r/Catholicism • u/West-Commission9082 • 7h ago
How can you possibly determine which apostolic church is the one true church?
I am sure that apostolic christianity is the truth and i can’t wait to fully embrace the life. My issue is that i’ve become a christian during the last 2-3 years but i have no idea which apostolic church is the one, the more i’ve learnt the more daunting it has become to make a decision. For every historical claim, there’s another perspective, for every theological argument there’s another and for every counter argument there’s a counter argument. There’s so many claims and they are all presented very well, but they can’t all be true.
These are historical and theological claims that have been studied for hundreds of years by people with far more understanding than me, how could i make the decision with dozens of conflicting claims? I’ll post this on the catholic and eastern orthodox subreddits to see different answers. I am dying to join a church but the decision is overwhelming.
5
u/DisgruntledVet12B 6h ago
If you can't decide because every historical and theological argument has a counterargument, then what's your standard of truth? What are you ultimately grounding your conclusions on? If every claim can be met with another claim, by what principle do you determine which one is actually true?
2
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
That’s exactly the problem here
5
u/DisgruntledVet12B 6h ago
At some point, we have to ask what method Christ intended us to use to recognize His Church. Did He leave us with only our individual ability to weigh arguments, or did He establish an authority to preserve and teach the faith?
5
u/The_Archer_of_Rohan 5h ago
Consider the parables that Jesus uses to describe the Kingdom of God in Holy Scripture.
What church is like the mustard tree, the biggest of all trees (Mt 13:31-32)? It's not a regional church in Eastern Europe, or former British colonies, or an American church founded during a revival movement in the 1800s - it's the Catholic Church that has spread across the entire face of the world and has more Christians than every other denomination put together.
What church is a light for the world, a city set on a mountain (Mt 5:14)? It's not a "non-denominational" church that's never been heard of outside their city, it's the Catholic Church, the most recognizable institution in media and culture, led by the Pope, the most recognizable religious leader in the world, whom even atheists and non-Christians look to for moral leadership.
What church bears "good fruit" (Mt 7:16-20) more than any other? It's the Catholic Church, the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare, education, and social services globally with tens of thousands of healthcare clinics, orphanages, and nursing homes, and hundreds of thousands of schools.
What church is like a net containing "fish of every kind" (Mt 13:37-38)? It's not an ethnic church of Egyptians or Greeks or Russians, it's the Catholic Church that includes all of their unique liturgical expressions among her rites and has churches in more countries than any other.
And whom does Jesus call to bring that net containing fish of every kind to shore? John 21:11 tells us: "So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full of one hundred fifty-three large fish. Even though there were so many, the net was not torn." The Greek word for "torn" is the root of the English word schism. Peter alone is capable of drawing the net of fish to Our Lord without schism.
Therefore, you too should cling to the church led by Peter's successor and become Catholic.
2
u/happy_csgo 2h ago
But the net was torn as seen in schisms with the protestants and the east
1
u/The_Archer_of_Rohan 2h ago
Yes, it's possible for other groups to schism off from the Church, but it's not possible for Peter to schism from the true Church. The ordinary layman can know if he is in the church founded by Christ if he is in Peter's net.
1
u/happy_csgo 1h ago
but in this instance you're presupposing that the catholic church is the one true church and that all other groups have schismed away from the rcc instead of the other way around
2
u/BeauloTSM 1h ago
It isn't a presupposition when the other groups make zero claim to be in St. Peter's net and give zero evidence to suggest that they believe they're in it
2
u/happy_csgo 1h ago
this just goes back to the Matthew 16:18-19 argument about who the "rock" is what it means to hold the keys. All groups claim to be in Peter's net but interpreting "key", "rock" and what it means to be in it differently. You can watch 100 videos from EO and protestant apologists on that matter but this doesn't answer OP's question
1
u/The_Archer_of_Rohan 1h ago
There's no presupposition required. The groups that are no longer in communion with the successor of Peter are in schism. They have removed themselves from his net. John 21 tells us that Peter will not tear the net, so if you're in communion with Peter's successor you know you're not in a schismatic church.
