Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[catholic1seeks]

The blogger is making reference to an Orthodox book that has had three edits in its section on contraception as a way of illustrating the changes in the last 100 years.

I’m sure you could check out the book if ya wanted to.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I would agree. But for many, “because the pope said so” doesn’t seem sufficient either because they don’t view any one bishop (or person, really) as being able to unilaterally craft/develop doctrine/dogma.

This is not the Catholic position on the pope.

And it’s sure not how the teaching on contraception developed. This was a universal Christian teaching — not just Catholic — until the early 20th century. It was most definitely a Catholic teaching, held by bishops, church fathers, and theologians up through the time of Humane Vitae. Where do you get the idea that the pope suddenly crafted this teaching?

Sure, Peter may have written part of the NT, but Paul wrote more and there are other authoritative authors still! And when a big question came up, it seems council was gathered rather than unilateral decree issued.

Who said Catholics consider popes to be the only Christian authority? So are other bishops. So is the local priest. So is Sacred Scripture. Why should we assume the Pope would have more writings in scripture? Scripture is based on God’s inspiration, isn’t it? It’s not merely practical or situational. Paul seemed to have been a better theologian, anyway. The ultimate responsibility of the Pope is pastoral in nature.

Respectfully, I’m not going to indulge anyone’s hypotheticals. What if the pope issued an encyclical tomorrow that declared priests can marry, condoms are allowed and remarried Catholics and homosexuals can receive communion?

You’re illustrating a different point. I’m saying that if Orthodox finally did come to a consensus – a consensus they once had (but have since changed in some quarters of the Orthodox world) – then you could still say “Well, not all Orthodox follow that teaching.” And so it would no longer be a proof against Catholic teaching on contraception.

I’m saying all this in the context of your reply, saying that you are probably becoming Orthodox (and not Catholic) because of the teaching of contraception.

“And this is a bad thing???”

Well, it’s not consistent. Orthodox used to have such a universally-binding authority: remember the ecumenical councils? But since the last 1000 years, curiously, binding universal church decisions have not been as evident — or, possible??

Do you think it’s good for Apostolic church unity for one half the church to say “Christ is God” and the other half to say “Christ is just a creature, but like God?” No! The Church needs to know Christ. And his teachings. Diversity is good in several respects, but not when it comes to truth.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is not the Catholic position on the pope.

Oh? Ex-cathedra decrees are optional?

Yes, yes. I know those aren’t common. Sorta. I guess it depends on how you list them, as such an authoritative list doesn’t exist (that I know of) beyond the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption…

But then the next fairly common communique is via encyclical. You may have read the exchange where an excellent Catholic man tried to explain to me at-length why HV may not have been declared infallible, but should be treated as such.

For Roman Catholics, official papal communications drafted in the exercise of his office are generally something other than “optional”.

And it’s sure not how the teaching on contraception developed. This was a universal Christian teaching — not just Catholic — until the early 20th century.

Respectfully, this is just an attempt to avoid a burden of proof.
“I don’t have to make my case why I’m right! We simply get to assume I’m right and you have to prove it otherwise!”

See? When it’s phrased like that I’m sure you see the problem.

Who said Catholics consider popes to be the only Christian authority?

No one, hardly ever, I’d imagine.

Even in Roman Catholicism, the local bishop is assumed to have some sort of authority.

The issue is supremacy. “What is the greatest temporal authority in Christendom?” For Catholics, it’s the pope. Anything more authoritative is abstract, divine, heavenly. Like “The Deposit of Faith”.

It is largely at this placement of supremacy that the rest of Christendom balks. Of course, it’s not like anyone reading this didn’t already know that…

You’re illustrating a different point.

Yes. That hypotheticals are anyone’s game.

Well, it’s not consistent.

I’m sure you know your friend would argue it is…

But since the last 1000 years, curiously, binding universal church decisions have not been as evident — or, possible??

I think the last they claim is Constantinople V in 1350. So, 670 years?
And to be sure, they don’t create as many universally binding Church decisions because their structure doesn’t readily lend itself to it. But that’s not a huge problem for the eastern Church because they don’t subscribe as readily to western legalism as zealously as Catholics (and protestants) do. So not every little thing had to be defined in Augustinian language.

There is a fundamental paradigm difference there.

Do you think it’s good for Apostolic church unity for one half the church to say “Christ is God” and the other half to say “Christ is just a creature, but like God?”

