1. The Task Before Us and the Four Keys
to This Study
 There
is no way of dealing with the reality of the Orthodox Church today
except in terms of the Franco-Latin falsification of the history of the
Roman Empire. That this is the only route to follow is clear from the
fact that the dogmas and canons of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils
were, from 325 AD to 1341 A.D., incorporated into Roman Law. To get at
this reality we are obliged to deal with the falsification of this
historical reality by the Franco-Latins since the time of Charlemagne on
the one hand and by the Russians since Peter the Great on the other
hand. These turns of historical events are simply the transformation of
entire segments of the Church from being centers of the cure of the
sickness of religion into missions for the spread of the sickness of
religion.
John
17 is the par excellence prayer of Christ for the unity of His disciples
and their disciples in the cure of the sickness of religion by means of
their glorification by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit which is
the culmination of the purification and illumination of the centers of
their personalities in their hearts. This
prayer of the Lord of Glory has nothing whatsoever to do with divided
Churches which have not the slightest inkling of the cure of
glorification in question.
Most
Christians, Jews and Moslems who live in or derive from the former
territories of the Roman Empire have Roman ancestry. In contrast the
Franco-Latin royalty and nobility came into the Roman Empire as
conquerors of the West Romans whom they transformed into their serfs and
villains and their middle class. The descendants of these conquerors are
on the whole the royalties and nobilities of Europe. In
other words those West Europeans who are not members of these royalties
and nobilities are at least mostly Romans.
Most
Arabs and Turks came into Roman territories as Moslem conquerors and
also converted many Romans to Islam. Romans had no choice when
Franco-Latin nobility and bishops were forced upon them and forcefully
transformed them into their serfs and villains. This was part of the
process of being converted to Frankish Christianity which forcefully
took over the Roman Orthodox Church of Elder Rome and her Papacy between
1009 and 1046. In sharp contrast to this Franco-Latin treatment of Roman
society, both Arab and Turkish conquerors did not transform Romans into
their slaves. On the contrary they appointed the Roman clergy as leaders
of Roman society which became a very important source of taxes. Of
the five Roman Patriarchates of the Roman Empire, i.e. 1) Elder Rome, 2)
Constantinople New Rome, 3) Alexandria, 4) Antioch and 5) Jerusalem,
that of Elder Rome was now
Frankish. Being Franco-Latin since 1046 the Papacy and its
bishops continued to call themselves "Roman" Catholics. In this way they
have been playing at being a "Roman" Papacy and Church since. During
this time they reduced most of their conquered Romans to slavery and
kept the free East Romans from Western view under the cover of names
like "Greek" and "heretic." This means that the re-union of all the
descendants of the Romans throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, North and
South America, Australia and New Zealand in their ancient Roman identity
and their Roman Orthodox Faith is the task before us. Let us take a
careful look at the keys to this divine project.
This
re-union of the Roman Orthodox world is at the same time each one's cure
of the sickness of religion and is at the same time the power which will
slam down the brakes on the happiness-mongering fiends who are
destroying society and nature.
The
keys to this study are the following:
Key
One, The primitive Greek Romans.
Key
Two, The Christian Romans.
Key
Three, The Struggle between Romans and Carolingian Franks.
Key
Four, the Biblical foundation of the cure of the neurobiological
sickness of religion, especially based on 1 Cor. 12-15:11.
We
will not deal with these parts in consecutive order. The reason for this
is that the vision of history of both the pagan Romans and Christian
Romans has been so adulterated by Franco-Latin propaganda that we are
obliged at times to mix these parts together.
: The Primitive
Greek Romans and the First Roman Historians wrote
in Greek, Not in Latin. Why?
The
very existence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely
abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne's Lie of 794
which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and
is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which
describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that
Charlemagne's Lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off
West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins from the free East Romans.
Frankish Emperor Louis II (855-875) clearly supports Charlemagne's Lie
of 794 with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the
Romans Basil I (867-885) that "we have received the government of the
Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of
the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city (of
Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman
nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another
capital city and taken up a completely different nationality and
language."[ 3 ]
Let
us contrast this Frankish nonsense with historical reality and the
process by which Rome became the Empire of the whole Greek-speaking
world. The primitive Greek Romans were the result of the union of the
Greek-speaking tribes of Italy. These Greek tribes are the following:
The Aborigines who
came to the area of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the
Trojan War.[ 4 ] These
Aborigines had already accepted into their tribe what was left of the
Greek Pelasgians of
Italy who had been decimated by a mysterious sickness.[ 5 ] These
Aborigines united with some Trojans who
migrated to their land and together they became the ancient
Greek-speaking Latins whose
capital was Alba Longa. A branch of these Greek-speaking Latins of Alba
Longa, led by the brothers Romulus and Romus, founded Rome on the
Palatine and Capitoline Hills. They were joined by some of the Greek Sabines of
Italy who had been settled on the adjacent Quirinal
Hill. The Sabines had
migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia in
Southern Greece.[ 6 ] The
Romans continued the process of subduing and including the rest of the
Greek Latins and Sabines into their political system. Some of the
Danubian Celts entered Northern Italy and began pressing upon the
Etruscans who turned to Rome for help. But these Celts overran the Roman
forces who tried to stop them and drove down toward Rome and defeated
the main Roman army in battle and entered Rome in 390 BC. They occupied
the whole of the city except the steep Capitoline Hill. The Romans had
placed there all of their youth, treasures and records. The older
population remained in their homes. After receiving a substantial ransom
of gold the Celts withdrew. In order to better protect themselves the
Romans subdued the rest of Northern Italy. The Romans also incorporated
into their dominion Italian Magna
Graecia,Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica This
was the extent of Roman territories in 218 BC. The Punic Wars under the
leadership of Hamilcar and especially of Hannibal, became the biggest
threat to Rome since the Celtic occupation. Hannibal invaded Italy
itself with his famous elephants and with Macedon as an ally. Macedon
had conquered Rome's traditional Greek allies. Rome went as far as Spain
to uproot Punic strongholds there and finally conquered Carthage itself.
The Romans had crossed over into Greece to protect her Greek friends
from Macedon and ended up conquering the Macedonian Empire and
incorporating it into the Roman Empire. Rome also came to the aid of her
Galatian and Cappadocian allies by liberating them from King Mithridates
VI of Pontus (121/120-63 BC). In this way the Mediterranean Sea became
the central lake of the Roman Empire.
The
first four Roman annalists wrote in Greek. They were Quintus
Fabius Pictor, Lucius Cincius Alimentus, Gaius Acilius and Aulus
Postumius Albinus.
As
we will see, the first text in primitive Latin was the Code of the
Twelve Tables promulgated in 450 BC solely for the plebs. The Greek
gentis abided by their own secrete laws. This is why the tradition of
Roman public laws in Latin resulted from the cooperation between the
consuls of the gentis and the tribunes of the plebs. In time so many of
the plebs had become fluent in Greek that they became part of the
administration of the Greek-speaking provinces. Indeed, according to
Cicero one of the first Romans who wrote in Latin prose was the Sabine
Claudius, Appius Caecus who
was consul in 307 and 296 BC. He delivered a speech in Latin to the
Senate against making peace with Pyrrhus, the king of Macedon. The first
historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius
Cato (234-140 BC) and Lucius
Cassius Hemina (circa 146
BC). So what language were the Romans speaking and writing before this
except Greek?
All
the above agree with each other on the general outline of Roman
beginnings. The reason for this is that they based themselves on the
official Roman sacred annals (hierais deltois)[ 7 ] which
the first historians simply repeated. In other words they were
themselves annalists. However, little is preserved from these annals
except as repeated in the Roman historians. But, not much of their works
survive, or else may be hidden to facilitate Charlemagne's Lie. The
danger of these histories is demonstrated by the use of Cato during the
French Revolution. The Gallo-Romans realized from him that Romans and
Greeks are basically the same people. In spite of this only fragments of
Cato are publicly known. But since Dionysius of Halicarnassus used the
same annals as the aforementioned Roman historians one must use
Dionysius to reconstruct these lost or hidden sources. Dionysius makes
clear distinction between Greek historians who do not use Roman annals
and the Roman historians (and himself) who do. The trick used by some
historians, who want to efface the Greek foundations of Roman history,
is to mix the hearsay Greek tradition about Rome and the three Roman
variations on the tradition about the founding of Rome found in their
own annals[ 8 ] and
then to heap ridicule on the mixture they themselves create.
Only
a short, but accurate summary account of the foundation annals are
reported in Livy. Evidently this is so because he wrote his history in
Latin, whereas the annals were evidently in Greek. Those who wrote in
Greek simply copied what they read in Greek. It was the annalistic
history of Hemena which laid the foundations for writing Roman history
in Latin. Evidently, however, he and his imitators did not make full use
of all the Greek texts, like speeches, at their disposal. Whereas those
who wrote their histories in Greek simply copied the Greek texts
directly from the annals. Since the primitive Romans were Greeks why
should the official annals be in what we now call Latin. The primitive
Latins and Romans were a mixture of Greek Arcadians, Trojans, Pelasgians
and Lacedaemonian Sabines.
: The Judaio-Christian
Romans
Judaism
began spreading itself throughout the Hellenistic world becoming the
breeding ground of early Christianity within the Roman Empire. Orthodox
Christianity took roots within Judaism to finally become the official
religion of the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine the Great
(306-333). This act of Emperor Constantine created an intense reaction
among the pagan Romans because of their identity as a Greek
Civilization. Thus began the controversy between Greek Romans
and Christian Romans.
From this time on the name "Greek" came to mean pagan right
up to the Hellenic
Revolution of 1821 which
was carefully planned by the British, French and Russian Empires.
: The Cure of the
Sickness of Religion
From
the viewpoint of the cure of the sickness of religion there was an
identity between 1) those Jews who followed Christ and 2) the convert
Roman and Greek Christians who joined the practice of the cure of the
sickness of religion.[ 9 ] We
will first deal with the cure of the neurobiological sickness of
religion by comparing it with Augustine's reintroduction of a
Neo-Platonic form of this sickness of religion into all the traditions
which have followed him, especially that of the Medieval tradition of
the Franco-Latins and that of most Protestants. Then we will return to
this cure again to show how it flows out of St. Paul's epistles,
especially in 1 Cor. 12-15:11.
: The Struggle
between Romans and Carolingian Franks
We
begin at this Key Four in order to lay the foundation of this study by
beginning with this struggle between the Carolingian Franks and Romans
which began in earnest during the 8th and 9th centuries. This finally
resulted in 1) the capture of the Roman Papacy by the Franco-Latins
between 1009-1046 and 2) in a tremendous dose of Carolingian anti-Roman
propaganda in the fields of Church, political and ethnic history because
these Franks used everything at their disposal to not only subdue the
Roman nation but also to drive it into non-existence.
2. Those
who hate Romans call themselves Romans. Why?
The
Franco-Latin Popes took over the Papacy definitively during a struggle
which began in 983 and was consummated in 1046.[ 10] They
even called themselves Roman Popes in order to fool their West Roman
slaves into believing that they still have a Roman Pope. But the reality
of the matter is that these Franco-Latins,
who played and are still playing the part of Roman Popes and Roman
Church leaders, had in reality an intense hatred for their Roman slaves
in Western Europe and the free Romans and their real Roman Emperor in
New Rome. This hatred is described as follows by the Lombard bishop of
Cremona Luitprand (922-972) who was involved in the movement to get rid
of the real Roman Popes and replace them by force with mostly Tuscano-Franks
and Lombards who became the main sharers of the Franco-Latin "Papal
dignity" since.
Luitprand
writes, "We Lombards, Saxons (of Germany), Franks, Lotharingians,
Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt (for Romans and
their emperors) that when we become enraged with our enemies, we
pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romani), this alone, i.e.
the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning:
whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed,
whatever evil."[ 11 ]
Here
Luitprand knows very well that he is not writing to "Greeks" in
the East, but to Romans in
the East. However, this same Luitprand, like all Franco-Latins since 794,
have been telling their West Roman "serfs" and "villains" that there are
no Romans, nor Roman Emperors, in the East, but only a bunch of "Greek
heretics."
This
is the background of the 19th and 20th century Russian, British and
French policies of converting the whole Western part of the Ottoman
Empire, called Romania or Rumeli (i.e.
