www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern, Western, Oriental

Dear All,

What I am about to write, I do not intend to debate since it is really not an issue per se. I know this is mostly an Eastern Catholic/Orthodox website, but I just wanted to remind people here that the Church is not composed only of the Western/Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. There are also Oriental Orthodox/Oriental Catholics who have a Tradition that cannot easily be categorized as �Eastern� or �Latin.�

I read too often here and other websites the designation (or even insult) �Latin� or �Latinization� whenever an idea comes up on which Eastern Orthodox/Catholics disagree with their Western brethren. And I have seen Orientals accused of being �Latinized� in other websites. Of course, it is fine to be Latin, but calling Orientals �Latinized� is ignorant at best, insulting at worst. The simple fact of the matter is, there are viewpoints that Orientals share with the Easterns that we do not share with the Westerns; however, there are also viewpoints that we share with the Westerns that we do not share with the Easterns.

For instance, though Oriental Orthodox do not accept the papacy (only yet, prayerfully), OO ecclesiology involves an idea of headship that is closer to the Catholic, rather than the EO conception. Another example - though the OO have a theosis soteriology (a Greek concept), we accept the value of suffering in the divinization of the child of God (a �Latin� concept). Also, at least from what I have been told by EO I have come into contact with on the web, the theology of the Atonement is largely missing in the EOC, whereas it is part and parcel of both OO and CC theology and spirituality. There are other examples, of course, but I hope I have made my point. Orientals do not believe our beliefs are �latinizations.� Rather, we believe that they are the right and sure apostolic Tradition handed down to us from the Fathers.

I realize that Oriental Catholics (properly so-called) are more likely to identify themselves as �Eastern Catholic� rather than �Oriental Catholic.� To them I would humbly ask: those who have viewpoints that Eastern Orthodox call too �Latin� should not be so quick to demean their own beliefs and spirituality which, though not as �Eastern� as the EO would like, are just as patristic, and even �Eastern,� as they come. Please do not immediately believe that you need to divest yourself of any perceived, or misperceived �latinization.� This is especially true of Eastern Catholics whose sister Orthodox Church is from the Middle East or Asia Minor.

As HB Paulus Gregorius has written: �The chief among the Fathers of the three councils, Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria and the Cappadocians, came from Egypt or Asia Minor. There is no reason to claim that only the Greek church understood them and their terminology.�

BTW, for anyone who wonders, I regard myself a Coptic Orthodox in communion with Rome. I translated to the Catholic Church a little over a year ago.

Blessings,
Marduk

I would love to go to an Oriental litugy sometime.

Howdy from Kansas !

Since we�re listing churches of the faith other than the Western Latin and Eastern Orthodox, let�s not forget the other remarkable church missing from the initial post in this thread � the Assyrian Church of the East. They too �have a Tradition that cannot easily be categorized as �Eastern� or �Latin.� � It is worth noting that the Assyrians are much further along the path towards full communion with the Catholic churches than any of the particular Oriental Orthodox churches.

If/when full communion is established between Rome and the Church of the East, the Assyrians will at that point have to guard against the latinizations their Chaldean brethren have undergone in the last couple of centuries (alteration of their Divine Liturgy, number and type of Mysteries, addition of images and crucifixes�, loss of Holy Leaven, etc.). Latinzations exist to one degree or another in all churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, regardless if one chooses to acknowledge them or not.


~Isaac (Who assiduously works with his priest to de-latinize his Eastern Catholic parish.)

Isaac,

Sadly the momentum the ACoE and Rome had may be stalled for a long while with the excommunication of Mar Bawai Soro by the Holy Synod of the ACoE. One of the reasons for excommunication put forth was that Mar Bawai intended for the Patriarch of the CoE to join with Rome - "submit" to Rome is the phrase the Synod used. Anyhow, the Synod made it seem as though this is the farthest thing from what they wanted. Now Mar Bawai is closer to the Ancient Church of the East, which was being ignored by Rome in favour of the Assyrian Church. Now that the Chief of ecumencial dialogue of that Church is on the 'other team' (so to speak), who knows where what is going...

Marduk,

I agree that the Oriental Orthodox are often forgotten and I appreciate your ability to bring their perspective into the mix. There is a Coptic Catholic Church in New York City that would be neat to see. There is also a Coptic Church in DC but it is unfortunately not in communion with Rome. Still, I may swing by at some point just to say "hello".

Matt

Dear Marduk,

Well, I'm a great lover of the Coptic and Ethiopian traditions and I especially revere your great "Agpeya" Horologion!

By the way, do you say the Agpeya daily? I'm not doing a "spiritual checkup exam" nor do I wish to put you on the spot.

Do Copts in general say the Seven Prayers of the Agbeya - do they abbreviate etc. What is the practice?

It is such a beautiful Office because of its simplicity and great reliance on the Psalms together with a reading from Scripture for each hour.

Also, is the Hour of the Laying Aside of the Veil recited ONLY by monastics and bishops? Could laity recite it too?

