The best advantage is obligatory, imho, even by nature besides grace. It's like the best move in chess. If you see it, it's obligatory, and the filioque is the best advantage in theology and obligatory, and the Orthodox disrespect it. That's no way to play the game. 

Don’t worry, Jimmy. You are not the only one here to puzzle over Donachie’s posts. I don’t understand either.

Another good idea is the search engine. 

I am no expert, but you will certainly get answer when the others wake from their slumber.

Hi, Jimmy.  No, it's not about the sermon.  It all has to do with the fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded a single Church, and it's quite clear from the earliest Christian Tradition, from the Church Fathers, that there's no pleasing God or saving one's soul outside the unity of the Church founded by Christ, that those in schism from the One Church founded by Christ are outside the Body of Christ.  That Church is the one rooted in the successors of St. Peter.

Where do you live?  There are also Eastern Rite Catholic options that you could attend w/o having to go Orthodox and separating oneself from the Church.  If you let us know the general area in which you live, I could look around to see what I can find.

All Christians believed tht one had to have true/sound doctrine to be a Christian and to be saved.  Thus the very term "Orthodox" refers to "right belief".  Question is how can one know where this right / correct belief is to be found when disagreements and different interpretations arise.  I'll try to write more tomorrow when it's not as late.

God bless you,
Laszlo

I'd appreciate all the advise I can get. I live in Florida. I honestly have not done much research into the Churches in my area, only a quick google search. I'm probably as confused as they get when it comes to what is valid or licit or whatever. If it is not too much trouble, could someone post a list of Churches it is not sinful to attend in Florida?

Which Orthodox Church? Russian? Greek? Antiochian? Old Calendar? Old rite? The list goes on, some are in communion, some are not. Once schism starts, it doesn’t stop.

Do you know which ones are ok to go to and which ones are not? I have no idea how far into schism a Church has to go to be sinful to go to. I honestly don't care what kind of Church I go to, but I don't want to sin by choosing wrong. 

Do you know which ones are ok to go to and which ones are not? I have no idea how far into schism a Church has to go to be sinful to go to. I honestly don't care what kind of Church I go to, but I don't want to sin by choosing wrong.

His post wasn’t clear enough for someone unfamiliar with things traditional. Do not go to ANY Orthodox church. You can go to an Eastern Right Catholic Church. Most SSPX churches are acceptable also. I would mostly suggest that you go to either the SSPV or the CMRI. Where in Florida do you live? I don’t believe that the CMRI is an option in Florida, but the SSPV is.

Do you know which ones are ok to go to and which ones are not? I have no idea how far into schism a Church has to go to be sinful to go to. I honestly don't care what kind of Church I go to, but I don't want to sin by choosing wrong.

We can't go to any Orthodox churches.  And, here's the thing.  While the Modernized NO churches will give the Sacraments to the Orthodox (due to the collapse of faith in the Novus Ordo), the Orthodox will NOT give the Sacraments to Catholics ... unless it's some weird "Autocephalous" place that are also Modernized and make up their own rules.  In refusing the Sacraments to non-Orthodox, the Orthodox are actually more consistent with the ancient practice of the Church that there can be no communion in Sacraments without unity of faith.  So the question that remains is who have the true faith, the Traditional Catholic Church and the Orthodox?  And the answer to that is very clear.  There has to be some arbiter when disagreements arise in the Church.  Otherwise, there can be no unity of faith after inevitable disagreements arise.  And the Church Fathers recognize that in Sacred Scripture, Our Lord appointed Peter to be that rock of faith who was appointed to "confirm the brethren".  And the Church Fathers all believed that the successors of the Apostles carried on the authority of the Apostles, i.e. that the appointment of St. Peter was not a one-shot deal for St. Peter himself.

https://melkite.org/faith/sunday-scriptures/peter-has-spoken-through-leo

Like other councils, the Council of Chalcedon dealt with both theological and political issues. The main theological issue was how to express the mystery of Christ’s incarnation in the face of the Monophysitism taught by Eutyches, an influential priest in Constantinople and a disciple of St Cyril of Alexandria. At its second session the Council adopted the concept “two natures in one Person,” employed by Pope St. Leo the Great in a letter to Flavian, the archbishop of Constantinople. When the letter was read to the bishops, they replied, “This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!” Leo’s expression has been used in the Greek and Latin Churches ever since.

If you don't want to reveal your Metro area on the forum for whatever reason, just send me a private message and I can see what Catholic alternatives there might be within a manageable distance from your current location.

Now, what has happened since early Vatican II is that the Holy See has been usurped and taken over by a series of Antipopes.  This infiltration has been centuries in the making and their plans to do exactly this have been revealed over the years.  This is a great chastisement and testing of the faith.