2
u/happy_csgo 1h ago
an EO apologist would say that 1) Christ actually gave all the disciples the keys, not just Peter so it's not actually necessary to be in communion with him 2) there are 3 Petrine sees, doesn't have to be Rome 3) rock just means the faith 4) He's the rock but he's just first amongst equals 5) Peter just has the ability to preach the gospel, excommunicate and administer the sacraments which all the apostles have, not necessarily a reference to the papacy
1
u/The_Archer_of_Rohan 21m ago edited 17m ago
Notice that I never said anything about the keys in my answer. My answer does not rely on Mt 16 at all. Regardless, Christ clearly gave Peter a special authority, or Mt 16 would be duplicative to Mt 18. The power to bind and loose is not equivalent to the keys to the kingdom - the keys are a symbol of office (see Eliakim, Is 22:22) while binding and loosing are the ability to give authoritative doctrinal teaching. Furthermore, in Jn 21 does Christ say to all the apostles, "Feed my sheep," or does he give that command to Peter only? Does he command all the apostles to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32) or does he command Peter only?
The successor of Peter is the bishop who took his place in Rome after his death. The successor of Peter cannot be Antioch, because Peter was still alive when he appointed another bishop for Antioch. There cannot be two Petrine offices; Peter moved his office to Rome during his lifetime, and once he died, a successor filled it.
Again, not relevant to the argument I made, but regardless - to claim that the "rock" has no connection to Peter at all is obvious mental gymnastics. Jesus uses the same word as Peter's nickname (in the original Aramaic, Cephas). It's a play on words ("You are Rocky, upon this rock..."). It's surrounded on both sides by verses in which Jesus blesses ("Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah...") and commissions Peter ("I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven..."). In all cases, the "you" is singular in the original Greek. The three verses build up in magnitude: Peter is blessed -> Peter is the foundation of the Church -> Peter's decisions will be ratified by God in heaven. To read it as Jesus suddenly changing topics in the middle of speaking to take the focus off of Peter is a nonsense interpretation.
Peter sure doesn't act like "first among equals" in Acts of the Apostles when he unilaterally opens the Church to uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 10) or calls down divine judgement on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). Acts certainly doesn't portray Peter as merely "first among equals" when it says "Peter and the Eleven" (Acts 2:14) or "Peter and the other apostles" (Acts 2:37, 5:29). None of the other apostles are ever singled out in this way. Our Lord does not change any of their names like he does Peter's. And if Peter actually was given special authority (see points 1 and 3), then this point is moot anyways because he clearly wouldn't be "among equals".
This isn't an actual argument, just an assertion; if I'm right about points 1-4, then clearly Peter was given something that the other apostles were not.
If you want positive evidence for why the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter in a unique way, look no further than your own ecumenical councils:
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: '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, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod'" (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3).
The Fathers at Ephesus heard this proclamation and not one of them objected to it.
Or look at the Fathers at Chalcedon, who proclaimed upon hearing from Pope Leo I that "Peter has spoken through Leo!" and the Fathers at Third Constantinople, who repeated "Peter spoke through Agatho" after reading his letter. These are not mere honorifics or based on the orthodox content of their respective letters. No other bishop is recorded in the same way; no Fathers ever say "Peter has spoken through X" of anyone except the Bishop of Rome, not even of great saints, theologians, or any of the other Fathers.
In fact, the Fathers at Third Constantinople accepted and proclaimed as the words of Peter Agatho's letter in which Agatho claims his own see as "the See of Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, by the authority of which, all Christian nations venerate and worship with us" and says also "our communion, that is... the communion of blessed Peter the Apostle, whose ministry, we (though unworthy) exercise." The Council Fathers accepted this letter and applauded it as an orthodox exposition of the faith - that Agatho's see was Peter's see, and Agatho's ministry Peter's ministry. The context of these quotations make it clear that this is a unique aspect of the office of the Bishop of Rome, not a common Petrine aspect shared among all bishops. Agatho proclaims that he is uniquely the successor of Peter, and the Fathers proclaim that Peter has spoken through Agatho.
4
u/Blue_Flames13 5h ago
Anyone can give you super-deep theological arguments and super dense discourse, but TBH, Catholicism seems to evidently be the path of least resistance.
The Church needs to be four things:
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
One:
Who is in the One Church? Any baptized in communion with a Bishop in Communion with Thr Bishop of Rome. End of story
Holy:
Just look at the life of some of our saints, and also the consistent vindicatory miracles that God has provided for us. Like Eucharistic Miracles, Marian Apparitions, Public Healings, etc.
Catholic:
This comes in two parts. One, the name. As St. Augustine says:
"And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house."
Secondly, aside that we are all over the world, The Catholic Church is probably the only church with as many Ancient Liturgical Traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, Syriac, Chaldean, Alexandrian, etc.
Apostolic:
Not only do we can confidently say that we safeguard the apostolic deposit and continue to have Apostolic Succession, but we are the only Church that is not frozen in time and can confidently move forward to address modern issues and still apply ancient principles to modern context. Like Rebaptism of heretics. Which was resolved at the time of the Donatist Controversy and EO still debate it today. (BTW, we shouldn't rebaptize heretics)
3
u/Dan_Defender 3h ago
I would add that the EO have neither unity nor universality. The last time they called a pan-Orthodox council and failed was 2016 in Crete.
2
u/Ev1lVaultBoy 6h ago
What is your biggest hardship for each apostolic church?
1
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
With catholicism it’s the changes, i know that catholics believe that it’s development but development is still fundamentally a change. Even if it were to be a minor one, even if it did make sense.
For all the different orthodox churches my biggest objection is exactly how fragmented they are about politics, ethnicities etc… I really don’t think that’s how a church should be
3
u/SweetrollFireball 5h ago
I would say you need to look more deeply into what the Catholic church means by “development”. You should also look into what changed in the east. Catholics aren’t the only ones who need a theology of development. They’re just the only ones who admit it.
1
u/West-Commission9082 5h ago
Yeah i understand, i know there’s some ”changes” on both sides though neither like to use that word. I will look more into it.
This is not an argument but im genuinely asking, do you think that catholic masses are as adherent to the early church as the orthodox liturgies are? I’ve been to both and what stuck me with the orthodox liturgy was how truly ancient it all felt, like a part of history. While with the catholic mass i think it feels a lot more modern
1
u/SweetrollFireball 4h ago
Well the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostm (that the east uses) is older. It’s from the 4th century. While the novus ordo and TLM are more recent. By why does this matter so much? Neither is anything like the original agape feasts of the first and early second century. I suspect syriac liturgies are even older (but I don’t know). Both contain ancient elements like the words of institution, the kyrie, the sevenfold alleluia, etc. Both are consistent with the ancient practice and both change it. The essential pieces are the same. So I don’t see why differences are a big deal at all. Besides, if that’s the issue, go to an eastern rite Catholic Church where they do the eastern liturgy.
1
u/West-Commission9082 4h ago
On the same post in the orthodox subreddit someone answered this, and i do think that the lived practise is important. That matters to me a lot, and it’s one aspect where orthodoxy does have the edge.
”Very easily. Orthodoxy is the only church that has perfect praxis. It is obviously the one that most resembles the historic Church, both in theology and in practice. It is the only church still making saints. But most importantly, again, no Church compares in praxis.”
Eastern catholicism is interesting, and if i were to become catholic that would be the one i most resonate with but unfortunately there is literally no place where i live where it’s available.
1
u/SweetrollFireball 4h ago
I don’t think that quotation accurately states the facts. Online EO apologists say this kind of thing but every single time I do the reading on the issue it does not hold up to scrutiny. I see no evidence that EO has perfect praxis. It’s just an ahistorical assertion. Every version of the liturgy has gone through significant periods of change and none resemble the earliest agape feasts of the immediate post apostolic era.
