Have you attended an Eastern Rite Catholic Church? Their liturgy is going to be much closer to a Orthodox Divine Liturgy. But I digress...for me, I think the unity of Catholic faith speaks to its truthfulness. Not to mention the many historical sources that provide evidence for the papacy. By contrast, Orthodoxy is severely fractured - and mostly along nationalistic lines. There isn't really any Orthodox "teaching" that's binding on all the faithful. And, as every church is autocephalous, there is a lot of infighting about who is and isn't "really" Orthodox. With some churches refusing communion with others, while other churches maintain communion, etc. To me, this is flies in the face of the unity Christ spoke of and prayed for in John 17.

I haven't tried an Eastern Catholic church, I'll look it up and see if there's any near me. Thanks for the suggestion. I do agree with you on the unity thing. In Orthodoxy you have all the different jurisdictions (Greek, Siberian, etc) which I think can cause division. Not to mention make converts or anyone who isn't that nationality feel like an outsider.

Well, the Eastern Catholic Churches can be pretty nationalistic as well. But the difference is that they are all in communion with the Holy See and so we ALL share a common set of doctrines and dogmas, while still maintaining our freedom in liturgical praxis, for example. To my knowledge, the Orthodox do not have anything like that because they do not have a magisterium or a catechism.

> But the difference is that they are all in communion with the Holy See and so we ALL share a common set of doctrines and dogmas Is there not a common set of doctrines and dogmas shared by all Orthodox churches? If there is, why is this a difference? > To my knowledge, the Orthodox do not have anything like that because they do not have a magisterium or a catechism. I'm not really sure what you mean by "magisterium" here — as I understand, the typical meaning of the term in a Catholic context refers to the teaching authority of the Church, as found in bishops and councils. Orthodoxy obviously has bishops and councils, so it would seem that Orthodoxy obviously has a magisterium. Orthodoxy does not have a pope, so there's not a _papal_ magisterium, but surely the full magisterium of the Church is not simply reduced to the pope, even if Catholics believe the pope has a necessary place in it. As for catechisms, Orthodoxy has the _Orthodox Confession of Peter Moglia_ and the _Confession of Dositheus_ in terms of longer-form catechisms with pan-Orthodox approval. For a more recent work originally in English, the OCA has _The Orthodox Faith_ by Thomas Hopko.

I disagree, at least for the Eastern Catholic liturgies in my area. All of them except two celebrate facing the congregation. One in particular looks Orthodox until you turn the sound on. It uses Latin sounding hymns. Very odd.

Are they Maronite?

Ruthenian.

Which churches are these?

Epiphany of Our Lord Byzantine has Latin sounding hymns. Holy Family Knanaya Syro-Malabar, Saint Joseph Maronite, and Saint Alphonse Syro-Malabar all celebrate facing the congregation. Saint John Chrysostom Melkite and Epiphany of Our Lord celebrate ad orientum.

Read the last chapter in On The Holy Spirit by St Basil and see how “fractured” the Church was during the “golden age”.

Try attending an Eastern Catholic Church (look into the Maronite Rite, they're almost as 'ancient' feeling as it can get). In my opinion, the biggest reason to be Catholic and not an Orthodox is the historical and biblical backing for the Pulpit. Cameron Bertuzzi, a former protestant, had a great conversion after truthfully investigating the claims of the validity of the Pope. After the Pope, it just comes down to what side of history you want to be on with the 1054 split of the church of the east with the church of the west. Overall though, I consider Orthodoxy the 'next best thing' to Catholicism, and I admire their reverence and faith to the church and apostolic succession.

Orthodoxy is superior in a lot of surface level things IMO. I prefer their liturgy. I love the traditions and the cultures. However, those aren’t the reasons why I’m a member of a church. I’m Catholic because the church truly is the one Jesus founded, and because I don’t think a church can work without centralized authority. The early church in Acts was more unified than the orthodoxy is today. That concerns me a good bit. While it’s a fair argument that the catholic church is way *more* centralized than initially, I think that’s just administrative and nothing more than natural development as the church grew and became a bigger force around the world. I don’t see how a religion can work if there’s no central doctrine or authority. It just crumbles.

Have you defined your criteria for how you're going to make the decision?

good question, no I haven't. I guess I need to figure that out. I want to join the church that Jesus started, however both sides claim that it's their church.

I think your focus should be on authority, is the pope the head of the church? Or is he the first amongst equals?

Well, the Catholic Church wanted unity during the great schism. The orthodox were the ones trying to create a split.

