Skip to main content

What are the basic branches of Christianity and how do they differ from one another?

The three main branches of modern Christianity are Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox.

The Catholic Church is the oldest; Catholicism dates its founding to the original church founded by Jesus, but reliable historical records only go back as far as the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Catholicism is at least as old as that, and probably older. Catholicism is the world's largest religious sect, and is particularly prevalent in Latin America. The Catholic Church is headed by a single Pope, who lives in the autonomous region of Vatican City, legally defined as its own country separate from Italy, which completely surrounds it.

The Eastern Orthodox Church emerged in the 4th century and is centered in Eastern Europe, especially Greece and Russia. The Orthodox Church does not have one single leader, but it does have a number of high-level authorities known as Holy Synods. Theologically there are not many differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Church; it's more of a difference in their traditions and rituals.

The Protestant branch is by far the most varied. The first Protestant sect was founded by Martin Luther in 1521 and is still today called Lutheranism. Part of its emergence was due to the rise of the printing press and increased literacy; people could now read the Bible directly and did not have to rely on what priests handed down. Other sects soon emerged in a period known as the Protestant Reformation. Since then, many other Protestant sects have been founded. The Anglican Church is an interesting exception; it was founded before the Reformation, but today is generally considered a Protestant sect all the same. Protestants vary tremendously in their beliefs and practices; their defining attribute is that they assign ultimate authority to no individual person, but rather to the Bible itself.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more