Denominations

[Barnabas]

I've been thinking lately that I really don't know enough about the different denomination in Christianity, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise. It came to me that we have an interesting pack of Christians on this forum, many from widely different denominational and theologically different backgrounds.

I thought we might have an opportunity to open up to one another, while I know that none of us here can really speak for our denomination as whole, I find some questions are better directed at people the Google.

So I figured we'll follow a fairly simple format of stating what background or denomination you come from(if you have one at all) and then any ask questions you might have about a particular denomination or a question in general.


I am Christian who follows the restoration movement, often known as the Stone/Campbell movement which came into being during the great awakening along side of other charismatic churches like the Pentecostal churches.

I don't refer to the movement as denomination because the restoration movement was founded upon the idea of local church autonomy without the need for a higher hierarchy with only a few hard pressed doctrines in rejection of the denominational systems of American Churches at the time of it's founding with the hope of returning the church to the state it resembled in teh early days of Christianity.

Those are:

- Repentance and Baptism(full water Baptism) in Christ as necessary for salvation
- Belief in the deity of Christ as a part of the trinity
- Biblical as opposed to traditional basis for theology and doctrine.

Our Churches tend to take on a few different names, either being Church of Christ, First Christian Church, Christ Church. then followed by town or area where the church is located. Some more modern churches have taken up more interesting names in recent years often following the CC or the FCC of the movement like "The Rock" or "Path Way" just to name a few. (I tend to not like this I find it leads to churches sounding more like counselling centers instead of churches, though I guess I'm kind of old fashioned.)

common qoutes:

• "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent."[SUP][[/SUP]
• "The church of Jesus Christ on earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one."
• "We are Christians only, but not the only Christians."
• "In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love."
• "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love, no name but the divine."
• "Call Bible things by Bible names."

Yes I stole those quotes from wikipedia, no I only feel a little shame about it.

 

[Barnabas]

Or we could talk about how everyone else is wrong and stuff like that, that seems to be popular lately.

 

[Lark]

I'm an RC and I've read a lot about other denominations, the distinctions of each are interesting to me, although what I've found they all have in common, no matter how ludicrous their differences among themselves may be, is that they all think that RCs are destined to go to hell and most of their theorising about salvation/being "saved" is kind of stuck in a moment. That moment being the reformation. Its very surprising to me how so many of the protestant congregations practitioners are ignorant not just of RC beliefs but the origins and context of most of their own, some of the best histories of both I've read are anthropologists, sociologists or athiests (not the spitting mad variety though) because they take proper cognizance of those things.

While there are things which I think are questionable about the RCC traditions and practices I generally dont find them as difficult to fathom or reconcile to my own experience as things like solo-scripture, pre-destination, election, a whole gamut of error. I'd also be plain spoken and admit that I'm no scholar or expert when it comes to RCC traditions, I would say that I have the knowledge of the interested member of the laity who tries to be mindful and to practice. There are fundamentalists who I dislike, there are elitists, there are people who try to engage in knowledge games or who're conceited about what they think they know more about, or even aim to be that sort of person, I dont have a lot of time for those people to be honest. The last one I had anything to do with, to the best of my knowledge, first went down a blind alley of adopting and defending fascism as an auxilary ideology (via the history of Spain and latin American countries) and finally had some kind of full scale breakdown.

It all to my mind can become like those people who have encyclopedic knowledge of dragon ball Z or something like that who do an amazing job of alienating everyone to the point no one can be bothered speaking to them at all, this results in incredible conflictedness, they want to interact, every time they do it results in frustration or conflict or disagreement or people ignoring them. So it happens within and between denominations I figure.

One of the greatest books I ever read was the discourse on free will between Luther and Erasmus, not only for the insights into the conflicts and divisions which mounted into the reformation but as an insight into how discussion can descend into disputation and the role of underpinning personality or character in most discussions or differences of opinions.

 

[Lark]

Or we could talk about how everyone else is wrong and stuff like that, that seems to be popular lately.

It always has been, I tend to think everyone should be allowed to "breath after their own fashion", like Thoreau said, though I know a hell of a lot of evangelists, preachers and ministers who hate that.

There's only so many ways you can be told you're going to hell before you cease to give a shit.