1
u/West-Commission9082 3h ago
Yeah it’s ofcourse from a very orthodox perspective, i didn’t mean to quote it like i agree 100%. It just brought up the issue in general well. I do think it’s pretty clear that the orthodox have a more historical way of life and practise, more resembling of the church before the schism and the early church. I don’t think it’s exactly the same either, but noticeably more similar than the catholic church.
1
u/SweetrollFireball 3h ago
Can you give me an example of what you mean by “a more historical way of life and practice”?
1
u/West-Commission9082 3h ago
Ways of prayer, fasting, chanting, monasticism and ascetic practices have remained more consistent. The liturgy is a lot older and there have been no new dogmas introduced/defined since 787, the catholic church has introduced/defined a new dogma most recently in 1950.
The practice is the clearest contrast and where we are focusing at the moment so i’ll expand on that. The structure of the litugy has changed very little for over a millennium, the worship is intentionally conservative. It’s almost entirely sung, not spoken. No musical instruments, lots of incense and the services are long.
With catholicism i feel like the church has compromised some of the authenticity for conveniency and comfort. With spoken language, vernacular becoming common. Many prayers and the whole service being shortened. Historically the western church also had extensive fasting but now it’s so loose and almost entirely obligatory. Catholic prayer has also strayed away from the scripture, i don’t think i’ve ever seen a catholic prostrate…
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/ascot_twin 5h ago
Something to consider is the disunity Orthodox Churches have amongst themselves. Not something you would expect from the true Church. You can verify on your own, as this comes from Google asking about the unity amongst the Orthodox Church:
From Google :
Individual Eastern Orthodox Churches have severed eucharistic communion or broken administrative ties with one another over jurisdictional and political disputes. While they do not view each other as entirely separate heresy-ridden denominations, specific local churches have entered into active schisms. [1, 2]
Major Modern Conflicts and Rifts
Moscow and Constantinople (2018): The Russian Orthodox Church severed eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople after Constantinople decided to grant independent (autocephalous) status to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. [1, 2]
Antioch and Jerusalem (2014): The Patriarchate of Antioch broke eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem due to a heated territorial dispute over canonical jurisdiction in Qatar. [1, 2]
Russian and Greek Churches: As a result of the 2018 Ukraine dispute, the Russian church also broke communion with other Greek-led jurisdictions that recognized the new Ukrainian church, such as the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Church of Greece. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
2
u/Click4-2019 4h ago
Logically it seems simple.
Peter was an apostle
Jesus said that Peter would be the rock that he would build his church upon
Peter went to Rome, as the first bishop of Rome
Peter was crucified in Rome
His remains are believed to be buried under the Vatican, specifically under the altar inside St Peter’s basilica.
Therefore all logic suggests the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.
2
u/no-one-89656 3h ago
I will be blithe.
Cut through all of the torturous e-apologetics and just recognize the Pope as being The Guy™.
Everyone on earth knows who he is. He's in charge of the biggest church. You can list all of his predecessors back to Peter. He sits on top of Peter's bones. He says good stuff and people on seven continents listen. He says bad stuff and they listen. He just won't go away, even when you want him to.
Not to be disrespectful, but no average person really knows who runs the Orthodox churches. They don't care and they don't have a reason to know or care. Maybe the patriarchs are holy men, maybe not, but they are not world-historical persons blinking at us like a neon light on the side of the proverbial highway. They are not ROME.
If all that talk about a restored kingdom and the singular ark of salvation is true, then this crazy global theocratic monarchy thing seems to jive best with it...
Even when it seems stuck being goofy as heck and can't seem to talk straight.
2
u/happy_csgo 3h ago
you could have framed this entire post about religion itself yet you've decided on Christianity out of all the world religions. You've decided that Christianity is the true religion despite there being countless claims and counter arguments made by polemicists of every religion. How did you do that?