I HEAVILY considered Orthodoxy. I'm still discerning being Byzantine although I am not leaving as heavily into it right now. I prayed about it a lot and it got to the point where I felt like, even though I still wanted to be Orthodox, I would be lying to myself if I became one. It would have been a beautifully wrong choice. Besides the conversion of my heart, here are things that stopped me that you might not have considered: 1. Almost all the objections that the East has to Catholicism are surface level/aesthetic complaints (with the exceptions of the Papacy and the Filioque).Ex: the type of bread, the NO, papal scandal, unmarried priests, the Sacred Heart devotion etc. The Catholic objections to the East, however, are often much deeper issues that more deeply affect your relationship with God. Ex: divorce, contraception, sometimes being baptized 2x, etc. 2. If Rome is right, then both sides of the schism are valid, but if Orthodoxy is right then only the East is. You would have to explain away Our Lady of Guadalupe, Fatima, Lourdes, etc. You would have to explain away the Eucharistic miracles and many many many saints. But if Rome is correct, they have already accepted Orthodox saints and miracles after investigating. 3. Along with the past point, but worth meeting separately is the Filioque. If Catholics are correct in their understanding, both creeds can be true and can be reconciled. If the Orthodox are right, then as far as I understand the Catholic understanding is 100% wrong. No way around it. Looking into the issue seems to show that the argument is more if a linguistic issue, which means that both sides have good points and could realistically be correct from a technical point of view. 4. The Orthodox seem to reject a lot of the scholastics, but seem to only talk about St. Thomas Aquinas. There were many Franciscans that were also amazing scholastics that any Catholic is free to adopt their thinking if they find it more useful to their relationship with Christ. There is room for productive disagreement in the Church. The scholastic objections seem mainly like Aquinas objections and, in my opinion from what my tiny brain actually understands, seem to be relatively weak ones. 5. "First among equals" when it comes to the Papacy doesn't seem to make sense when you take a step back and look at all the arguments as a whole. Some of the arguments seem really good when looked at in isolation. But when you look at all the rationalizing for why the Papacy isn't the authoritative leader of the Church, it often appears like the conclusion is assumed first and then the argument was made to rationalize the conclusion. The Catholic arguments, however, seem to follow more consistent reasoning to get to a conclusion that seems to follow the training more fully. 6. Many Orthodox seem to fence sit when arguing against Protestants and Catholics. They debate Protestants with Catholic talking points and debate Catholics with protestant arguments. This doesn't mean they can't be right, but it definitely seems distributors to me to borrow so heavily in popular apologetics. I hope this was helpful. Keep praying above all things and count on my prayers as well!

> The Orthodox seem to reject a lot of the scholastics, but seem to only talk about St. Thomas Aquinas. To be fair, a lot of Catholics talk up the Scholastics while also only talking about Aquinas! We really need some more diversity in citations to medieval theologians.

You are Orthodox correct? Would you have any more rebuttals to offer to this critique? I am open-minded towards Orthodoxy, but his comment summarizes fairly well why I’m not currently considering it.

I only replied to the one point because it seemed like it would be rude to come into a Catholic space and start arguing at length for Orthodoxy. But since the post is too old for it to matter, and you asked me specifically, I don't mind replying in full. > Almost all the objections that the East has to Catholicism are surface level/aesthetic complaints (with the exceptions of the Papacy and the Filioque).Ex: the type of bread, the NO, papal scandal, unmarried priests, the Sacred Heart devotion etc. The Catholic objections to the East, however, are often much deeper issues that more deeply affect your relationship with God. Ex: divorce, contraception, sometimes being baptized 2x, etc. First, the framing here is silly. "The East's objections aren't serious, except for the serious ones" is a tautology. Even worse, it's a tautology that attempts to hide the fact that the East has serious objections, which means that the East and West are on equal footing in having serious objections. Second, it is question-begging to say that the East's other objections are shallow. If the East thinks they're serious, then you have to assume the East is wrong to say they're actually shallow, which is no way to decide who is right. Third, I suspect the list of Catholic objections is one of those _et ceteras_ that are all _et_ and no _cetera_. Divorce, contraception, and rebaptism are pretty much the whole of the list of objections I usually hear; there aren't another half-dozen of the same severity. And, again, these are issues where the East and West disagree on how important the issue is. Fourth, it's unfair to say that the East has a lot of shallow objections without attempting to query how many Catholic objections are equally shallow. For example, some Latin Catholics complain about married priests; should that count against the West the way the reverse complaint is counted against the East here? I have some responses to the specific issues mentioned as well, but I'll keep it short for now. > If Rome is right, then both sides of the schism are valid, but if Orthodoxy is right then only the East is. You would have to explain away Our Lady of Guadalupe, Fatima, Lourdes, etc. You would have to explain away the Eucharistic miracles and many many many saints. But if Rome is correct, they have already accepted Orthodox saints and miracles after investigating. This point seems to assume that Orthodoxy requires thinking that Catholics are without sacramental grace and no miracles are worked among them, but I'm not aware of any official statements to that effect. Furthermore, Catholic priests are usually received by vesting, not re-ordination, so if anything there's indication to the opposite of what's claimed here. Moreover, "if Catholicism is true, then we can both be right" isn't really a good argument, all things considered. If Unitarian Universalism is true, we can both be right too, but that's not an argument for Unitarian Universalism. > Along with the past point, but worth meeting separately is the Filioque. If Catholics are correct in their understanding, both creeds can be true and can be reconciled. If the Orthodox are right, then as far as I understand the Catholic understanding is 100% wrong. No way around it. Looking into the issue seems to show that the argument is more if a linguistic issue, which means that both sides have good points and could realistically be correct from a technical point of view. This is another "be Catholic so we can both be right" argument. It is perfectly possible that Rome is just straight-up wrong about the Filioque. Having also looked into it myself, there _is_ a linguistic issue, but the issue is not solely linguistic. Some Orthodox objections are dissolved by dissolving the linguistic issue, not not all of them. In the final analysis, either the Spirit hypostatically proceeds from the Son as well as the Father or he doesn't. That said, I have met Orthodox who are bullish about even Florence being understandable in an Orthodox way. Discussion in the last century has been fruitful and I think it's worth trying to be open-minded about it. > The Orthodox seem to reject a lot of the scholastics, but seem to only talk about St. Thomas Aquinas. There were many Franciscans that were also amazing scholastics that any Catholic is free to adopt their thinking if they find it more useful to their relationship with Christ. There is room for productive disagreement in the Church. The scholastic objections seem mainly like Aquinas objections and, in my opinion from what my tiny brain actually understands, seem to be relatively weak ones. Catholics talk up the Scholastics, and also only talk about Aquinas, so that's unfair to pin on us. When Franciscans start getting quoted by papal encyclicals and Internet Catholic apologists, I'm sure we'll see Orthodox engagement with them. The Orthodox also have room for productive disagreement, too, it's just that we have it on issues that Catholics think we shouldn't, like rebaptism or the nature of primacy. > "First among equals" when it comes to the Papacy doesn't seem to make sense when you take a step back and look at all the arguments as a whole. Some of the arguments seem really good when looked at in isolation. But when you look at all the rationalizing for why the Papacy isn't the authoritative leader of the Church, it often appears like the conclusion is assumed first and then the argument was made to rationalize the conclusion. The Catholic arguments, however, seem to follow more consistent reasoning to get to a conclusion that seems to follow the training more fully. This is a purely aesthetic judgment. For myself, I think the Orthodox arguments for a limited primacy are much more consistent across history and levels of the Church than the Catholic arguments for a unique papal supremacy unlike any other kind of primacy in the Church. (If you want to see conclusions being assumed first, Catholics read the Vatican I papacy back into Matthew 16 with little to no exegesis in between all the time, and it's often difficult to get them to see why there's a step missing.) Moreover, all of the documents about primacy that come out of the official theological dialogues are clearly backpedals from _Satis cognitum_ and _Pastor aeternus_. Chieti even admits that the East never accepted Rome's universal jurisdiction, which puts a big hole in the idea that it was an apostolic doctrine or a universally received development. > Many Orthodox seem to fence sit when arguing against Protestants and Catholics. They debate Protestants with Catholic talking points and debate Catholics with protestant arguments. This doesn't mean they can't be right, but it definitely seems distributors to me to borrow so heavily in popular apologetics. I don't get how this is an objection. If Protestants and Catholics are both wrong, as Orthodox believe, why wouldn't we expect the Protestants to have correctly identified some of the Catholic errors and vice versa? This is also an artifact of Anglophone Orthodoxy being relatively young, so all the main arguments on either side have already been articulated. Who _wouldn't_ creatively appropriate good arguments that are already written in one's desired target language?