The Orthodox and Rome are on the same side of Chalcedon… I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

Do you conflate Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Note that the Byzantine emperor confirmed the papal elections . . . (even in the early 20th Century, an Austrian emperor vetoed a papal election. The next pope [not the one vetoed] changed the rules . . )

Most Catholics don’t realize that the Pope had almost no role in episcopal selection outside of Italy and North America before the first Vatican Council

Is this true, Catholics?

 

[steve-b]

Did Jesus confirm one of THEM is the greatest? Yes

BlackFriar:

Where in Lk 22:24-32 does it clearly state that?

again, putting emphasis on key phrases for the answer

Lk 22: 24A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest μείζων. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm like the one who serves."

Did Jesus say one of THEM is the greatest? Yes
Did Jesus say the one who is the greatest would also rule? Yes

open the link for “rule” ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm see the characteristics described for that person.

Add up the traits referring to Peter. Peter is to lead, feed, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. And it goes without saying, Jesus expects the apostles to follow Peter’s lead. That ends their argument and every body elses…right?

And let’s not forget [John 17:18-23] there is to be zero division in Our Lord’s plan

All that should also answer the required communion with 1 bishop.

Gee, Sounds like Jesus describes and defends the papacy and His One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

Jesus continues:

31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you (plural) as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you,(singular) Simon, that your faith (singular) may not fail. And when you (singular) have turned back, strengthen στήρισον http://bibleapps.com/greek/4741.htm your brothers.”

. In this discourse, who is the only apostle Jesus singles out? Peter
. Who then is Jesus saying is the greatest and the one to rule among THEM? Peter. Argument over.
. looking back, to Ceasarea Philippi, who did Jesus single out to give the keys of the kingdom to? Peter
. Who is the only apostle Jesus renames to Rock? Peter
. who did Jesus say He would build His Church on? Peter
. Post resurrection, who did Jesus single out again? Peter. And what was Peter to do? Feed and shepherd / rule [ Jn 21:16, ποιμαίνω http://bibleapps.com/greek/4165.htm ] Our Lord’s sheep.

open the link for shepherd / rule

 

[catholic1seeks]

Oh? Ex-cathedra decrees are optional?..

For Roman Catholics, official papal communications drafted in the exercise of his office are generally something other than “optional”.

I’m not sure where the discussion on being “optional” is stemming from. When I said “that is not the Catholic position on the Pope,” I was referring to your claim about Pope’s singularly crafting dogma. That’s not his role. It is so in appearance – on the surface – in certain contexts, like the rare ex cathedra moments. But in reality, the Pope is acting as the Church’s spokesman, declaring the church’s teaching in his capacity as visible leader of the Church.

Respectfully, this is just an attempt to avoid a burden of proof.
“I don’t have to make my case why I’m right! We simply get to assume I’m right and you have to prove it otherwise!”

See? When it’s phrased like that I’m sure you see the problem.

Huh? Do you disagree? Do you think that Christian bodies approved of contraception prior to the 20th century? Regardless, the main point of my comments were that the Pope didn’t just suddenly craft the Catholic position. He was re-affirming it, and I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that.

The issue is supremacy. “What is the greatest temporal authority in Christendom?” For Catholics, it’s the pope. Anything more authoritative is abstract, divine, heavenly. Like “The Deposit of Faith”.

One of the issues is supremacy, but that’s not what I was referring to in this context. You were saying something to the effect that Peter ought to have more appearance in the New Testament – whereas Paul has way more writings. Yet, my point in response was that nothing in Catholicism would have us believe that should, in fact, be the case.

And to be sure, they don’t create as many universally binding Church decisions because their structure doesn’t readily lend itself to it. But that’s not a huge problem for the eastern Church because they don’t subscribe as readily to western legalism as zealously as Catholics (and protestants) do. So not every little thing had to be defined in Augustinian language.

The consistency issue is this: The Church of the first 1,000 years – including East – was quick to hold councils to clear up new problems with doctrine in the church, and, in doing so, set a universal standard for doctrine. But now, when new issues arise, should we still also gather and decide a universal decision? I guess the issue is, what do we want to settle? We can always argue whether it is prudent to solve a matter of faith. But the fact remains, the principle in the church was always there: The faith isn’t something up for grabs ---- no, the teaching office of the church has the authority to step in.

The Orthodox and Rome are on the same side of Chalcedon… I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

I was illustrating the point: It is bad when there are disagreements over what the faith is. You asked me if it was bad that for it being difficult for Orthodoxy to form a consensus. I think it is, and it is illustrated over the need to have unity of faith on key issues like the divinity of Christ.