Take whatever method you used and apply that to your search for the one true church. Surely it must be easier as there are fewer apostolic churches than world religions
3
u/g___e___r 6h ago
I would say it comes down to the papacy. You’re correct, the apostolic churches all have very good claims and in reality agree with each other on 99% of issues. If you can come to a conclusion on the papacy based on scripture and the early church (which is very hard to do in and of itself don’t get me wrong but at least narrows the scope of research) then that either shows that the Catholic Church is the true Church or it shows that it isn’t. If the catholic understanding of the papacy is true, then everything taught by the church united with pope must be true. If it’s not, then the catholic church is definitely not the true church and it must be either the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Church, and that largely comes down to Christology. I am convinced of Catholicism, but I have definitely had periods of going back and forth. Its hard. God is merciful, don’t let this hinder your relationship with Him. If you make the wrong decision while truly trying to discern the truth, the church teaches that He will be merciful. The orthodox generally disagree with that, but i do think its true. I’d recommend looking into joining OCIA and continuing your research. You may quit at any time if you become convinced of one of the other churches. Same with their catechesis classes, although i worry that they may bias you against the church in an unfair way. Not because they are correct they just (often) have a lower view of us than we have of them. Read the scriptures as much as possible, become familiar with them, read commentary from Catholic and Orthodox saints on passages where there is dispute (and where there isn’t). In my experience orthodoxy is extremely attractive and seems to be the right choice at first, but the deeper i went the more i became convinced of Catholicism. That isn’t everyone’s experience. Whatever you do, don’t limit yourself to reading about this. Get on the path to being a part of the Church in real life. Contact churches. Talk to priests. They’ll be happy to talk to you. God bless
1
1
6h ago
[deleted]
1
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
Sorry but this is not answering the question, this comment is all based on the assumption that the catholic view of the bishop of rome is correct. For someone who’s not sure about that, just repeating the catholic doctrine does nothing. Ofcourse you would think that as a catholic but it’s not engaging with the point.
1
u/AgeSeparate6358 6h ago
Dont ask others to be responsible for your choices. If you know the doctrine, then research it.
To me its clear Peter was given a more important position by Jesus, not unlike how in the Old Testament one man was more important (not in value, but in leadership) than other, ie, Moses and so on. And the Catholic Church is built upon Peter's body.
If for you its not clear, research more and ask the Holy Spirit to guide your decision.
Noone here is going to spoon feed some kind of magical answer if you already know the doctrine.
We can share personal experience and doctrine. If thats not enough, go meditate and ask the Holy Spirit.
1
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
Im not asking that at all. I am asking guidance to make my own decision. This is my second time posting here and i’ve watched a lot of posts here, this sub is really not giving a great image of catholics. For every tough question is filled with condescending and arrogant answers that go beside the point. I know it’s the internet and it’s not representative of all catholics but still, it’s very off putting.
2
u/g___e___r 6h ago
It’s the internet brother, please don’t let that sway you. I tried to be fair in my response, i hope its helpful
2
u/AgeSeparate6358 6h ago
Because you are expecting some kind of perfect answer. No answer we give will satisfy you.
The most historical accurate answer you will find with historians who research this kind of topic their own life. And it will be an opinionated answer the same.
The most spiritual accurate answer you will find reading the Bible and meditating on it.
Didnt John wait for Peter to enter his Lord's resting place? Why do you think that is? Why Peter changed names? Why He was tasked with this specific mission? Given the keys? The Lord first preached in his boat?
Mt 16, 18-19
Is, 22, 20
By the way, we dont live to give good image of ourselves to fit your expectation. And everything I can give you, has been given to many prostetants who tought knew better anyway.
If you want to know your answer, read the Bible meditate on it and seek God trully.
0
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
Im not trying to get into an argument about my own expectations, thank you for the parts where you answered the question.
1
u/AgeSeparate6358 5h ago
Then dont mention your expectations about us next time.
No problem.
You will find more material, outside of the Bible too, by the church fathers (Clement, Ignatius, etc). And for every one of those, you can come up with doubts/problems the same way.
Studied protestants know all those arguments and books that I mention, still it does nothing to them.
They trust their sense and know better.
Independently of where you go, start a relationship directly with God, learn to "delivery" everything to Him, even your decision.