Land of the Romans) into such nations as Hellenes, Serbians, Bulgarians,
Rumanians, Albanians and even Slavic Macedonians. Is the partition of
Cyprus between Turks and Romans (who began calling themselves Hellenes
in order to unite with Hellas) part of this plan or maybe part of
another plan?
All
the above has been done in spite of the fact that the primitive language
of the ancient Romans was Greek, as we will see. The Russians, French
and British paid special attention to destroying the Greek language
which had been the language of unity among the Romans, not only in
antiquity, but in the Balkans also, by replacing it with survivals of
local dialects. The Franco-Latin nobilities of Britain and France, with
the Russians tagging along with their Panslavism, had to guarantee the
complete disappearance of the Roman nation according to the decision of
Father Charlemagne.
3. The key to the Bible is the cure of the sickness of religion.
In John 17, Christ prays for unity in the cure of glorification, not for
divided Churches.
We
also begin with the key to the Bible which is the cure of the sickness
of religion. This sickness from the very beginning took over the society
of the Carolingian Franks.
This is in sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks
who were Orthodox Christians, as we shall see. The Carolingians knew
only Augustine till the 12th century. So the difference between these
Frankish races is that the one supported the cureof
the sickness of religion and the latter group became the great
supporters of the causes of
the sickness of religion which their Neo-Platonic form of Christianity
has been.
That
religion is a sickness with a specific cure is known from the tradition
of the Old and New Testaments. However, that this sickness and cure
exists in the Bible is known only to those who know that it is there and
know how to use the Bible as a guide to said cure. For this reason the
Bible is a closed book to all others, even to most Jews and Christians[ 12 ] today.
This means that Jews who accept the Old Testament alone, or Christians
who accept both the Old and the New Testament, yet are not in the
process of being cured under the guidance of one already cured, i.e.
"glorified" (1 Cor. 12:26), automatically and unknowingly distort these
books into supports for the sickness of religion, rather than its cure.
Many such students of the Bible become Fundamentalists and at times
quite dangerous. On the other hand the critical Biblical scholar, who
uses whatever tools he has at his disposal to understand the Bible,
cannot complete his task unless he knows the existence of the sickness
of religion and its cure, and indeed in a Bible which is supposed to be
his specialty. This holds especially true for those Orthodox 'scholars' who
do not know that an Old
and New Testament term for theosis is glorification.[13 ]
4. The Five Keys to the Bible
What
is missing in the work of such Biblical scholars and especially of those
who work within and under the weight of the Franco-Latin Augustinian
tradition, are the following five keys:
1)
That the very core of the Biblical tradition is that religion is a
specific sickness with a specific cure. This is what the claim "there is
no God except Yahweh" means. Not knowing this fundamental first key one
cannot know the second key:
2)
That there is a clear distinction between Biblical terms which denote
that which is "uncreated" and that which is "created." Not knowing this
context one cannot know the third key to Biblical terms:
3)
That "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to
conceive Him."[ 14 ] In
other words there is no similarity whatsoever "between the created and
the uncreated." Anyone who thinks that Biblical expressions convey
concepts about God is sadly mistaken. When used correctly Biblical words
and concepts lead one to purification and illumination of the heart
which lead to glorification but are not themselves glorification. An
integral and essential part of knowing these foregoing three keys is the
fourth key:
4)
That the cure of the sickness of religion involves at all stages "the
transformation of selfish happiness-seeking love" into "the selfless
love of one's own crucifixion which is glorification." This
glorification, therefore, is not only that of the Lord of Glory
Incarnate, "but also that of all prophets and apostles (sent ones)
before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory."[ 15 ] These
four keys become the fifth contextual key of cure.
5)
That "the expressions about God in the Bible are not intended to convey
concepts about God. They act only as means to guide one to the
purification and illumination of the heart and finally to glorification
by the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Lord (Yahweh) of Glory which
is to see Him by means of His uncreated glory or rule" and "not by means
of ephemeral created symbols and concepts about Him" as is the case in
the Augustinian tradition.
In
John 17, Christ prays for the cure of the glorification of His disciples
and their disciples, not for divided Churches — indeed not for
traditions which have not the slightest idea what the cure of
glorification is.
5. Nothing of the above can be found
in Augustine
In
sharp contrast to these five keys are the 5th century writings of bishop Augustine
of Hippo (354-430) which
survived the capture of his city by the Vandals in 430 AD. Augustine
died during the siege on August 28, 430. Augustine writes that his
Archbishop of Carthage Aurelius had commanded him to present his book De
Trinitate to him for
examination[ 16 ] but
we have no record of the result of this action. Both Arius and Eunomius
were condemned by the First (325) and Second (381) Ecumenical Councils
respectively for teaching that the Messenger Logos Who appeared to Moses
in the burning bush is a creature. Augustine, of course, believes that
the Logos is indeed uncreated. However, he came up with his own
innovation that the whole Holy Trinity appeared to Moses and the
prophets by means of such an angel or angels which God brings into
existence to be seen and heard and then passes back into non-existence
when their mission is accomplished.[ 17 ] Evidently
Archbishop Aurelius heard about this and possibly also Augustine's
teaching about original sin and predestination and wanted to see for
himself.
Augustine's
writings found their way to parts of the West Roman provinces. St. John
Cassian (circa 360-433), former ascetic in the deserts of Egypt and then
deacon of the Patriarch of Constantinople St. John Chrysostom,
challenged Augustine's teaching about original sin and pre-destination without mentioning
him. The teachings of Augustine on these points were condemned by
the Council of Orangein
529.[ 18 ] Augustine's
writings completely captured the 8th century Carolingian tradition which
knew basically only Augustine
until the 12th century. At that time the Franks acquired a translation
of St. John of Damascus' "Book on the Orthodox Faith" which they simply
understood within their own Augustinian categories. By the 11th century
the Franks had taken over all of Western Europe, except Spain, by either
conquest or diplomacy. The Spanish Romans under Arab rule were still
under the direct surveillance of the Roman Emperor of Constantinople New
Rome. The Umayad Arabs of Spain and the Abbasid Arabs of Damascus and
then Baghdad called their Roman Orthodox subjects Melkites, i.e. those
who belong to the religion of the Roman Emperor in New Rome
Constantinople.