 

[Barnabas]

I find the RCC to be fascinating, it's one body of believers that is almost if not larger then the rest of Christendom combined. It's interesting to here about the variety of belief in the RCC it'self let alone the variety from every denomination.


I'm going to guess that you mostly ignore individuals and churches that make claims that the pope is the anti-christ and things similar.

If you mind answering what the best argument you've heard or conceived for being catholic as opposed to any other branch?(I'd like to point our this is open to any of our catholic members)

 

[LucyJr]

I'm a Pentecostal, althought not theologically 100% I agree with.

Edit: but I agree that there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, toungue gifts, and God healing today in supernatural ways.

 

[j654dgj7]

I grew up a Lutheran, dabbled in buddhism and Judaism before becoming a Quaker. I feel like I've plugged Quakerism enough on the board, so Google it if you want to know more.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

RC

I was raised as Catholic, but I wouldn't say my family was especially religious. I started taking an interest in theology/philosophy in my 20's.

What appeals to me about my Church is the sense of continuity and development from the time of Christ. You can pick up any book of the Bible, or a 2nd Century apologist, a 4th Century theologian, a 13th Century theologian, or a 21st Century Vatican document and they are an integrated, consistent whole, which compliment each other without contradictory messages. Some of the historical and disciplinary aspect of the RC range from the sublime to the ridiculous with a good smattering of scandal - I suppose any entity with 2000 years of history will have high and low points. Personally, I wish they would bring back the Inquisition. From what I have read, most of the people the Inquisition targeted were clerics - and if any group in the Church needs some severe scrutiny now, its the clerics.

As for other denominations - the Orthodox I see as basically a whole branch of the Catholic Church, which began to spin off in its own direction, mostly because of political influences. Rome was in the poor part of the world; the Orthodox Patriachy in the influential part of the world - and they didn't want to be taking their direction from Rome (ecclesiastically). The Orthodox in their separation began to allow divorce and remarriage - how they justify this is a mystery to me.

I really don't understand the plethora of protestant and evangelical Churches. It seems to me, as an outsider, that they all need to spend a significant amount of doctrinal energy explaining and justifying their existence separate from the original Church. At one end you have the 17th Century technique of equating the Catholic Church with everything opposed to God; at the other end, you have personal claims of enlightenment and revelation by someone who decided to write their own version of the Bible. Then you have the highly nationalised Churches, like the Anglicans, who basically justify their existence through a kind of enshrined xenophobia, leading to the weird position, where the secular ruler is the head of the Church.

I think the nationalised Churches eventually have to contradict themselves if they wish to expand outside their original country, leading to schisms within their structure. As for protestant Churches, the basis of their justification (for being separate from the Catholic Church) leaves them unable to develop a coherent theological understanding of their faith. If they do start forming a theology, or clarification of doctrine/belief, it is basically automatically undermined by their fundamental doctrines, which justify their existence. The "sola scriptura" clause basically means anything any protestant theologian, preacher, or whoever says can be disregarded, because everyone can make their own interpretation of Scripture, without any one interpretation being more authoritative than the other. This aspect especially, in my opinion, leaves protestants open to extremes... Extremes in any aspect you can think of - morals, opinions regarding science, politics, whatever. Anyone can go to the bookstore, buy a Bible, interpret it to mean whatever they want, take a public speaking course, and start a "Church". There is nothing stopping anyone from cutting a few bits, or books out - or even making up a whole new "Bible" to suit whatever they wish. This last point makes me include Muslims. It is very apparent, from the Qumran that someone (not Muhammad, who was apparently illiterate) took a few bits and pieces from the Catholic Scriptures in the 6th/7th Century and integrated them into his own work. I think Adventists and Mormons did the same kind of thing.

Perhaps my views about protestants through to muslims might be seen as critical - I suppose their separation/foundation/invention is a matter for their followers to evaluate. But I think it's a fair position to think of one's own Church as being authentic. As a Catholic, I think my Church is authentic. And thinking of one's own Church as authentic, it automatically implies something about other Churches. I don't want to take on a negative stance towards other Christian denomination. All I can do is kind of accept that members of other Churches sincerely think they are in the right one - and leave this as something which I don't understand.