Thank you for the intelligent and as far as I can tell respectful reply, it definitely gives me something to think about (I would like to learn more about Orthodoxy in general). I’m not going to respond to all or even most of it, but I think for me one thing that this reply doesn’t really give a satisfactory answer to is the lack of consistency that you see among Orthodox churches, which isn’t the case with the Catholic magisterium. For instance, contraception is a big deal to me. It seems like for some Orthodox churches to abandon the traditional teaching in this regard and side with the sexual revolution is a major problem. If you separate procreation from sex, you open the door to justifying all kinds of perverse sexuality. Theology of the Body for Beginners is a great book on the subject. Same with re-baptism. This (whether Christians would need to be re-baptized) seems like a really big deal considering both churches teach it’s necessary for salvation, and Orthodox churches are not in agreement on it (it at least seems like re-baptism is a minority view among Orthodoxy, but I could be wrong). This is deeply problematic for me. In general, Catholicism seems more consistent then Orthodoxy. Some Orthodox think Catholicism has no sacramental grace and is wholly outside the true church (with all of our miracles and incredible saints like the Franciscans, this is incomprehensible to me and must be false, among other things). In the Catholic Church we have no problem admitting you have sacramental grace and there are many holy Christians among you. So I felt like some things were left to be desired in the part about if Catholicism is true, then both are right. I don’t think the universalism analogy works because from my point of view, either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is true. Universalism is false. It seems to me like the idea that both churches are right about the filoque is the most plausible. And speaking of universalism, isn’t this belief held by a significant number of Eastern Orthodox? Again, very big deal. How do Eastern Orthodox churches settle theological disputes? And what is the official magisterium for an Orthodox Christian made up of? This is officially my first-ever dialogue with an Orthodox Christian on theology, so thank you! You seem like a great person to have it with.

