Guys I don't get it. I am a Protestant. Few Protestants claim to be the original Church. "Ok, I thought...

Guys I don't get it. I am a Protestant. Few Protestants claim to be the original Church. "Ok, I thought, I guess I'll go join the original Church Jesus made if it's still around." Well I find out that the Catholic Church is this. "Ok I am gonna be Catholic now I thought." But then I find out the Eastern Orthodox Church claims the same thing and that the Catholic Church actually broke off from it. But then I find out the Oriental Orthodox claim the same… Guys I am so confused now… How can three churches claim to be the one original Church? Who is the original Church? I want to join that one. Please help guys I don't know what Church to join… :(

Attached: Jesus-Christ-smile.jpg (576x768, 43.85K)

Other urls found in this thread:

nypost.com/2015/10/04/kinky-orthodox-priest-brought-down-by-cake-porn-sex-tape/
pokrov.org/top-greek-orthodox-priest-67-resigns-over-the-kinky-foot-fetish-sex-tapes-he-made-with-45-year-old-parochial-school-principal/
medium.com/humanist-voices/a-compendium-of-crimes-and-criminals-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church-part-4-272013d88bd
rferl.org/a/serbia-orthodox-church-bishop-orgies-rape-scandal/24965214.html
newsweek.com/priest-guilty-violent-sex-acts-children-orthodox-christian-youth-camps-783725
balkaninsight.com/2017/08/18/romanian-church-to-fire-bishop-over-sexual-scandal-08-17-2017/
scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/contemplations-for-pious-christians-concerning-the-fr-george-passias-scandal/
orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Eastern_Orthodox_Christians
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It's the Orthodox Church.
Come home, brother.

Attached: 82eab2091bd868e98712fe478a0f412100491fd43adf1185db504c4076ff9cd2.jpg (447x445, 40.65K)

This.
Also it's the only church without any major retarded scandal as of late

Wellllllll…..
The Ukrainian schism is a real shitshow if I'm honest here.

Its not good but I wouldn't say its a scandal- at least not like the sex/ lavender mafia stuff . Plus it's not a theological dispute, the new church there preaches the exact same faith. I'll take that sort of issue over every other type that other Christians have to suffer through every single day.

OP, listen to the Orthodox Church is the true Church. Come and see!

Why not read each church's doctrine and decide for yourself?

Attached: 46569273f.jpeg (1024x837, 86.87K)

nypost.com/2015/10/04/kinky-orthodox-priest-brought-down-by-cake-porn-sex-tape/

pokrov.org/top-greek-orthodox-priest-67-resigns-over-the-kinky-foot-fetish-sex-tapes-he-made-with-45-year-old-parochial-school-principal/

medium.com/humanist-voices/a-compendium-of-crimes-and-criminals-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church-part-4-272013d88bd

rferl.org/a/serbia-orthodox-church-bishop-orgies-rape-scandal/24965214.html


newsweek.com/priest-guilty-violent-sex-acts-children-orthodox-christian-youth-camps-783725

balkaninsight.com/2017/08/18/romanian-church-to-fire-bishop-over-sexual-scandal-08-17-2017/

scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/contemplations-for-pious-christians-concerning-the-fr-george-passias-scandal/

Attached: fr-george-passias-priest-fetish.jpg (645x437, 35.09K)

Successionism is a spook
Exclusively judge based on consistency with the Bible.

Attached: denominations.png (4786x1340, 453.39K)

Unironically using the term spook makes you a spook.

Attached: 1343667055556.png (617x666, 64.73K)

This. The Bible warns us to not follow the traditions of man, and that whoever adds or removes anything from scripture goes to hell. Read the Bible, God will reveal the truth to you through it.

don't go to church pal. If you're really one with god, all shall be given to you

Please don't convert to a denomination just because people on an imageboard say it's the truth. Read scripture for yourself (Mark is a good place to start).

brailet post

You're a spook (nígger)

Thank you for pointing out that men are sinful and the Orthodox Church doesn't engage in massive cover-up schemes.

...

ORLY? Zig Forums pls go ;_;

Stirnirites never know best, pal.

If you like Social Clubs such as a Church, then go. Opportunities that can only be garnered from Social Networks…including manscripts and other rare types of books/knowledge are probably worth it. I guess you could find a wife there too. Although Hemiticism is King.

Now enjoy a little ditty about Canada from one of my favorite angry old men.