 

[Vonsalza]

I was referring to your claim about Pope’s singularly crafting dogma. That’s not his role.

From the CCC:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

Do you think that Christian bodies approved of contraception prior to the 20th century?

I think “contraception”, if you can even use that word, in the 1st century and contraception in the 20th century allude to different things.

Things like condoms and hormonal birth control? They didn’t exist to even be considered. It’s like inquiring what the early fathers thought about fracking with nuclear weapons. How could you divine an answer without doing some seriously anachronistic conflating?

He was re-affirming it, and I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that.

Interestingly, there were a few in his committee doing just that.

The issue is supremacy. “What is the greatest temporal authority in Christendom?” For Catholics, it’s the pope. Anything more authoritative is abstract, divine, heavenly. Like “The Deposit of Faith”.

You were saying something to the effect that Peter ought to have more appearance in the New Testament –

No, I made no recommendations as to what Peter “ought” to do. Just that he wasn’t the NTs most prolific writer. He was openly challenged by Paul. And he met in council.

I agree that these facts are prescriptive of nothing. But they are descriptive of a pope that may be more primus and less supremus.

That’s all.

The consistency issue is this: The Church of the first 1,000 years – including East – was quick to hold councils

Eh. Nicaea was in 325 and was called by the Roman emperor; not a Christian authority. So it took, what, almost 300 years after the death of Christ to call the first big one? So I wouldn’t tout consistency so enthusiastically…

 

[Vonsalza]

You asked me if it was bad that for it being difficult for Orthodoxy to form a consensus. I think it is…

Really and truly, in perfect fairness, being able to make decisions too quickly can be bad too. There are many that feel that the theological products of V1 were knee-jerk condolences to a Catholicism that had just lost all of its temporal power in Italy and needed to be reassured. And there are others that think V2 was ultimately a knee-jerk in response.

If the Church let the generations that saw the end of the papal states die-out before calling council, neither V2 nor V1 may have happened.

But obviously that’s purely speculative. As is all of it, I suppose.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

following that point, then the only reference we can use is the one who spoke up in that council, to end the debate. It was Peter. And whose point got applied? Peter’s.

Vonsalza:

Sure! But it wasn’t exclusively Peter’s. It was also Paul’s and Barnabus’. And who delivered the point home (and seemingly closed the council)? James the Just; host of the council and bishop of Jerusalem.

steve-b:

Re: the council, Paul nor Barnabas nor James change what Peter had decreed.

Q’s:

Who
. in the beginning, did Paul visit personally, for 15 days, and no one else,? Peter
. after 15 yrs on the road, wanted to see Peter to make sure he was teaching properly? Paul.

steve-b:

Peter’s authority, given him by Jesus, as leader of the apostles ergo leader of the Church as well, we can’t remove the Petrine seat , any more than when Jesus referred to the chair of Moses we can remove that seat.

Vonsalza:

A reasonable interpretation by a faithful Catholic!

steve-b:

What do you expect. The bible is a Catholic book. Written in, by, and for, the Catholic Church

Vonsalza:

Nonetheless, the text states:
Acts 15:22 Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members[f] and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers[g] of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. (NRSVCE, emphasis added)

The language invoked doesn’t appear distinctly Petrine. It appears ecumenical.

If you want to argue that it’s crypto-Petrine, fine with me. But know that those kinds of arguments are just nigh-impossible to indubitably prove.

steve-b:

Re: Acts 15 you quote, is after the council concluded, where Peter already ended their debate. And James applied Peter’s ruling.

Vonsalza:

the bugaboo for them [the Orthodox] is this notion that the primate is also capable of unilaterally proclaiming or developing dogma that is binding upon the entire Church. To say that this specific power was specifically bequeathed to the Petrine seat does seem to require some interpretive license over the biblical text.

steve-b:

I’ve asked the question for 14 years on CAF . no answer …YET.
The question is
When is the first time in history, we see in writing, properly referenced, the name "Orthodox Church?

steve-b:

one could ask, where is the limit to “rule”

Vonsalza:

That’s been the question since the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation, hasn’t it?

Just how much power is that guy supposed to have?

When Jesus gave Peter the keys

and said

“whatever you bind…whatever you loose on earth … is bound and loosed in heaven”.?

Where are the limits to that?

