses the importance of the world coming to him, or some monks on a mountain coming to him through theosis, but being cryptic about it with others?


Quite right…Constantinople is gone… and it only ever had any sort of prominence b/c Constantine had moved the capital there. I wonder what would have happened had he stayed in Rome? At any rate, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in danger b/c of the stipulations that the Turkish government has put on it. One wonders how long it will exist…


Yes I fear you correct here. I love Orthodoxy but honestly I will ALWAYS feel like an outsider…always. And I’m not ashamed of my background and ancestry but I do want to be in a church that feels all inclusive.

ETA…and I also feel the same about many of the Eastern Catholic churches…some are extremely ethnocentric. I am here b/c I love the Liturgies of Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil. I love Byzantine theology and praxis… but I am not, and never will be, Ukrainian. And that’s really sad when ethnicity trumps God’s word.


I’ve never been in an Eastern Catholic church sadly. I should try, as there’s a Lebanese one downtown in my city (a bit far from me, but it sounds interesting). I do love a lot of Lebanese Catholic stuff I see on the Internet though… it still feels familiar, but I wouldn’t know anything from a personal standpoint.

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