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

Dear Brethren,

Does anyone know the history behind the differing titles, "Eastern Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox"? I have a good idea of why they are now used in preference to "Monophysite vs. Dyophysite" or "Greater vs. Lesser Orthodox" or "Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian" Orthodox Churches. But I am in a discussion with a friend who asked who it was that gave my Communion of Churches the title "Oriental" to differentiate us from the other Orthodox Churches who are called "Eastern Orthodox." Of course both titles means exactly the same thing, which is ironic. I have even read that this distinction in titles is hard to duplicate in other languages. But if anyone knows the "when" and "who" of where this came from, I'd appreciate your help.

Wm. DerGhazarian

To start things off, here is my defence to a fellow Armenian Orthodox of the word "Oriental" in referrence to our Communion of Churches:

Dear... ,

Considering you are a Doctor of Sociology (in California where there is a large Asian population) I appreciate where you are coming from in mentioning the negative connotations of the word "Oriental." But I am not really approaching this issue of Church titles from a sociological perspective but rather an ecclesiastical one. I.e., I don't think the most important question is "how will our society view our Church's title," but rather "what title is most appropriate and accurate in the framework of historic Christianity and ecumenical inter-relations."

Historically, the West has always been the Occident and the East the Orient. Like you, I take the terms, titles and language I use very seriously and always try to think through how I speak. Having said that, the word "Oriental" for me, has nothing but positive connotations and I am most thankful to be able to use it in reference to my Church.

In this country it is true, as it is with many words, that the Protestant majority has distorted the original meaning of the word "oriental," making it synonymous with "Asian." But historically (and more importantly ecclesiastically) this has never been the case. The "orient" has always meant the Near East and still does. I like using "Oriental" the correct way because such use serves as a corrective to erroneous ways of speaking. I'm not too shy to do that.

In the same vein I try to avoid referring to the Eastern Roman Orthodox as "Byzantine." This title was actually a fabrication coined by French writers a century or so ago and there is no historical precedent for it. In fact, there is no such thing as "Byzantine" Churches or culture. What is often called "Byzantine" was actually Roman (albeit, perhaps, of the Eastern variety). The late Greek Orthodox theologian and historian Fr. John Romanides argues this quite convincingly in his articles: (see "What if anything is a 'Byzantine'?" @ http://www.romanity.org/index.htm ) It is my understanding that our Armenian Church always referred to them as the "Rum" or Romans, whereas the so-called Roman Catholics have historically been known as "Latins" or "Franks."

Getting back to the word "Oriental" it has a fine pedigree of positive usage, e.g. in reference to rugs, as connoting something not only from distant lands but also as something of fine and exquisite quality. "Oriental," as you mentioned, indeed carries the additional connotation of "exotic" which, again, I like. Compared to the bland worship services of the West, our Orthodox worship is indeed beautiful and exotic. In mentioning this, I am reminded of St. Vladimir's emissaries who were sent by the king to find a new religion under which he could unite his kingdom. After attending the worship services of many of the world's great religions (including Latin Catholicism), they finally came to the Divine Services of Hagia Sophia at Constantinople. Their report to the king about their experience of Orthodox worship was, "We did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth!" This is what the word "Oriental" conveys to me. It is a guarantee to the inquirer that what they will find within our sacred Temple walls is indeed exotic and beautiful.

Yet there is even a more important reason for not avoiding the title "Oriental." The most important reason of all is that it directly relates to our Lord Himself. As the High Priest Zacharia prohesized in his prayer, the Benedictus, "...through the mercy of our God in which the Orient from on high hath visited us to enlighten them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death..." (St. Lk. 1:78). This is seen as a fulfillment of the prophecy of the Holy Prophet Zachariah who states in referrence to the coming Christ, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, saying: Behold a man, the Orient is his name..." Christ is this "man" and the "Orient from on high," as many of the Fathers have testified. Therefore the word "Orient" ("anatole" in Greek) can never be a bad word for Christians but rather a glorious one. In my insignificant opinion, it never should be shied away from. Of course, ecclesiastically the English word "Eastern," the Latin based "Oriental" mean the same thing. To me this underlines our unity of faith.