 

[Barnabas]

Perhaps my views about protestants through to muslims might be seen as critical - I suppose their separation/foundation/invention is a matter for their followers to evaluate. But I think it's a fair position to think of one's own Church as being authentic. As a Catholic, I think my Church is authentic. And thinking of one's own Church as authentic, it automatically implies something about other Churches. I don't want to take on a negative stance towards other Christian denomination. All I can do is kind of accept that members of other Churches sincerely think they are in the right one - and leave this as something which I don't understand.

Without opening up a giant discussion about Protestantism and Catholicism I think you make a fair point in simply saying that of course most people are going to believe that they have the most authentic church, why else would an individual consider himself a part of any denomination if he didn't consider it's fundamental doctrine to be correct. It's silly to think of someone else as being less faithful or loving just because they're is denominational divide.

Do you have any classical training or education in the RCC?

 

[sprinkles]

The denomination I would probably be, no longer exists. It was destroyed by the Japanese government over 140 years ago. So therefore I cannot really say that I am it because there is no organization to officially model myself from.

This denomination believed that meditation and enlightenment can be sought in sacred music. This denomination is Fuke Zen.

 

[Lark]

I find the RCC to be fascinating, it's one body of believers that is almost if not larger then the rest of Christendom combined. It's interesting to here about the variety of belief in the RCC it'self let alone the variety from every denomination.


I'm going to guess that you mostly ignore individuals and churches that make claims that the pope is the anti-christ and things similar.

If you mind answering what the best argument you've heard or conceived for being catholic as opposed to any other branch?(I'd like to point our this is open to any of our catholic members)

No, I dont believe the pope as antichrist or anti-popery bigotry at all.

I read a book once by a biblical exegesist (I hope I'm spelling that correctly) who explained how the words anti-christ and "the satan", as to "act the satan", are used in the bible as synomynous and meaning "the adversey" or "adversarial", in this context perhaps there have been persons within the RCC, not just the Pope, who have not honoured the legacy of Jesus and the first disciples but I know that is not the context in which most of the churches which use this kind of language mean it. With all due respect I tend to find most of the Pope as anti-christ ravings to be out of keeping with the context in which they were originally used and not disimilar or meeting the same sorts of needs as other grandiose conspiracy theories like Muir's illuminati cults secretly pulling the strings behind everything and all of human history.

If I was to consider instead the idea of betrayal or anti-christ behaviour then I think there's a whole history not restricted to the RCC to be considered, Luther's own prideful assault upon the RCC unleashed the peasant war, which he then turned upon himself, Calvin's geneva embarked upon terror to rival anything of the inqusition and in doing so set in train a pattern which would be followed by the French revolutionaries, Russian revolutionaries, socialists, nationalists and upheavels of every opinion and stripe, that newer establishments would always have to out perform older ones in these (worst) respects with a view to avoiding restoration.

The reasons for believing and being a practicing RC for me is that there is no other church, the other traditions and beliefs are not canonical, now that is not the end of the world but its like the comparison between official marvel or DC publications and fan fiction. I personally believe that there is a lot with the old and new testament which forecasts the schisms and divisions within the christian community in tis broadest sense, the story of the prodigal son is one instance, the instruction of Jesus not to interfer with others casting out demons in his name another, the instruction that if you have belief you can drink poison or hand snakes and not be harmed (I consider err, such as solo scripture and biblical literalism to be akin to poison and snakes).

Tradition is important because I believe it preceeded the bible and could or should survive it should something like the story in the book of eli ever come to pass.

 

[Lark]

RC

I was raised as Catholic, but I wouldn't say my family was especially religious. I started taking an interest in theology/philosophy in my 20's.

What appeals to me about my Church is the sense of continuity and development from the time of Christ. You can pick up any book of the Bible, or a 2nd Century apologist, a 4th Century theologian, a 13th Century theologian, or a 21st Century Vatican document and they are an integrated, consistent whole, which compliment each other without contradictory messages. Some of the historical and disciplinary aspect of the RC range from the sublime to the ridiculous with a good smattering of scandal - I suppose any entity with 2000 years of history will have high and low points. Personally, I wish they would bring back the Inquisition. From what I have read, most of the people the Inquisition targeted were clerics - and if any group in the Church needs some severe scrutiny now, its the clerics.

As for other denominations - the Orthodox I see as basically a whole branch of the Catholic Church, which began to spin off in its own direction, mostly because of political influences. Rome was in the poor part of the world; the Orthodox Patriachy in the influential part of the world - and they didn't want to be taking their direction from Rome (ecclesiastically). The Orthodox in their separation began to allow divorce and remarriage - how they justify this is a mystery to me.

