Was the ancient Catholic Church Orthodox before the Great Schism?

[Gabriel_of_12]

For the clear term being applied see my post #24

Peace be with you

Gabriel, the post Nine_Two is referring to is this one:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7684593&postcount=27

where, in response to his question “By early Eastern Catholic you mean 17th century, right?”, you responded “Wrong, I am referencing 451 a.d from the council of Chalcedon when the term is coined.”. What is the “term” that you are referring to here if it is not “Eastern Catholic”? Was it “Orthodox”? If so, your post wasn’t clear.

 

[Nine_Two]

Let’s clear this up;

My OP # 24 dealt with this, when I commented to the OP;

NO, **the early Church was never called “Orthodox”, **

**The term Orthodox **

The Term "Orthodox"

**The True “Orthodox” Catholic Church **

Today, Orthodoxy is a term also being applied to those Eastern Churchs’ who remain heterodox,

**Those few Orthodox **…

Nine Two response post #25

By early Eastern Catholic you mean 17th century, right?

My response to clarify that I was not addressing the term Eastern Catholic, but the term Orthodox as per the OP.

“Whooo hang on there, I did not say this council reference any Eastern Catholic Church, she does name those Orthodox participants and those heterodox Catholic Church’s from the East. Let us be clear here.”

Nine Two response;
Clearly you’re saying “Eastern Catholic” predates the term “Orthodox”,

I never clearly nor implied that the term "Eastern Catholic predates the term “Orthodox” see my post #24.

Gabriel of 12 response;
I can neither confirm nor deny when the term “Eastern Catholics” was coined, my guess is that is was much earlier than the 17th century.

If you are implying another “off” topic, by hinting at the term “Eastern ( Rite ) Catholics” in full communion with Popes? Then you are off topic here, and my commentary to the OP does not apply to your assumptions.

At this point I can only ask for your forgiviness from my lack of clarity while I was relating to the OP topic.

In conclusion, when I commented Eastern Catholics from post #24, I was referencing the all Catholics residing in the Eastern Empire during the early Church as oppossed to those from the Western Catholics. I made distinctions between those Heterodox Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Eastern Catholics, pertaining to their geography, not their Rites or any other identity.

When you asked about the date of Eastern Catholic term, I responded to your post, from the post above, that I was not referencing the term Eastern Catholic, but the term Orthodox.

My question to you Nine Two is? Can you make it clear to which Eastern Catholic term used that dates to the 17th century? Is it the Eastern Rite Catholics, or is it the geographical Eastern Catholics term that you are dating to the 17th century?

Peace be with you

You seem to have missed the part where I didn’t ask about your use of the term “Orthodox”. I asked about your use of the term “Eastern Catholic”, if you don’t want to answer the question, don’t. But don’t twist it into something else.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

From my commentary, again, I only used the term Eastern Catholic in reference to geography purposes to distinguish which Catholic I was addressing, who attached the councils term “Orthodox” to their Catholic identity from those Catholics living in the Eastern hemisphere of the Church who became heterodox.

This is how I have used the term “Eastern Catholics” from my above clarification.

**Now to answer your question when the term Eastern Catholics come to recognize a community of Catholic believers, I disagree with your 17th century date.

The Church of the East have been recognized officially as “The Eastern Catholic Church” since the 7th century, not the 17th century.

The Eastern Catholic Church’s consist of the Persian, Indian, Mar Toma,
the East Syrian Church, the Holy Apostolic-Catholic Church of the East (Chaldean-Syrian), the Chaldean-Syrian Church of the East, etc.**

This does not include the Eastern “Rite” Catholics which is another term used to identify those Orthodox Church’s who never left communion with the Pope and those Orthodox Eastern rite Catholics who came back into holy Communion with the Pope. I can not deny nor confirm your 17th century date here.

Although I do know some scholars are using these terms today to identify those Orthodox Catholics from the East as Eastern Rite Catholics in communion with Rome from those Orthodox Catholics from the East as Orthodox Catholics not in communion with Rome. This Eastern Rite Catholic term is used in literature today to distinguish the two communities by scholars and the like. Again I have no date to confirm when this began.