As for your idea of calling them "Chalcedonian" and ourselves "Nicean," this too is problematic. The problem is we both accept Nicea. For them to call us "Nicean" is tantamount to them admitting we are keeping to the true Nicean faith and they are not. That would never fly. Then there's always the "Greater - Lesser" titles which refer to our quantity of members. The problem with this title is that it seems to suggest one Church is greater in its Orthodoxy and the other is "lesser." :-)

"Oriental" and "Eastern" are the only current titles that I know of that are being used by all sides without much objection or offense being taken. I still think they are the best we have. I really appreciate your help again and am open to hearing any further thoughts you have on this.

trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar

Well, having grown up in an Armenian family and surrounded by Ethiopian Orthodox, I find nothing especially "exotic" about Oriental worship or things (tahn is just a salty smoothie, and a hookah is just a more delicious pipe), nor do I find "Western" worship especially bland by comparison, but I do know something about the use of the term.

Both "Eastern" and "Western" Europeans refered to us Near-Eastern types by virtue of our being from the "direction of the rising sun". In Latin-rooted languages that would be based on the word "oriens", and in Greek that would be "anatoli" (where the name Anatolia, the land of my family, comes from). Those terms were applied to us for most of recorded history in Europe, so far as I've seen, and we were "orientals" long before the Greeks and Slavs were "Eastern" (this is why Armenian and Persian rugs are called "oriental").

So my best guess would be that it began simply with us being called "the Oriental Churches", or the Greek equivalent, to go along with the fact that we were called Orientals and Anatolians by the Western and Eastern Romans respectively. The Ethiopians fall outside of the "oriental"/"anatolian" word application, but by virtue of being in Communion with the Armenians, Copts, Syriacs, et all, they are in the "Oriental" Communion.

I don't think there's a simple answer to "when, where, and how" since it's a very, very old descriptive term, and since both Greek and Latin applied the related terms to us (and in the case of the Greek, the term has survived even into modern usage in other languages). I'm more interested in when the term Orthodox began to be applied to the Oriental Churches by outsiders, since we were called Monophysites until very recently (and, in the case of the Armenians, Azymites by the Greeks in earlier centuries when that was a big issue for them). :p

As for why Eastern was used to describe Eastern Europeans, and Eastern Orthodox, I think the answer to that is simply in the English language itself. "East" is from the old Anglo language, and would easily have been used to describe the folks from the "far East" of Europe.

My guess is that with the mix of Latin-based French with the Old English language, the traditional Roman term (in this case Western Rome, with "oriental") continued to be applied to the folks who were traditionally regarded as "in the land of the rising sun" by the Roman Empire (and would be recorded as such in Latin), whereas East continued to refer to the folks that the English considered to be "eastern". It's just a matter of cultural framework, I'd imagine. You get two different words from two different global reference points, mix it into a single language, and you get the unique combination of "Eastern" and "Oriental" (or very Eastern, as it's often used :p )

Just my thoughts on the topic.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ghazar,

The term "Oriental" Christian Churches first emerged as a way for both RC's and Chalcedonian Orthodox to refer to the "Monophysites" in a less offensive way!

Certainly, "Eastern" and "Oriental" mean the same thing and this is reminiscent of the agreement between the then Catholic Archbishops of York and Canterbury in England on a single Primate.

They agreed their respective titles would be "Archbishop of York and England" and "Archbishop of Canterbury and ALL England."

The Ecumenical Commissions between the EO and OO also consistently used the title "Oriental Orthodox."

The title has really only been in use since the sixties in the West and it was unheard of among the Eastern Orthodox much before the ecumenical commissions got up and running.

To me, it is very surprising that the "Roman" Churches (Roman and Byzantine)haven't more widely adopted the correct name for the Oriental Churches that they use themselves - "Miaphysite."

But what can be expected from those Dyophysites?

Alex

Please, for those of us who don't understand these terms, please define them for us: Miaphysite, Monophysite (I think that means one will,) and Dyophysite.

The Traditional Latin Mass is certainly not bland, at least in my view! Though I certainly do not prefer it, neither is a well-done Novus Ordo, or any of the other Latin Rites (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc.) as far as I can tell.

Heck, Baptist worship isn't "bland." I think bland worship would be your average Presbyterian, Calvinist, low-church Methodist, Lutheran, and Anglican services. Other than that, I guess I don't see how the West is so "bland," comparatively speaking.