I really don't understand the plethora of protestant and evangelical Churches. It seems to me, as an outsider, that they all need to spend a significant amount of doctrinal energy explaining and justifying their existence separate from the original Church. At one end you have the 17th Century technique of equating the Catholic Church with everything opposed to God; at the other end, you have personal claims of enlightenment and revelation by someone who decided to write their own version of the Bible. Then you have the highly nationalised Churches, like the Anglicans, who basically justify their existence through a kind of enshrined xenophobia, leading to the weird position, where the secular ruler is the head of the Church.

I think the nationalised Churches eventually have to contradict themselves if they wish to expand outside their original country, leading to schisms within their structure. As for protestant Churches, the basis of their justification (for being separate from the Catholic Church) leaves them unable to develop a coherent theological understanding of their faith. If they do start forming a theology, or clarification of doctrine/belief, it is basically automatically undermined by their fundamental doctrines, which justify their existence. The "sola scriptura" clause basically means anything any protestant theologian, preacher, or whoever says can be disregarded, because everyone can make their own interpretation of Scripture, without any one interpretation being more authoritative than the other. This aspect especially, in my opinion, leaves protestants open to extremes... Extremes in any aspect you can think of - morals, opinions regarding science, politics, whatever. Anyone can go to the bookstore, buy a Bible, interpret it to mean whatever they want, take a public speaking course, and start a "Church". There is nothing stopping anyone from cutting a few bits, or books out - or even making up a whole new "Bible" to suit whatever they wish. This last point makes me include Muslims. It is very apparent, from the Qumran that someone (not Muhammad, who was apparently illiterate) took a few bits and pieces from the Catholic Scriptures in the 6th/7th Century and integrated them into his own work. I think Adventists and Mormons did the same kind of thing.

Perhaps my views about protestants through to muslims might be seen as critical - I suppose their separation/foundation/invention is a matter for their followers to evaluate. But I think it's a fair position to think of one's own Church as being authentic. As a Catholic, I think my Church is authentic. And thinking of one's own Church as authentic, it automatically implies something about other Churches. I don't want to take on a negative stance towards other Christian denomination. All I can do is kind of accept that members of other Churches sincerely think they are in the right one - and leave this as something which I don't understand.

I agree with you about the origins and process of fragmentation which the genesis of protestantism has brought about. It is a cultural factor which I believe can be seen within more than the religious/denominational sphere too though. For instance in NI the RC community has one, maybe two, political parties while there seem to be rising and falling, emerging and disappearing new protestant entities all the time, sometimes the survive or perish on the strength of singular personalities, like the charisma of a successful public speaker or pastor as you say.

I also agree with you about islam but I see it as an earlier heretical movement, a sort of protestantism before Luther and the reformation, Hilaire Belloc wrote about this in his book upon the heretics. Although I also agree with you about the sincerity with which beliefs are held and acceptance or abiding diversity and disparity. The problem with stating these things clearly and unambiguously is often that you will be attacked as bigoted and sectarian simply for doing so.

 

[say what]

I grew up RC. But I would consider myself non-denomination .... I find classifying my beliefs and spirituality very difficult. In part, I don't know enough about what's out there. I also think spirituality and religion is about growth and change, so I'm hesitant to focus on a sole faith.

 

[Barnabas]

I'm a Pentecostal, althought not theologically 100% I agree with.

Edit: but I agree that there is a baptism of the Holy Spirit, toungue gifts, and God healing today in supernatural ways.

What do you think the relevance of tongues is today, I had a roommate who was Pentecostal who believed that it was a sign of having the holy spirit and that if you hadn't had that sign then you didn't have the holy, spirit and therefore weren't saved.

 

[LucyJr]

What do you think the relevance of tongues is today, I had a roommate who was Pentecostal who believed that it was a sign of having the holy spirit and that if you hadn't had that sign then you didn't have the holy, spirit and therefore weren't saved.

I don't think its true that speaking in tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirit, althought I know most pentecostal and charismatic churches teach this.

Edit:
I could argue with Bible verses why I believe so, but it takes much time and I have to work. There are many to talk on this subject...it is known that historicaly even the Romano-Catholic church had meetings were the gifts of the Holy Spirit as they are in the Bible were "pouring out" for believers.
Probably historicaly the least mentioned gift is the gift of prophecy.