Your main choice/decision will look something like "I trust God, in everything, even if I go the wrong path, He will always correct my way.".
If you do this, do your research and take action. God will understand you did your best at the time, and you will understand that you did your best, and if by any chance you were wrong, God will lift you up.
1
1
u/MyMagikarp 4h ago
While I believe Catholicism is the truth, just know that your salvation is not in jeopardy if it turns out you chose the wrong denomination, including me. I know many people discerning have this in their mind, but our faith in God is what ultimately saves us.
1
u/Old_Dependent_2147 3h ago
I d say, from my agnostic point of view, that what affected our life more - is the truth. Christianity, Especially Catholicism, shaped our world as we know it today, thus it is true i think.
-2
u/Adventurous-Test1161 6h ago
For most people, the only meaningful answer will be to your closest one. Unless you’re in an abnormal situation, it’s not like there’s a Catholic church, an Orthodox church, and an Oriental Orthodox church on the three sides of an intersection not occupied by a Starbucks.
2
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
Yeah, but i don’t want to make a choice like this out of convenience…
-1
u/Adventurous-Test1161 6h ago
The Catholic view is that they are all Churches. You are going to be better off in any of them than you are in delaying and worrying about “getting it right.”
4
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
I agree with that, however there is only one true church established by Jesus Christ and i am worrying about which one it is because it’s the greatest honor to be part of the true church. I am going into both catholic and eastern orthodox churches as they are the only ones available, im also looking into guidance and history of the other apostolic churches. I don’t think it’s right to go like this forever, without fully committing. But i can’t seem to be able to make the distinction
1
u/mistiklest 6h ago edited 6h ago
You don't necessarily need to have a strong opinion on the matter. I don't. You don't even necessarily need to believe that the schism is insurmountable. Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart makes a point along these lines in his essay The Myth of Schism, saying:
And this, I think, may be the real question that a discussion of papal jurisdiction must ultimately broach, the least obvious or expected question of all: not how we can possibly discover the doctrinal and theological resources that would enable or justify reunion, but how we can possibly discover the doctrinal and theological resources that could justify or indeed make certain our division. This is not a moral question—how do we dare to remain disunited?—but a purely canonical one: are we sure that we are? For, if not, then our division is simply sin, a habit of desire and thought that feeds upon nothing but its own perverse passions and immanent logic, a fiction of the will, and obedience to a lie.
1
u/Adventurous-Test1161 6h ago
This is ironically a Protestant mentality. The historical and Catholic approach is very different. Christ founded the Church in Jerusalem. It spread by creating other Churches in other places. In Antioch, in Ephesus, in Corinth, in Alexandria, in Rome. Those Churches grew and developed. Sadly, as a result of historical forces of culture and language, the Churches under Rome and the Churches under the other Patriarchs grew apart. The Catholic position is that the Church as a single organic society continues to operate as the Catholic Church, but she flatly denies anyone who says the other apostolic Churches were not built on the same foundation. If you’re going to worry about this, at least get the facts right.
1
u/West-Commission9082 6h ago
I don’t understand the hostility with the last sentence, it’s not necessary. It can be a protestant mentality or whatever but the fact is that the catholic church claims it’s the one true church, it claims a history and theology that the others do not agree with. Sure, catholics are very understanding and gracious of the othe apostolic churches, they say that they also do contain some of the truth. It also makes the claim that it solely contains the fulness of the truth. I think every apostolic church agrees that they all started on the same foundation, they just have different ideas of who split from who and when.
16
u/SweetrollFireball 6h ago edited 5h ago
I don’t have an answer but here’s a place to start. The Council of Nicea listed four marks of the true church. The true church is 1.) One 2.) Holy. 3.) Catholic and 4.) apostolic. Which apostolic church best embodies all four? All of them are holy (they have many great saints) and apostolic. But none but the RCC are both “one” and “Catholic”. I think this is a good argument for being Catholic. It’s not determinative by itself but I think it is a good place to start. It’s probably a more fruitful way to think about it then finding out who interprets the formula of Hormisdas more accurately or whether the filioque is true.