How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the term 'catholic', particularly in regard to Roman Catholicism? The terms orthodox and catholic have immense significance to those that seek to make exclusive truth claims about their particular Christian Tradition. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox trace their descent from (prior to schism) one catholic and orthodox Church. As a result, it would seem to be virtually impossible to concede the exclusive use of one of these terms to "the other side".

How do the Eastern Orthodox view using the terms catholic or Catholic generally, but particularly in regard to describing Roman Catholicism?

This is one of a number of related questions I intend to ask regarding the Great (East-West) Schism, terminology and self-identication of the resulting Churches.

The others so far:


What is the Roman Catholic view on using the term 'orthodox', particularly in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy?
At what point did the Roman see start self-identifying as the Catholic Church?
At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?
The term "catholic" appears in the revision to the Nicene Creed accepted at the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381:


  We believe ... in one holy catholic and apostolic Church1


The Greek word is καθολικός (katholikos) and is taken to mean "general" or "universal".  It is not a word that really appears in the Bible, though it is found in some manuscripts in the title of the Epistle of James (i.e. The Catholic Epistle of James).  

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains the understanding of the word as follows:


  The word catholikos in ancient Greek, pre-Christian literature is encountered very rarely. However, the Christian Church from antiquity chose this word to signify one of the principal attributes of the Church, namely, to express its universal character. Even though it had at its disposal such words as cosmos (the world), or oikoumene (the inhabited earth), evidently these latter words were insufficient to express a certain new concept which is present only to the Christian consciousness. In the ancient Symbols of Faith, wherever the word “Church” appears, it is unfailingly with the definition “catholic.” Thus, in the Jerusalem Symbol of Faith we read: “And in one, holy, catholic Church”; in the Symbol of Rome: “In the holy, catholic Church, the communion of the Saints”; etc. In ancient Christian literature, this term is encountered several times in St. Ignatius the God-bearer, an Apostolic Father, for example when he says, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” This term is constantly to be found in the Acts of all the Ecumenical Councils. In the direct translation of the word, it signifies the highest degree of all-embracingness, wholeness, fullness (being derived from cath ola, meaning “throughout the whole”).2


The Eastern Orthodox Church sees itself as "Catholic".  Question No. 270 of the Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church asks:


  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?


Metropolitan Philaret (the author of this particular catechism) writes:


  Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.
  
  The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Col 1:5-6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all (Col 3:11). They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham (Gal 3:9).


Elder Cleopas (Ilie) of Romania expands on this understanding in his book, The Truth of Our Faith:


  With the word "Catholic" we may suggest that the Church has it as Her purpose to spread throughout the whole world, comprising Christians of every place, every age, and of all people.  This is confirmed by the following commandment of Christ: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations ...  Moreover, the Church is called Catholic since its entire teaching is the undistorted truth, which was given by Christ to the Apostles and through them to the world.  While on the contrary, heresy possesses but a portion of the truth.3


While many outside the Eastern Orthodox Church presume that the major difference between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church is the recognition of papal authority, in reality I think that this is a relatively minor point.  The Pope having jurisdiction over territories outside of the See of Rome would be seen as non-canonical (in violation of the canons of the 1st Ecumenical Council), but not heretical.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church today there are dozens of such jurisdictional disputes, including the overlap of non-canonical episcopates from several Patriarchates within the Unites States.

The issue touching on how the east views the catholicity of Rome has to do with Elder Cleopas' point about catholicity also implying holding the fullness of truth.  The Roman Catholic Church, which grew from the ancient See of Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which includes the other four ancient Sees,  differ on a number of significant theological points to such an extent that Rome is actually seen as being in not only schism but heresy.4  For this reason, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize the Roman Catholic Church as being truly "Catholic".  It is understood to possess a portion of the truth, but not the fullness of truth.



1. Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
2. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), pp.245-6
3. pp.42-43.
4. See, e.g., the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs