www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "Oriental" & "Eastern" Orthodox

I thought about that as I was reading up on the definitions of anatoli and oriens, actually. What I think is so interesting is that the same phrase is used to describe "East" in so many languages. Kinda cool, but it makes you wonder if the Americas are the "land of the Rising Sun" to the Japanese :p

Ghosty wrote:
"You then expressed disappointment that I didn't find my own life "exotic", openly pairing the term with beauty, and then questioning if my ears had become dulled to it."

This is because your explanation sounded to me as if you meant to contradict what I wrote, viz. that Oriental Worship is exotic to Westerners, simply becuase you were raised in it. Then it dawned on me, my original point was that it was exotic to western ears and your own experience really had nothing to do with this. Sorry for the confustion, but I'm not sure what your point was in stating what you did.

As for your example of the use of "exotic," of course any good thing or word can be twisted. This is not news to me.

May Christ's Light Illuminate us both,
Ghazar

To their eternal regret, especially to those Japanese bomber pilots, America was "a sleeping giant," after they obliterated stealthily almost the entire U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. :p

Amado

P.S. In turn, the Philippines calls herself as the "Pearl of the Orient Seas!"

Ghazar: I wasn't trying to contradict you, just pointing out that I couldn't comment on that aspect of your statements because it's not exotic to me

I mentioned that so that everyone would know that I wasn't able to address that part of the use "Oriental", instead focusing more on the origin of the word-usage and concept from the Roman Empire, East and West.

Peace and God bless!

You forgot what the British call "the Far east". Your list is perfect example of what this topic is all about. Your list of labels of the parts of the world does not match other peoples/cultural views of how the world looks or is labeled. It might be similar in part howeve and thats ok. I would not regard any territory that was no in the Raj as South Asia. So Afghanistan is Central Asia and the Caucaus republic cant be south west and that is not where they are in my mind. I think of exotic as part of the whole concept of orientalism, those place were most people had no idea of, yet thought that they were wonderful places they would like to see if only they could. I would not get too caught up in it all as in my view they are only aids in helping people relate to what is being discussed. A person might not consider their world exotic but it is to someone else. In the end who really cares.

Indeed! I think a lot of Americans especially would be suprised to find out what things we take for granted are exotic in other places. Fast-food is a great example of this, in my experience.

Exotic is definately not something people should be upset about; everything is exotic to those who don't experience it regularily.

Another good example for Americans is coffee. We take coffee for granted, but for our European cultural ancestors it was so foreign and exotic that it was even considered a threat. It shows that even what a culture considers exotic can change with exposure.

I must say that I get a chuckle at the fact that our (Armenian) Liturgy might be considered exotic to many Westerners, but our madzoon (yogurt) is a daily snack

Peace and God bless!

Ok, this is getting silly. You guys are missing the original point. The person I was discussing the word "Oriental" with thought it was a terrible name for our Churches because, among other things, "Oriental" as a word often connotes exoticness. My point was that it was a good word and if people thought of our Church and Liturgy as exotic, this didn't have to be a negative thing. Being considered exotic could be a very good thing.

Whether you all think this or that is exotic doesn't matter in relation to this thread. It was a discussion of where the word "Oriental" came from in reference to our Church and whether or not it was a good and accurate description.

Sorry if this wasn't clear from the beginning.

I thought the point was to ask where the term Oriental originated with regards to our Churches. I think the only thing people took exception to in your argument was calling Western practice "bland by comparison".

Since we as a people were called Orientals (and its varients) long before it came to connote "exotic", I didn't think it really figured in to the use of the term.

Peace and God bless!

Still confused, eh? I don't know if I can say it any clearer than I did in the last post, when I wrote that the point of the thread...

"was a discussion of where the word 'Oriental' came from in reference to our Church and whether or not it was a good and accurate description."

That's pretty cut and dry, I think. I also have explained as clearly as I humanly can how the discussion about the word "exotic" got into this:

"The person I was discussing the word 'Oriental' with thought it was a terrible name for our Churches because, among other things, 'Oriental' as a word often connotes exoticness. My point was that it was a good word and if people thought of our Church and Liturgy as exotic, this didn't have to be a negative thing. Being considered exotic could be a very good thing."

I am afraid I can't explain it any better than this. If this still is confusing to you, then please just disregard this thread. I got my answer and don't have any more time to spend on this.

As for the blandness of Western worship, in comparison to Orthodox worship, I still think this is true. This isn't a resutl of my Armenian bias at work because I recognized this even as a Roman Catholic. Some prefer that style of worship and that's just fine with me.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Ghazar: I don't think anyone is upset with discussion of the Divine Liturgy being seen as exotic by those unfamiliar with it. It's a perfectly normal and natural thing

In my last post I was just indicating what I had thought the question was about, and why I answered the way I did.

Peace and God bless!