Attached: god_hates_canada.webm (320x240, 5.03M)

Wew orthoprot

hey memecrusader

"Far in a past time, lost in the space-time, the Children of Light looked down on the world. … Down they descended and created bodies, taking the semblance of men as their own." Emerald Tablets
"And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgement of the great day." Jude

>implying I like satan's religion of (((communism)))

Tbh, thats the first time I've been accused of being Zig Forums. I am truly honored.

Attached: images (10).jpg (300x168, 13.4K)

Attached: 5b155018645e6b160bb0ba4dc3e41834961365b810259a670a9f218b3bc332a7.png (162x311, 107.56K)

Can you give better bait?

Double wew

Double wew

This thread became garbage very fast. Nice job, Orthodorks.


That's wrong. We're not Muslims.


Compared to the Catholic Church, maybe. But otherwise there's as much scandal as everywhere else.


Different confessions of faith have their own doctrinal statements to be followed beside the Bible. The Catholics have 21 ecumenical councils. The Eastern Orthodox have 7 and have their reasons to reject the 14 others. The Oriental Orthodox have 3 and have their reasons to reject the others. Protestant churches usually have their doctrinal approaches to the scriptures and tradition. And even if all of this is too confusing, you can simply ask a priest/pastor questions and learn from them what each church's claims and defense are.

Spirits abound will rise up and find their home stars once more…if they so choose. Not limited by flesh and blood but by an accumulation of (their total) energy; this reason among others. Judgement day isn't quite what (((your book))) describes it as because it leaves out many crucial parts. Enjoy yourself fellow traveler. Surf The Kali Yuga and to Aldebaran…unless you are from a different star :)

Satan is a being of light and not of sorrow. A spirit like any other, often misjudged as "evil." No Spirit has to cowtow to what a human considers evil when it is infinitely better than we could ever be as flesh and blood. Just ask YHWH if you don't believe me >:^)

Attached: now listen here you little shit.jpg (500x315, 45.57K)

Reported for being a satanic mason

tbf nothing he said technically contradicts scripture although he is wrong. he probably knows scripture well enough to word himself so that he stays within its limits when talking to christians.

I wonder why leftists congregate here so much?

The point is that YHWH or "God" tells you that Lucifer and Satan are bad because they disagree with him. The True God is The Universe itself, not a power-hungry Spirit that wants recognition. If God is omnipotence and omniscience then it stands to reason that it is because we are all apart of him…"living within him" so to speak.

Attached: anons angry cat.jpg (1677x2046, 437.73K)

Uh yes it does. The word of God doesn't "leave out many crucial parts" and it's not wrong. There's no "home stars." It's completely antithetical to the faith. This is exactly what happens when you start adding manmade sayings to scripture. Next thing you know he'll start talking about the queen of heaven as if it was a good thing and not in Jeremiah 7:18.

I agree with you bro, that's why I pointed out he's wording himself carefully – saying scripture leaves information out instead of saying scripture is incorrect.

We promptly ask to you leave, for we aren't interested in your heresy.

...

Faith is wonderful when you rely only half of your teachings, eh brother?

All that is left out is found in a select few old scrolls and some very well kept and untainted books here and there. Not to mention that one can easily find this through…certain types of magicks and differential types of divination–not necessarily related to blood or the like. Sacrifice, not withstanding.

I only want to shed light on those who have been purposefully kept in the darkness for reasons unbeknownst to…less faeiere folks. You've no reason to be so hostile, friend.

Attached: fighter rogue or mage.jpg (3154x2493, 489.42K)

you are memecrusader right

News at 11 :D


You haven't witnessed enough fights over inheritances, I gather.
The original church is still one.

It's a poor LARP. You give them too much credit. No mason, no Gnostic, no Luciferian, no mystery cult refers to the written word as much as this user does. The whole point of those cults is pass down oral teachings through oaths and secrets. All of the writings are for the low level initiates and meant to confuse them.

Thank you, but we aren't interested, sorry.
Huh weird. I actually tried to not be hostile..oh well.

Could we get Charlie or the 'Muh Thunder' paganposter back? They were at least entertaining. I'd take an unironic Arian at this point.

I am just another passenger on the vessel which traverses the endless sea.

It comes from before The Bible, Masonic Order, and Gnostics. No LARP my dear friend, just light. Why do you think there is so much of the "written word" betwixt that which is spoken as well?

It's a shame really because my supposed "LARP" is what gave rise to your New and Old Testament and farther back than Babylon and even Sumer.