 

[catholic1seeks]

From the CCC:

Thank you for the CCC paragraphs. It’s not talking about what you stated: crafting dogma. The Pope does not just sit there on his own and think up new doctrine. That’s what the word “craft” suggests. Granted, non-Catholics may claim just this: That Catholicism is a bunch of extra doctrines, added on to Christ’s original teaching—but that’s another issue and must be proven. But the central point here is that Catholics do NOT believe the Pope to be some prophet who continually receives new revelation.

And so to apply this to contraception: The Pope was never the one to invent that teaching. He merely affirmed it.

Things like condoms and hormonal birth control? They didn’t exist to even be considered. It’s like inquiring what the early fathers thought about fracking with nuclear weapons. How could you divine an answer without doing some seriously anachronistic conflating?

Different kinds of contraception? Sure. But church fathers were not dumb: They knew people tried to prevent pregnancy by interrupting the sexual act. There have always been forms of “condoms.” More info here. Granted, the science was not always known. But the moral principles were maintained.

No, I made no recommendations as to what Peter “ought” to do. Just that he wasn’t the NTs most prolific writer. He was openly challenged by Paul. And he met in council.

I agree that these facts are prescriptive of nothing. But they are descriptive of a pope that may be more primus and less supremus.

I think you may need to read more up on the collegiality of the church, according to Catholicism. Unfortunately, Vatican I was cut short — so it seemed to emphasize papal authority more. Thankfully, Vatican II gave more clarification. Here’s one snippet from Lumen Gentium:

Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace, and also the councils assembled together, in which more profound issues were settled in common, the opinion of the many having been prudently considered, both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The political or other circumstances have no bearing on whether or not the Church has authority to meet in council and make decisions for the Christian people.

Besides, every council in history were not without serious controversy and struggle — even political. Consider Arianism.

 

[BlackFriar]

Did Jesus say one of THEM is the greatest? Yes

1. Ahem, please quote where he identified one? At face value “one” simply means “everyman”.
2. Please identify where he considered “ruling” is what he meant by being “the greatest”.
   He appears at pains to say the very opposite.

 

[Vonsalza]

Re: the council, Paul nor Barnabas nor James change what Peter had decreed.

Q’s:

Who
. in the beginning, did Paul visit personally, for 15 days, and no one else,? Peter
. after 15 yrs on the road, wanted to see Peter to make sure he was teaching properly? Paul.

I’m with ya! Peter is the primate.

I just don’t see these as indubitable arguments for supremacy nor infallibility. But I certainly see why a Catholic would.

What do you expect. The bible is a Catholic book. Written in, by, and for, the Catholic Church

Sure! a pre-schism Catholic Church.

As such, I think the EO lay a similar claim.

steve-b:

Re: Acts 15 you quote, is after the council concluded, where Peter already ended their debate. And James applied Peter’s ruling.

Sure. That would be a reasonable, Catholic interpretation of the text.

steve-b:

I’ve asked the question for 14 years on CAF . no answer …YET.
The question is
When is the first time in history, we see in writing, properly referenced, the name "Orthodox Church?

Sure. It’s a darn tough question to answer. After all, since they were the same Church pre-schism and the schism was arguably not completely clear until sometime between 1204 and 1453 (the 1054 date is kinda overrated), it would be equally tough to identify when “Catholic Church” was used in a way that juxtaposed itself to Eastern Orthodoxy.

“whatever you bind…whatever you loose on earth … is bound and loosed in heaven”.?

Where are the limits to that?

For starters, he apparently cannot ordain women, per his own word.

So there’s at least one clear limit. We can expand from there, I’m sure.

 

[Vonsalza]

The political or other circumstances have no bearing on whether or not the Church has authority to meet in council and make decisions for the Christian people.

Someone forgot to tell Constantine in 325…

 

[Vonsalza]

Thank you for the CCC paragraphs. It’s not talking about what you stated: crafting dogma. The Pope does not just sit there on his own and think up new doctrine.

Sure. But where the faithful see development, the outsider may see change. I guess we simply diverge on the point, which is fine and probably expected.

And so to apply this to contraception: The Pope was never the one to invent that teaching. He merely affirmed it.

Sure. And many feel that “the teaching” the pope was supposedly “affirming” was a bit of an anachronistic conflation in the mind of a 70 year old man who never knew the burdens of family.
And as you agree, condoms and hormonal BC didn’t even exist in the minds of the Church Fathers…

Of course, we’re spinning on the topic at this point…

I think you may need to read more up on the collegiality of the church, according to Catholicism.

