Since you wish to discuss the history of the early church I refer you to EUCHARIST, BISHOP, CHURCH: THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN THE DIVINE EUCHARIST AND THE BISHOP DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES by Met. John Zizioulas, one of the foremost theologians in the world. He is also coincidentally a close personal friend of Pope (E) Benedict XVI.
http://www.oodegr.co/english/biblia/episkopos1/perieh.htm
Cherry picked quotes from Church Fathers do not impress. We can all play that game, even your Protestant friends.
The reference to the “Catholic Church” is of course a reference to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. i.e. the Orthodox Church.
“Presumably these “corrections” are taken from schismatic Orthodox websites attempting to show that their schism is legitimate and they represented the true Church that Christ founded.
Nothing could be farther than the truth.”
Please be specific. Setting aside theological differences, which historical facts have I presented that are false? I have been very specific in pointing out your errors.
“One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. i.e. the Orthodox Church.”
This is contradicted by history, y scripture, and the Early Church fathers. The Catholic Church alone has an unbroken line of Apostolic succession. Apparently you glaze over these facts and the statements of the early Church fathers that you call “cherry picking.”
Can you cite to any one of the early Church fathers who spoke to an “orthodox” Church that was untethered to Papal succession? The Synod of Rome in AD 382 that confirmed the selection of books in the Bible as the true word of God was under the auspices of infallible papal authority. If history tells us that the schism occurred around AD 1054, about seven centuries after the Synod of Rome, can you please explain how this infallible authority for some thousand years suddenly went out of the window because of a schismatic off-shoot that denies the Petrine doctrine?