Attached: best lego expression ever.jpg (365x346, 14.85K)

No, you're just reversing the Eden story, and placing Saturn/Enki/Kronos/Baal/etc/etc at the forefront. It's no more older than the Bible, when the serpent said "Surely God didn't say that…"

get out

You're on your own vessel, shouting at other people on vessels with maps and headed toward land, saying, "You're going the wrong way!" and pointing them to certain death.

...

This is a good idea. Read the first 4 books of the Bible, and pray on who you should join

Yes.
Or the Orthodox broke off from the Catholics.

I don't have a great argument for Catholicism over Orthodoxy, but I read a book about the filioque, inquired at both churches for a few months, and prayed about it all that time. I'm going to become a baptized Catholic at Easter. :)

It's a very complicated subject. I don't have the answers, but I felt God pulling me towards Catholicism.

Welcome back home to Rome, pilgrim! Don't forget to pick up your sword /ourQueen/ wants us to take up so we can slay heresy and vice.
Ave Christus Rex

Attached: b_1524455568862.png (212x320, 116.81K)

cope

Ave Christus Rex!

The EOC and OOC agreed they believe the same theology some decades ago, and strove towards reunion.

So, the real question is:
"How much primacy does the protos actually have?"

Which….is a really confusing historical issue

Actually, they officially said they agree with 5-7.
Chalcedon is the tricky thorn.

representives from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches held 8 meetings with eachother and agreed that:
orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/

the agreement now just needs to be ratified by either or both communions.

Read the church fathers and then ask yourself where is the See of Rome.

Ecumenism is generally horrible but if this mess can get sorted put and the Oriental Orthodox come back into the fold it would be a great miracle.

It's normal son. To give you the lesson in a nutshell, the Catholic Church is the Church founded by the Logos Incarnate, namely Jesus-Christ, and it is thus the new, the true and the only Israel.

Attached: 1543790560070.jpg (280x280, 71.96K)

I don't have a problem with people preferring Catholicism for their own reasons, but I don't get why Catholics often feel the need to employ such historical revisionist euphemisms to justify their positions. It's a well known fact that Rome started arbitrarily changing things from the practices of all the other patriarchs long before the schism officially happened. To say that 4/5 patriarchs "broke off" from the 1 patriarch that changed things up, is a bit misleading to say the least. Agree with the filioque? alright cool, you do you. Revise history and ignore the general tend of persecution of the Eastern Orthodox perpetrated by the RCC? I don't see how that's called for. At least Protestants openly acknowledge they only go back ~500yrs (fringe Baptists aside).

Like? The West did not consist only of Rome and the Seat of St. Peter, you're already misrepresenting the split.


Like? Photius advanced the Filioque controversy to justify his split with Rome over being promoted from laity to Patriarch in ten days, it took another 200 years for Michael Cerularius to solidify it. The Orthodox made Photius one of their saints to solidify the split, but they never canonized Cerularius because he was a notorious thug.

The split seems less to do with actual belief, practices, and theology, and much more to do with politics.

Matthew 16:18. You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church the gates of hell will no prevail against it I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven…

Peter was the first Pope and gave the successor bishops of Rome his petrine ministry

(trips)
Based and breadpilled

You're just asserting your perspective as though it's something everyone already agrees with.
Many of the church fathers wrote about the importance of maintaining communion with Rome. The change that "sparked" the schism was the official addition of the Filioque to the creed, but the Filioque was considered perfectly orthodox for hundreds of years before the schism itself.

Come home, Christians.

Attached: timeline.png (1600x1114, 870.96K)

Yes, come home to rome

Peter also founded the church in Antioch? Under this logic Antioch is also the rock of the church?

Isn't he a Sede? I am always unsure about this guy…I am Catholic, I am not a big fan of Pope Francis, but Sedes are pretty much trying to be inside and outside the Church, imho.

Aren't sedevacanists just protestants but hate protestants so they don't call themselves that (though they do believe in papal supremacy)

The Essence/Energy distinction has always been there in the scriptures and the writings of early church fathers themselves, but it was lost in the west due to the misinterpretation by Latin translators of the Greek word "energeia", which originally served to contrast something that one exercised capacity to use (e.g. "energy") compared to something one merely possessed (e.g. "essence"). This term was used to highlight the fact that things were separate from their uses (e.g. 'a drink' vs the act of 'drinking'). It was strictly a relative term that was never intended to be used/interpreted in isolation, but rather in conjunction with some other (possibly implied) proposition that would only entail the presence of something. Yet the Latin translators completely missed this subtle implication, and translated it much like the modern word "energy" that implies no such duality. Thus leading to a bunch of fedoras in the west thinking it's some kind of pagan woo-woo. So whenever autists like the one in that video that make silly arguments about the essence/energy distinction being "heretical", they're just showing their own ignorance of the underlying Greek language and the philosophy that term arose out of.

