Welcome to Why I’m Catholic's Eastern Orthodox converts section. Our hope is to bring present inspiring Eastern Orthodox conversion stories to Catholicism to help evangelize and spiritually edify the digital world.

If you or someone you know has an inspiring story of how you (they) came to the Catholic faith from Eastern Orthodoxy please send us an email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Click here to learn more about sharing your story...

Click here to learn more about how you can become a digital missionary...

Click here to learn more about Why I'm Catholic...

Read 112686 times


  • Comment Link Judethom Monday, 12 December 2011 14:49 posted by Judethom

    I am curious to know why an Orthodox Chrsitian would
    convert to the largely Novus Ordo Catholic Church with
    its Protestant-style Mass. Why or how could this happen?
    The Orthodox Liturgy is far superior to the Novus Ordo
    mess that saturates so much of the Catholic Church00
    lay ministers, wreckovated churches, nuns without
    habits, bad music, etc.

  • Comment Link John Wednesday, 14 December 2011 20:26 posted by John


    I am a Melkite Greek Catholic, which means that I am Orthodox, unless full communion with Rome somehow makes me not Orthodox automatically.

    Orthodox Christians who are not in full communion with Rome seek full communion with Rome because they believe that all of those in full communion with Rome constitute the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by God in the flesh.

    Granted, the Roman Church in America has suffered more than a little from people who wanted to use Vatican II to promote their own agendas rather than actually submit to the authority of the council.

    Novus Ordo is certainly different. I don't think that it's fair to characterize it as a mess in and of itself. Its implementation was certainly a mess, but steps have been taken to correct this, notably the new English translation of the original Latin text. Changing old liturgies and and writing new ones has always been understood to be permisible, both in the East and in the West. The former Roman Rite, the Tridentine Rite, was itself written at the Council of Trent. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was written shortly after the Council of Nicea. If we all wanted to use the most ancient liturgy available, I suppose that we'd have to use the Liturgy of St. James.

    Problems within the Church do not make the Church not the Church. None of the things that you mentioned really militate against the four marks of the Church.

  • Comment Link Perry Robinson Thursday, 15 December 2011 02:47 posted by Perry Robinson


    With all due respect, if you were Orthodox, you'd hold to the 879 Council as the 8th Ecumenical Council and not the papally revoked council of 869. You'd also adhere to things like the essence/energies distinction in Triadology, as well as not believing in the Filioque. So you are Catholic, but a Catholic with an Eastern liturgical expression.

    Second, the new alterations in the new order are rather small. While a move in the right direction, there are still serious widespread abuses such as allowing womento serve at the altar, which is contrary to the apostolic deposit. Altering some words in the Liturgy for reverance is not a significant step compared to what you see in any given Orthodox liturgy anywhere in the US or anywhere else.

  • Comment Link John Saturday, 17 December 2011 20:48 posted by John

    Mr. Robinson,

    I have seen some Orthodox who are not in full communion in Rome say that there are seven ecumenical councils, some say that there are eight, and some say that there are nine. Would you say that those who disagree with you on the number of ecumenical councils are not, in fact, Orthodox?

    Palamism is an acceptable theological position for the Eastern Churches in full communion with Rome. We have an icon of St. Gregory Palamas at my parish.

    None of the liturgical issues present in the Roman Church damage any of the marks of the Church, or render the Mysteries invalid in any case. Furthermore, no Catholic of any Church, Eastern or Western, will ordain women as deacons, and my understanding is that some Churches not in full communion with Rome do allow women to be ordained as deacons.

  • Comment Link Martin Friday, 16 March 2012 05:15 posted by Martin

    Benedict XVI says, "Everything rises or falls with the Liturgy." I see with my own eyes, and the mainstream Novus Ordo Catholic Church is a mess, with lay ministers, Protestant hymns, the priest not facing east, communion in hand, destroyed churches that look like Baptist churches--sorry, but this is not Catholic. The Catholic Church is now a different Church. it is not the same Church. When I go to a Novus ordo Mass I feel the offense; it is horrible; it is a hybrid Mass; it is talky and "Methodist." Not so with an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. It is the same as it has always been. Something "evil" happened to the Catholic Church.

