6 added 1 character in body
source | link
  1. The completely correct: "church".
  2. The established: "Catholic church".
  3. The commonly understandable: "the universal church"
  4. The technically/historically descriptive: "Pentarchical church" or "Chalcedonian church" (as mentioned in commetscomments by NSNoob).
  1. The completely correct: "church".
  2. The established: "Catholic church".
  3. The commonly understandable: "the universal church"
  4. The technically/historically descriptive: "Pentarchical church" or "Chalcedonian church" (as mentioned in commets by NSNoob).
  1. The completely correct: "church".
  2. The established: "Catholic church".
  3. The commonly understandable: "the universal church"
  4. The technically/historically descriptive: "Pentarchical church" or "Chalcedonian church" (as mentioned in comments by NSNoob).
5 added 79 characters in body
source | link

Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
  
[From:] the "Nicene Creed". It is the only authoritative ecumenical statement of the Christian faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and the major Protestant denominations.

Was it as early as 180 because of QuartodecimanismQuartodecimanism?? Or as late as 1729, when Congregatio de Propaganda Fide actually forbid the community of sacraments.

There are a few options to consider aas good names for "the church" before 11ththe 11th century:

Still other formulas like pre-schism Christian church etc. might be used. It would very much depend on context, intended audience and readership which description to choose. It will be necessary to not just use "the word" (i.e. "a word") and be done with it.

There is no real solution for this as too many names have been proposed and used already. In any text you will likely have to define the way you are going to use that word to avoid misunderstandings. Without a given and strictly defined timeframe the words change their genrallygenerally understood meaning. With out such prolegomena, confusion in a general audience is not just a possibility but will arise.

Bonus question to ponder about after having wrecked your brain abouton when the East-West schism started: Is it still in effect or did it end? If it ended, when did it end?

East and West since 1054
  
"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".
  
There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations.
Wikipedia East-West Schism

If you want to refer to the church or churches before the caesarian date of 1054 it would be probably easiest and most pragmatic to say "pre-1054 church(es)".

Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
  [From:] the "Nicene Creed". It is the only authoritative ecumenical statement of the Christian faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and the major Protestant denominations.

Was it as early as 180 because of Quartodecimanism? Or as late as 1729, when Congregatio de Propaganda Fide actually forbid the community of sacraments.

There are a few options to consider a good names for "the church" before 11th century:

Still other formulas like pre-schism Christian church etc. It would very much depend on context, intended audience and readership which description to choose. It will be necessary to not just use "the word" (i.e. "a word") and be done with it.

There is no real solution for this as too many names have been proposed and used already. In any text you will likely have to define the way you are going to use that word to avoid misunderstandings. Without a given and strictly defined timeframe the words change their genrally understood meaning. With out such prolegomena, confusion in a general audience is not just a possibility but will arise.

Bonus question to ponder about after having wrecked your brain about when the East-West schism started: Is it still in effect or did it end? If it ended, when did it end?

East and West since 1054
  "Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware".
  There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations.
Wikipedia East-West Schism

If you want to refer to the church or churches before the caesarian date of 1054 it would be probably easiest to say "pre-1054 church(es)".

Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. 
[From:] the "Nicene Creed". It is the only authoritative ecumenical statement of the Christian faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and the major Protestant denominations.

Was it as early as 180 because of Quartodecimanism? Or as late as 1729, when Congregatio de Propaganda Fide actually forbid the community of sacraments.

There are a few options to consider as good names for "the church" before the 11th century:

Still other formulas like pre-schism Christian church etc. might be used. It would very much depend on context, intended audience and readership which description to choose. It will be necessary to not just use "the word" (i.e. "a word") and be done with it.

There is no real solution for this as too many names have been proposed and used already. In any text you will likely have to define the way you are going to use that word to avoid misunderstandings. Without a given and strictly defined timeframe the words change their generally understood meaning. With out such prolegomena, confusion in a general audience is not just a possibility but will arise.

Bonus question to ponder about after having wrecked your brain on when the East-West schism started: Is it still in effect or did it end? If it ended, when did it end?

East and West since 1054 
"Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. … The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware". 
There was no single event that marked the breakdown. Rather, the two churches slid into and out of schism over a period of several centuries, punctuated with temporary reconciliations.
Wikipedia East-West Schism

If you want to refer to the church or churches before the caesarian date of 1054 it would be probably easiest and most pragmatic to say "pre-1054 church(es)".

4 Addressing GalacticCowboy
source | link

Or, in the Latin, then in Greek:

Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
[From:] the "Nicene Creed". It is the only authoritative ecumenical statement of the Christian faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and the major Protestant denominations.

Then there is that dating problem. Choosing 1054 as the cutting point for the schism is totally unhelpful in that except for having an answer in quizzes.

Then there is that dating problem. Choosing 1054 as the cutting point for the schism is totally unhelpful in that except for having an answer in quizzes.

Or, in the Latin, then in Greek:

Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
[From:] the "Nicene Creed". It is the only authoritative ecumenical statement of the Christian faith accepted by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and the major Protestant denominations.

Then there is that dating problem. Choosing 1054 as the cutting point for the schism is totally unhelpful in that except for having an answer in quizzes.

3 edited body
source | link
2 added 5 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link