Alex

I, for one, have always thought the similarities between some interesting areas of theology betwixt the Western Catholic tradition and the Oriental traditions are quite interesting.

And to remind ourselves sometimes that "Eastern Orthodoxy" is more like "Center Orthodoxy," as it is only Eastern in relation to Western Catholicism. To Orientals both the Latins and the Byzantines are Western Christians.

Logos Teen

Of course, the distinction between "Eastern" and "Oriental" is one that is mostly in English usage. After all, both words mean the same thing: "Eastern". One of the official names of my own jurisdiction, for example, when translated into English, is literally "Eastern Orthodox Syrian Church", and the members are, you guessed it, "Eastern Orthodox". Of course, Oriental could just as easily be substituted, but no one would think of it as a better alternative to "Eastern".

This is true. It happens in doctrinal matters, although it is more prevalent in liturgical ones (and I'm not just talking about mitres in the Armenian Church).

In some ways, I can see how you can make this claim, and there is some truth to it. It is important to remember, though, how this came about. Our ecclesiology does not really have anything to say about such a "headship". It is a difference that exists in praxis, and I think can be explained by the fact that each of our Churches is basically its own people, race, or culture (whichever is preferable). Our rites are very different, our languages are different, cultures are different, etc. There is universality/catholicity, but there is also a great diversity. The head of the Church, I suspect, was more than just the head of the most important Metropolitan/Patriarchal See...he was the "head of the family", and given already very patriarchal societies and the minority status of OO Churches in general, this becomes a powerful position in the respective Churches. Dogmatically, nothing is different from the rest of Orthodoxy, and nothing is similar to the Catholic beliefs regarding the Pope. Practically, however, heads of Churches can have powers their counterparts in EO Churches may not enjoy.

The EO Churches generally seem to have preserved synodality better in that the Primate's powers are not what they are in OO Churches. However, I think this is due to the fact that, because of the use of one rite (Byzantine) and because cultures are a lot more similar among the Eastern European and Mediterranean groups, there wasn't the same sense of the head of the Church being the head of the family. Under the Ottomans, when you have the Patriarch of Constantinople as head of the Rum Millet (basically, an ethnarch), you get a much more "OO" headship, traces of which can be seen even today among the Greeks, who often tout the EP as "head of the world's 300 million Eastern Orthodox Christians", much to the angst of non-Greek Orthodox.

Both theosis and atonement, despite common stereotypes, are thoroughly biblical models. I've always felt that the problem was that Greeks emphasised the former at the expense of the latter, and Latins emphasised the latter at the expense of the former. In this respect, I think the Orientals have preserved the proper, middle path.

With that said, while you might be able to say that the courageous acceptance of suffering by men and women following the example of Christ aids in their sanctification and theosis, I think we must be careful to distinguish this from other Latin concepts like "victim souls", which, deriving from this concept, can be troublesome.

The forum is Byzantine. Having said that it really helps to have non Byzantines have input to the topics here. There is after all so much to share.

I would not get too excited with the labels used to define us here. The American RCs here as you will note prefer to refer to RCs as 'Western'. Those RCs who live elsehwere on the planet dont tend to use it as they dont live in anything that is remotely western. American are strange and we all know that. I tend to think though that ona more serious note that geographic directions of the former Roman empire are not helpful in todays world, where through migration people have mixed themselves up all over the place. There is for example nothing 'centralist' about the Japanese, Korean or Chinese Orthodox churches. While they are definately Byzantine. Or 'Oriental' about Coptic Orthodox people and monks in California, but they are solidly in their own Coptic church tradition.

Eastern and Oriental are really interchangeable terms for the same thing. I do note that I have been asked by Coptic Orthodox monks if I was Chalcedonian or not. Now that is a good line that defines a particular church from another one. Better still it is a label that is not imposed from outside but a self chosen one.

Now as for the Latinisation theme (that is a drum I do beat) all Eastern Rite Catholic churches got a dose of it in varying degrees (some are still a heavily infected by it). An exception would be the very tiny Russian Catholic Church which is so small, it does not have a single bishop of it's own and did get organised very late in the day. Latinisation and colonialism went hand in hand. Anything copied for the 'masters' was an improvement on anything the subject peoples of the world could do. Those who copied the 'masters' looked down on those who had not done as they did. Anyway All that has to go by command of the late Pope Paul VI and was signed off in November 1964. Operative word is 'Command', here. So only genuine tradition stuff is required from here on in, for all of us.

It is interesting that the Chalcedonian Orthodox are conducting their own dialogue with the Non Chalcedonian Orthodox. Also that the Chaldean and it's opposite number the Assyrian Church of the East have their own dialogue on the go as well. The 2 Catholicos-Patriarchs have signed off on a number of agreements you will be pleased to know. Other Particular Catholic churches have also done similar things with their respective opposite numbers.

I think the comments in the above postings are an indication on how positive the participants feel about learning and sharing the views of others from different traditions.