According
to this Augustinian tradition God supposedly brings into existence
creatures to be seen and heard and which He passes back into
non-existence after their mission of conveying messages and visions has
been accomplished. Higher than this revelation by means of such
ephemeral creatures are,
according to this tradition, the
concepts which God supposedly injects directly into the human intellect.[ 19 ]
Biblical
scholars who either accept this tradition or believe that this is
actually what the Bible is saying, unknowingly contribute to the
concealment of both the sickness of religion and its cure and so the
correct reading of the terms used in the Bible to denote the difference
between what is "created" and "uncreated." What is worse, the adepts of
such interpretations of the Bible think that the biblical writers
themselves believe that God can be expressed with words and indeed
conceived by the human intellect, not perfectly, but at least
approximately.
In
sharp contrast to this type of tradition is that of the Fathers of the
Roman Ecumenical Councils. Only those prophets, apostles and fathers who
have reached glorification, both before and after the Incarnation of the
Lord of Glory, can know what glorification means and how to lead others
to this cure and thus to the correct distinction between the created and
the uncreated in the Bible.
Therefore,
both fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist biblical scholars, who have
been victims of Augustinian and Carolingian presuppositions, become
prone to misunderstandings of what they read in the Bible, especially
when terms and symbols denoting glorifications which produce prophets
are alluded to. A classical example is 1 Cor. 12:26. Here St. Paul does
not write, "If one is honored,"
but "If one is glorified,"
i.e. has become a prophet. To be glorified means that one has seen the
Lord of Glory either before His incarnation or after, like Paul did on
his way to Damascus to persecute the Incarnate Lord of Glory's
followers. Another example is the phrase "kingdom of God" which makes it
a creation of God instead of the uncreated ruling power of God. What is
amazing is that the term "kingdom of God" appears not once in the
original Greek of the New Testament. Not knowing that the "rule" or
"reign of God" is the correct translation of the Greek "Basileia tou
Theou," Vaticanians, Protestants and even many Orthodox today, do not
see that the promise of Christ to his apostles in Mt.16:28, Lk. 9:27 and
Mk. 9:1, i.e. that they will see God's ruling power, was fulfilled
during the Transfiguration which immediately follows in the above three
gospels. Here Peter, James and John see Christ as the Lord of Glory i.e.
as the source of God's uncreated "glory" and "basileia" i.e. uncreated
ruling power, denoted by the uncreated cloud or glory which appeared and
covered the three of them during the Lord of Glory's Transfiguration. It
was by means of His power of Glory that Christ, as the pre-incarnate
Lord (Yahweh) of Glory, had delivered Israel from Its Egyptian
slavery and lead It to freedom and the land of promise. The Greek text
does not speak about the "Basileion (kingdom) of God," but about the
"Basileia (rule or reign) of God," by means of His uncreated glory and
power.[ 20 ] At
His Transfiguration Christ clearly revealed Himself to be the source of
the uncreated Glory seen by Moses and Elijah during Old Testament times
and who both are now present at the Transfiguration in order to testify
to the three apostles that Christ is indeed the same Yahweh of Glory,
now incarnate, Whom the two had seen in the historical past and had
acted on behalf of Him.
The
Vaticanians have, or used to have, a tradition of identifying their
Church with the earthly kingdom established by Christ with the
Franco-Latin Pope as the Vicar of Christ, Emperor and Bishop of Rome.
Neither
Protestants nor Vaticanians know said four keys for reading the Bible.
But what is worse, many of them allow themselves to look upon others as
either among God's chosen ones (like themselves), or else not chosen and
therefore destined to hell since all have supposedly inherited the guilt
of Adam and Eve. Also, they continue with Augustine, that a certain
number of those who have inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve are, like
themselves, among the ones chosen by God for salvation without any merit
of their own. God chooses them, in spite of their inherited guilt, to
replace that number of angels which had fallen. Because of this
paganism, Franco-Latin Christianity was destined to lose ground before
the onslaught of modern science and democracy. Chosen ones can never be
part of a democracy.
Augustinian
Christians, both Vaticanians and Protestants, are literally unbalanced
humans, and had been indeed very dangerous up to the French Revolution
and are potentially still quite dangerous. They were never capable of
understanding that God loves equally both those who are going to hell
and those who are going to heaven. God loves even the Devil as much as
He loves the saint. "God is the savior of all humans, indeed of the
faithful" (1 Tim. 4:10). In other words hell is a form of salvation
although the lowest form of it. God loves the Devil and his
collaborators but destroys their work by allowing them to remain
inoperative in their final "actus purus happiness" like the God of
Thomas Aquinas.[ 21 ]
The
question at hand is not, therefore, whom God loves and saves. God loves
all and God saves all. Even human doctors are morally obliged to cure
all patients regardless of who and what they are. From this viewpoint
hell is indeed salvation, but the lowest form of it. One either chooses
or one does not choose to be cured from the short-circuit which makes
one religious. The one who chooses cure exercises himself like an
athlete who follows the Lord of Glory's directions for purifying his
heart. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." One
cooperates with Christ in the purification of one's heart and in
acquiring the illumination of the unceasing prayer in the heart. This
allows love to do away with self-centeredness and selfishness, but at
the same time increases one's dedication to destroying the work of the
Devil. When God sees that one is ready to follow the cure which will
make him selfless He guides him into the courtyard of glorification and
takes him from being a child to manhood, i.e. prophethood (1 Cor.
13:11). One begins with sick love concerned with one's own salvation and
graduates into selfless Love which, like Saint Paul, would forego one's
own salvation for that of others.[ 22 ] In
other words one either chooses cure or refuses cure. Christ is the
Doctor who cures all His patients to that degree of cure they accept,
even that of hell.
6. The Sickness of Religion and
Franco-Latin Christendom and Orthodoxy today.
The
sickness of religion is caused by a short-circuit between the heart and
the brain. This is what causes fantasies which distort the imagination
and in varying degrees cuts one off from reality. The cure of this
short-circuit has three stages which will occupy us in some detail
later. They are: 1) the purification of the heart, 2) the illumination
of the heart, which repairs this short-circuit which produces fantasies,
of which both religion and criminality are by products, and 3)
glorification, which makes one uncreated by grace and by which one sees
the uncreated ruling power of God which is a simple energy which divides
itself without division and saturates all of creation being everywhere
present, though not by nature, and ruling all of creation. The Bible
calls this the "glory" and "rule" of God and those who reach
glorification "prophets" and "sent ones (apostles)."