Logos Teen

Dear Ghosty,

On a personal note, you never replied to my last message (a few months ago). Thanks for taking a shot at my question. Your reply was interesting. I find it sad, though, that you do not recognize the exotic beauty of the Soorp Badarak in distinction to Western worship. Perhaps after all these years, your ears have become dull in hearing? Every Geeragee, I can not but recognize it. You think you know something about my use of the term? I seriously doubt it. But I bet I know what you think you know. Unfortunately you are barking up the wrong tree, again.

Dear Alex,

Everything that I have read has led me to the same conclusion. So, from the looks of things, it was most probably within the framework of the joint ecumenical commision that the title "OO" was coined. Thanks for the help.

Please, for those of us who don't understand these terms, please define them for us: Miaphysite, Monophysite (I think that means one will,) and Dyophysite.

Dr. Eric,

Here's a brief explanation:

Monophysite: Belief that Christ had one nature. The historic Churches which accepted the Council of Chalcedon used this title for those they anathematized. Eutyches believed that Christ's Humanity was swallowed up by His Divinity to such an extent that it would be like a drop of water in an ocean. Thus Christ could be said to only be of one Divine nature. This is Eutychian Monophysitism and all ancient Churches consider it heretical.

The historic Churches which rejected the Council of Chalcedon (aproxiamtely one third of the Catholic Church: the Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Indian and Ethiopian Churches) also confess one nature in Christ. But unlike Eutyches, they confessed that Christ has "one united nature," fully Divine and fully human.

The title "Miaphysite" is supposed to connote "oneness" out of a joining together, e.g. like God is "one" or man and woman become "one flesh" in Holy Matrimony. So when the so-called Orthodox monophysites said "one nature" they meant "one composite nature."

The title "Dyophysite" is what the Orthodox monophysites (who are relaly "miaphysites") called the other 2/3 of the Catholic Church which accepted Chalcedon: the Latin, Greek, Antiochene and Slavic Churches). The implication is that they taught two natures in Christ in such a way that they were flirting with Nestorianism. The language of Chalcedon was found unacceptable by a significant part of the Church and therefore is not considered Ecumenical by the Oriental Orthodox.

I have more background on this on my webpage and links to the joint agreements in which the above name Churches have finally found consensus:

http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/chalcedon.html

Dear Logos Teen,

I can agree with you that traditional Latin worship was not bland, but beautiful. But what goes on today in most Catholic Churches is extremely bland in my insignificant opinion. As for Baptist... there really is no comparison of their form of worship to that of Orthodox worship. To me, this would be like comparing a pop song to an opera. Protestant worship springs from the ideas and inspriation of a few reformers where the other comes from two millenia of developement and enrichment from some of the holiest monks, bishops and saints ever known. To me, there is no comparison.

Hmm, I thought I responded to your last message. :p

I don't check that e-mail regularily, so I'll go back and see what's up.

As for the Divine Liturgy, I never said I didn't find it beautiful. Quite the contrary! I've been to both Armenian and Ethiopian Divine Liturgies (for the Oriental Communion, and though my Ethiopian friends were quite perplexed at the phrase "Divine Liturgy"), and the Divine Liturgy in Russia, and they are amazingly beautiful.

There's a difference between "beatiful" and "exotic", however, though perhaps you aren't meaning it the way I'm hearing. In the way it's usually used to my understanding, it implies a foreign mystique, almost an element of fantasy. For me there's nothing exotic about the Divine Liturgy, nothing foreign. On the contrary, it is a familiar beauty. The Eucharist, the Presence of God, is the only thing that I could consider "exotic", and it is common to all such services. Even then it is home, whether it's in a Latin service in Seattle, or a Russian service in a small village in the Urals, and that home is the same God and His presence. Heck, the outside world is exotic by comparison :p

So it's incorrect to say that I'm not awed by the beauty, or that I'm numb to it, only that I don't find it to be exotic. I'm awed by the Divine Liturgy/Mass, but in the way that one is awed in the arms of a familiar lover, not an exotic dancer. It's the same Lover, God, in all cases.

