What is the most orthodox or strictest Christian church/denomination? I come from a religiously orthodox background, and want the same orthodoxy/strictness in Christianity as well.. But I don't necessarily see any particular groups like this. Amish is not gonna happen, I'm not a young earth creationist so that won't work with some groups, I don't talk to snakes or speak in tongues, nor do I agree with faith healing.


So, in all seriousness, do I fit in anywhere? . I feel it's extremely important to live your life with God in front of you at all times, rather than 1 day a week, and such. So, help please

The only orthodox church is... The Orthodox Church.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the same church which was founded by the Christ and the Apostles back in the 1st century AD. It retains all the same traditions and doctrines that it did 2000 years ago, uses the same Liturgy (which was written by St James the Just, the brother of Christ), practices the same Sacraments/Mysteries and is guided by an unbroken line of Bishops who are inheritors to the positions of the Apostles. This is know as Apostolic Succession. The leaders of the Orthodox Church trace their lineage all the way back to the original followers of Christ.

If you want the original church of the Apostles and the early Christians who worshipped in secret while they were being persecuted by the Romans, look no further than Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is not a denomination, it is pre-denominational.

You talk as if Catholics don't even exist Alyosha. We are just as old as you, and only have some rather minor differences in doctrine and discipline. I'd be interested to hear your ideas on the Catholic church, but that would be off topic of this thread. Feel free to PM them to me if you want to though.

I don't think it would be off-topic. This topic is about which denomination is the most orthodox (Grk: 'orthos' + 'doxa' = 'correct belief') so I think a discussion of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is appropriate.

The Roman Catholic Church, in my opinion, is a legitimate form of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Christ and his Apostles. Its sacraments are valid and its Apostolic Succession is continuous and in tact. However, I don't think it is the 'most orthodox' church because undeniable the RCC has deviated over the years from the original Church. The current Eastern Orthodox Church prides itself on having made no significant changes to doctrine, tradition or liturgical practice throughout its history. Of course, a few small things, such as different languages being used, slight change in garments, the shortening of the Litrugy in the fifth century AD (the original Liturgy written by St James the Just in the first century was five hours in length. St John Chrysostom shortened it to about an hour and a half, but kept the most important parts and the 'core' of the Liturgy... although the Liturgy of St James is still performed at various times throughout the year).

Over the years, probably due to lack of effective communication between the four Eastern Patriarchates (which used Greek) and the Patriarchate of Rome (which used Latin), the RCC added new theological doctrines, such as purgatory, immaculate conception of Mary, indulgences, papal infallibility, celibacy for parish priests, etc. The RCC also changed the Nicene Creed in the late sixth century, which was a violation of the seventh canon of the Third Ecumenical Council. The RCC has changed its liturgy multiple times throughout the centuries also. The RCC also has a significantly different monastic tradition than that of the EOC. It cannot claim the same unbroken continuity of doctrine and tradition which the EOC claims, despite its validity as a branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

I have no doubt that the RCC is legit. As Christ said, 'my fathers house has many rooms.' It simply isn't as orthodox as the Orthodox Church.

Another Orthodox Christian

He was blunt but he said it... the Orthodox Church does in fact claim to to be the Church of the Apostles.

Not starting a debate. But technically speaking Catholism is the oldest practiced Christian faith. St. Peter started this. Eastern Orhodox branched off or Catholic. Roman Catholic west and Orthodox east. The actual reasonings escape my memory but I do know that St. Peter started the Catholic church.

This is an interesting matter which I enjoyed researching earlier this year.

Originally there was no 'Roman Catholic Church' - simply the Christian Church, which was founded by the Apostles. St Peter founded the Church in Antioch in 37 AD. He later went on to found the Church in Rome in 53 AD. The Christian Church in Alexandria was founded by St Mark. The Church in India (Nowadays known as the Malankara Indian Orthodox Church) was founded by St Thomas, who evangelised to the significant Jewish community in Kerala. St James the Just (brother of Christ) founded the Church in Jerusalem. The Church in Byzantium was founded by St Andrew. All these men were Apostles of Christ.