What
is sick is the "spirit of man" in the heart which in the early Christian
tradition came to be called the noetic
faculty, not to be identified with the intellectual
faculty of the Hellenic
tradition whose center is in the brain. In its cured state within the
heart the noetic faculty allows the brain to function without fantasies
of which religion and criminality are by-products. In this cured state
the noetic faculty prays without ceasing while the brain goes about its
normal chores. This unceasing prayer of the noetic faculty keeps the
short-circuit between the brain and the heart in repair without
impairing the imagination now free from fantasies which are the main
tools by which what is called the "devil" makes his slaves. Thus we have
"noetic prayer" in the heart and "intellectual prayer" in the brain
which is the foundation of the prophetic tradition of both the Old and
New Testament. This was the center of the apostolic Church which became
the Orthodox Christianity of the Roman Empire.
This
tradition of cure survived in Orthodox monasticism quite strongly within
the Ottoman Empire. It was only during the drive of the Empires of
Russia, Francia and Britain for the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire
that they obliged the Orthodox States they created from its ruins to
accept the reforms of Peter the Great as one of the essential conditions
for gaining their support. In other words, without realizing it, these
three Empires concentrated their attack on the cure of the sickness of
religion, whose center had for centuries been Orthodox monasticism. This
was replaced by a so-called Westernization, which had been accomplished
in Russia, which simply meant that Orthodoxy was being condemned to
becoming a religion like Vaticanism and Protestantism.
The
clearest New Testament outline of this cure of the sickness of religion
is to be found in St. Paul 1 Cor. 12-15:11. Here we have the key to his
epistles which become clear only within this context. St. Paul was a
Pharisee who stemmed from the same tradition as the Hasidim whereas
Christ and His apostles evidently belonged to a parallel tradition with
the same Old Testament foundations which makes the New Testament
intelligible.
We
call religion a neurobiological sickness since it stems from a
short-circuit between the nervous system centered in the heart, which
circulates the spinal fluid, and the blood system centered in the heart
which pumps blood throughout the body, including the nervous system. The
cure of this sickness of religion is accomplished by repairing said
short-circuit between the two hearts which pump blood and spinal fluid
which allows them to function normally. In this normal state the various
fantasies, religious and otherwise, produced by said short-circuit
between the brain and the heart disappear and with them one's fantasies
also disappear, including that of religion. The Bible calls this
neurological energy the spirit of
man which the Fathers came to call the noetic
energy.
What
is especially interesting is the fact that both religion and criminality
stem from the same short- circuit and its fantasies. When being cured
one believes either that which he himself sees and which certain others
see, only on the condition that they train their charges to see for
themselves. The method of cure is like seeing for oneself what
specialists are trained to see by means of instruments what cannot be
seen by the naked eye, not only in the next life, but especially in this
life. The Bible calls this glorification.
"When one is glorified the rest rejoice" (1Cor. 12:26) because he has
become a prophet who has seen and participated in the uncreated glory of
God which has no similarity whatsoever with anything created. This is
why a prophet can guide others to the cure of glorification, but cannot
describe the uncreated experienced in glorification. The basis for this
restoration of normalcy is that the one who sees has himself been
restored to normalcy which is to see the uncreated force which creates
and governs all of creation. The one cured actually sees above normal
seeing from time to time seeing the glory and rule of the Creator. When
not in the state of seeing the short circuit in question is kept under
repair by the unceasing prayer in the heart while the brain functions
normally.[ 23 ] The
Old and New Testaments call this force the 'glory' and 'reign' of God
which is "everywhere present dividing itself without division and
saturating all creation." Also those who have seen it and guide others
to the cure of their short-circuit are the prophets both before
Pentecost and after Pentecost.
Although
not having access to today's electronic microscopes these prophets
experienced the fact that there is no similarity whatsoever between the
Creator's glory and reign and His creation. Although this is true for
the natural human faculties, there is some similarity of this Glory's
manifestation, as a simple energy which divides itself without division
and is present everywhere, to the way cells divide themselves and
multiply in biological beings when seen by the electronic microscope.
The real difference is that God's creating glory and reign does not
change or die nor is it composed of matter. In any case the Platonic
idea that material and spiritual forms are copies of immutable and
immaterial forms were correctly rejected by all those who had had an
experience of the Glory of God.
We
recall the Four Keys described above. Within their context there are two
general types of terms in the Bible: 1) Those terms which apply to the
uncreated and cannot be conceived by comparison with one's experience of
created reality. Such terms are "God," "Lord (Yahweh)," "Spirit
of God," "Father," "Logos," "Messenger of God Who calls Himself
God," "Messenger of Great Council," "Son of God," "King of Glory," "rule
or reign of God," "Glory of God," etc.: and 2) those which represent
created reality and which are understood as such. Terms denoting the
uncreated are not to be understood within the context of what one may
understand by comparing these terms with what one knows from created
reality. The sole purpose of terms denoting the uncreated is to play the
role of leading to the purification and the illumination of the heart
and then to glorification during which said words and concepts are
abolished and wherein only love remains (1Cor. 13:8).
Augustine
never understood these two distinctions, nor the four keys previously
discussed. Franco-Latin Christianity and doctrine began its first essay
into theology and doctrine with the Palatine
School established by
Charlemagne at the end of the 8th century. This school knew only
Augustine because its organizer the Saxon Alcuin (735-804)
evidently knew only Augustine thoroughly. Augustine was not a Father of
an Ecumenical Council, nor was he familiar with any Father of an
Ecumenical Council. One is given the impression that he was taught by
Ambrose who supposedly baptized him. However, the basic doctrinal
differences between Augustine and the Fathers of the Church are exactly
the differences between himself and Ambrose.[ 24 ] Nor
did Augustine have the slightest idea of the keys by which Jews and the
Orthodox Fathers were interpreting the Bible. He simply knew not one
Father of an Ecumenical Council. This is exactly why Vaticanists and
Protestants still do not understand the theology of the Ecumenical
Councils. When the Franco-Latins finally became familiar with the texts
of the Ecumenical Councils they simply enslaved them to Augustinian
categories. They had acquired the text of Dionysius the Areopagite which
was translated by John Scotus Eriugena which confused them because of
the translator's theology. It was only in the 12th century, as we saw,
that these Franks acquired a Latin translation of St. John of Damascus'
summary of the Patristic theology and doctrine of the Ecumenical
Councils, but as always until today, understood him within Augustinian
categories. Neither the Franco-Latin Papacy, established between 1009
and 1046, nor Augustinian Protestants, have ever been able to see these
distinctions in the Bible and so remained unaware of their existence.
