(We could, of course, just continue to use the terminology sanctioned by the tradition of the Fathers, and just call them “Monophysites.” The Fathers probably knew better what they were talking about than our contemporary theologians and dialogians.)

In any event, terminology is mainly (though not exclusively) a function of convention. Yes, Eastern and Oriental have the same literal meaning, though even outside ecclesiastical settings, their senses in English differ. (No one would say I live in “Oriental Pennsylvania,” for instance.) Likewise, the church whom we conventionally refer to as Roman Catholic should by Orthodox standards yield up its name for our own exclusive use. (Indeed, in the Middle East, Orthodox Christians are referred to in Arabic and Turkish as “Romans.”)

But in the end, one must communicate, and one often fails to do so by ideologically avoiding the common terminology, even if its literal meanings are imprecise or even controversial. Believe you me, I love precision in language—I got my undergraduate degree in English literature. But the beauty of our language also requires that we not walk around saying “those churches which are in communion following the Council of Chalcedon and are generally found among the Copts, Armenians, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean and Indian peoples” too often, lest one inspire the eyes of one’s listeners gently (or perhaps none too gently) to roll back into their heads as we teeter over the precipice of soporific irrelevance, something public speakers do alarmingly often.

I am of the opinion that the Christology of the Non-Chaledonians is not Orthodox, but agree with you on the usefulness of including information about them on this blog.
One problem I still have, though, is the use of the term “Oriental Orthodox” to designate them. It is a euphemism, so to speak, since “Eastern” and “Oriental” mean precisely the same thing (just from Germanic and Latin roots, respectively). It also basically accepts the results of the theological dialogue thus far, i.e. that our Christologies are the same. As mentioned already, I think this conclusion to be in error, and in any case to be premature. If one is to leave the question open, at least for the sake of discussion and inquiry, as you seem to be trying to do in your article here, it makes more sense to consistently use a neutral term, such as Non-Chalcedonian. It is, of course, a vague term (technically the Church of the East, i.e. Nestorians, is also non-Chalcedonian!) but is less offensive than the more precise “Monophysite.”

(I personally prefer the latter term, because it precisely points out the problem with their Christology that should not be swept under the rug, but I’m willing to avoid it in certain scholarly contexts such as this blog.)

In Christ,
Nick Marinides

As an example, I’ve had too many arguments with EO about the OO canonization of Eutyches, or rather the lack thereof: the OO anathematized Eutyches. But many EO, particularly those who have insularity problems of their own with “world Orthodoxy” prefer the OO of polemics, rather the actual OO believers and what they believe.

On this, a history of Orthodoxy in America will play a large role, as, unlike most of the “Mother Churches,” both EO and OO, herein the “diaspora”both EO and OO are in the same boat as far as American society is concerned, and live side by side.