Was the early church catholic?

[teddyv]

Was not the filioque also one the main drivers of the East/West schism?

[other one]

27 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Was not the filioque also one the main drivers of the East/West schism?

Seems like I have read that.

[Anne2]

4 hours ago, teddyv said:

Was not the filioque also one the main drivers of the East/West schism?

Yes, but I only thought of that after I posted. And i do not believe the Church which is the focus of this thread disagrees with Rome, so I did not add it

From what I recall of reading a couple of their books. That was also what really set off the schism, because the actually changed the council on the doctrine of the trinity. The other Bishops seen it as semi modalistic. Which reading the concepts behind the terms they used, the issue  was the relationship each person had with the other within the Godhead, distinguishing each one without confounding or confusion. When adding "and from the son", There was no longer the distinction of that relationship. So they did have a point there. So it was quite bold of the Pope to actually alter what had been agreed in the very first council/s all on his own.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Anne2

[MichaelSnow]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:44 PM, portlie said:

This has been bothering me for a while now, most records seem to state that the early church was catholic. Where can i find knowledge of the actual history of our church? 

 

Was the early church catholic? Yes. Was it orthodox? Yes.

Was it Roman Catholic? Yes, in Rome.

The Apostles Creed: I believe in the holy catholic* church

(*that is, the Christian church of all times and all places)

The Great Schism of 1054 divided the catholic church in two: The Eastern Orthodox and the Western Roman Catholic.

[MichaelSnow]

On 4/9/2023 at 6:08 PM, Anne2 said:

Yes, but I only thought of that after I posted. And i do not believe the Church which is the focus of this thread disagrees with Rome, so I did not add it

From what I recall of reading a couple of their books. That was also what really set off the schism, because the actually changed the council on the doctrine of the trinity. The other Bishops seen it as semi modalistic. Which reading the concepts behind the terms they used, the issue  was the relationship each person had with the other within the Godhead, distinguishing each one without confounding or confusion. When adding "and from the son", There was no longer the distinction of that relationship. So they did have a point there. So it was quite bold of the Pope to actually alter what had been agreed in the very first council/s all on his own.

The filioque was added in response to some dispute. I don't remember the details, but they were trying to head off some potential misunderstanding or heresy.  That it was added without a council was the real sticking point. No one had the right to add to what the council had agreed upon.

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by MichaelSnow

[Anne2]

45 minutes ago, MichaelSnow said:

The filioque was added in response to some dispute. I don't remember the details, but they were trying to head off some potential misunderstanding or heresy.  That it was added without a council was the real sticking point. No one had the right to add to what the council had agreed upon.

 

Yes, that is my understanding of it. The other stuff, are doctrines that came about after the split. But the filioque, he reached back in time to the ecumenical councils of the very early Church. That did it. But the western reformers also have no problem with the addition and use it themselves (evidenced also on this site). So, I did not mention it because it didn't seem to speak the subject here.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Anne2

[JimmyB]

The early church was entirely Jews.  Gentiles only came in later, primarily because of Paul's activity.  The Catholic (capitalized) denomination was formed later, as was the Orthodox denomination, the Coptic denomination, and others.

One only needs to read Paul's epistles and Revelation to learn that there was no single, centralized denomination.  There were numerous groups of Christ people scattered throughout the Mediterranean region with different rituals, doctrines, and religious texts.

 

(catholic (not capitalized) means universal).

[MichaelSnow]

1 hour ago, JimmyB said:

The early church was entirely Jews.  Gentiles only came in later, primarily because of Paul's activity.  The Catholic (capitalized) denomination was formed later, as was the Orthodox denomination, the Coptic denomination, and others.

One only needs to read Paul's epistles and Revelation to learn that there was no single, centralized denomination.  There were numerous groups of Christ people scattered throughout the Mediterranean region with different rituals, doctrines, and religious texts.

 

(catholic (not capitalized) means universal).

Of course, you are talking about the beginning, the early New Testament church.  In general usage early church refers to post New Testament period.

"Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era"

[JimmyB]

1 hour ago, MichaelSnow said:

Of course, you are talking about the beginning, the early New Testament church.  In general usage early church refers to post New Testament period.

"Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era"

Right.  The early New Testament church.  It means exactly that, regardless of how it is generally used -- often to deny the truth.  The early church was comprised of Jews; Gentiles came in later.  The church is now primarily Gentiles, so it is handy to rewrite history to change the reality.

[Anne2]

10 hours ago, MichaelSnow said:

Of course, you are talking about the beginning, the early New Testament church.  In general usage early church refers to post New Testament period.

"Early church is not a technical term, so it can be used fairly loosely, but generally follows the history and writings of church leaders which are divided by time period into the Ante-Nicene era (prior to the council of Nicaea in 325AD) and the Nicene/Post-Nicene era"

It is still applicable to the concerns in this thread. There was no "reformation" in the Eastern part of the Church. Disagreements, sure, but not anything like the reformers. So I am questioning how far back these groups go?