Replies

what kosta has written at #597 is right on the money

I concur with both 597 and 603. "Orthopraxis" is probably similar to the Catholic "disciplines".

One significant difference -- not a contradiction, but a difference -- between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is that on one hand, as Kolokotronis described, we Catholics tend to be very analytical in the scholastic tradition as regards theology, and that is foreign to the Orthodoxy, as scholasticism developed in the West following the separation of 1054. On the other hand, again, as Kolokotronis described, we are looser on the disciplinary side of things. On that latter point I want to elaborate:

In Catholicism we have separate "rites"; while most are only familiar with the Latin Rite, we have seven of them in the Roman Church alone, plus 25 in the Eastern Catholic Churches (CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES, I have seen different taxonomies and different counts as well). While there are many geographical autocephalous Orthodox Churches, I don't think they vary in praxis as widely as the Catholic Churches, as the sequel might show.
Disciplines and liturgies vary with the particular churches, e.g. married men can become priests in the East, but Latin priests are celibate; the Catholic liturgy in the East is virtually identical to the Orthodox, including the use of the Orthodox form of the Creed.
Fasting (or lesser form of it, abstinence from certain foods) is much more permissive in the West;
The mass rubrics vary from diocese to diocese in some detail, and even from priest to priest. The variations include liturgical posture (when to stand and when to kneel), method of Communion (one or two species, reception on the tongue or also in the hand), and the language used (vernacular only, a mixture of Latin and vernacular, Aramaic, Greek, Church Slavonic, Armenian, etc).
Days of obligation are sometimes commuted to the next Sunday, depending on the diocese.

All Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome, which means full doctrinal agreement.

On the other hand, the Orthodox have a singificant variance as regards the calendar -- old style or new style. I also heard that some Orthodox churches have pews, hard as it is to believe such a thing.

One major difference deserves its own post: iconography. The canon of Holy Images developed in the East, and the theology of it was strengthened by the struggle with the iconoclast heresy, also in the East. Bysantine iconography informed the medieval art in the West. The Orthodox have most developed iconographic theology, foundational elements of it are (please, correct or augment):

The Holy Images are holy objects of veneration;
The Holy Images inform us of the life of the spirit;
The Holy Images accurately and authoritatively reflect the Holy Tradition in ways peculair to graphic arts.
The Holy Images are subject to a strict canon.

It is clear from the above that the Orthodox maintain the separation of iconography from other forms of art, to the point of not considering iconography art at all. The Catholic Church, however, does not insist on such separation and does not have an iconographical canon. The consequences of that were profound for the West:

Art expressive of the individuality of the artist, as well as art oriented to academic realism flourished in the West in late Middle Ages, Renaiisance and following. When similar art developed in the East, it followed the Western tradition. Religious paintings done by Orthodox artists and imbued with religious consciousness, such as the works of Kramskoy or Ivanov are not considered icons in the East.
Art whose only value is in expressing the individual quirks of artistic consciousness (or semi-consciousness) also flourished in the 20c. West (which for these purposes also included 20c Russia and the Balkans).
Truly religious Christian art in the Western tradition allowed for authentic expression of individual devotional life of the artist, with which the spectator can identify is his own individual piety, but without a sacramental aspect that would inhere in an icon. I am referring to artists such as Murillo, el Greco, Durer and Michelangelo.
Christian kitsch, -- despiritualized biblical illustrations of 20c illustrated Bibles, or oversentimentalized or fantastical mass produced devotional imagery also flourished in the West.
For some reason -- I invite the reader to venture a guess, as I don't have any -- the Catholic statuary retained the orientation to holiness all but lost in the Catholic graphical arts.

The cardinal error of the West: the concept of relationship with God that centers on, and is driven by, the individual can probably be traced to the abandonment of canonical iconography in 14c and its gradual replacement with religious in subject but individualized in execution art of the Renaissance, or at least, both developments point to a common error of the post-medieval western man.

What is the way out? A mechanical adoption of the orthodox devotional norm cannot work in general, and it cannot work to achieve the much overdue rescue of the Western art. Rather, the oversized ego that has lead us into the modernist mess now has to discover a way of Christian expression that departs from the individual but leads to the authentic ecclesial expression of Christian faith. It is a hopeful thing to see emergence of Catholic iconography in the Byzantine canonical tradition as one aspect of such renewal. Perhaps, the undoubtedly sincere search of a modern artistic language of Catholicism in the work of Dali and Rouault point to another aspect.

While there are many geographical autocephalous Orthodox Churches, I don't think they vary in praxis as widely as the Catholic Churches, as the sequel might show

Not only do they vary from one Church to another, they vary from one curch to another. I have yet to enter one Greek or OCA or Serbian or any other Orthodox Church and see the same arrangement, location of the choir, recognize the same typicon, or hear the exact same antiphons.

In some, the Lord's Prayer and the Creed are sung, in others they are recited. In some everyone stands in others (particularly American-based churches) there are pews. In some (Russian, Serbian) women stand on the left, men on the right, in Greek monasteries the same is observed, but in Greek American churches everyone is scattered, and so on.

Among Slavonic churches, some of the liturgy is in Church Slavonic, some in native Slavic vernacular; the choir, however, sings in Church Slavonic; in some churches the choir uses electric organs as "keys" (i.e. Greek churches), in others only males are in the choir. There is not a single Orthodox church, regardless of the Patriarchate, which is the same in Orthopraxis.