I was just thinking that the corruption in the Catholic Church actually once again proves that God is in charge in the end. When you have some of the highest up people being sodomites, and have been for decades, it's unfathomable they haven't made sodomy legal yet. You know they are literally dying trying to make this happen. Any other institution would have folded, like all the other Protestant Churches. Eastern Orthodox has already folded to divorce and remarriage and contraception, and sodomy is only being restricted because of Putin if you ask me, he's in some way saving you guys from Sodomy. The vatican is filled with sodomites, and for some reason despite their best efforts they still haven't been able to legalize sodomy. It's easy think if it's run by a bunch of sodomy haters why it would be against sodomy but we have some of the top sodomites in the world and they still can't change it. The Divine is working.

Confirmation bias

No they are not protestants at all. They believe in the Papacy, they don't believe in Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura etc. There literally have been like 30 or so AntiPopes, and we've had canonized Saints who have supported till death an AntiPope. We are living in a very strange time in terms of church teachings. Stuff like Amoris Laetitia is unprecedented in terms of how bad it is and the Pope is clearly not acting in good faith when he hasn't responded to the Dubia. The worst you can call them are Eastern Orthodox but their beliefs are still closer to Catholics since I mean they are Catholics. When you look at the Arian controversy, when Arius was finally excommunicated all his previous excommunications were considered invalid, because since he held the heresy he was no longer considered a Bishop. From what we can tell almost every Bishop and the pope was an Arian at that point. If that happened once before it could easily be happening again.

Now I'm no expert and I'm not saying that I can assess exactly what is going on but I think you have to be blind to think something very crazy is going on in the Church, and we have precedent that some crazy stuff can happen in the church. In fact the final trial of the church has to be worse than the Arian heresy, since it will be the final and hardest. So if God allowed almost all the Bishops including the Pope to be a heretic(material or formal) and Athanasius was even wrongly excommunicated, we have to believe it can get even worse than that.

Peter only gave the bishop of Rome his petrine ministry. This is what the church fathers say

because in that crisis, all historians and theologians agree that the claim was actually disputable, and many say that it is a mark of its authenticity that the Catholic Church did not schism over it.

which is completely different to what Sedes and SSPX are doing


Our Lady says it will be over the family, the crisis in the Church seems to be one of authenticity, but does not appear to be the final crisis (i mean, look around you).


as was St. Joan of Arc.

Do you find it challenging that Peter's affiliation to rome is nebulous?

(checked)
Oh things definitely will get worse from here. /ourLady/ of Akita even talked about Bishops agianst Bishops as the smoke of satan aka liberalism still perverts the minds of our bishops and our Pope. Maybe Bergoglio will grow a conscience and resign, but a tradcath only dream and pray.
Please pray for them and pray that God helps us clean out the filth from Holy Mother Church.

Orthodox do indeed say something similar, yes (thing is, Antioch as a locale relocated to Damascus long ago). And on top of that, both Antioch and Rome were blessed by the attention of Peter and Paul alike.

Like changing how they made the sign of the cross, using unleavened bread instead of normal bread, etc… all relatively minor and pointless stuff, but the point is that Rome was the one making these silly changes, not the East.

The ransack of Constantinople in the 4th crusade, the persecution of Serbian Orthodox in WWII that made Nazis look good, etc…
There's a whole wiki page deducted to this nonsense:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Eastern_Orthodox_Christians

And how does that even remotely imply that it was the East that "broke off"? No one disputes the fact that it was political, because it was obvious that the Franks influenced the bishop of Rome to enact the changes he did. None of what you brought up implies that the RCC weren't the ones to break off. You're just dodging the issue and moving the goal posts. Furthermore, politics still isn't a very good excuse for justifying the split, nevermind the all the atrocities the RCC committed against the EO.


No, 1/5 patriarchs changed things compared to 4/5 patriarchs that kept consistent. That is a documented empirical fact. Saying that the Eastern patriarchs were the ones that "broke off" is the baseless subjective perspective being asserted here.