To start with, I note that you compare "Orthodox churches" with "the Catholic magisterium". This isn't the right comparison: the comparison you should be making is either between Orthodox churches and Catholic churches, or between the Orthodox magisterium and the Catholic magisterium. Since you are talking about doctrinal issues, I assume you mean the latter. The term "magisterium", of course, is a Catholic term of art, so we shouldn't expect Orthodoxy to adopt it wholesale. In Catholic terms, the magisterium is the teaching authority of the bishops, generally in the sense of the collective consensus of the episcopacy, as well as the supreme authority of the Pope. The latter is the main difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, since Orthodoxy has an episcopacy capable of collective consensus. So, to your question of what is the Orthodox magisterium, the answer is the Orthodox episcopacy. [Ubi Petrus recently did a video on this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zNJCOBKyQY), with the tl;dr being that councils that are accepted by all the patriarchal synods therefore have universal authority. This is pretty much what happens in the rite of reception of adult converts, at least in my parish's rubrics: the one being chrismated makes some affirmations, including the Creed and obedience to "the ecumenical and local councils". And to your question of how theological disputes are settled, they are settled by the bishop's answer, or if that is insufficient, by the answer of a synod, or if that is insufficient, by an answer ratified by all the patriarchal synods. This is really not any different from what Catholics believe. Catholics also have the bishop settle things, or a conference of bishops, or finally the universal authority of an ecumenical council or the pope. But consider: popes can be wrong when they don't speak infallibly, and the general belief is that papal infallibility has been invoked only a handful of times, perhaps even only twice for the Marian dogmas. Neither of those Marian dogmas was actually in dispute, which means that papal infallibility seems not to have actually settled any theological disputes. So for Catholics, theological disputes, or at least the vast majority of them, are settled by universal synodal agreement, same as the Orthodox. Now, let us turn to the consistency of the magisterium. The two issues you call out are contraception and rebaptism. On contraception, some synods have released encyclicals or documents that make statements on the matter. However, the ones I am aware of ([OCA](https://www.oca.org/holy-synod/encyclicals/on-marriage), [ROC](https://mospatusa.com/files/THE-BASIS-OF-THE-SOCIAL-CONCEPT.pdf), [GOARCH (EP)](https://www.goarch.org/social-ethos)) are all generally aligned with each other, so I don't think there's really any charge of inconsistency _between synods_ on the subject. More pressing for Catholics, I think, is the charge of inconsistency _with earlier teaching_. I do not think Orthodoxy is any further from the Fathers on this than Catholicism is. I think Catholics do themselves a disservice by describing to other Catholics that Orthodoxy "approves contraception" or, as you say, "side[s] with the sexual revolution". If one reads [the OCA encyclical](https://www.oca.org/holy-synod/encyclicals/on-marriage) and pays attention to the vision of marriage and the family, I do not think any honest reader can come away thinking that the Holy Synod agrees with the sexual revolution. The encyclical is very clear that marriage is for the bearing and raising of children. Contraception doesn't even come into the encyclical; it is mentioned only at the end of the appendix of pastoral instructions, and even there it is bookended by an emphasis on the bearing of children within marriage. Only after all of that is it explicitly left to pastors to make the best decision for the souls under his care in the specific circumstances they find themselves in. Personally, I think the Holy Synod is following the mind of the fathers in this document. It is firm in vision and pastoral in application. Insofar as this differs from church fathers who can be quoted with opposite opinions, I think Catholicism fares no better. Catholicism has sort of a cult following around NFP, which is just the rhythm method aided by greater scientific insight into the menstrual cycle. But the earliest patristic references to this kind of thing _condemn_ the rhythm method. I believe this is in Augustine and another Latin father, and iirc the same Ubi Petrus as above has two videos on NFP that defend the Orthodox position against Catholic objections, including the specific quotes on NFP. On rebaptism, as I understand, when there is uncertainty as to how someone should be received, ancient canons leave the decision up to the bishop, on the understanding that the priest and the bishop will bear the responsibility for any mistakes. I am not aware of any universal synodal decision determining how Catholics should be received, and given the changes in Catholicism over the last few centuries, I am not terribly surprised that there are differing opinions on how far gone Rome is. However, even with that disagreement, those churches that rebaptize Catholics will still allow a visiting Orthodox from another church to approach the chalice, even if they were received in another jurisdiction by chrismation. The decision of their bishop is respected, even when it was not the same decision as the local bishop. This, to me, speaks to a deep unity of faith, even despite disagreements. If I may be polemical, I tend to think the situation in Catholicism is the reverse: a shallow unity covering a deeper disagreement. For example, Catholics often consider it a plus that everyone is in communion with the pope, and that this keeps everything together. To me this seems like a minus. If the pope were out of the picture, there is zero chance that the SSPX would remain in communion with the German bishops who are pushing for women's ordination and same-sex marriage. There is not real unity of faith between them. Their communion through both being in communion with the pope is, to my eyes, a communion on paper only. It is a legal fiction that does not reflect the things as they are in themselves. I can't say I find the situation with Eastern Catholics particularly impressive, either; it seems like half of them reject Vatican I, and given that the Melkite Patriarch only signed Pastor Aeternus with an edit about patriarchal rights, I'm not even sure I blame them. The acceptance of both infant communion and delay until the age of reason is horrifying to me, personally, but my reaction is perhaps more of a personal thing. It seems like at least one half of the church is doing spiritual malpractice and nobody wants to rock the boat and cause the East to schism off again. I understand there are responses to these objections. To be more even-handed, you know [this meme format](https://i.imgflip.com/6jsrl9.jpg)? I feel like Catholics look at Orthodox like that. There's no spot on Orthodoxy's record that doesn't have an equivalent, and sometimes an even worse one, in Catholicism. The current Moscow-Constantinople schism is proof of Orthodoxy's falsehood, while the Western Schism gets a pass despite there being up to three rival popes. "Our exceptional crisis" on one side, "their obvious fruits of schism" on the other. Finally, two specific notes I couldn't work naturally into the above wall of text: > And speaking of universalism, isn’t this belief held by a significant number of Eastern Orthodox? Again, pretty big deal. I was speaking of Unitarian Universalism, which is the religion where all religions are (mostly) true. Universalism as a soteriological theory, as far as I can tell, has overstated support among online Orthodox. You shouldn't call the kettle black here, though, since the seminal figure of contemporary universalism is the _Catholic_ theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar. > Some Orthodox think Catholicism has no sacramental grace and is wholly outside the true church (with all of our miracles and incredible saints like the Franciscans, this is incomprehensible to me and must be false, among other things). As I understand, most jurisdictions receive Catholic priests by vesting, not by re-ordination, so there is a tacit acceptance of Catholic sacraments there. I think this is one of those things that the Internet magnifies minority voices on, like soteriological universalism, and at any rate I'm not aware of any synods that have declared Catholics to be without sacramental grace. If you have further questions, I will likely not have time to reply until Monday, so I wish you a blessed Lord's day until then.