 

[Barnabas]

I don't think its true that speaking in tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirit, althought I know most pentecostal and charismatic churches teach this.

Why are you Pentecostal as opposed to any other branch.

 

[LucyJr]

I really don't understand the plethora of protestant and evangelical Churches. It seems to me, as an outsider, that they all need to spend a significant amount of doctrinal energy explaining and justifying their existence separate from the original Church. At one end you have the 17th Century technique of equating the Catholic Church with everything opposed to God; at the other end, you have personal claims of enlightenment and revelation by someone who decided to write their own version of the Bible. Then you have the highly nationalised Churches, like the Anglicans, who basically justify their existence through a kind of enshrined xenophobia, leading to the weird position, where the secular ruler is the head of the Church.

I think the nationalised Churches eventually have to contradict themselves if they wish to expand outside their original country, leading to schisms within their structure. As for protestant Churches, the basis of their justification (for being separate from the Catholic Church) leaves them unable to develop a coherent theological understanding of their faith. If they do start forming a theology, or clarification of doctrine/belief, it is basically automatically undermined by their fundamental doctrines, which justify their existence. The "sola scriptura" clause basically means anything any protestant theologian, preacher, or whoever says can be disregarded, because everyone can make their own interpretation of Scripture, without any one interpretation being more authoritative than the other. This aspect especially, in my opinion, leaves protestants open to extremes... Extremes in any aspect you can think of - morals, opinions regarding science, politics, whatever. Anyone can go to the bookstore, buy a Bible, interpret it to mean whatever they want, take a public speaking course, and start a "Church". There is nothing stopping anyone from cutting a few bits, or books out - or even making up a whole new "Bible" to suit whatever they wish. This last point makes me include Muslims. It is very apparent, from the Qumran that someone (not Muhammad, who was apparently illiterate) took a few bits and pieces from the Catholic Scriptures in the 6th/7th Century and integrated them into his own work. I think Adventists and Mormons did the same kind of thing.

Perhaps my views about protestants through to muslims might be seen as critical - I suppose their separation/foundation/invention is a matter for their followers to evaluate. But I think it's a fair position to think of one's own Church as being authentic. As a Catholic, I think my Church is authentic. And thinking of one's own Church as authentic, it automatically implies something about other Churches. I don't want to take on a negative stance towards other Christian denomination. All I can do is kind of accept that members of other Churches sincerely think they are in the right one - and leave this as something which I don't understand.

How would you argue for Catholic Church?
How would I, as a outsider, know who the "real" church is? What if its the Orthodox Church?

"the Orthodox I see as basically a whole branch of the Catholic Church".

I think this is historicaly not correct, as the RC theology was not even far as it is today around 500, when already the East Church was raising. So which tradition is better, that of the RC, or that of Orthodox Church?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I find the RCC to be fascinating, it's one body of believers that is almost if not larger then the rest of Christendom combined. It's interesting to here about the variety of belief in the RCC it'self let alone the variety from every denomination.


I'm going to guess that you mostly ignore individuals and churches that make claims that the pope is the anti-christ and things similar.

If you mind answering what the best argument you've heard or conceived for being catholic as opposed to any other branch?(I'd like to point our this is open to any of our catholic members)

I guess there are two aspects:
1. The reason for being a member of the Catholic Church in itself would principally be faith, as summarised in the Nicene Creed (and the other 3, or 4 Creeds - Apostles', Athanasian, etc.). But also theological hope, which moves one to pursue what is promised by Christ, namely Salvation, using the means, or 'Way' that he established for the faithful; and all this motivated by theological charity, which is the effect of grace, which allows and moves one to love God and neighbour in a benign and true way.