Peace be with you

You seem to have missed the part where I didn’t ask about your use of the term “Orthodox”. I asked about your use of the term “Eastern Catholic”, if you don’t want to answer the question, don’t. But don’t twist it into something else.

 

[hansgeorg]

St. Maximus states the charge of those in Constantinople that the contemporary Pope teaches the Holy Spirit has his ekporeusis from the Son. St. Maximus recognizes that, if the Romans were indeed to teach this, they would be in error (for only the Father is cause of the Holy Spirit). However, he goes on to show that this charge is misplaced, and the Romans do not teach that the Son is cause of the Spirit, but in fact know that the Father is the only cause of the Holy Spirit.

Here, the Council of Florence states, according to the Greeks, the Son also is cause of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

In short, St. Maximus says the Romans do not teach the Son is cause, while the Council of Florence states the Son indeed is cause, just like the Father.

Two relevant points:

1. The Council of Florence does not consider Father and Son two separate causes of the Holy Spirit, but united as one cause of Him.
2. Though the analysis of St Maximos denies this to be the Roman Theology, he does not deny the argument for the suspicion, i e that the West taught the ekporeusis from both Father and Son:

from your quote:

One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says ‘the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.’ … With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession – but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

Procession THROUGH HIM does not mean eternal procession irrespective of him but temporary or economic manifestation only through him. It means, the eternal procession itself is through him.

 

[hansgeorg]

This does not include the Eastern “Rite” Catholics which is another term used to identify those Orthodox Church’s who never left communion with the Pope and those Orthodox Eastern rite Catholics who came back into holy Communion with the Pope. I can not deny nor confirm your 17th century date here.

Also referred to as Uniates. One particular group are Ukrainians/Ruthenes, whose renewed Union with Rome was signed at Brest-Litovsk very late in the 16th Century, as far as I know.

It may be added that early Jesuits (St Ignatius and St Robert Bellarmine) referred to the Church they also callled Catholic as “Orthodox”. And had more reservations against the other set taking that name than Pope Pius XII.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Absulately, “Uniates” was the original term, but it is frowned upon by our Eastern and Orthodox brethren. What is surprising today is that, although the Orthodox despise “uniate” 'church’s, they are following the same unification as the Pope has with “uniate” church’s, by creating their own “uniate” church’s in the west, without recognizing they do so…

Iam glad the Orthodox chose to take this course, when they realize this after the dust settles, they may not have such a derogatory sentiment against all Uniate Churchs’.

Good insight hansgeorg;

Peace be with you

Also referred to as Uniates. One particular group are Ukrainians/Ruthenes, whose renewed Union with Rome was signed at Brest-Litovsk very late in the 16th Century, as far as I know.

It may be added that early Jesuits (St Ignatius and St Robert Bellarmine) referred to the Church they also callled Catholic as “Orthodox”. And had more reservations against the other set taking that name than Pope Pius XII.

 

[searn77]

Absulately, “Uniates” was the original term, but it is frowned upon by our Eastern and Orthodox brethren. What is surprising today is that, although the Orthodox despise “uniate” 'church’s, they are following the same unification as the Pope has with “uniate” church’s, by creating their own “uniate” church’s in the west, without recognizing they do so…

Iam glad the Orthodox chose to take this course, when they realize this after the dust settles, they may not have such a derogatory sentiment against all Uniate Churchs’.

Good insight hansgeorg;

Peace be with you

I think the Orthodox dislike of the “Uniate” Churches has more to do with the actual historical/political events that formed some of the Uniate Churches.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You may be correct here, yet some of the Orthodox negative opinions towards the Uniate church’s, with just the mention of “uniate” Church draws alot of heat from Orthodox. Dislike is a very kind word you use here that does not give justice to the Orthodox sentiments of uniate church’s.

I think the Orthodox dislike of the “Uniate” Churches has more to do with the actual historical/political events that formed some of the Uniate Churches.