19th century protestantism an Orthodox perspective

Orthodox Christianity is almost unknown in the west. The Orthodox church tends to get confused with Roman Catholicism, which is a shame because they are very different. Most Christians who are not Roman Catholic in The United States belong to one of the many protestant or evangelical denominations.  

As discerned by Fr Thomas Hopko...

"The protestant west was characterized by missionary expansion and liberal theology. This was the era of the "quest for the historical Jesus" through the means of historical and biblical criticism. It was a time when the Christian faith was considered by the theologians primarily, as a religion of feeling or moral behavior. At this time, there was a clash between the liberals and the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists, particularly in America, insisted on using the bible as a manual for science to be interpreted literally in a manner inconsistent with the purposes and intentions of the holy scriptures as understood and interpreted in church tradition. Thus in the western protestant world of the nineteenth century, the dominant choice offered was that of either liberalism of a rational or pietist variety, or sectarian fundamentalism."

Now ask yourself, does any of this sound familiar? Does any of this sound like the Christianity you have been preached?

Well, Orthodox Christianity is very different. 

How do you see Orthodoxy as 'very different' from Catholicism? The main differences seem, to me, to be filioque, Papal supremacy, the calendar, and separate cultural evolutions. There are especially a lot of parallels with Eastern Catholic rites imo. I'm genuinely curious.

Nearly everything about the Roman church has been corrupted, there is really so much I wouldn't know where to begin. The very mindset and approach the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church is different. 

But instead of getting into a big talk in this topic, which is more aimed towards protestantism than Roman Catholicism, i will leave you with some common sense facts.

The New Testament is written in Greek, not Latin

The Bishop of Rome is not King of Christendom, Christ is. The other 4 Bishops agreed. What makes more sense, that 4 Patriarches broke away from the 1, or that the 1 rebelled against the other 4?

The creed as passed in the ecumenical councils is what The Orthodox churches use, and is not what The Romans use. The ecumenical councils make it clear that alterations like this are unacceptable. Which church has remained faithful to ecumenical councils? The Orthodox Churches of course.

Which church has changed more since the schism? The Romans clearly have made more innovations to the faith.

  I dont know what liberalism is supposed to me, fundamentalism is in a broad sense, a reality of being a protestant, being detached from the Roman Catholic Church yet maintaining the fundamentals.  That is not to do with the material sciences, or literalism.  I do have some really strict adherence in my blood if you are curious, but we have always valued the American idea as long as we've been around to enjoy it, (actually somewhat detatched from politics and national identity), hard working, God-fearing people in most every aspect of life.

*Liberalism is supposed to mean.  To me,....

Then with nearly "everything" corrupted, you won't have trouble giving us a few examples of what has been corrupted, will you.

So, show us some examples that have been corrupted..

Who says he is "king" ? Because the Catholic Church certainly doesn't claim the Pope to be " king". He is called pope or papa simply meaning father. he is only Bishop for all the Catholics in Rome. 

So if you know different, let us see your supporting evidence that the pope claims to be "king".

Well, from the Orthodox perspective, Roman Catholicism has added to the faith, while protestantism has taken away.

So we would disagree the fundamentals are kept. There is actually a lot missing, not the lleast of which is nearly 2000 years of church history and tradition.

This is not a topic about Roman Catholicism.

Besides, you don't really care, you are simply trying to stir up strife.

The structure of the Roman Church is very different than the structure of the Orthodox church though, there is no supreme pontiff of the Orthodox church. 

But you brought the Roman Church into the thread and made a ridiculous claim suggesting the pope/ bishop of Rome calls himself  " king". this is a lie isn't it? This is what you have said:

It's in his title.

Pontifex Maximus

But there are many examples of The Roman Bishop trying to exercise authority outside of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction and being rebuked by the other Patriarchs.

And this has a lot to do with The Bishop of Rome being excommunicated. 

Thanks for that explanation. I don't want to derail your thread, I've just only really read the historical and doctrinal differences without really ever knowing an actual Orthodox person.

"Pontifex Maximus"  Does NOT mean king, it doesn't even mean royalty, you absolute CLOWN!!!

You just making stuff up now, you are the worst type of attention seeking clown that there is. Telling lies for attention is a mental illness.

No, that really isn't how the church works. There is no one bishop who rules over all the others. This is actually a safeguard against corruptionn as well, because even when governments try to meddle in church affairs(which has happened quite a bit in Orthodox History, and is the reason Rome altered the creed agreed on at the ecumenical councils), the meddling doesn't stick because it isn't the type of structure where all you have to do is get to the right person and boom, the entire church is ruined.

If Rome were to humble themselves, they would be welcomed back into Orthodoxy, and be recognized as first among equals. To get an idea of what that looks like, the Patriarch of Constantinople has that honor in Orthodoxy now. He, just like The Roman Patriarch before the schism, has jurisdiction over a specific geographic region. He does not have the authority to make decisions for the whole church any more than Nebraska has the right to pass laws for Kentucky.

It is how humans work. What planet do you come from?

There is enough written material that survives from these times to show that The Bishop of Rome was never respected as having jurisdiction over other patriarchies. There are several examples of them trying to tell churches how to run things, only to be rebuked by every other patriarch in response.

But hey, I understand that the anti-christ advocates prefer to have Rome as a posterboy for Christianity, because it nakes it easier to accuse Christians of being evil so that more Orthodox can get chucked into the meat grinder.

Yeah, that is usually who ends up getting killed for all this anti-christ propaganda people like you carelessly embody. That is why The Orthodox Church is nicknamed the church of martyrs.

Is it really that surprising that the entire world is out to kill the purest expression of Christianity on the planet?

If it isn't The Romans, The Crusaders, The Muslims, The Commies, who is it?

More Christians for the meat grinders. It's totally acceptable to hate on Christians. We'll just keep getting killed. No big deal. The Church is used to handling persecution.