The medieval Frankish civilization*
was destroyed, by Europe's scientific, economic,
social, political and philosophical awakening.
Romanity
however, was not only unharmed, but was
actually reinforced by this awakening of Europe, and
later of America and
Russia.
Neo-Greeklings
not only cannot perceive the above; rather, they are
angered when they do hear such a comment, because
their basic dogma is that light can be found only in
Europe or America or
Russia. In fact, they
believe that only the Greeks who accept this idea
can become enlightened.
Whereas a
Roman can distinguish between the scientific
progress of Europeans, Americans and
Russians and
their religion and their atheism, and willingly
emulates their scientific progress only, a
Greekling
will emulate them in everything. The reason
for this is because a
Greekling confuses the
foreigners' scientific progress with their religious
or atheistic convictions, and regards them as
peoples that are "progressive" in everything.
Albeit a
Roman cannot fathom the historical and scientific
explanation of his sentiments, nevertheless, he can
clearly distinguish between religion and scientific
progress and is personally sure that he is in
possession of the religious truth - even though he
is learning the truth of positive sciences from
people of other religions (who however do not
possess the religious truth).
A
Greekling on the contrary has the conviction that whoever
possesses the truths of the positive sciences also
possesses the truths of religion or of atheism.
As regards theology and philosophy,
a Roman is a true-blue
Roman while a
Greekling is a
true-blue Franko-Greek, given that both represent
the traditions of the Frankish civilization* and of
Romanity,
which have their roots in the Medieval era
- albeit neither of them are specialists who have
become familiarized with the theological and
philosophical differences between the two.
As
noted earlier in the previous chapter, the
Roman
Fathers taught out of their personal experience of
theosis - of theopty (the "sighting" of God) - that
there is no similarity whatsoever between God and
creations, even though all creations were created by
God and are dependent on God. This means that
the truth pertaining to God and the truth pertaining
to the nature of the universe do not relate to each
other, although one of them is dependent on the
other. One who has "sighted" God knows God. A
philosopher or a scientist examines creations.
Neither the philosopher nor the scientist can have
the knowledge of God that a prophet, an apostle and
saint with "theopty" (the "sighting" of
God) has, given that God does not
resemble any of the things that they examine through
their scientific or philosophical imaginings.
On the contrary, one who has theopty (the "sighting"
of God) can be -or
become- a scientist, but not through theopty (the
"sighting" of God); he will
know how to prepare people for theopty (the
"sighting" of God). The
scientist will know how to teach his scientific
method to his students; the one who has theopty (the
"sighting" of God) may
become acquainted with the method of researching
natural phenomena, but not through theopty (the
"sighting" of God) - only
through the scientist. Likewise, a scientist can
attain theopty (the "sighting" of God), but not through his science - only
through the one who has attained theopty (the
"sighting" of God). The
one who has theopty (the "sighting" of God) can be literate or illiterate in
matters that pertain to the world; a scientist can
be literate or illiterate in matters that pertain to
God.
The one who
has attained theopty
(the "sighting" of God) is divinely inspired, and
speaks of God without delusion, and leads others
towards God unerringly, but he is not infallible
in matters pertaining to the positive or other
sciences - matters that he can only know as much as
his contemporary scientists know.
A scientist however may confuse his findings that
pertain to the nature of the world with his views on God
and utter irresponsible things; but this is nothing more
than his philosophizing, inasmuch as he has veered away
from his scientific methodology.
Similarly, a "theologian" can assert scientific
nonsense, but he too will only be philosophizing,
inasmuch as he will have veered away from the strict
theological method followed by those who have attained
theopty
(the "sighting" of God).
The Fathers of the Church had approximately the same
disregard towards philosophy - as observed nowadays in
the positive sciences. It was precisely because
they knew that there is no similarity whatsoever between
God and the world, that they recognized as the only
unerring bridge towards the knowledge of God the
prophet, Apostle and Saint who possessed theopty (the
"sighting" of God) - and
NEVER the imagination of a philosopher. In other
words, the theology of
Romanity was based entirely on
the experience of theosis, or the theopty (the
"sighting" of God) of the
deified. It is precisely in this detail that the
amazing unity and uniformity can be
discerned in the theology of the Fathers of
Romanity.