The Church existed in harmony as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church... at first. For the first few hundred years, all the branches of the Orthodox Church adhered to the same doctrines, practices and traditions. However, over time the Church in Rome started to change its doctrines, practices and traditions dramatically, causing tension between the Bishop of Rome and the other Bishops of the Church. After violating the Third Ecumenical Council the Patriarchate of Rome was at odds with the other Patriarchs. In 1054 it came to a head when the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) attempted to exert authority over the rest of the Church, outside its own jurisdiction. The Pope was considered first among equals in the ecumenical council of bishops, which meant he was consulted first and was the spokesman of the Church as a whole. It did not mean that he had supreme control over the other Patriarchates. The Pope's attempt to exert control over the rest of the Church caused the schism in 1054, when the Patriarchate of Rome broke away from the other four Patriarchates.

You could word this as 'the other four Patriarchates split off from the Church' (the Roman Catholic perspective) or 'the Patriarchate of Rome split off from the Church' (the Orthodox Catholic perspective). However, considering that the Patriarchate of Rome is just a single Patriarchate, and therefore the minority compared to the other four, and that it was Rome which changed its doctrines and practices, not the others, it is more correct to say that the Patriarchate of Rome split off from the Church.

I was originally a Catholic, btw. Born, baptised, educated and confirmed.

Hopefully this helps clarify some issues of Church history.

I just realised that I do not know hardly anything about the Orthodox Church. Your church does not share these beliefs with the Roman Catholic Church?

I can make another thread if you want so the thread doesn't get hijacked. I am really interested.


That is very cool of you to say.

Go ahead and make the new thread. I'd be happy to discuss Orthodoxy, but I think I've already hijacked this thread enough

Cool beans, I made a new thread

here it is!

I believe we're going to have to agree to disagree here because I believe that the Catholic changes that have come about were for the best. I am fully awear of Church history, but I have to say that there is something to be said for Tradition and there is something to be said for having the flexiblity to change. It might be my area or it might be the generation I've grown up in, but I love the way the Catholic Church balances it all, but that's just my own perference.

No you aren't. Don't lie. That is absolutely insulting that you would even pretend yourself to be remotely Catholic.



For the benefit of all reading here and those familiar with the lewd morality he commits to, I will point out that his statement is an absolute lie.



This is rather a misnomer, because never in history has there been any veritably historical Christian body that identified as just the "Christian Church."



The doctrines of the Church at Rome never fundamentally changed, but remained steadfast. There was development one way in the West while there was harmonious development another way in the East; the same follows with the practices and traditions. Both the East and West developed their practices differently than each other. It's rather misrepresentative to act as if Rome fell out with the East as if the East remained perfectly the same, because the East developed its practices as well.

The tensions between the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops of the Church were typically over doctrinal disputes and ecclesiastical authority. However, I can note that it was repeatedly emphasized by Eastern Christians such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem against opponents that their position of orthodoxy was in accord with Rome (until, of course, they disagreed with Rome). Such emphasis on the position of other Sees is not to be found; only Rome was accorded such highest honors of primacy not only in mere traditional terms but of doctrinal definition.



How?



Because, of course, the orneriness of the Eastern Patriarchs didn't contribute to the effecting of the Schism at all.



Wrong on several points I already brought up, but I would add that Truth is not a democracy.



You rather obfuscated ecclesiastical history.

Indeed, but the Patriarchates were in communion with each other nonetheless - a single institution in five parts.



