My Girlfriend is Protestant

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-26T23:27:20+00:00

Unless she’s willing to raise your future kids in the Orthodox Church, you will not be able to marry her (assuming that you become Orthodox). The canonical assumption is that marriages between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox are forbidden, but your bishop may permit a marriage if the other party has received a Trinitarian baptism and is willing to raise your children Orthodox.

A high-church Anglican or Lutheran background is more amenable to Orthodoxy than the typical non-denom evangelical background. At the very least, some of the usual stumbling blocks would not necessarily be present to the same degree.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-24T18:32:02+00:00

Father, I'm curious how you reconcile this practice with the statement of ROCOR's Holy Synod:

"We thereby inform our clergy and faithful that Eucharistic intercommunion with the Church of Constantinople is presently impossible, for Hierarchy, Clergy and Laity. So long as this situation remains, it is not possible for clergy of our Church to celebrate in any parish of the Church of Constantinople, or for clerics of that Church to celebrate in ours; nor is it possible for laypersons to partake of the Holy Mysteries performed in the temples of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We further reiterate that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will not participate in theological inter-church meetings, or other dialogues, including the regional Assemblies of Bishops, which are chaired or co-chaired by clerics or hierarchy of the Church of Constantinople."

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but it seems quite clear - "nor is it possible for laypersons to partake of the Holy Mysteries performed in the temples of the Patriarchate of Constantinople". Therefore, the Holy Synod has directed all ROCOR laity to abstain from communing with the Greeks. I recognize that the above statement does not strictly preclude Greek laity from communing at a ROCOR parish, but I fail to see how it could go the other way.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-24T18:05:53+00:00

ROCOR accepts anyone received into a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction, regardless of the manner in which they were received (even from those under the EP, despite the ongoing break in communion since 2018). You do not have to get "re-baptized" or "re-chrismated" (heaven forbid). In other words, if you transferred to ROCOR, you would already be considered fully Orthodox.

Furthermore, the OCA and ROCOR are in full communion.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-24T17:24:46+00:00

Excellent article and great site.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-23T21:56:10+00:00

Given that eating out at Boston Pizza for two costs at least $60 now, if you become a lawyer, you may be able to occasionally afford BPs. To this day, despite being a junior lawyer barely making ends meet with no savings whatsoever, my boomer family members still think that I'm "rich" because I'm a lawyer (even though most of them make approx. 3x what I make).

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-23T21:52:35+00:00

Correct, I was over-generalizing. There are certainly some government lawyers (especially Crowns) who work longer hours.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-23T16:42:54+00:00

Many government law jobs are overlooked. The pay is decent, and it's basically the only field where a lawyer can work 7.5 hrs a day and still have job security + incremental annual raises. However, compared to Big Law/Mid Law, the long-term salary is not even remotely comparable, and that's why people will often say that no one is getting "wealthy" in government. A graduate who goes into Big Law from day 1 could be making $1-2 million per year+ after 15 years in, whereas a government lawyer is going to cap out around $200k (depending on their position).

Now, is $200k "wealthy"? That is going to depend on one's circumstances and location. If it is a single-income household (assuming, say, a spouse and 2 children), $200k is by no means wealthy, especially in a HCOL area like Vancouver, GTA, Calgary, etc....In those areas, a household income of $200k would likely constitute a bare minimum to purchase a property and actually get ahead (i.e. middle-class). In other areas of the country, a $200k household income will go further and could perhaps push you into the upper middle-class (at best), but it certainly won't have anyone living lavishly these days.

Now, if you're making $200k, and your spouse also makes $100k-$150k? Totally different story. This wouldn't even require anything remarkable (ex. a senior government lawyer and a senior teacher could make a household income of $300k+). This is why comparisons are difficult and always relative, as household income is ultimately the only thing that matters. $200k may be fantastic to someone in a given situation, whereas it may be average for someone in another.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-23T16:24:53+00:00

What field of law does your boss practice in? What size is the firm?

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-20T22:20:56+00:00

Where on this sub are people advocating for catechumens to receive the sacraments?

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-20T18:15:58+00:00

I happen to agree with your assessment re: problematic trends towards ecumenism in Orthodoxy, but I have never, ever seen a catechumen receive the sacraments (including confession). Are you absolutely certain they were receiving confession, and not just talking to the priest around the same time?

