But if you’re trying to have an intelligent discussion about the early church, and you make a statement about the RCC followed by a question to the effect of, “Aren’t the RCC and Orthodox the same thing?”…
…you’re not having an intelligent discussion about the early church.
Perhaps it is intelligent…but not informed. I know what you mean though. That comment makes me cringe.
Well, some people are behind with the news. Like, about a thousand years behind :)
Having been born, raised and otherwise marinated in Protestantism for the first 20 years of my life, I feel comfortable stating that for many Protestants “church history” means everything up through Paul and after the Reformation. Anything in-between tends to get glossed over.
Is there any chance they just meant that we were one church, pre-schism? I mean, you said you were talking about the EARLY church.
Normally I’d be willing to believe that, but the conversation had turned to Church Tradition and that’s where the comment came in. It just struck me that if you want to meaningfully discuss Church Tradition it would be useful to understand how those traditions came to be both in light of the early church and (later on) the Schism.