  • Comment Link Steven Saturday, 19 May 2012 11:01 posted by Steven


    A slight correction, if I may. The Tridentine Mass was codified at the Council of Trent, not "written." The Tridentine Mass is more accurately known as the Mass of Pope St. Gregory the Great; though the essential elements of the Mass go back almost to Apostolic Times.

    That being said, I do love the DL of St John Chrysostom.

  • Comment Link Billy Bean Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:59 posted by Billy Bean

    I am a person of Roman Catholic heritage who, after years of debauchery and infidelity, became a believer in Christ as an Evangelical Protestant. Many years after that, through trials and studies of various kinds, I became Eastern Orthodox, and am now seriously considering returning to the communion of Rome. This is not because I find Western liturgical practices superior, nor Western discipleship and wisdom better than what is available in Eastern Orthodoxy. Nor is it because I find fault with Eastern Orthodox apostolic succession or the validity of Orthodox Holy Mysteries. On the contrary; although I find all essential elements of ascetic and mystical theology available within the Catholic heritage, today's Catholic liturgies pale beside the ancient Eastern rites. There is one thing that communion with Rome offers that the Eastern Orthodox seem unable to receive: the ancient office of the papacy, upon which the whole magisterium of bishops in Ecumenical Council and all of binding canonical authority rests.

  • Comment Link Mrs. Elton Wednesday, 27 June 2012 17:07 posted by Mrs. Elton

    I must have missed the part where Christ said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples -- that you have aesthetically suerior liturgy."

  • Comment Link Mrs. Elton Wednesday, 27 June 2012 17:09 posted by Mrs. Elton

    Oops, that wasn't meant to be a response to Billy Bean, but rather a general observation on several of the critical comments in this thread.

  • Comment Link Maureen Sunday, 01 July 2012 03:13 posted by Maureen

    Sorry, but the Novus Ordo Catholic Mass is really a Protestant affair. I don't want to take a sip of sacramental wine, the Blood of Christ, from a lay minister in a tight sweater and heels. Nor do I want the priest facing the people, endless handshakes, altar girls, communion in hand, Protestant hymns, etc. Eastern Catholic and Orthodox and the TLM are the only valid Liturgies for me. The Novus Ordo is sacrilege.

  • Comment Link Jack Saturday, 14 July 2012 04:48 posted by Jack

    Christ is in our midst! A little over two years ago I was received into the Holy Orthodox Church. I was raised in a very traditional Catholic home having attended parochial schools where I had several aunts, uncles and cousins that were priests and nuns. For many years I found much comfort and peace in attending Mass and receiving the sacraments on a regular basis.

    However, about 8 years ago while serving several Orthodox families as a licensed funeral director and embalmer. I found myself falling in love with the unchanged beauty, mystery and ancient traditions of the Orthodox Church. Observing the beauty of the Divine Liturgy spoke to my heart, mind and soul. I knew I wanted to experience the full measure of the smells and bells of Eucharistic Worship in the Orthodox Church. For me, the Roman Catholic Mass paled in comparison to intensity of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Looking back, the post Vatican II mass had become so "watered down" with all of the protestant trappings of rock & roll liturgies, women eucharistic ministers, girl altar servers, receiving communion in the hand, etc...etc......To be honest, I really grew weary of the activist social justice liberation theology priests preaching homilies that catered to the democratic party. I am finally home in the fulness of truth in the Orthodox Church.

  • Comment Link Michael Friday, 20 July 2012 07:16 posted by Michael

    Everyone: it has been extremely interesting reading these comments. I am a Christian. I was raised evangelical, baptized in a Church of the Nazarene. Currently i attend an Protestant university. But i am realizing, through prayer and study, that i can no longer remain evangelical, or any kind of protestant. I think Sola Scriptura is a completely self-conflicting doctrine that completely nullifies itself. So i am on a quest for the Apostolic tradition. And so now i am researching both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.Please note: i am not trying to find the tradition that is "comfortable" or one that "fits". Such talk is one of the things that bothered me so much about evangelicalism, this idea that i have to find a church that is alignment with my tastes. I am seeking after a true Christianity. What are some good resources?

  • Comment Link diane Wednesday, 25 July 2012 13:55 posted by diane

    Hail Mary, It was a true Hail Mary in my life almost three years ago when I converted to the Catholic Church, I have not gotten to take the sacraments yet, however, I know I will. At age 11 I was baptized into a Cult, and remained in this until age 21, then went to Baptist, which I am not sure about, until 26, then went back to A/G church which I was happy with for a while, but there was Mormonism infiltrating it and I left this at age 45. I have searched and searched all my life to find the church that is the one where I can find a true relationship with God. The Holy Catholic Church is the true Church I do know it. I have struggles in my mind, have been had hateful things said to me by family members, I decided that I am no longer going to talk to them since I disagree and do not need to keep crying about the past. I am talented in writing that they are afraid I will expose it, their actions show it. How many people have experienced the same type of things in their lives I am not sure, its probably so indelibly imprinted in our society that no one will ever know. I am committed to the Catholic Faith and have migraines because of the past that I am having so much trouble getting rid of. If I see something on tv pertaining to a religious faith I in my miond think, oh no, not again, not another weirdo saying they know what God is telling them about a person. I am actually afraid to go to any Church right now because of these things that I remember. Any insights into this that I have lived thru will be appreciated. I need to have the peace that I am not alone in all of this.

  • Comment Link Christos Tuesday, 14 January 2014 18:13 posted by Christos

    I was a cradle Orthodox, then lapsed Orthodox and even aggressive atheist and finally I converted to Catholicism two years ago. My conversion to Christianity is related to a book I read that dealt with Marian apparitions (Lourdes, Fatima etc.) I will not describe how this happened, which is interesting in itself, but how and why I chose the Catholic Church instead of the Orthodox after of almost two years of discernment. -I was starting to read everything I could from both sides. I admit that initially I was impressed by the private revelations given to Saints Catherine of Siena, Faustina, Emmerich and many others, even though I learnt that they didn't belong to the deposit of faith of the Catholics. -I was really amazed with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, its consistency and coherence, truly mind-blowing material. Also I found some papal encyclicals penetrating and even prophetic. I couldn't find anything equivalent from the Orthodox side. -The Orthodox confessed the teachings of the first seven Councils (others said eight, or even nine if we include the Constantinople ones, it is a bit confusing to be honest). I wondered, why no more Orthodox Ecumenical Councils? The Catholics instead, seemed to have the ability to hold new Councils up to this era. -As I was reading about issues of disagreement (Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, essence/energies distinction etc.) I realised that the Orthodox side very often oversimplified and even misrepresented the arguments of their opponents. Perhaps the Catholics didn't always fully understand the Orthodox objections, but at least they tried to be fair, that was my impression. Furthermore, I tended to agree more with the Catholics. -Regarding social teachings, the issue of divorce was very important regarding my final decision. Also I agreed with the Catholic stance on contraception. It seemed to me that the Orthodox were occasionally influenced by the Protestants (even without realising it) but it was difficult to detect because of the terminology they used. On the other hand the Catholics seemed less vulnerable. -At some point I came to the conclusion that it makes sense to have a Pope as the head of the Church. -I loved the Catholic devotions (e.g Sacred Heart). Even some Latin Catholics believe that they are outdated, sentimental, superficial or whatever. I don't agree, I think they are wonderful and have very deep theological meaning (read Haurietis Aquas for example) -The adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was a true revelation to me, it is incredible. I love icons, I love statues of Our Lord and Our Lady, they are very helpful in prayer but I have no words to describe adoration. I think only Latins and Maronites have this devotion -The existence of different rites in the Catholic Church, I considered this as a sign of catholicity. The Orthodox Church on the other hand seems exclusively Byzantine. -The rather uncharitable stance of some of the Orthodox and, I hate to say this but I believe it is true, their spiritual pride. According to influential Orthodox writers, the Catholic saints are either influenced by demons, or delusional, or at best good people with excited. Imagination. They wouldn't even allow the possibility of existence of non-Orthodox saints. My objection was that this wouldn't prove that the Orthodox is not the true Church, it could only prove the extent of Mercy and Glory of God. I'm not implying that we should start to venerate the saints of each other just to be polite, I hope you understand my point. I prefer the more balanced position of the Catholics. -My general impression was that the Catholic Church was probably the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If not I thought, then there is none and Jesus lied which is a blasphemy. The Orthodox seemed more like a local Church. -Something a bit more personal, when I first attended a Catholic Mass, especially at the point of doxology where the priest raised the Body and Blood of Christ and said “Through Him and With Him and in Him...” I felt something very profound, that I truly worshipped God. I'm sure the Orthodox do the same when they say (in Greek) “Prosxomen ta agia tois agiois” but I had never experienced it myself. -Regarding deification/divinization or theosis. I discovered that Catholics teach the same thing (even during Mass when the priest pours water in the wine). Their description may be different, they talk about uncreated grace in another way, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in the soul of the just, the gifts of the Holy Spirit etc. but I think that the faith is the same. The created sanctifying grace was a bit difficult concept to understand ,but after reading a book by Arintero (The Mystical Evolution of the Church) I came to appreciate its usefulness, it is not as described by many Orthodox authors that they should do their research first before accusing the “Papists”. -As I was learning more about both sides I discovered their liturgical books. As a Catholic I can still pray occasionally using Greek Orthodox sources (like the Paraklitiki which is my favourite) along with the Divine Office. -The Filioque is certainly an important doctrinal issue. I did not consider the Orthodox position heretical, but I prefered the Catholic description. It ensures I think the distinction between the Son and the Spirit along with the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Apart from the doctrinal dimension, I'm fond of the spirituality that is built around the love between the Father and the Son and I could find it implicitly expressed in John 17 and elsewhere. -Another issue that is raised by the Orthodox (who always try to find more differences and to exaggerate the existent ones) is the essence/energies distinction. I'm not saying that the Orthodox view is heretical (as it has been already mentioned Palamism is not condemned by the Catholic Church as far as I know). My problem with the teachings of Gregory Palamas is that I couldn't really understand it. Sometimes I thought it was true but trivial, sometimes I thought it was contradictory that led to unnecessary confusion. If there was no Creation at all, would be still uncreated energies? Are there uncreated energies between the Divine Persons ad intra? If we don't know anything about the essence of God, how do we know that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are consubstantial? How can we understand the “I AM” using the Palamite teaching? I thought the Latin concept of Actus Purus concept does a pretty good job in this regard, why should we introduce a teaching that possibly contradicts it? If the essence of God is beyond any knowledge, then also there is no possibility of real communion with the Trinity or the essence is something above the Divine Persons. Plus, why should make any pronouncements about God Himself based only on our relationship with Him? This is a bit creature-centered view of God. I think the uncreated energies have become a fetiche to many Orthodox that may undermine the real relationship with the Spirit and the Word. II understand that my objections or questions may seem naïve to some Orthodox but I prefer the scholastic concept of totum sed non totaliter, which re-affirms we will see God as He is,as a whole but not wholly (the transcendence of God is not questioned), infinitum sed non infinite. Sorry for the long post, I could have written much more though, bottom line: I'm very happy I became a Catholic. God Bless, Christos.

  • Comment Link Cidalia Monday, 20 January 2014 21:25 posted by Cidalia

    I'm still confused about the whole "women not serving at the altar" or as altar girls, etc. As a previous poster wrote: "there are still serious widespread abuses such as allowing women to serve at the altar..."

    Then what of Paul's epistle: Romans 16:1-16:

    "1I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, 2so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. 3Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, 4and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5Greet also the church in their house."

    What? A woman deacon?! In the early church? Heck, the "churches" were in these women's homes. So, what happened? Why was this forgotten or ignored?

  • Comment Link Jonathan Friday, 28 March 2014 22:49 posted by Jonathan

    To be fair Mrs. Elton Jesus also didn't say that we shall know Him by a primatial see established in Rome, which no matter what her primate proclaims or does must be obeyed and assented to in all matters of faith and morals. And this is precisely the kind of reasoning that grounds RC convictions whether implicitly or explicitly.

    I completely grant the intuitions of many of the RC's here, that far too many of the Orthodox display a genuine diabolical spirit that SEEKS division rather than HOPING that there is less than there seems. But whose expecting the members of THEIR OWN Church to be perfect in order for it to be valid? If that was the criteria then quite literally the gates of hell have prevailed against and there is no true Church.

    This petty form of argumentation is a reflection of the lack of faith (a form of atheism to be frank) and possible dishonesty of the human heart. Whereby one either believes they must maintain their belief solely by assertions and propositions that they have DECIDED they will believe and tell themselves, because they implicitly do not expect God to lead them into His truth or that His truth is some kind of pelagian/gnostic affair, or this spirit or something like it turns into genuine lack of concern for the truth.

    The real issue here is clearly one of normativity, standards, values and precedence. Whichever Church ESSENTIALLY proposes the correct ancient Christian normative standards and proper values and precedences, as well as the right doctrinal and dogmatic confessions, it seems to me, bears the continuation of Christ's promise in the Church. Both Churches then clearly have different normative standards and precedential values which they find fundamentally necessary to arriving at truth. Discovering what these are reveals the spirit guiding each Church in my conviction, and as Plato said, "only one of those spirits is love".

    These distinct spirits are most clearly reflected in the motivations for converting to one Church or another from the other Church. And the fact of the matter is this. If someone steps back and LISTENS to the GENERAL TRENDS of converts from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, there is, almost invariably (and I say almost because I can't think of one instance to the contrary), an unmistakably intellectual motivation behind it. That something they read or heard CONVINCED them that the papacy was true is by far the most if not the only story line that these conversions have in common. In fact its hard for me to see how an Orthodox person could be motivated by much else since by the claims of the vast majority of RC's, including the higher ups, that's the only meaningful thing keeping them separated (though the favor is hardly ever returned by serious Orthodox). Whereas on the other hand the conversions from RC to EO are nearly always more holistic and much less intellectual though by no means irrational. The beauty of the Liturgy, the simplicity and univocality of the Theology and spirituality and the precedence on the mystical life above and beyond the intellectual one. Not to mention that the Orthodox view of primacy superimposes much more faithfully to the historical data. Last but not least, almost every RC convert has said something to me that they felt as if they were spiritually dying inside and that they began to FALL IN LOVE and be gradually illuminated. I have never heard anything close to this from converts going the other way. And though aesthetics and spiritual experiences are not SUFFICIENT conditions for a Church to be the true one, surely it must be a necessary one. Something born by the fact that as soon as Christianity was decriminalized it expressed itself according to the grandeur and beauty of the Spirit that guided it, through marvelous art and architecture.

    I myself was a Roman Catholic and have found the Orthodox life to have revivified me through what seems to me to be Christinaity plain and simple as it has always been. The accretions that RC's may say fall under doctrinal and orthopraxical developments and those which Protestants may complain about, I consider not to be at all essentially different from what was always believed and taught, but instead, are reflections of St. Paul's words that we, like the Church, go "from glory to glory". So all in all what makes me continue going east, which is really just going further inside into the Kingdom of Heaven, is that if Orthodoxy isn't true I would have to say that the truth is not arrived at so simply and that it is not nor does it have to be that beautiful. I would have to say, because that would be the only hope for me seeing the truth in RC, that it must be arrived at solely through historical, philosophical and theological research.