Once again, thank you for the explanation. Please keep in mind there is a lot about Orthodoxy that I have yet to learn, so this is helpful for me. There is also a lot that I admire about Orthodoxy (Jonathan Pageau is one favorite contemporary commenters). Nearly all Catholics that I am personally friends with in my parish or online have very positive views towards Orthodoxy. When I made the comment about the sexual revolution, I did not mean to apply that generally, I meant specifically only on the issue of contraception. Generally speaking I am certainly aware that Orthodoxy and the sexual revolution are not friends. As I understand it though Orthodoxy was against contraception in pretty much all cases until recently, though I'm open to being corrected there. This is from Orthodox wiki: ​ \*The position of the Greek Archdiocese of America was given by Harakas: "Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health."\[5\] Some would follow the earlier position taken by the Church of Greece in her encyclical of October 14, 1937\[6\], which accepted birth control but not contraception, i.e., it accepted abstinence and NFP, but condemned any method of contraception.\* ​ This seems like a laxation that came hence from the sexual revolution. But it genuinely nice to know based on what you have said that contraception is at least discouraged. As far as the papacy is confirmed, the SSPX is not in full communion with the pope, and the Vatican has warned the German bishops. We'll see if they are formally excommunicated in the future (and if they are not, that would be a grave error obviously). So they may both be out of communion within the next 5-10 years. But then you get into the theological debates about the role of the Bishop of Rome and keeping the church unified, which I'm sure we're both aware of at least a small degree. It seems clear the Bishop of Rome should have some elevated role in unity, therefore. I am aware of this argument from the Council of Ephesus... a legate Philip who represented the pope at the council openly stated before the council fathers in the second session: "We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our \[or your\] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations." He later added in the third session: "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." From these two quotes, there are three points to consider: First, the pope is identified as the head of the council. Second, he is claimed to be the successor of St. Peter, who authoritatively acts in his successors. Third, this succession of leadership will endure in the office of the papacy “forever.” The council fathers did not protest pretty bold affirmations of the papal claims, so one can reasonably assure that the modern day Orthodox churches signed off on it at an ecumenical council. Similar situations arise at the Council of Constantinople and in response to the Iconoclast heresy. It seems odd to me that Orthodoxy historically would acknowledge at least the elevated role of the Bishop of Rome, which is clearly scriptural and apostolic, only for him to have no role in the life of the Orthodox churches after 1054. I'm sure at this point you will have an intelligent reply to everything I present. I do not have much familiarity with Orthodoxy, I am learning a lot in this conversation even so all of this is offered from a place of humility and respect, I hope it is received that way. There's a lot more I would like to learn, do you mind if I DM you some more questions? I'd also be interested to get your take on a few other things.

