Questions For Those Who Converted To Catholicism

[Ziggamafu]

I should add that looking at Orthodox apologetics - particularly their argument surrounding the changes made to the Nicaean Creed - really threw me for a loop. It took a good amount of time and study to get things straightened out (kind of like when I first ran into the claims of the rad-trads).

[mortify]

As Zig suggested, a proper understanding of Matthew 16:18 reveals that Peter is indeed supreme. If Peter and his successors are supreme, then a group of local churches separating themselves from Divinely instituted authority would be untenable.

I also encourage you to read about Constantinople: how it came to power, how it sought to expand its influence, and how Rome responded to it.

[mortify]

Yves Congar's book on the Schism is available online in pdf format (check out the internet archive.) It's a sober and realistic picture of the schism, it is not Roman biased.

[mortify]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1760013' date='Jan 24 2009, 02:12 AM']I would like to clarify that I also hold onto Rome because the primacy of the Roman see is something that was held important in the early Church (primacy, not supremacy)[/quote]

How do you understand "Papal Supremacy"?

[quote]The disagreements between the East and West perhaps are not so great to deny communion with one another, especially at this point where Rome has begun to realize that Eastern Churches are equals with the latins and not subordinate.[/quote]

Supremacy does not mean the Eastern rite is subordinate to the Western.

[dominicaninmyheart2]

Did I ever consider the Eastern Orthodox Church? No, because I knew in my heart at the time that I started my journey towards becoming a Catholic, I was in the place that was meant to be my spiritual home forever.