Those who have the same experience of God also have the
same Theology, and they do not confuse it with the
fantasies of philosophers and the knowledge that
pertains to the nature of the world.
Thus,
Romanity is not in the least affected by
contemporary scientific progress; on the contrary it is
fortified, given that its steadfast Historical views
regarding the nonexistence of philosophical metaphysical
systems have proved to be true.
However,
because the Frankish civilization*
got carried away by Augustine, it came to accept Plato
as the bearer of the basic truth of Christianity.
When Plato in the 13th century Frankish era succumbed to
Aristotle (who had been introduced by the Arabs of
Spain), Frankish theology underwent a certain
readjustment in order to survive.
However, with the advent of every new
philosophical current, the Frankish civilization*
was compelled to defend itself, by supporting its
Aristotelian foundations. This combination of Frankish
theology and Aristotle went downhill from the 14th
century and it became a mockery when the Frankish
theologians used Aristotle's authority to prove the
findings of Copernicus (1473-1543), of Giordano Bruno (1548 -
1600), Galileo (1564 - 1642)
etc. as erroneous. In
fact, Bruno was condemned
to death on the pyre
by the Frankish church in Rome, because he dared to
disagree philosophically and scientifically with
Aristotle, and among other things, to agree with
Copernicus that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and
that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.
Galileo escaped a similar death penalty, because he
cowered, then declared repentance and reneged on
Copernicus' theories - even though he had proven them
correct, through the telescopes that he himself
had constructed and improved.
At the root of the problem regarding
the relations between the ecclesiastic dogma and
scientific truth in the Frankish civilization*
was the illiterate Medieval Franks' naive identification
of the truth pertaining to God to the groundless
metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle and their perception
of nature. In other words, they believed - like the
philosophers - that the truth pertaining to natural
phenomena and the truth pertaining to God are one,
uniform truth, so that through Nature's truths, one can
be led to the truths regarding the essence of God.
All the above, combined with a naive theory that God
actually dictated the words of the Holy Bible in the
languages that were supposedly created by Him (see for
example Dante
**),
and also a mythical world theory about "Hell" and
"Purgatory" existing below the surface of the earth and
a "Paradise" in the sky (again, see Dante
***),
they rendered the Frankish civilization*
a mockery, in the face of the consecutive findings of
the positive and historical sciences.
Finally, the empirical gnosiology of the Enlightenment
as well as the theory regarding the evolution of the
species gave the final blows to the Latin and Protestant
theology of the past, thus bringing down ignominiously
the bases of the old European perceptions regarding law,
ethics and truth. The tragic fact is that, those
who are no longer familiar with
Romanity
and who also confuse Orthodoxy with the religious
traditions of Europeans, have the impression that
whatever applies (in favour or against) European
Christianity also applies (in favour or against)
Orthodoxy. This is also reinforced by the fact
that the Neo-Greeks' theology (like everything else of
the Neo-Greeks) is borrowed, or is taken directly from
Europe or through Frank-influenced
Russians. The
reality is that the exact opposite is true.
Notes
*
Frankish civilization
-
When Fr.John says "Frankish civilization", he means the
western civilization that was the outcome of the
founding of
Charlemagne's Frankish Empire the way that
it developed, as opposed to the western Roman
civilization that pre-existed. He does not imply (only)
the Franks, because a variety of peoples were
significant parts of the Empire. As for the
distinction between
Romanity
and the Frankish civilization, it is neither a
geographical distinction (i.e., East - West); it is a
distinction between different traditions. One can
quite easily be an indigenous citizen of the West and be
a carrier of
Romanity and likewise, one can reside in the
Orthodox East but be the bearer of the Western
(Frankish) theological tradition. It is in this
context that we should perceive Fr.John's terminology.
**
De
Vulgari Eloquentia, I, 6. See
the Roman Fathers' views on my work: "Dogmatic
and Symbolic Theology",
Thessaloniki 1973, pp.168-185.