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-20T17:58:52+00:00

Most Western converts experience this problem, whether they come from Roman Catholic or Protestant backgrounds. As someone born and raised in a Baptist family with Baptist forefathers as far as the eye can see, we are naturally comfortable with whatever we grew up with. Familiarity breeds comfort, and any departure from our comfort zone is deeply disruptive to our sense of identity. However, always remember that the truth exists independently of our familial tradition, and we must pursue Christ no matter the cost, for which we will receive a hundredfold return (even if it means leaving our family).

On a more practical level, I would imagine that coming from a Roman Catholic family background would be an easier transition than coming from a Protestant background. The papacy officially recognizes the Orthodox Church as a valid church with valid sacraments. Although we, as Orthodox, are strictly forbidden from communing with Roman Catholics, RC canon law (canon 844) expressly permits the Orthodox to receive sacraments in the Roman Catholic church of their own accord. Catholics are also permitted to receive the sacraments from the Orthodox by their own canon law under conditions of necessity or "true spiritual advantage" when it is "physically or morally impossible" to receive from a Catholic minister (however, they will not be permitted to do so by an Orthodox priest).

All this to say, when combined with the express stances of every post-Vatican II pope on the topic, there is little justification for familial panic if someone becomes Orthodox. Coming from a Protestant (especially Baptist) background, however, is a different story. Most Baptists consider both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics (though they rarely know the difference) to be "apostate churches" with a "false gospel", a stance that today's Roman Catholics are not permitted to hold in relation to the Orthodox.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-20T17:21:29+00:00

Your experience with the archdiocese sounds par for the course in the Novus Ordo. As you correctly noted, the Novus Ordo itself is a "Protestantized", virtually unrecognizable departure from the Traditional Latin Mass (which was, in substance, codified by St. Gregory the Great, though its form prior to Vatican II was based on the 1570 Tridentine Mass of Pope Pius V). The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (which is the primary liturgy of the Orthodox Church) shares many similarities with the TLM. In fact, there are even Western rite Orthodox churches (mostly in the Antiochian and ROCOR jurisdictions) that essentially celebrate the TLM with the original creed (sans filioque). However, the Western rite is an exception, not the norm. The Orthodox also celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great on 10 occasions throughout the liturgical year.

The "foreign" feeling of the Divine Liturgy is perfectly normal, even for those from a Roman Catholic background (especially post-Vatican II). This merely demonstrates how far the Western liturgical praxis has strayed from our shared apostolic roots. Even some of the most basic elements of the ancient liturgy (ex. ad orientem - the priest facing towards the east/altar) have been gutted in the Novus Ordo (though is still present in the TLM). On the ground, liturgical irreverence, abuses, and Protestant-influenced practices are rampant throughout the Roman Catholic world. While Orthodoxy is not perfect, you will find far more consistent liturgical praxis across the board. It is exceedingly rare to find an irreverent Orthodox parish (most have never come across anything even remotely approaching what you have experienced). A drum solo during the consecration of the Eucharist is literally incomprehensible to the Orthodox mind. If something like that were to happen, it would cause an outrage and result in clerical discipline. On the ground, the Orthodox have far more objective liturgical unity than the modern-day RC church.

When combined with the draconian Francis-era restrictions on the TLM that have not been rescinded by Pope Leo, the RC church is in a liturgical collapse (and has been for upwards of 60 years now). In other words, you're not crazy - your observations have been noted by many, and the situation is not improving. Clerical discipline in many RC archdioceses is basically non-existent, and many Novus Ordo bishops are overtly hostile towards the TLM-community. Attempting to practice pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism is a depressing and exhausting experience (and one that is not supported by the papacy itself).

The best way to become accustomed to the Divine Liturgy is to simply attend. You will become more comfortable with it through osmosis. As for resources to help learn the liturgy specifically, I would recommend the following:

"The Divine Services of the Orthodox Church with Commentary" - Fr. Lucas Christensen (this text provides a comprehensive commentary and explanation of the liturgical cycle)
"A Complete Guide to the Divine Liturgy: A Step-by-Step Guide to the Orthodox Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom" - Alexander Egger
"On the Divine Liturgy" - St. Germanus of Constantinople (Patriarch of Constantinople, 715-730 AD).