This means that before the advent of modern Biblical criticism the
Vaticanist and Protestant understanding of Biblical inspiration was not
much different from the Moslem belief that the Koran is "uncreated."
That of course has changed, but the end result has remained the same.
7. Sociology, Religion and
Criminality
Since
fantasies produced by said short-circuit are at the basis of all
sociological and historical phenomena, including everything from
religion to criminality, one can not make a clean cut separation between
society and religion, or abnormal and so-called normal behavior within
human society. All peoples and societies suffer from this same
short-circuit. Many Orthodox Christians and Jews are not actively
involved in their traditional cure of the sickness of religion which is
supposedly the foundation of their beliefs and practices. For this
reason they are sometimes capable of outdoing others in cruelty and
barbarism. In any case the idea that religion per
se is good and necessary
for society is absolute nonsense. There are historical cases wherein
there were and still are those who believe that they will have special
privileges in their heaven for killing and enslaving others and who will
have wives in heaven for their gratification.
We
have at least two societies which had been historically and to an
important degree based on this cure of the sickness of religion. They
are the prophets of the Old Testament accepted officially by the Jewish
State and the apostles and prophets of the Old and New Testaments and
the prophets since called Fathers of the Church as accepted officially
by the Roman State. What divides them is the Incarnation of the Lord (Yahweh)
of Glory. Both had accepted the OT prophets and some Jews and many
Romans and other peoples accepted also Christ and the apostles within
this context of the cure of this sickness of religion.
However,
those Christians who followed heresies condemned by Roman Ecumenical
Councils were in each case re-transforming the faith of the Bible into
pagan forms of Christianity based on the sickness of religion instead of
its cure. Perhaps the greatest of the pagan forms of Christianity is
that of Augustine. His erroneous teachings about all of humanity being
responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve and his doctrine of
pre-destination based on his teaching about original sin and his
psychopathic Platonic mysticism, had gone undetected in the East until
the 15th century. But in Roman Gaul the Council
of Orange (529) condemned
his teaching about inherited sin and predestination. Finally, the Roman Ninth
Ecumenical Council of 1341 in
Constantinople also, but unknowingly, condemned some of Augustine's
heresies. His other heresies were never known nor understood in the
East. Indeed, the said Ninth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (1341)
condemned the heresies of Barlaam the Calabrian about revelation and the
purification and illumination of the heart and glorification not
realizing that his teaching belonged to Augustine. Indeed the Fathers of
the this Council claimed that the Devil inspired Barlaam to invent this
new heresy.
What
is of interest is the fact that in each case of the appearance of a
specific heresy it was simply one more product of the sickness of
religion. Perhaps the same is true of Judaism. It was on such grounds
that the Fathers of the Church easily defeated heresies based on this
sickness of religion. However, what is even more interesting is the fact
that many Orthodox who have inherited the Orthodox form of Christianity
of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils are at present in a state of
confusion. This confusion began especially with the reforms of Peter the
Great based on the deliberate Westernization of the Russian Church which
was in reality its Augustinianization.
These
Russian reforms became the key by which Emperor Alexander I of the
Russian Empire and Napoleon I of the Frankish Empire, joined a bit later
by the British Empire, began their policies of breaking up the unity of
the Roman Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire. They attacked
the common language of the Roman Orthodox, which since the time of the
Ancient Romans had been Greek, by claiming that all who spoke Greek were
not Romans, but "Greeks". This is the Charlemagnian
Lie of 794 which was
adopted by the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility which still guides not
only European policies, but also that of Americans who have been
enslaved by British historiography. At the same time these three powers
used the various dialects which survived from older times to build
linguistic enclaves which became Hellenes, Serbians, Bulgarians and
Rumanians, to which they added Albanians and now even of all things
Slavic Macedonians. This process called Balkanization began to be
applied in 1821 and is still being applied.[ 25 ] The
very same principles were and are being applied to the whole Arab World.
This
Westernization of Orthodoxy was imposed on all the Orthodox States which
arose out of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This began with the
establishment of the State of Greece in 1827, followed by Bulgaria in
1878-79, Romania in 1879-1880, Serbia in 1882 and was completed in 1923
with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire itself. Each case of the
establishment of a State was accompanied by the foundation of a State
Church. State Theological Schools were also established to make sure
that the work of Peter the Great may take root and take over. Prior to
this development the monasteries had been the training ground for
producing leaders specialized in curing the sickness of religion.
However, said theological faculties became the basis of transforming
Orthodox Church leaders and theologians into victims of the sickness of
religion who have been transforming the Orthodox Church into a religion.
Quite
interesting is the fact that the Turks called the European part of their
Ottoman Empire Rumeli,
i.e. Land of the Romans. The reason for this is not only the fact that
the Ottomans conquered what was left of the Roman Empire and her
capital, but also because all Orthodox Christians within the Moslem
world, from Spain to the Middle East, called themselves Roman Orthodox
and were and are still called Roman Orthodox by the Arabs, Turks,
Persians, etc. However, during the 18th century the Russians, the
British and the French actively propagandized the Lie of Charlemagne
that Romans who spoke the Greek language are not Romans, but "Greeks".
In this way they finally succeeded in convincing, or conning, even the
Neo-Hellenes, the Neo-Bulgarians, the Neo-Serbians, the Neo-Rumanians
and then the Neo-Albanians and Neo-Macedonians, that the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of Constantinople-New Rome is not Roman, but "Greek". This
in spite of the fact that this Ecumenical Patriarchate never called nor
calls itself "Greek", but only Roman in the Turkish and Greek languages.