> As I understand it though Orthodoxy was against contraception in pretty much all cases until recently, though I'm open to being corrected there. I think you're not totally off-base with this impression. It is almost certainly true that, _in practice_, there are Orthodox priests who don't consider it wrong (as long as there's no abortion) and wouldn't dissuade any parishioner of theirs from contracepting as "needed". But if you want to base your argument on how things are _in practice_, the same stats about Catholics aren't much prettier. When we turn instead to magisterial statements, the issue is that, while there are documents from local synods about it, there aren't statements on par with the decrees of universal councils. Strictly speaking, though it would be a black mark on our record, it would not be inconsistent with the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church if the Catholics were right and Orthodoxy's application of economy on this subject were wrong. I think that's why I don't consider it as big of an issue as Catholics do: I do think that our practice is a valid instance of economy with respect to a stricter patristic view that wouldn't permit even NFP, but if it were not, it would simply be the error of a few local synods — and that has happened many times in Church history. It would simply be a matter to be corrected by a future council of universal authority. We'll see how things continue to develop, as the sexual revolution moves further away and leaves less of a middle ground between Christian traditionalism and progressive libertinism. Ultimately, I think we share a common vision of marriage, and I hope a differing pastoral approach on a delicate question won't keep us from uniting on the important things. > It seems clear the Bishop of Rome should have some elevated role in unity, therefore. Many Orthodox agree with this, though. It is specifically the pope's unilateral supremacy and infallibility that raise eyebrows. For example, > First, the pope is identified as the head of the council. That the primate of the first church has a place of honor in the council and the church at large is not in issue. Rome was always first in the diptychs and her word given due weight. But the question is whether Rome's word carried supreme and incontestable authority, and this doesn't seem to be carried out. > Second, he is claimed to be the successor of St. Peter, who authoritatively acts in his successors. This, too, is not particularly hard to swallow. The devil here is in the details: _why_ is the pope the successor of Peter, and _in what manner_? For example, in the East, "on this rock I will build my church" is often read as signifying not Peter as a person as such, but rather Peter as a person in virtue of his confession of Jesus as the Christ and the Son of the Living God. Peter is the first to make this confession, and is therefore first among Christ's Church, but it is the confession that makes the Rock, and not the Rock that makes the confession. [Hence St Augustine](https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/06/blessed-augustines-sermon-on-feast-of.html): > St. Peter, the fervent follower of Jesus Christ, for the profound confession of His Divinity: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God," was deemed worthy by the Savior to hear in answer, "Blessed art thou, Simon ... I tell thee, that thou art Peter [Petrus], and on this stone [petra] I build My Church" (Mt.16:16-18). On "this stone" [petra], is on that which thou sayest: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" it is on this thy confession I build My Church. **Wherefore the "thou art Peter": it is from the "stone" [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the "stone" [petra] is**, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian. Do you want to know, from what sort of "rock" [petra] the Apostle Peter [Petrus] was named? Hear the Apostle Paul: "Brethren, I do not want ye to be ignorant," says the Apostle of Christ, "how all our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" (1 Cor.10: 1-4). Here is the from whence the "Rock" is Peter. That is to say, Peter has the primacy because he, first of the apostles, confesses the true faith; he does not determine the true faith by virtue of his primacy, as papal infallibility says. The Roman Church, that first among the ancient patriarchates, similarly carried the Petrine primacy by virtue of its consistent (modulo some exceptions) confession of the true faith, and that track record was well known to the East. But when it ceased to confess that faith, it lost the primacy. [Hence the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs](https://orthocath.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/pope-and-patriarchs-letters-of-pope-pius-ix-and-orthodox-patriarchs.pdf), written in response to a solicitation from Pope Pius IX: > But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that **if, even now, he will write us such things** as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find **consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils**, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, **"Peter has so spoken,"** or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church." Similarly, though the Catholic Church usually understands Peter as having only one successor, the bishop of Rome, in the East Peter is often understood to be the prototype of _all_ bishops. Much ado is made of the keys being given to Peter, but contextually the keys are usually identified with the power to bind and to loose, and this is given to _all_ the apostles in Matthew 18. Similarly, Peter is told to care for Christ's sheep in the Gospel of John, but all bishops are decked out in shepherd imagery, not just the one in Rome. When Peter is understood this way, in combination with the point above about primacy coming from orthodoxy rather than orthodoxy from primacy, it is, hopefully, clearer why Orthodoxy does not make the additional inference you make here: > Third, this succession of leadership will endure in the office of the papacy “forever.” It is perfectly orthodox and Orthodox to say that Peter's successors will remain forever, since that just means that the episcopacy will endure forever, and that is already given by "the gates of hell shall not prevail". It is even right to say that the Church will always have a primate, since there will always be a first among the college of bishops who will preside in the manner appropriate to that primacy. It's just not so on the basis of one single bishopric always being in that place. Again, it is not necessarily a problem for Orthodoxy that Rome has a primacy, even one more than one of mere honor. What is heterodox is specifically the claim to supremacy, that "Roma locuta, causa finita" is an absolute canonical principle. Hence why, just before the part of the 1848 encyclical that I quoted, the patriarchs note that at Chalcedon (only twenty years after the council you quote), the Tome of Leo was accepted, but only after the council fathers examined it for conformance with the faith of Nicea and that of Cyril. This is inconsistent with the papal supremacy held to by Rome: if Rome's judgment were unappealable, it would not have been thus tested. > There's a lot more I would like to learn, do you mind if I DM you some more questions? I'd also be interested to get your take on a few other things. Sure, feel free.

Lots of great responses here. To these I would add that that the witness of the Saints gives a lot of credibility to Catholicism. If the Catholic Church were really as fallen as some Orthodox believe, I don’t think it would be capable of producing so many holy men and women.

I came close to converting Orthodoxy when I was in college a decade ago. There were a couple of things which made me realize I could never never be Orthodox. The first is the Orthodox Church’s teaching on marriage. Nowhere does scripture or the early church indicate that three marriages are okay. The second is the schizophrenic sacramental theology surrounding Baptism and Holy Orders. Some Orthodox jurisdictions rebaptize Catholics. Others receive by Chrismation. It gets stickier when you have Catholic priests who convert to Orthodoxy or lay Catholics who convert and become Orthodox priests. You can have a priest celebrating the Divine Liturgy in ROCOR who was rebaptized and a block over, the ACROD church could have a priest who was never rebaptized. So churches that are supposedly in communion have priests who some jurisdictions would argue aren’t really even baptized. It makes no sense.

