Is there a name for the church that existed before the East-West schism?

I'm trying to find a name for what the combined Orthodox-Catholic church was called before the East-West schism. There were other churches in Asia and Africa, so there must be a name to differentiate it from them, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.
 
they were still different churches even before the schism ... the schism just made it so they no longer talked with each other, mutually excommunicating each other
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
If these documents (**) from the Council of Nicaea are accurate, it was called "the catholic church". The Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 delineates belief in the "one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", or the four marks of the church. Indeed, the full name of the Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Thus your answer is, as boring as it may be, the Catholic Church.
 
they were still different churches even before the schism ... the schism just made it so they no longer talked with each other, mutually excommunicating each other

This
There wasn't one church that suddenly broke into pieces ala the Protestant reformation, the Greek and Latin Churches had been in parallel development and were for all practical purposes different pretty much from Nicea on. The schism was just saying that politically they weren't trying to square that circle anymore. Just using Catholic or Orthodox interchangeably pre-schism and using Greek/Latin to distinguish the two when necessary is fine.
 

fi11222

Banned
I'm trying to find a name for what the combined Orthodox-Catholic church was called before the East-West schism. There were other churches in Asia and Africa, so there must be a name to differentiate it from them, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.
From the early IVth century onwards, I belive it would make sense to call it the "Nicene" church (following the council of Nicea canons). That way, one can oppose the "Nicene" to the "Arian" currents during the IVth and early Vth century.

Later on, the appropriate term might be "Chalcedonian" or "Nicene-Chalcedonian" after the council of Chalcedon. That way, during the Vth to VIIth century, we have a "chalcedonian" vs "Nestorian" and "Monophysite" branches.

Eventually, the "Nicene-Chalcedonian" branch split into "Orthodox" (Greek) and "Catholic" (Latin) churches.
 
From the early IVth century onwards, I belive it would make sense to call it the "Nicene" church (following the council of Nicea canons). That way, one can oppose the "Nicene" to the "Arian" currents during the IVth and early Vth century.

Later on, the appropriate term might be "Chalcedonian" or "Nicene-Chalcedonian" after the council of Chalcedon. That way, during the Vth to VIIth century, we have a "chalcedonian" vs "Nestorian" and "Monophysite" branches.

Eventually, the "Nicene-Chalcedonian" branch split into "Orthodox" (Greek) and "Catholic" (Latin) churches.

This, though I think the term is Miaphysite, Monophysites are completely different. But yeah, the best term for the pre-East-West Schism combined Catholic/Orthodox church is either Chalcedonian or Nicene-Chalcedonian, representing the councils of Chalcedon and Nicea, where their doctrines were fully established.
 

fi11222

Banned
This, though I think the term is Miaphysite, Monophysites are completely different. But yeah, the best term for the pre-East-West Schism combined Catholic/Orthodox church is either Chalcedonian or Nicene-Chalcedonian, representing the councils of Chalcedon and Nicea, where their doctrines were fully established.
"Miaphysitism" is a sort of euphemism for monophysitism. In general, the monophysites tended to call themselves "Miaphysites" while their ennemies called themselves "monophysites". In fact there does not seem to be much difference between the two. Most modern scholars prefer "monophysite" over "miaphysites" because it is clearer and therefore easier to understand and remember (which is often a challenge given the "byzantine" subtleties involved).


The important fact is that in the Vth to VIIth century and beyond there was a three way split between:
  • The Nestorians (or "ultra dyophisites") who were declared heretics at Chalcedon and therefore fled to the Sassanian Empire, where they prospered, forming a sort of "national" persian church.
  • The Monophysites, who were a majority in Syria, Palestine and Egypt and became increasingly embittered against the Imperial power and the official church.
  • The Nicene-Chalcedonians (or "moderate dyophysites") which was the official position of the Imperial church in the East and was accepted as orthodoxy in the West without serious challenge.
The antagonism between the imperial (chalcedonian) church and the monophysites is seen by many as a serious weakening factor for the eastern Empire which paved the way for the Sassanian invasion of the early VIIth century and the subsequent arabic conquests.
 
The antagonism between the imperial (chalcedonian) church and the monophysites is seen by many as a serious weakening factor for the eastern Empire which paved the way for the Sassanian invasion of the early VIIth century and the subsequent arabic conquests.

Basileus Giorgos is going to explain it better than I, but roughly : not that much. Monoenergism was relativly successful and managed to bound (if superficially) different non-Niceans and Nicean churches under imperial supervision. It doesn't seem it was rejected by either side, at the contrary of monothelism.

What really damaged the Byzantine provinces were a really long and devastating war, that let treasury in a poor state.
 
A lot of the references at the time of the Gothic Wars, for instance, talk about Orthodox vs. Arian. Basically "orthodox" and "catholic" were synonymous for a long time.
 
The Church since at least the sixth century had the Pentarchy, basically the five most powerful Episcopal sees, that were seen as the heads of their regional churches in a lot of respects. The split in 1054 was between the Latins (centered in Rome) and the Greeks (centered in Constantinople). The others were Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. During the Council of Chalcedon, the miaphysite Churches (the Oriental Orthodox) broke with the dyophysites. The Oriental Orthodox churches included Jerusalem and Antioch. Alexandria split between the two positions (thus the existence of Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in communion with the Greek church, and the Coptic Church, in communion with the Oriental Orthodox). Those churches were already seen as heretical and were largely cut off from the Romans and Greeks by the rise of Islam in any case. So, by the time of the Schism, while they both thought of themselves as "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," they already had distinctive Latin and Greek identities.
 
Top