2. The reasons for not going to any denomination (the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ - and uses the term 'denomination' to refer to those groups which have broken away from it, or have in recent history formed themselves apart from it).
a. All denominations hold doctrines which explicitly reject the Catholic Church - so going to a denomination would involve a rejection of the entirety, or part of what Christ founded, or some of the means He established for people to follow Him, or some of the helps He established to assist sinners to rise from their sin (eg. the Sacrament of forgiveness, or Penance).
b. The belief that Christ established his faithful as one flock, with one shepherd. Of course the unity of the flock is determined by the shepherd, who is Christ. But He did not leave the faithful after His ascension without shepherds - and a principal shepherd, so that there is tangibly and perceptibly a single vicar-shepherd for each generation of Christians.
c. The belief that the first principle vicar-shepherd was St Peter - to whom Our Lord three times instructed to feed His flock (sheep, yearlings, lambs).
d. The belief that the apostles appointed their successors and gave them power to administer a sacramental care for Christ's flock through the laying of on of hands, which we term ordination. This power, or appointment was not from the congregation, but from the apostles - and their successors. This is especially poignant in the condemnation of Simon Magus, who is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, as having tried to pay the Apostles to ordain him a bishop.
e. The belief that Christ's promise that "the gates of hell would not prevail" was made directly to St Peter, and the faith he professed. And that the office of St Peter, as chief shepherd did not expire upon his death, but that this office and the promise of Our Lord passed on to his successor. This succession of bishops in the office of St Peter, we call the Papacy.

Without opening up a giant discussion about Protestantism and Catholicism I think you make a fair point in simply saying that of course most people are going to believe that they have the most authentic church, why else would an individual consider himself a part of any denomination if he didn't consider it's fundamental doctrine to be correct. It's silly to think of someone else as being less faithful or loving just because they're is denominational divide.

Do you have any classical training or education in the RCC?

I think that the denominational divides are usually doctrinal. And I think that this doctrinal division often happens when two truths of the faith are artificially represented as opposing. For example, Christ is true God and true Man. Some early heretics insisted that Christ was true Man (fair enough), but artificially insisted that divinity could not enter into humanity, without diminishment of the divinity,which is impossible. So you ended up with Arian heretics (followers of the heretical priest Arius). The Church's faith is that Christ is 100% Divine and 100% human - and that the union of these two natures is not through a mixing, but that both natures belong to one Divine Person (Hypostatic union - hypostasis meaning 'person'). Likewise many protestants hold that sinful man is incapable of doing anything pleasing to God - which is true in terms of meriting Salvation - but their focus excludes the fact that grace, once given to humans raises them from spiritual death, making them capable of spiritual life - and life is characterised by activity, growth, development, etc. Like a plant that grows from a small seed and eventually brings forth even fruit.


I do have some limited training in classical Catholic theology - but mostly I have done my own reading. Sadly at the moment most Catholic theologians, I would say are not theologians but some sort of sociologists focusing on religious behaviour. The notion that religion is purely a human/anthropological construct was condemned as heretical a century ago by Pope Pius X. So, I'm not into modern "theology", but into classical, or perennial theology.

 

[LucyJr]

Why are you Pentecostal as opposed to any other branch.

Because I have seen in the church I went miracles as they were happening in the Bible, "the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised to life, and the Goespel is being preached to the poor."

Althought I know that miracles are not the definite sign of the Church, they are certainly a "warning sign", if I could say so. At 17, I become a atheist. One strong proof I knew I needed to figure out was the miracles I saw since I was a little boy. The miracles were always something I could not give any explanations.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

How would you argue for Catholic Church?
How would I, as a outsider, know who the "real" church is? What if its the Orthodox Church?


I think this is historicaly not correct, as the RC theology was not even far as it is today around 500, when already the East Church was raising. So which tradition is better, that of the RC, or that of Orthodox Church?

Christ founded a Church, with a visible shepherd to serve as His vicar (representative). He promised to that first Pope, St Peter that hell would not prevail against it and gave him the power to lose (the latin word for lose is solvere, from which we get the word 'absolve') and to bind (latin ligare, which is connected to the word lex, or law). I don't think the Church and the Papacy Christ established somehow drifted away, as other denominations insist, as that would nullify Christ's promise.

The orthodox were always part of the Church and took part in the general councils. They broke away a few times, but came back, until they finally broke away and didn't come back. Since then they have gradually drifted away both in terms of faith and morals. Nevertheless, their faith/doctrines, morals, liturgy, etc. is very, very close to the Catholic Church. Additionally, as the Pope is the one from whom all priests and bishops receive authority to absolve sins, the Popes have explicitly stated that they give the authority to absolve to the orthodox even though they are in schism, for the sake of the faithful living in orthodox areas. So I think the orthodox are basically almost entirely Catholic and should stop dividing the flock of Christ and return to union with the Pope.