    But even then, the EO model of primacy seems to superimpose more fittingly with the historical data, which clearly shows two attitudes to the Roman bishop beginning with St. Paul (if one grants that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome; a theory which literally has no currency whatsoever). St. Paul both says that the faith of the Romans is famous throughout the empire, he goes to be taught and affirmed by Peter, and yet he opposes him to his face and admonishes the Roman Christians not to say that they are of Cephas, or of himself for that matter, since it was Christ that died and Resurrected for us. Sts. Augustine, Firmilian, Polycarp, Cyprian, Maximus the Confessor and Pope Gregory the Great all expressed doctrines completely incompatible with the contemporary Vatican I claim demanding universal and immediate jurisdiction and UNCONDITIONAL and PERPETUAL fidelity to the bishop of Rome NO MATTER WHAT. And what else could the papalist doctrines of Vatican I mean? If one can legitimately split from Rome then why be with her and confess papal infallibility and the rest of it? If it is not legitimate to split from Rome then what Rome is saying is that they will never err and that one must always be united to her confessing her faith no matter what. How could the Orthodox accept this when this was never the ancient and holy standard of truth of the holy Fathers? Furthermore, even though such doctrines and standards are to be found nowhere expressed in this way in the early Church, and in fact are many times contradicted by the figures I just mentioned, the Orthodox are ridiculed by RC's who demand that they be met. Which always leads me to respond that any complaint on Orthodox ecclesiology is a complaint about the ecclesiology of the early Church. Which reminds me, why else would the doctrine of doctrinal development exist? A doctrine which by the way would be equally applicable to any Apostolic Church and hence would be self defeating because the question is then deferred to which doctrines of which Church have legitimately and faithfully developed. The fact that most Orthodox at least find that doctrine repugnant is also very telling to me.

    Granted one feels more precarious in the Orthodox world because it lacks a "visible center of unity", but we forget that little o orthodox Christians lived amongst communities that were predominantly heretical, and they maintained the faith for the rest of us. One has only to think of the Centuries of Iconoclasm. Extraneous demands should never lead us to abandon the ancient and true "Faith once and for all handed down to the Apostles" when "the fulness of time had arrived" because "My ways are not your ways says the Lord."

  • Comment Link Anges Thursday, 26 June 2014 20:37 posted by Anges

    "Last but not least, almost every RC convert has said something to me that they felt as if they were spiritually dying inside and that they began to FALL IN LOVE and be gradually illuminated. I have never heard anything close to this from converts going the other way."

    I've had plenty of converts from EO (I speak of Russian Orthodox) to RC say the same. In fact, I could say the same about myself: it is through the Catholic Church that I experienced the love: to Christ, to Christianity, to the Church, to my neighbor. This experience was something very different from what I've experienced in the Orthodox Church. The intellectual reasons which you speak of came afterwards, after I started researching the both denominations and the differences between them.

  • Comment Link Mike Tuesday, 12 August 2014 18:11 posted by Mike

    I myself am a life long Roman Catholic but I have been attending the Divine Orthodox Liturgy lately. I find it beautiful and now when I go to the new Mass I find it watered down. So I'm really praying hard about this. However my problem is you can't say that The Catholic Church was the one true Church until Vatican ii and then some how God changed it over to the Orthodox Church. Sure there is a lot of a abuses going on in the new Mass but that doesn't make the Catholic Church the "old" one true Church. I dunno. The whole thing makes my head spin!