That may be the core issue. I am insufficiently studied! (I’ll admit to thinking that in my youth; if you didn’t agree with me, it was just because you weren’t sufficiently educated - fool I was(and maybe still am)).

So in my possibly half-baked understanding of papal authority, it seems collegiality may be a bit of window dressing to soften the obvious stiffness of Pastor Aeternus. As the Catechism says, apart from his Holiness, bishops have no authority. None.
Moreover, the pope does not need collegial assent in order to exercise his power. Not one bit.
-It’s just far more comfortable for everyone when he has it. Which is an echo toward councilarism and Orthodoxy if ever there was one.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Did Jesus say one of THEM is the greatest? Yes

1. Ahem, please quote where he identified one? At face value “one” simply means “everyman”.

“the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm1 like the one who serves.”

meaning One among them is being identified, singled out, as the one that Jesus is saying is greatest among THEM (the apostles) who is also the one to rule.
BlackFrier:

1. Please identify where he considered “ruling” is what he meant by being “the greatest”.
   He appears at pains to say the very opposite.

It’s clear from the passages Peter is who Jesus is talking about.

 

[BlackFriar]

“the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm1 like the one who serves.”

1. There is no identification of any single apostle here (remember they were all vying for that role).
2. It is clear that the 3rd person singular used here is “impersonal”. The English expression “one” is well translated in this case, it therefore does not mean “he who rules” (ie Peter) as you seem to literally and narrowly translate the Greek. It is in fact an effective plural as in “everyman”.

May I ask if you have any fluent facility in languages other than English or have you formally studied Koine Greek?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Sure. And many feel that “the teaching” the pope was supposedly “affirming” was a bit of an anachronistic conflation in the mind of a 70 year old man who never knew the burdens of family.
And as you agree, condoms and hormonal BC didn’t even exist in the minds of the Church Fathers…

Of course, we’re spinning on the topic at this point…

I feel as though we keep going off on tangents. You can have your opinions on whether or not the teaching is archaic and old-fashioned, etc… But back to the point: all the Pope did was affirm consistent teaching. Unless you think contraception was deemed moral before the mid 20th century by the Catholic Church?

I think you undervalue the role of the magisterium at the time of Humane Vitae. There was a committee of families, theologians, etc. set up by the Pope to look into birth control, and most came out, in fact, contrary to church teaching. The Pope knew very well the stress and burdens of the family. But does that justify changing a moral teaching? Nope.

No one said all the church’s teachings are easy. Many walked away from Christ’s own “hard sayings” about the Eucharist.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As the Catechism says, apart from his Holiness, bishops have no authority. None.

Kinda like Cyprian saying union with Rome was union with the church?

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

 

[steve-b]

The bible is a Catholic book. Written in, by, and for, the Catholic Church

Vonsalza:

Sure! a pre-schism Catholic Church,.

As such, I think the EO lay a similar claim.

steve-b:

rephrased, pre-schism from the Catholic Church. Those in schism by definition are no longer Catholic.
Answer given previously to @guanophore Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy? - #62 by steve-b

Re: schism, Scripture condemns it as it does those who do it and keep it going.

steve-b:

Re: Acts 15 from your quote, is after the council concluded, where Peter already ended their debate. And James applied Peter’s ruling.

Vonsalza:

Sure. That would be a reasonable, Catholic interpretation of the text.

steve-b:

Re: “Catholic interpretation of the text”
The NT Scripture was written in, by, for and canonized by, the Catholic Church. It certainly has the right to interpret it’s own work.

steve-b:

I’ve asked the question for 14 years on CAF . no answer …YET.
The question is
When is the first time in history, we see in writing, properly referenced, the name "Orthodox Church?

Vonsalza:

Sure. It’s a darn tough question to answer. After all, since they were the same Church pre-schism and the schism was arguably not completely clear until sometime between 1204 and 1453 (the 1054 date is kinda overrated), it would be equally tough to identify when “Catholic Church” was used in a way that juxtaposed itself to Eastern Orthodoxy.

steve-b:

Re: “Catholic Church” in history, by name, in writing, properly referenced,

looking at the 1st 4 centuries, (highly condensed given limits for space / post) I posted the following answer on another thread

"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #60 by steve-b link 1

"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #61 by steve-b link 2

"Trail of Blood" Baptist - #62 by steve-b link 3