Actually, Pavel, John has long said that, while this began as a Byzantine Catholic venture, it long ago morphed into a pan-Eastern site. I have always understood his point to be that it was intended as inclusive of EC/EO/OC/OO, the Assyrians, Ancient CoE, Chaldeans, our Indian brethren whose ties are to the Assyro-Chaldean Churches, and the Maronites, who don't fit neatly into any niche.

In all the time that I have touted ByzCath as the place to dialogue if you are of, love, or are just curious about the East, I have never described it as "Byzantine", except in name. As a matter of fact, I trumpet its diversity. To only be Byzantine or Constantinoplian is way too exclusive and would deprive us of much beauty and wisdom.

We don't, unfortunately, have a lot of members from outside the Byzantine/Constantinoplian community. The forum would, however, be very much the poorer without the posts that people like my beloved brothers and dear friends, Marduk/mardukm, Bill/Ghazar, Phil/Mor Ephrem, Shawn/Yuhannon, Alex/East-Syrian-rite Mar Thoma Catholic, and Khalid and Rony, Chaldean Catholic and ChaldeanCatholic, respectively, have contributed to this site. Each of them has given much to the rest of us, disproportionate to their numbers.

As Phil said, "Eastern" and "Oriental" are more than synonymous and a distinction in usage cannot even be had in all tongues - French comes immediately to mind. The Vatican particularly uses the terms interchangeably and one never knows, when a translation is wafted over its walls, which term will be applied to us and how inclusive it will be.

Myself, I prefer the distinction permitted by the two usages, because it meets my obsessive-compulsive need to have things categorized. (I was probably the only 6th grader who ever attempted to catalogue my bookshelf at home, using the revered and complex Dewey Decimal System once dominant throughout the American library system .)

No, we are not Byzantine. We are Catholics and Orthodox of every ilk, as well as Protestants, like our brother and friend, Roger/Berean.

What we have as a common measure, hopefully, is our desire to educate and be educated, to discuss, dialogue, and debate. John has graciously provided a place where we can encounter, get to know, and call "friend" (and mean it) persons from the four corners of the world - most of whom we'll never meet in person, but whose joys and sorrows we share and pray over.

There is nothing "byzantine" about us in that regard - it's as straightforward as one can be.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you for echoing my statement. We should follow each other more often. Dont tell me about it, tell our new friend about how welcome his input and perspective will be here. I already know all that. Our friend does not.

Pavel,

Actually, although Marduk is not a heavy volume poster, he has been here almost as long as you and longer than me (although I lurked long before I registered).

Many years,

Neil

Shlomo Mardukm,

As Irish Melkite pointed out a few non-Byzantine Christians do belong to this site. I as a Maronite do point out how we of the Antiochene Churches look at God. Welcome. Also do you go to St. Mary Coptic Catholic Church in L.A. I have been there.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Kristos Anesti!

Hello everyone. Thank you for all the kind responses and validations. The following are responses to particular questions. As usual, I have little time, so I am answering these off the top of my head, and I unfortunately don't have the time to go back and see whose question I am answering.

Personally, I pray the Agpeya every day, though I do abbreviate it. Many Copts abbreviate the Hours. The primary purpose of Agpeya is to inculcate a greater, prayerful spirituality, so no one should be forced to do it. But practice makes perfect after all and if I were not so busy with work, I would prefer praying ALL day and all night. I am not familiar with the "hour of Laying Aside of the Veil." Are you referring to "the prayer of the veil?" Monastics are the ones who pray it most regularly (I guess they have the time), but it is certainly encouraged to be done by the layperson.

When I was in California, I used to attend St. John's in Covina, though I have visited St. Mary's. There is also a St. Mary's Coptic Catholic Church in Los Angeles.

As far as my reference to "latinization" (or lack thereof), I was really only referring to theological matters that Orientals have always shared with the Westerns (and there are a lot that I think many do not care to admit or are simply unaware of). I recognize that there have been certain RECENT (I mean in relation to the 2000 yr. history of the Church)latinizations in practices and liturgical matters. And I fully support reacquiring Eastern/Oriental traditions. However, I do not believe latinizations are wrong (in a good vs. evil sense of "wrong"), only inappropriate.

As far as ecclesiology is concerned, I do not agree that we (Orientals) are dogmatically identical to the Easterns. I believe we are a middle ground between the Easterns and Westerns on this point. There is a thread on Primacy in Orthodoxy that I have not had a chance to look at. When I have time, I'll read it and participate if it is relevant to this issue (or I might start a new thread), and maybe we can continue our conversation on the issue in that thread.

As far as soteriology is concerned, I do not believe the Westerns have ever downplayed the role of theosis, at least not as much as the Easterns have downplayed the role of the Atonement. I admit that in my swim across the Tiber, I focused my reading on official documents on official teachings of the Latin Church. Perhaps the popular view is different (perhaps not), but I have never noticed any downplaying of theosis in official and dogmatic Western Catholic soteriological teaching - though there is a difference in language to describe and name it.

Until perhaps another week!

Blessings,
Marduk

Just wwowndering, have there been any Oriental Orthodox who have been received into the Greek Orthodox Church as groups? Stranage that the Greek Church does not have a "uniate" Oriental group?