The notion persists is no few Orthodox quarters and many Latin (and even Protestant) quarters that the Orthodox and Latins have similar doctrines--except for the Filioque and a few other items. This ignores that “when we say the say things, we are not saying the same things.”
YES we have Grace and Sacraments and tradition and a homoian (similar, not identical) Standard of Belief (symvolon pisteos). But Grace is defined in opposite terms:
Orthodox--uncreated Energy, God’s Life
Latins--not uncreated, not operativa (i.e. energetic)
YES, we have the Creed, but we have conflicting starting points for God’s Oneness, which leads to more differences than just the Filioque.
YES we have been traditional, but the Latins broke from the original Greek-language tradition--ignoring energy, adopting Augustine’s juridicalism and a whole host of deviant teachings (I spent two years reading him in Latin and in English; believe me!). But there was a paradigm-shift (giving terms different presuppositions and meanings) when the Muslim Aristotle came to the West in Latin translations.
Two schools arose:
--the intellect-centered juridical form of the Dominicans (Aquinas).
--the will-first juridical form of the Franciscans (and Luther’s Augustinian Order);
Luther claimed to be a follower of Ockham, Scotus’s disciple
YES, we have a sacramental outlook, but the Latins have non-energetic ex opere operato sacraments, while the Orthodox have energetic Mysteries which can be amenable to ekonomia in the case of certain discrepancies of ritual and ceremonial (which are not the same thing!) in cases of necessity and ignorance. YES, the Latins have seven, whereas our number of Mysteries is not limited (including what the Latins call sacramentals); Chrismation is part of Baptism.
Most of our doctrinal similarities don’t have the same semantic import because they are based on contrary paradigms whose “forms” conflict--Orthodox energy ontoogy and Latin (and Protestant) juridical form. You cannot understand the New Testament Orthodoxy if you do not know the relation of dynamis : energeia to a speaker of Hellenistic (post-Aristotelian) Greek. Thus St. Paul used energy terminology 26 times.
On these energy terms, see http://orlapubs.com/AR/R75.html
This is just a start that can be enlarged as one proceeds. Remember, the topic is doctrine, not polity (organization), not superficial ceremonials, not pious practices, etc.
And do not confuse LOGOS with Western “Word,” ‘omoiosis with Western “Likeness”--both too absurd to defend for anyone who knows Greek and the history of philosophy and theology--as well as much additional terminology laid out on http://orlapubs.com/AR/R191.html
unworthy Afanasiy, sinner