  • Comment Link DMA Monday, 22 September 2014 17:53 posted by DMA

    Peter was head of the Apostles, just as the bishop is head of the presbyters (priests). The position of Peter is not unique to the bishop of Rome. It is normative of all bishops of all Churches. There is no position higher than the bishop in the Church. Period. This is why St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the bishop as occupying the place of God the Father. Is there a god above the Father? Of course not. Neither is there a bishop above the bishop. This is ontological in nature and not economical. The various titles for bishop in the RC and EO world such as archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch, etc., are all economical titles for administrative purposes only. They are not ontological in nature. Christ established the Church on St. Peter and his confession. This means the Church is established on each bishop of each Church which in turn is reflective of the eternal Church(see Revelation 5 and Hebrews 12:22-24). Read St. Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop is representative of God the Father. The presbyters (priests) are representative of the Apostles. The deacons are representative of Jesus Christ who came as a servant to all. Rome's ecclesiology introduces a bishop above a bishop, an Apostle above Peter, and a god above the Father. While the first two could possibly be admitted, the third certainly cannot.

  • Comment Link DMA Monday, 22 September 2014 18:00 posted by DMA

    Some snippets from St. Ignatius of Antioch for you to consider:

    "I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him." Eph.1
    (The whole congregation of the Church is represented in the bishop. He is the spokes person and representative of the entire Church to the rest of the world.)

    "For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop — I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature— how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity." Eph 5
    (Unity is maintained in the Church when the people are united with their bishop.)

    "For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church." Eph.5
    (The "whole Church" consists of the bishop and his congregation.)

    "Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself." Eph.6
    (The bishop is the one whom Christ has set over His household, the Church. The bishop should be looked upon as the Lord Himself. Vicar of Christ?)

    "Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all." Mag.3
    (God the Father is the bishop of all bishops. Therefore, the bishops represent the bishopric of the Father.)

    "Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed." Mag.6
    (The bishops represent God the Father. The presbyters/priests represent the apostles. The deacons represent Jesus Christ.)

    "As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one." Mag.7
    (The unity in the Church is expressed through the laity being in union with their bishop and presbyters. No mention of a need for them or their bishop or their presbyters to be in union with the bishop of Rome, which if it was indeed necessary for the unity of the Church, then Ignatius certainly would have mentioned it.)

  • Comment Link Terry Wednesday, 21 January 2015 00:10 posted by Terry

    We Orthodox like our Catholics Latin!

  • Comment Link Vanessa Wednesday, 21 January 2015 22:26 posted by Vanessa

    Whoa! Just because of another mass, Catholics are being so arrogant and picky in receiving the body and blood of Christ! You people will cry for mercy if Jesus Himself was picky on choosing who He loves and you're not included.

  • Comment Link Terry Wednesday, 21 January 2015 22:59 posted by Terry

    Thanks. ''... My Kingdom is not of this world ." JC

  • Comment Link Steven Sunday, 22 February 2015 14:07 posted by Steven

    I think it is unfair and inaccurate to insist that RC to EO conversions are more holistic and conversions in the other direction are largely intellectual or cerebral. My initial conversion to Orthodoxy from agnosticism was largely intellectual and based on aesthetics. After years of attending ethnocentric churches or protestant convert churches, I feel much more at home with Christ and my fellow parishioners as a Catholic than I ever did in the Orthodox Church. I do love the Divine Liturgy, but derive much spiritual nourishment from our Ordinary Form Mass. I experience a universality and belonging that I never experienced in Orthodoxy, and I moved around and attended plenty of different parishes while Orthodox. And I feel I am truly growing much closer to God as a Catholic.

  • Comment Link karen kaz jeffreys Wednesday, 08 April 2015 05:52 posted by karen kaz jeffreys

    Wonderfully inspiring story... well written..
    I am seriously considering becoming catholic..and I confess I prefer the catholic service, I just feel more connected anyhow I wont say a lot and wait and post my story down the road. I have found the orthodox church, insular even the north America orthodox, nobody has even heard of at least where I live .. the only reason I even know about it is a women I met years a go in 12 step meetings.. I didn't feel connected although there is much I love about.. it, in a way its lead me to the catholic church and for that I am grateful, as I do not like Prodestant style worship at all.. ive had so many issues to work through, and one by one, am working them out with gods help. also really like what Christos say, regarding essences and energies. and on the whole a more balanced approach , which I would love to chat with you about..,I know I need to be in a church where I can continue to get closer to god and the mother mary, which is still somewhat new for me...thanks for the inspiration.. the great testimony is the way in which some of you share and I wishI could talk to all of you in person, but hopefully I too will meet new friends as I am mostly surrounded by pagans,,thanx kaz