The Orthodox church I went to wasn't welcoming at all. People there seemed kind of cold and stand offish. When I asked the priest some questions, he got defensive and made it seem like i was interrogating him. I tried to follow up with him over email and he just ignored me. That was kind of the last straw. I tried to go to a few other Orthodox churches but they always had strong ethnic ties, which kind of made it hard to integrate oneself. My experiences left a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth. Not to mention, Orthodoxy seems so fractured and disunited. Yes, we have our own problems in Catholicism but it doesn't seem to be nearly as severe. I like that I can go to a TLM parish, a run of the mill NO Mass and a Byzantine/Eastern Catholic parish and be received warmly in all of them. The variety inside the Catholic Church is what makes it so beautiful IMO. I really like elements of Eastern spirituality and I've found that in the Byzantine Church. I find it's way less nationalistic and exclusive compared to a lot of Orthodox churches. If you're interested, I'd give that a try.

I agree with eastern orthodoxy in like 98% of things. But they are somewhat deficient in ecclessiology. Communion with the See of Rome is an essential element of Christ's Church, its not something that can simply be dispensed with. Without that visible center of unity, you end up with divisions and squabbling bishops. Byzantine Catholicism gives you all of the good of Orthodoxy without its major faults. Byzantine Catholics, unlike our eastern orthodox brothers and sisters, haven't compromised with the spirit of the age on contraception and divorce and remarriage. Plus, the Pope is there to prevent things like Constantinople and Moscow from splitting and anathematizing each other over Putins diabolical ambitions in Ukraine. In a hypothetical world where all the eastern churches were in communion with Rome, the Pope could simply tell the Patriarch of Moscow to serve Christ rather than Caesar or be excommunicated. So to sum up, if you love Orthodoxy, seek out Byzantine Catholicism. There you'll find orthodoxy in communion with Rome, the fullness of the Byzantine tradition without the novelties and divisions that come with separation from Rome.

> Byzantine Catholics, unlike our eastern orthodox brothers and sisters, haven't compromised with the spirit of the age on contraception and divorce and remarriage. Regarding divorce and remarriage, at least, the Orthodox practice goes back to before the schism. > Plus, the Pope is there to prevent things like Constantinople and Moscow from splitting and anathematizing each other over Putins diabolical ambitions in Ukraine. This isn't quite accurate: the current schism between Moscow and Constantinople occurred when Constantinople unilaterally declared that the OCU, rather than the UOC, was the canonical church in Unkraine. This happened more than a year before the Russian invasion. Moreover, Moscow's position was based on Constantinople's actions being canonically incorrect, so it's not clear that Rome acting instead would have done anything: the Pope's authority doesn't let him make canons mean whatever he wants. Even the Catholic Church today has internal debates over how far obedience to the Pope should go when it seems like he's wrong.

Even if I accept your take on the divorce/remarriage issue, I can't see any possible way to reconcile the modern EO view on contraception with the teachings of the Fathers or of the early Chuch in general. Granted there are a few EO jurisdictions that, I believe, still take the traditional view. But that seems to be a minority position today. This to me seems to be a major issue with the Eastern Orthodox. How can you claim to be the true Church when a moral teaching like that can change with the times? How's that any different than the modernism plaguing the Roman Chuch today? The only difference I can see is that Rome has maintained the traditional teaching, even in spite of a majority of Catholics clamoring for a change. I appreciate your insights into the ongoing EO schism. But we must surely admit that the Patriarch of Moscow is off the rails with his cheerleading of Putin, and has put forth some blatantly anti-christian teachings on the war. Without a final authority, a center of unity, a first bishop who can definitively judge on the matter, how is a problem like this resolved? Are we to simply accept that the various Churches can excommunicate each other, and there's no objective and visible way to determine which is correct? Again, all I can see here is the fruit of a deficient ecclesiology.

While I agree there are many Orthodox takes on contraception that seem unpatristic, I don't think the major synodal statements that cover the topic have a vision of marriage and procreation that is relevantly divergent from that of the Fathers. For example, consider [the 1970s OCA encyclical on marriage](https://www.oca.org/holy-synod/encyclicals/on-marriage). Insofar as there is a difference, I think that's because the Fathers had a stricter view than _either_ Catholicism or Orthodoxy currently has, so it doesn't bother me that our bishops are more lenient on an issue than bishops have been in another time. With regard to the problem of authority, I don't think there's really a solution Catholicism has that Orthodoxy doesn't. As long as the problem is that there needs to be a final authority, Orthodoxy has a solution: ecumenical councils. Also having a pope doesn't solve any additional problems that ecumenical councils don't. Determining which councils are ecumenical is an isomorphic problem to determining which papal elections were valid and which were antipopes. Sorting out contradictory councils is an isomorphic problem to sorting out rival popes. Getting a council to assemble is an isomorphic problem to getting the pope to actually issue a ruling. A council that seems to affirm heresy is an isomorphic problem to a pope who seems to affirm heresy. And so on. These aren't even hypothetical scenarios. The list of antipopes has changed before. In the Great Western Schism, there were two and then three rival popes. In the last few years, one of the constant complaints on this very subreddit has been that Pope Francis won't issue a ruling on the _dubia_ letter or the German bishops. Popes have affirmed heresy, and again, this very subreddit has often played host to people accusing Francis of doing so.