Here is another reply on the question of what we Oriental Orthodox should be called. The deacon I am discussing this with likes "Nicean Orthodox" and finds "Oriental Orthodox" unnacceptable.

Dear Sargavak (Arm. for Deacon),

I agree with your assesment. "Oriental Orthodox" is a new term invented for conveinence's sake and for ecumenical relations. The fact is, in the U.S. the Eastern Roman Orthodox (a.k.a. "Byzantines") had the title "Eastern Orthodox" first. But if we want to appeal to Tradition, then I don't think "Eastern Orthodox" nor "Ancient Orthodox" nor "Nicean Orthodox" will fit the bill either. We would have to be called "Orthodox Churches" or the "Apostolic Catholic Holy Church." Incidently, there are many Eastern Roman Orthodox who are very unhappy that their Church is not known as the "Catholic Church." Rather than being known as the "Orthodox Church," they believe they are the true Catholic Church and should insist on being called this. Many of their clergy while sympathizing with them acknowlege that a title is used to help people know who you are. If they all started putting "St. Vladimir's Catholic Church" on their signs, then people in this country would think they were in Communion with the Pope of Rome. Therefore they compromise and use "Orthodox Church" instead. So, I guess I am saying while there are probably more accurate, descriptive titles... in this country "Eastern and Oriental" seem to be the ones that are accepted by most people involved with our Churches (on all sides). Although there might be better titles, I think there could be much worse. So I don't mind them. But if you want to start a movement to end the usage of "Oriental Orthodox," I wouldn't mind. :-)

Yet "Eastern" and "Oriental" are indeed synonymous. The qoute you provided only differentiated between them because of the Communions they are attached too. In other words "Eastern" Orthodox are different from "Oriental" Orthodox becuase the former refers to those in Communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the latter those which rejected the Council of Chalcedon.

We are two families of Orthodox. Most all can agree on this much. I don't think they would call us "Nicean Orthodox" anymore than we would be willing to call them Nicean Orthodox. Besides Nicea was not a controversial Council between us. We are all agree on that Council. If we wanted to make a point to them, we should insist on being called "Ephesian Orthodox," thus indicating that we stayed true to the Council of Ephesus and the teaching of St. Kyril, both of which they deviated from at Chalcedon. Perhaps a happier solution could be found by calling them (as I do) "Eastern Roman Orthodox" since they represent the Imperial Churches of the Roman Empire and perhaps we as the "Near Eastern Orthodox" since our Churches are located mostly in the Near East. But, alas, that would leave our Indian Orthodox brethren out. :-( Then we would have to be the "Near and Far Eastern Orthodox." That way people know us coming and going. :-)

Interested in any further thoughts you have on this,
Wm. Ghazar

Dear Ghazar,

I think that one of the most important aspects of the witness of the Oriental Orthodox Churches is the way they witness to the continual condemnation of Nestorianism - even up to the present day.

Nestorianism is an ongoing temptation among Christians (I understand there are "Assyrian Orthodox" who are Assyrians that belong to the Oriental Orthodox family?).

One might argue that one of the root causes for the problems in Western Christianity is the series of doctrinal and moral attitudes that spring from a quite Nestorian outlook on Christ.

Alex

Thanks for mentioning this Alexander, my brother. The fact is that "the orthodox Persians submitted a report to the Catholicos Babgen of Armenia, that the 'Nestorians of Persia were strenghtened by the attitude of the bishops of Chalcedon'. These Nestorians, then regarded the Chalcedonian defintion as the vindication of their own teaching, exactly in the same way as Nestorius himself considered Pope Leo his worthy and illustrious defender and torchbearer according to his own statement in his book which is called 'Bazaar.' (Armenian Church Historical Studies, Tiran Nersoyan, p.130). This is not to mention that it is said that Nestorius died in full Communion with the See of Rome. Nestorianism was stregthened by the language of the Chalcedonian formula and this has a lot to do with why our Churches objected to it.

Actually, in the same essay quoted above by the late Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan (probably the premier Armenian Orthodox Theologian of the 20th cent.), he states, "It must not be forgotten that the Church in Byzantium and to a lesser extent that of Rome retreated a long distance from the point where Chalcedon had stood. Justinian's Council of 553 and the acceptance of the Scythian forumula that 'one of the Trinity suffered on the cross' are landmarks in this retreat, for which credit is due to the perseverence of [the Oriental Orthodox]" (Armenian Church Historical Studies, 132). Rome is mentioned "to a lesser extent" because she resisted the direction of this Council. All of this might be seen to corroborate what you have written above.

I have not heard of them by this name. I know the Armenian Church was extremely close to Edessa and Nisibis as great Christian centers. Their loss was felt by the Armenian Church. What happened to the Orthodox members of these Churches? I've wondered about this question myself.

Getting back to the original question, I have wondered about this myself. I believe that in latin languages one cannot translate the two terms seperately. In portuguese you definately cannot.