The development in the East was very minor. They never changed the Nicene Creed, whereas the Romans did. The changes made in the East to the Liturgy were also very minor, whereas the RCC has changed the nature of its Liturgy dramatically many times throughout history, most recently after Vatican II. The vast majority of the currently used Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is the same as was used by the Church in the first century AD. The RCC also changed the Eucharist. Not serving the Blood? A wafer instead of leavened bread? These are later developments which deviate from the original nature of the Eucharist. The Sacraments practiced today by the EOC have hardly changed at all over two thousand years. The RCC has changed the nature and method of its sacraments multiple times throughout its history. Monasticism in the RCC is nothing like monasticism in the EOC either; and the monastic traditions of the EOC haven't changed at since 250 AD. I'm pretty sure the RCC has thrown ermeticism right out the window, as well as spiritual mysticism. 'Ignatian Spirituality' is a attempt to fill that gap, but hardly compares with the hesychastic tradition of the Eastern monastics. Simply, the EOC retained the faith and the traditions of the Apostles, the RCC did not.



You are correct, the Patriarch of Rome was indeed held in the highest regard amongst the Five. However, he was the first amongst equals, and this was never misunderstood by any but the Romans. He did not wield supreme power over the other jurisdictions. Papal infallibility is also a purely Roman development designed to add credibility and weight behind any decision the Pope makes which defies canon or tradition.



By adding the filioque phrase to the line of the Nicene Creed which describes the Holy Spirit. Originally, in the form established and confirmed through the Ecumenical Councils, the creed read: 'And [I believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets." The Romans added several hundred years later "and the son" so that it read "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," which places the Holy Spirit as a lesser being than Christ, thus lending legitimacy to the idea that the Holy Spirit dwells within the Pope. The RCC wouldn't dare put the Pope on a pedestal the same height as Christ's, but they're willing to put him a step below with the Holy Spirit.



To a degree, of course they did, but it was the Romans who sparked it by attempting to exert authority over what wasn't theirs when their changes to the Apostolic Faith were challenged.



It isn't, you are correct, but for the sake of semantics and saying who-split-off-from-who, it's fairly obvious. The majority doesn't split off from the minority. If the state of Vermont succeeded from the Union, it would be ridiculous for its school teachers to claim 'the USA split-off from us, not the other way around.'

Guys for the sake of salvaging whatever topic is left and keeping in forum guidelines, please do not debate in here. I would suggest you two take your argument to PM or if you really want to make a thread in the Christian debate section for it.

I believe both Aquinas D and Alyosha are missing the point. You can debate history until the cows come home, but the point remains today's evangelization of Christ. Both of you could do so much good for the sake of righteousness if you stopped fighting each other and started using the many great gifts God gave you for the spreading of the Gospel.

But what is evangelization and what is deception?

I think we stopped fighting over two months ago. I find myself agreeing with a great deal that Aquinas posts on this board. In any case, I'm an ecumenist and a supporter of the Roman Catholic Church, although not a member.

Ah, but Aquinas, as I have said many times, you have no tack and turn more people off to the faith than on to it. More people are converted by our actions than by our knowledge. Never water down the truth but do not be uncharitable in your speech.

Bravo, bravo. Be as John Paul II said. Stand in Truth with Love. Without one, the other is nullified.

This post has been edited by Joe_the_Catholic: Feb 15 2010, 05:58 PM

Pretending there's no qualitative difference of truth between, say, Catholicism and Protestantism isn't love; there is no love without speaking in truth. You're missing that point.

We never said to pretend there was no difference. We said don't have say, "No you aren't. Don't lie. That is absolutely insulting that you would even pretend yourself to be remotely Catholic," when you can say, "You are not a Catholic because a Catholic is one who adheres to the Pope. This is not to offend or insult but that is the definition of a Catholic." you know something along those lines. You just sound mean and not understanding. He obviously didn't mean to insult you so correct him with brotherly charity, not "You make me so mad! How dare you say such a thing?"

^ tis true. You deliver the truth, and we would never ask less of you. We just want to help you make the delivery more effective. Think of it this way, a speech's effectiveness relies not just on the message, but the speaker. You've got the message down, now you could work on the delivery.

For example: I could quite frankly make this message much shorter by saying that you're being a pompous jerk who never takes into consideration anyone but yourself, but that would lack compassion and would ultimately fail to be properly recieved by you. Instead, I kindly suggest that you think of everyone involved, to consider their side, and to teach with mercy and kindness.