As for bland, that's a matter of taste. While I dislike the way the Liturgy is done in some Latin churches in my area, I also know of many that do it quite beautifully. In fact, the most asthetically beatiful Divine Liturgy/Mass I've attended was at a Latin church in Bangkok; it was simply amazing, and showed that the Novus Ordo doesn't have to be dry. It led me to conclude that dryness, or blandness, has a lot more to do with the way the Latin Liturgy is upheld than it does with any innate "defects" in it. Unfortunately many people do seem to aim for and promote the defects, but I stay away from those parishes as much as possible; they are abusing the tradition, not representing it.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ghosty,

Yes the Latin Church's Mass and the Eastern Church's Divine Liturgies have in common many things. Most importantly they all spring from same supper Jesus shared with the twelve in the upper room, where He gave them His Body and Blood.

In fact when I was Latin-Roman Catholic, I used to hear this as a defence of the most hidious "celebrations" of the Mass: "well, at least Christ was there in Holy Communion." Well, I began to doubt even this, when I considered that some priests did not even believe in the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation.

But there is certainly a difference in style of how East and West celebrate their Services. Its unmistakable. In fact even a devoted and learned, older Latin Catholic friend I knew pointed this out to me once. He was actually attempting to brag that his Church's style was better. He noted how his Church's Mass was not as ornate as that of the East. That it had more of a Divine simplicity. Well to me, after experiencing the Services of the East, Western Services are bland. Yes Christ is there, (I never questioned that). Obviously some people prefer that lack of ornate-ness. To each there own. By the way, no mention of the Novus Ordo debate ever entered my end of the discussion. I'm not interested in that issue one bit.

The point that you don't find the Divine Liturgy exotic, doesn't alter my original point any way. My point was, to the West Oriental Orthodox worship is exotic. That's a well known fact. Heck to many Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox services are exotic and respected for their antiquity. Again, to the west the Divine Liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox do carry an "other world-liness" and indeed a "foreign mystique."

How you could bring up an exotic dancer in this discussion is beyond me. I don't call them that anyway. To me they are simply strippers. Nothing exotic there. Of course I wouldn't describe the Holy Sacrifice as exotic in that cheap sense, come on.

If that's the case then I find your questioning of my response puzzling, since I was merely prefacing the post of my thoughts about the term "oriental" with the fact that I couldn't speak on the "exotic" aspect, having been raised knee-deep in it.

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. I simply wanted to point out that I was never questioning the beauty, only indicating that "exotic" had no place in it for me; bringing up an exotic dancer was simply a play on words to show that "exotic" and beauty do not necessarily go hand in hand. It does touch on one way in which "exotic" can become demeaning, however, though that's not my point or interest here, since the question is whether or not Oriental is favorable.

If non-Armenians find our things exotic then that's for them to speak on; I can no more think of such things as "exotic" as I can my shower and bathtub, which is quite exotic to my friends in Thailand. Of course there are obvious differences in modern Western worship and traditional Armenian, or Eastern in general, worship, but I can't really use "exotic" myself to describe any of them for the reasons I stated above.

Peace and God bless!

Why do Americans call a region the Middle East (frequently Mid East) and British break the same area into 2 and call one part the Near East and the other part the Middle East. Why did (not sure they still do) did All Indian Radio refer to the same area as West Asia. The labels are meant to help sort out who the author is referring to. They are not meant to be set in concrete definitions that tell all.

In my country Asian has come to mean people of south east and eastern appearance. It has just developed that way. I frequently remind people that geographically Asia starts at the suez canal and includes most of Russia. It's seems to be about what developes as a commonly understood point of reference. They all neeed further clarifications.

I think one of the more accurate geographic subdivision of the globe would be to begin with the 5 continents: Europe, America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania.

For Asia, this is how most cartographers and modern media further subdivide this continent into these regions with their corresponding constituent countries/territories:

Central Asia:

Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

East Asia:

China
Hong Kong
Japan
Macau
North Korea
South Korea
Taiwan

Middle East:

Bahrain
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

North Asia:

Mongolia
Russia

South Asia:

Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka

South East Asia:

Brunei
Cambodia
East Timor
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam

South West Asia:

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Georgia

Geopolitically, however, part of Russia is designated as Eastern Europe and the Middle East includes Egypt and, sometimes, Libya. Also, the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh area is sometimes designated as South West Asia.

Interesting!

Amado

BTW, to us Asians who were "conquered" by the Japanese armies during World War II, "the land of the rising sun" refers only to Japan!