Not that guy but the sack of constantinople wasn't the intended target of the crusade, it was perpetraded by individual crusaders and were excommunicated later. therefore you can't blame the church for actively persecuting the orthodox

The whole thing about this is minor and pointless full stop. It's a manmade superstition, making it minor and pointless to the extreme, and actually dangerous to those who it causes to stumble. If they substitute it for prayer, for instance, that makes it a tool of the devil. Same with confessionals, same with all the other manmade rituals and superstitions. Not a substitute for true godliness.

Fun fact:
Venice is partially to blame for the sack of Constantinople. If Dandolo wasn't such a greedy jew the Crusaders would never had to stop in Constantinople for money.
Of course if the Byzantine Emperor kept his word the crusaders wouldn't have chimped out as well Also, if the EOs hadn't schismed the Pope wouldn't have labeled them as heretics

I think both sides should realize that they each had a part to blame in the sacking of Constantinople.

Attached: 1522362783772.png (500x439 231.76 KB, 49.09K)

That still doesn't excuse why they raped nuns and set up a whore to sit on the Patriarchate's seat. They weren't Christians at all, and I don't think anything to do with the Schism had much to do with it. These crusaders were no better than vikings. Possibly worse.

Yes, Venice was very much involved, but it's unlikely that Venice refusing to do business with the crusaders would've prevented anything. Venice just provided them with a means of convenient transportation. Solely blaming the greed of Venetians for the actions the Catholic Crusaders ultimately decided to undertake is silly. No one was forcing them to make a deal with Venice.

And I agree with you. Hence why they all got the anathema. But to claim the east is a bunch of dindus is disingenuous.
If they hadn't schismed and the Emperor kept his word the already high testosterone crusaders wouldn't have chimped out on Constantinople.

Attached: 800px-ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg (450x265, 51K)

Even though if Venice just payed for the transportation instead of trying to profit off of the crusade the crusaders would have never needed to stop in Constantinople in the first place. So yes, Venice does take blame for it, as well as the East for being heretics and just as greedy as Venice.

Attached: download (4).jpg (183x275, 11.18K)

And who was claiming that? Byzantium had problems of its own obviously, but was that really an invitation for Catholics to come in and play grim reaper of all people?


Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true user.

Yes, the single bishop that arbitrarily decided to change a bunch of stuff for political gain was clearly the only pure noble one in the church, not all those other heretical patriarchs that dared kept things the same. What blasphemers!

Lol you want to talk about repeating memes. If they kept everything the same they would have never wrote the far eastern practice of yoga into their catechism. If the kept with apostolic tradition they would have stayed in communion with Rome. If they kept with tradition they would never had tried to usurp The See of St. Peter and tried to create a universal bishop in Constantinople. (See St. Gregory's writing agianst it, as well as other early church father's writings defending the need for a Pope)
The keys were given to St. Peter not all of the apostles at the same time. Just like how Moses was the only one worthy of going up Mt. Siani to talk directly with God. The fact of the matter is that the East and the other Patriarchs broke away first when they succumbed to the various heresies that shattered Christendom.

I already responded to your silly illiterate video here
Reminding everyone that you're a brainlet isn't helping your case buddy.

Oh wow, you only watched the first couple minutes of it. Congratulations. That still doesn't excuse incorporating demonic yoga in your catechism.
The point I was making is the east changed their traditions for the worse. All before the offical schism as well.

Sedes made that video

I’m in the same boat as OP. I want to be with the true Church. I finished RCIA and I can get Confirmed this Easter. However every time I attend mass I have panic attacks. Rarely can I ever stay for a full mass. I tried a Greek Orthodox Church and I felt fine and even met a girl I liked. Keep in mind these panic attacks happened when I tried Protestant churches a couple years back. Only the Greek Orthodox Church felt okay.

I do believe Rome is home but I believe I will grow in love at the Greek Orthodox. Do I suffer and stay in a mass I hate or do I follow love for my neighbors? It’s a drastic difference and I have to make a decision before I get confirmed. Please help.

Look at it this way, if it turns out Rome is the True Church (and it is), you would be praised for turning away from a physical love for the spiritual love. One will last for eternity, the other, only for a period.

The kingdom of God isn't a democracy. The father doesn't need the children's permission to make decisions for the family. If there is a head for the Church it is the bishop of Rome. When the king is away the prime minister rules in his stead, and Peter was given the keys.