In
the light of this, even a casual reading of the Encyclopedia Britannica
will reveal with what hatred the Russians, French and British describe
the Phanariote Romans of Constantinople who helped the Ottomans to rule Rumeli,
i.e. the Balkans, as the hated and corrupt "Greeks."[ 26 ] But
even till this day the Roman Orthodox of Turkey call themselves Romans
in both Turkish and Greek and are called Romans by the Turks. The
magnitude of the Charlemagnian Latin versus Greek Lie has been
saturating Franco-Latin history writing since 794 and must be dealt with
accordingly, that is, as an outright lie.
One must begin by assuming that Franco-Latins are experts at telling
historical lies in order to carefully separate their telling lies from
their telling the truth. Much of Roman history writing is still
controlled by the Franco-Latin nobility who are still faithful to their
Father Charlemagne and his lies about the Roman Empire which are still
going strong in the non-existent fields
of Byzantine history, civilization, theology, etc. which are Roman and
not Byzantine.
8. There are no Greek and Latin Fathers of the Orthodox Church.
They are Latin- and Greek-speaking Roman Fathers of the Church.
We
begin with the fact that there are no "Latin" or "Greek" Fathers of the
Church. All Fathers of the Church within the Roman Empire are
Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking Roman Fathers
of the Church with their localities attached to their description. The
Carolingian Franks literally invented the distinction between "Greek"
and "Latin" Fathers of the Church. Why? In order to cover up the fact
that they had no Father of their Church until Rabanus Maurus (776-856).
So they simply broke the Roman Fathers in two and began calling them
"Greek" and "Latin" Fathers of the Church. In this way they simply
attached Rabanus Maurus and his successors to their so-called "Latin"
Fathers of the Church. But the Fathers of the Church who wrote in either
Latin or Greek or in both Latin and Greek, were neither Latins nor
Greeks, but were simply Roman Fathers of the Church.
9. Roman Christians and Roman Greeks
What
is absolutely amazing is the fact that in the Roman tradition since
Constantine the Great the real Romans had made a clear distinction
between Roman Christians and Roman Greeks. The name Roman Greek simply
meant Roman Pagan. St. Athanasius the Great's book called "Against
Greeks" simply means "Against Pagans." So the Frankish title "Greek
Fathers of the Church" means in the Roman language simply "Pagan Fathers
of the Church."
We
use the term Franco-Latins for the mostly Teutonic members of the
medieval royalty and nobility of Western Europe who called themselves "Latins."
We call them by this term "Franco-Latins"[ 27 ] in
order to distinguish them from the two groups of real Latins of Roman
history. Not having the sources of Roman history available and wishing
to cut off their conquered West Romans from the East Romans, the Franco-Latins,
since the time of Charlemagne, were misled into believing and promoting
the position that the early Latins or Romans were Latin speaking, a
basic historical fallacy which everyone today accepts. All my writings
have been taking for granted that the Romans had fallen so much in love
with Hellenic Civilization that Rome itself saw the light of History
speaking Greek. Therefore, I had placed the historical appearance of
Rome as a Greek speaking city within this Carolingian Frankish
understanding of Roman history, as a supposedly Latin speaking people
who began speaking Greek also.
We
repeat what we already said. The entourage of Charlemagne either
invented, or came to believe the tale that Emperor Constantine the Great
(306-337) moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Old Rome in Italy
to New Rome-Constantinople and thus supposedly and deliberately
abandoned the Latin language and nationality in favor of the Greek
language and nationality.[ 28 ]
10. The real Latins of Roman history
Constantine
the Great was not Latin, he was Roman. As we saw the first Latins in
history were a Greek-speaking people who were conquered by the Romans,
whose language was also Greek. These Latins were absorbed into the Roman
nation and eventually had become a name held in honor by their
descendants, i.e. the family of Julius Caesar. But the Latin name was
revived as a result of the Italian Wars during 91-83 BC. One group of
Italians fought for complete independence from Rome while a second group
revolted demanding Roman citizenship. The first group were simply
defeated, while the second group had to be satisfied with the "Latin"
name instead of the "Roman" name. These Latins finally received the
Roman name and became Romans in 212 AD This happened 95 years before
Constantine began to rule in 306. Not only was Constantine not a Latin,
but those born Latins in 211 were probably all dead in 306.
Roman
sources of history eventually began to become available to these
Franco-Latin barbarians. Instead of correcting their misunderstandings
of Roman history, they became specialists at manipulating the Roman
sources in order to force them into obeying Charlemagne's Lie of 794. As
we saw, Constantine the Great and his successors had supposedly
abandoned the Latin language and nationality in order to speak Greek and
become Greeks.[ 29 ] According
to the Cambridge Medieval History vol. IV, Part I, 1967, p. 776,
Constantine the Great was a Roman Emperor between 306 and 324 and a
"Byzantine Emperor" between 324 and 337.[ 30 ] True
to 'noble' British tradition Part I and II of Vol. IV are now called the
"Byzantine Empire." Both these volumes publish J. B. Bury's Introduction
to the original volume IV published in 1923. Bury there writes that "We
have, however, tampered with the correct name, which is simply 'Roman
Empire,' by adding 'Eastern,' etc. The historian Finlay put the question
in a rather awkward way by asking, "When did the Roman Empire change
into the Byzantine? The answer is that it did not change into any other
Empire than itself." In spite of these words of J. B. Bury, the new two
volumes IV, which replaced his single volume, "The East Roman Empire,"
are called the "Byzantine Empire" anyway. WHY?
11. Why Byzantine?
Why
is the "Byzantine Empire," which never existed, now so essential to the
British, French and Russian policies of divide and conquer? One can see
the key clearly in the London
Protocol of August, 31, 1836 which
was signed by the representatives of these three Empires upon the
occasion of the completion of the maps delineating the frontiers between
Hellas and the Ottoman empire. Many of the Romans who fought in the War
of Independence, which began in 1821, ended up outside of the liberated
areas now called "Hellas." This Protocol lists two groups of "Greeks"
who now have the legal right to migrate to Hellas, because they are now
legally "Hellenes." However, historically the terms Greeks and Hellenes
mean the same ancient people. The one is the Latin term for Greeks and
Hellenes is the Greek word for Greeks. In sharp contrast is the fact
that in the Turkish and Greek languages of the time these "Greeks" are
called "Romans". However, these Romans were being called Greeks by the
Franco-Latins since 794. Charlemagne and his advisors decided to call
the Free Romans "Greeks" in order that the West Romans may come to
believe the Romans of the Roman Empire are not Romans but "heretical
Greeks."