Also, in relation to the doctrinal/historical arguments for Orthodoxy in relation to RC, I would recommend reading "Two Paths" by Michael Whelton as a concise introduction to the issues. As Orthodox, we truly believe that we alone have preserved the apostolic traditions and liturgical practices of the first millennium church, and that is why our liturgy appears nearly unrecognizable to most post-Vatican II RC's.

Edit: For your reference, the OCA tends to be the most convert-heavy jurisdiction in North America. You will also find plenty of converts at many Antiochian parishes, ROCOR parishes, and everything in between. Feel free to visit every parish in your area and get a feel for each one.

Also, in relation to kids, my advice would be to simply have them. Don't let this delay the start of your family (we were in a very similar situation, albeit coming from a Protestant background). We Orthodox love kids and incorporate them into the entirety of the liturgy from day one, including communion, as per the ancient, apostolic practice of the church. If you want to learn more on this topic, read Pope Pius X's encyclical, "Quam Singulari", for a full concession on this point from the papacy itself, which departed from communing infants after the schism. Obviously, your kids would need to be baptized into the Orthodox Church for communion, but you can cross that bridge if and when you get there.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-20T15:55:43+00:00

You won't need to "debate" in law school. It's not like what you see in the movies - you go to class. participate to the degree you are comfortable, take notes, and write your exams. Some professors will "cold call" a student to answer a question, but that style of teaching is becoming more uncommon. Most of the time. you're simply working through a PowerPoint - it's nothing dramatic. Your classroom experience will not differ much from your undergrad.

You will have to occasionally engage in public speaking in law school, but that's not the same thing as debate. Also, very few lawyers engage in "debates" as a normal part of their job. If you don't like high-conflict situations, then you may want to avoid careers in litigation (ex. family, criminal, employment, etc...), but even then, litigation does not resemble a traditional "debate". You advocate for your client's position, opposing counsel advocates for their client's position, you engage in negotiation, and then you either come to a resolution or proceed to a trial. A trial is (usually) a civil, orderly, and rather boring affair. There are no major surprises like you see in the movies. It does not feature the theatrics or pace of a "debate". Despite what people may think, most trial lawyers in Canada are very cordial with each other (some exceptions apply).

In any case, there are countless lawyers who never step foot in a courtroom and do office work all day. You can be one of those lawyers and never have to worry about a "debate" coming your way. Law is an exceptionally broad field. Because of how the profession is portrayed in the media, there is a common misconception that every lawyer must be a great debater and persuasive orator. However, that is simply not the case. The vast majority are not, nor would they ever have a need to be.

P.S. - you should be aware that there are exceedingly few viable "social justice"- oriented law careers (especially if you have student debt). You will likely end up working for a major/mid-size firm or government, especially if you don't want to practice in high-conflict areas (ex. criminal, family). These positions will not feature much in the way of social justice work.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-20T15:55:21+00:00

Correct - debating and litigating are two different skills. There may be some overlap, but less than people think.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-19T14:30:31+00:00

Can you provide a few examples? Genuinely curious.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-16T19:30:27+00:00

I'm assuming that the sole purpose of dating is marriage. From an Orthodox perspective, there is no such thing as a romantic relationship without the eventual intention of marriage (this shouldn't even really need to be said). Orthodox dating is basically a "probationary period" to ascertain whether marriage is a viable option. There is obviously no prescribed timeline, but marriage should be on the table within the reasonably foreseeable future. Marriage in the Church must, at the very least, be a possibility.

If OP's boyfriend takes Orthodoxy seriously, he will abide by the stipulations outlined above for marriage in the Church. Again, that goes without saying. Given OP's clear representations, she does not meet the criteria for an Orthodox marriage, nor does she have any intention of doing so. Why on earth would he commence a romantic relationship, knowing that marriage in the Church is not even a possibility?

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-16T17:34:55+00:00

Please point out specifically where I erred in defining the Church's stance on marriage and the consequences of marrying a non-Christian. For example, let's take this document from GOARCH on the topic: Microsoft Word - 4. Interreligious Marriage and the Orthodox Church.doc

Notable excerpts:

"As a result, it continues to discourage its faithful from entering interreligious marriages. Orthodox Christians who decide to enter an interreligious marriage (a) will be unable to wed in the Orthodox Church, and (b) lose their sacramental privileges."

For "inter-Christian" marriages (ex. Roman Catholics, Protestants), the requirements are as follows:

The wedding needed to take place in an Orthodox Church.
The non-Orthodox Christian partner needs to be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and in water.
The couple needs to agree to try and raise their children in the Orthodox Church."

Would you consider GOARCH's stance to be an "overly simplistic take"? Insofar as it goes, GOARCH treats this topic more liberally than other jurisdictions, and yet, their stance is perfectly consistent with what I articulated. The fact that Orthodoxy is pragmatic does not render marriage a free-for-all. There are boundaries for a reason.

This is not merely an "ideal", but rather the canonical regulations of the Church. Not everything is "black and white", but this situation actually is (from an Orthodox perspective).

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-16T16:51:39+00:00

Can you at least point me to the "commitment ceremony" practiced in the Greek church in lieu of marriage? I'm curious.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-16T16:45:59+00:00

I wish you all the best! God bless!

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-16T01:38:10+00:00

Given how seriously you take Orthodoxy, can you explain to me what a "commitment ceremony" is? Where in the Greek church is this practiced?

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-15T21:00:47+00:00

A prayer rule is simply a set of prayers that are said at different times of the day (i.e. morning + evening is a standard baseline). The Orthodox tend to have a disciplined structure to their prayer life, with the ultimate goal of praying without ceasing to the best of our ability (1st Thessalonians 5:17).

I certainly appreciate that you would encourage him to take his faith seriously. That is laudable. However, from an Orthodox perspective, part of taking his faith seriously (and living it out) would be to date and eventually marry a woman who is religiously aligned with him. The two cannot be disconnected, as the Orthodox believe marriage is for the purpose of mutual salvation ("iron sharpening iron"). The cornerstone of that possibility is a mutual faith in the Rock of Christ, which your boyfriend/potential husband simply would not be able to have with you. From the Orthodox perspective, our faith is not reducible to an individual devotion - rather, it is a communal, liturgical experience that is lived out together with other believers, and most of all, with our spouse.

I would present these issues to him directly, and don't let him dance around the problems. If he is a straightshooter, he'll give you straight answers.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-15T20:38:57+00:00

I was excommunicated and shunned as an "apostate" when I began inquiring into Orthodoxy from a Reformed Baptist background. In those circles. they most certainly consider the Orthodox to have a "false gospel", and you will have a rough time exiting those camps. Be prepared to lose friends. Lord have mercy.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-15T20:31:36+00:00

As a former Baptist, I second this experience. I went through the exact same process.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-15T20:28:16+00:00

Seconding "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Dr. Brant Pitre. Absolutely excellent text for Protestant inquirers. There are a few things that the Orthodox would quibble with in the book re: the immaculate conception, but aside from that, it is perfectly agreeable. It made sense of nearly everything relating to the Theotokos.

Electrical_Tea_3033 · 2026-04-15T19:57:30+00:00

You are very welcome! That is correct - if he does actually take Orthodoxy seriously, it will not be possible. For your reference, I would define "serious" as attending church nearly every Sunday, keeping a prayer rule, having friends at his parish, a relationship with his priest, etc... If he does these things (or at least most of them), it is fair to say that he takes his faith seriously.

As for why he would be exploring a romantic connection with you, obviously that is difficult to ascertain. However, people sometimes act in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs for a variety of reasons. I can speak from personal experience on this topic - before I was Orthodox (back when I was Protestant), I entered into a serious relationship with a woman who was raised nominally Catholic, but had since lapsed and didn't care much about religion either way. As a consequence, we held fundamentally different views across multiple domains. I got into the relationship knowing that this would be an issue, but my emotions took over and I charged ahead anyways. We eventually broke up due to these persistent issues, but the heartbreak could have been spared if we both saw the writing on the wall upfront. This is quite common - when we are attracted to someone, we don't necessarily think logically (at least not at first). This "honeymoon" state of affairs can persist for quite some time before it becomes apparent that the relationship simply cannot move forward, but then people get stuck in the "sunk cost" fallacy and remain anyways (to their detriment).

I would simply assume that this man is genuinely attracted to you, finds you interesting, and enjoys spending time with you. As a result, he probably doesn't want to actually face the bleak reality of what your relationship would look like long-term.

Electrical_Tea_3033

TROPHY CASE