Don't knock Rome just yet. You may be just being affected by the Novus Ordo masses curse you spirit of Vatican 2! which was made to accommodate the prots I know, they literally ruin everything. Try out the Roman rite (aka Tridentine Latin Mass) and I have a feeling you won't get an anxiety attack.
Or
Maybe try an eastern Catholic rite church. They are still in communion with Rome and have a lot of the beauty the Eastern churches have.
But imo, I have a feeling EPat. Bartholomew will end up compromising with Rome and unite Christendom once more. If not EPat. Bartholomew than maybe his successor. So either way you'll end up back in Rome ;)
Also, don't forget to pray your rosary on the daily. It helps a lot when it comes to centering yourself twords God and helping fight anxiety

I understand your words, I have thought about this as well. It’s best to sacrifice now for the true Church. Still, it feels detrimental to my being, given how hard I am hit at Mass. Thank you for the reply.


Unfortunately TLM is where I am hit the hardest. I’ve been 3 times, and I’ve left early every time. It got me so bad one time I destroyed my rosaries. I have been praying my rosary daily now, as well as some other devotions, and I even did a rosary the last time I went to the TLM, and I still had to leave early. I know this isn’t an easy answer. I can almost feel like I belong with Rome in my heart, it’s just so hard to see. With a journey as long as this one, and so many conflicting opinions, I just don’t know. Even my priest said it is ultimately up to my own conscious, given I am still technically Baptist from my baptism and not being officially initiated into the RCC yet. I see his line of thinking, but I feel as if that is not all there is to the big picture of my dilemma.

Community or sacrifice… neighbor or self… I just don’t know… but thank you for your time and your reply

Interesting. If that's the case, why did Rome agree and participate in any Councils to begin with? Were they just there for kicks? And why agree specifically to both the original form of the Nicene creed as well as agreed to the anathema contained in Ephesus that stated:

"It is unlawful to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the Fathers assembled in Nicæa. [..] those who compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized."

Also, why did Rome resist pressure from the Franks for so long, and take these anathemas so seriously, if they could have changed it willy nilly, with no worry, and weren't beholden to anything in the Councils to begin with? And why was it suddenly right to give in to the Franks eventually, but never paid heed to previous Popes or ALL of the other patriarchates? Are the Franks the head of the Church then?

you seem to have a aversion to what is holy, possibly demonic influence, try a eastern catholic byzantine rite (its the same as greek orthodox rite) if you don't get a panic attack then its possibly just psychological.

This
Thou it doesn't surprise me that you feel comfortable in an Eastern Church considering your Baptist upbringing. prots gotta stick together amirite?

The same reason it participated in the next 13 councils.
Because the original form of the Nicene creed is correct, and it was employed with and without the Filioque in the undivided Church for hundreds of years. Leo I stated that the Spirit proceeds from the father and the son in 447 A.D., and it wasn't until 600 years later that the Easterns schismed over it.
The addition of the Filioque signifies a different Faith? Does anyone actually believe this?
Politics.
You mean that officially adding the Filioque which was already used for hundreds of years prior to the schism, that counts as "willy nilly"?
Rome didn't invent a new Nicene creed, they made an extremely minor elucidation of one particular theological point.

I grant that there are some legitimate theological grounds for the Easterns to have their disagreements with the Filioque, but I think that those differences could have been settled without going into schism. I don't believe that the entirety of the root of the schism is theological in nature, there is a theological component but it is predominantly political at its heart, with wrong on both sides.
If the Franks were head of the Western Church, what were the Ottomans to the Eastern Church? The Orthodox got in bed with the Turks and stayed there for centuries.

Read the Bible. The church is used as the body of all believers. Meaning, every believer in the world as a sum is the church. If you believe in Christ as Lord and submit to Him, you are part of the "original" church. If you really wanna get anal about the physical church, then you first need to understand that every church traces its roots back to the original church. The orthodox and catholic churches claim to be the original church based on the fact that they were both part of the first schism. Generally, all other churches who split off from these two, most famously the ones who split off from the Catholic church, known as the Protestant churches, believe that the churches they split from abandoned the tenants of the original church, and they believe they returned back to them. It's a huge cluster Winnie. I tend to lean on the Bible's definition.

by this logic Gnostics are part of the original church.

No. There is a Church, you are literally in it or out of it and it doesn't matter how much you read the Bible.

The body analogy exclusively applies to the local church. Further, every mention of the church firstly means local congregation; and only a couple of times in the whole nt does it even hint at a catholic Church

Propaganda