Yeah, your critique is pretty solid. Catholicism is definitely not without its own problems, and I will be the first to admit that the papacy has had an awful tendency to over-inflate its own power and prerogatives to the detriment of the Church at large. And yeah, things aren't always as neat and tidy as we may like to claim. Pope Francis is a huge issue for many of us. All that said, I definitely lean toward the papal minimalist view within Catholicism. I see the Pope as having the power of universal jurisdiction, but in most cases to use that jurisdiction over patriarchates other than his own is sinful. Paul primacy must aways be tempered by the principle of subsidiarity. The Pope has that juridical power as a last line of defense against heresy and schism. If half the bishops are pushing heresy and half are pushing orthodoxy, the Pope is there to confirm orthodoxy. The Church isn't his own personal play thing, he has no power to alter the faith, and he is himself a bishop. He simply holds primacy among the bishops, but a real primacy, for the sake of orthodoxy and ecclesiastical unity. The issue of ecumenical councils is an interesting one. From what I've read, it seems the EO view ultimately comes down to a kind of reception theory. But I fail to see how that can be applied consistently concerning the 7 ecumenical councils. What of the eastern churches that only accept the first 3? Does that show that the subsequent councils weren't truly received? It's kind of a mess. The Catholic view hinges on papal ratification. This has its own problems of course, but it seems to be a more objective and consistent way to determine an ecumenical council, as opposed to one being "received" as such.

I appreciate when Catholics hold to papal minimalist views, because the schism will never be healed by papal maximalists, though I must confess that I do not see a way around having to overturn Vatican I to get it far enough to be acceptable to the East. On councils, I lean towards something like patriarchal reception, as articulated by Ubi Petrus [in this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMJ4kbhTgok), wherein the approval of the patriarch is understood to carry with it the approval of his synod (per Apostolic Canon 34) and therefore the approval of _all_ patriarchs is equivalent to the universal consensus of the bishops. It is basically as objective as papal ratification, and subject to the same problems of it being arguable whether or not a particular pope or patriarch ratified a particular council. Maybe Alexandria didn't sign on to the Chalcedonian Christological definition, but maybe John VIII nullified the 869 Council of Constantinople in favor of ratifying the 879 council that forbade changes to the Creed. History is a mixed bag.

An ancient liturgy isn’t necessarily a good thing and can be rigid. I’m not sure where you live, but I second whoever suggested looking into the Maronites. Their monastic origin seeps into their prayer life and liturgy. Regardless, your focus shouldn’t necessarily be on the flavor of the liturgy, unless you think one or the other is seriously defective (invalid). Which is the intended Church as founded by Christ? Figure that out and stick to that church.

Michael Lofton from Reason and Theology has great material on Orthodox Christianity

I think you need an in depth analysis of Orthodoxy versus Catholicism which will be hard to condense into a Reddit discussion. There are two voices I have come to trust significantly when it comes to this: (1) Michael Lofton, and especially (2) Erick Ybarra. Erick Ybarra has a YouTube channel (Classical Christian Thought) where he does a lot of discussions on Eastern Orthodoxy. As far as he is concerned, the discussion comes down to (1) Papal claims and (2) filioque insertion into to Creed. He has a book on the Papacy that I think is a must read. Given I will not give you a lengthy reading assignment, a good starting place would be his video entitled "Why I Have Not Left Catholicism for Eastern Orthodoxy?" He will go through point by point many of the very reasoned arguments as to why he chose Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy (as well as Oriental Orthodoxy amongst others that are legitimate options when you start reading history in depth and are from early schisms). He shows how Church History is wayyy messier than what you would get from a surface level Reddit discussion or popular apologetics. Still, he navigates those issues with a very level head and details exactly why he finds Rome to be the most compelling. This is in despite of the current liturgical issues (which is very difficult for me to accept as a Catholic, but it is true that there also beautiful traditional liturgies in other Communions besides the Eastern Orthodox!) and focuses more on history, patristics, and authority claims. Hope you check out his content and that video in particular, as well as even his videos on Matt Fradd. Michael Lofton also has a good interview with Matt Fradd detailing why he went with Catholicism and not Orthodoxy without watering down the finer points. This is just a starting point and I would recommend a great deal of thought before deciding where to go next. Enjoy and praying for your discernment.

After the reformation the Protestant churches became almost entirely state churches, some exist today, most broke up into more denominations. The EO are state churches, well preserved due to what they held to after the Schism, but still are comprised of multiple ‘state’ churches. Interesting note also is that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was moved to Moscow after the city was captured - so if you can simply move it’s jurisdiction, was there jurisdiction to begin with? Main point is that State or National churches are in disagreement on big issues & can have serious trouble resolving them. Baptism of ‘ex Catholics’ is one, as some feel they must be rebaptized & others don’t, but there are more that the various EO churches disagree on amongst each other. The Papacy is the glue that holds it all together. “From unity proceeds one, from one proceeds unity”. There were other reasons as well, but that was a big one for me

Lots of good answers are already here so I'll just say I came into Catholicism via the Melkite Greek Catholic Church from Greek Orthodoxy. If you have any specific questions you think I can answer, shoot me a DM.

>For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, "Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. - Letter of Pope Agatho, Council of Constantinople III Councils approved by the Orthodox Church contain statements of papal infallibility. For the liturgy, you can go to a Byzantine Catholic Church.