  • Comment Link kaz Wednesday, 08 April 2015 06:08 posted by kaz

    ops ive added this to the wrong list, should of been under pagans converting,please take off thanx

  • Comment Link kaz Wednesday, 08 April 2015 06:16 posted by kaz

    this message is in response to both this page and in direct response to christies post and some others on the pagan convert page..sorry for the confusion

  • Comment Link David Saturday, 02 May 2015 23:45 posted by David

    I am going to be pointed here: In the '80s I was chrismated in the Orth. Church because of all the liturgical abuse I saw...or thought I did...in the Catholic parishes in USA. It was the worst thing I have ever done. All I found in Orthodoxy was anti-Semitism, hatred of all things Catholic, ethno-centrism, ritualism taken to the extreme, and convert-priests and their weird convert fellows who were nothing but fundies in Eastern drag.
    I have had Orthodox tell me that to truly follow the canons you must hate Jews and never talk to them, you must avoid your heretical family, and you must never EVER pray with a non-Orthodox.
    I have never heard more vain repetitions as I have in Orthodoxy. The Trisagion said 3, sometime 4 times and that's just BEFORE the Liturgy begins.
    People rant and rave over the Novus Ordo Mass, but honestly, I now enjoy the simplicity of it. And the abuses are becoming less and less. I'm thankful God led me BACK to the Catholic Church.

  • Comment Link Abel Gkiouzelis. Wednesday, 13 May 2015 14:23 posted by Abel Gkiouzelis.

    Hi to all my friends! : ) If you want you can see my site http://romancatholicsmetorthodoxy.wordpress.com -
    I wish you all the best! : ) Abel.

  • Comment Link James Saturday, 26 September 2015 04:36 posted by James

    Peace to my Catholic friends. I pray for unity that appears possible some days and highly unlikely on other days. I am a former Catholic seminary. I converted to Orthodoxy for theological reasons but I have faith that one day the Apostolic sees will be ONE again

  • Comment Link Onel Wednesday, 10 February 2016 08:14 posted by Onel

    Peace be with you all!

    Your opinions are really fantastic. Everyone did his/her homework.

    Please be reminded that both RC and EO came from the same Living Fountain. Throwing stone at each other does not help at all, but only promotes hatred and division. All of us here are Christians who are supposed to act and behave as such.

    Deep in my heart, I do know that EO Christians as well as non-Christians are my brothers and sisters. Non-Christians are soon-to-be believers like the Gentiles who were called by Christ through the Ministry of St. Paul.

    Together with all the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, I am praying and will be praying for Christian unity as long as I live.

    O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to you and for those who do not have recourse to you, especially the enemies of the church. Amen.

  • Comment Link Hieromonk Ambrose Friday, 26 February 2016 09:51 posted by Hieromonk Ambrose

    People go both ways. I went from Catholicism to Orthodoxy when I was 18, that's 52 years ago. We have significant Catholic scholars who have converted in recent years -

    ...... the Jesuit scholar and theologian Fr George Maloney,
    ...... the famous Swiss Benedictine scholar and author of spiritual writings Fr Gabriel Bunge,
    ...... the renowned Lutheran scholar and theologian Jaroslav Pelikan..

Leave a comment

Why I'm Catholic truly values comments. To improve dialogue please read over our commenting guidelines. 1. Personal attacks and hate speech will be removed.2. Comments should be relevant to post. Currently all comments are moderated prior to posting in an effort to limit spam. Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. Basic HTML code is allowed.