So
the French text of the Protocol in question reads as follows: "It is
well understood that the following are now understood to be 'Hellenes:'
1) The 'Greeks', and 2) The 'Hellenes'. Here are the two terms which
reflect the problem which had to be solved. The Turkish translation of
the two terms are clear. The Greeks are in Turkish called Romans-Rumlar and
the Hellenes are in Turkish called Hellenes-Younanlar. However,
this is not the essence of the problem. In order to secure the support
from these three Empires, who simply wanted to divide and conquer, the
Romans had to not only call themselves Hellenes, but they had to pass a
law that the Hellenic Revolution was not only a liberation from the
Ottoman Empire, but also a liberation from the now fallen Roman Empire
which the British, French and Russians began calling the Byzantine
Empire. This is why the Carolingian Greek Empire which came into the
existence in the Frankish imagination in 794, had to become now the
Byzantine Empire. Why? Because to say that "Hellenes" were liberated
from "Greeks" would have caused even jackasses to burst out laughing!
During
the celebration of Greek Independence Day on March 25 the BBC tried to
pass off the position that the Turks had liberated the Hellenes from the
Byzantines. But it backfired. I reported this in one of my books.[ 31 ]
Even
Arab sources are being contaminated by an invasion of the term
"Byzantine" as the translation of the Arab name for Roman which is Rum.
Charles Issawi, Professor of Political Science in the American
University of Beirut, translated and published in his book "An Arab
Philosophy of History," Selections from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun
of Tunis (1332-1406). Here he translates the Arab term for "Roman" which
is "Rum" into English by the term "Roman" up to the death
of Roman Emperor Heraclius in 641. He then translates the same name "Rum"
with the term "Byzantine" for the rest of Khaldun's Book.
12. The Final Version of Roman
history
The
reader is encouraged to see volume VII of The Cambridge Ancient History
which is entitled "The Hellenistic Monarchies and The Rise of Rome,"
1954, (pp.312-864) to see for himself that the word "Aborigines," which
is one of the two backbones of Roman history, is no where to be found.
Nor is the role of the Pelasgian
Greeks in Roman history
mentioned. Both historians, Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (dates
not known exactly[ 32 ])
who wrote in Greek and Livy (59BC-17AD)
who wrote in Latin, begin their histories of Roman reality with the
Aborigines. Dionysius gives us much more information than Livy. But
Dionysius also gives us a lot of information about the Pelasgian Greeks
in Italy and how they were decimated by sickness and how their reduced
numbers joined the Aborigines to become one people.[ 33 ] Dionysius
quotes Porcius Cato as
an authority on the Pelasgians in Italy[ 34 ] which
means Dionysius is not inventing facts about Pelasgians in Italy. This
means that these Pelasgian Greeks were also part of the racial
background of the Romans and therefore are part of Roman history. But
they, like the Aborigines, are not mentioned in the above "The Rise of
Rome," nor in Roman histories and encyclopedias[ 35 ] known
to this writer. To have found something about Pelasgians in Italy and
their relations to the Aborigines would have been at least some
indication that the Lie of Charlemagne may be loosening its grip on
historical writing.
The
following are reported by the Roman historian Livy in his Ab
Urbe Condita,[ 36 ] i.e.
"From the Founding of the City" and by the Greek historian Dionysius of
Halicarnassus in his "Roman Antiquities."[ 37 ] Both
report the ancient Roman tradition that the first Latins resulted from a
union between the Greek-speaking tribe of Italy called Aborigines[ 38 ] and
the Greek-speaking Trojan
refugees from the Trojan
War. These Aborigines lived in Western Italy in the area South of the
mouth of the Tiber river and were early dwellers on the site of Rome.
They had been there many generations before the Trojan War. At the time
of the arrival of the Trojans under Aeneas the
king of the Aborigines was Latinus. The
Trojans had landed on the shores of the land of the Aborigines in search
for a homeland. These two Greek tribes decided to become one people by
consummating a marriage between King Latinus's daughter Lavinia and
Aeneas. The two tribes decided to call themselves Latins.
The Aborigines had originated from Achaia,[ 39 ] Southern
Greece, and the Trojans of Aeneas had come from Illium, Asia
Minor. The Trojans of Aeneas and Antenor had
gotten permission from the Achaian conquerors of Troy to find a homeland
elsewhere. The lives of Aeneas and Antenor and their peoples had been
spared because they were against the war with the Greeks. Thus the
Trojans headed by Aeneas and Antenor left Asia Minor in search of a new
home. The Trojans under Aeneas ended up in Western Italy South of the
Tiber and the Trojans under Antenor ended up in Eastern Italy at the
mouth of the Po river. When leaving Asia Minor Antenor's Trojans were
accompanied by the Eneti who settled with some of Antenor's Trojans in
the area they called Enetia in Greek and Latin[ 40 ] and
which the Italians call Venetia.
These
two keys to Roman history, that of the Aborigines and that of the
Trojans, are contested by all historians whose
orientation to history was and still is shaped by Great Father Charlegmane
(768-814). He was not only an ignorant barbarian himself, but his
entourage and his successors for many centuries were no better. The
reader may study their successors to see for himself if they are today
any better.
First
we must describe the Carolingian Frankish misunderstanding of Roman
history and then the motives why the errors of this misunderstanding are
still perpetuated. The only way that Orthodox Christians may realize the
background and context of their situation is to understand the
falsification of their past history by the Franco-Latins. Before 794 the
Franks called our Empire Imperium
Romanum. In 794 this very same Empire became "Imperium Grecorum."
Then in the 19th and 20th century this very same Empire became a
so-called "Byzantine Empire." Why? In 1453 it was the Roman Empire which
fell to the Ottoman Turks and not a Greek or Byzantine Empire, as
pointed out clearly by Edward Gibbon and J. G. Bury.
At
the time of Charlemagne's rule all free West Roman Orthodox, including
even the Irish, were still praying for their Imperium
Romanum whose capital was
Constantinople-New Rome.[ 41 ] In
794, in order to stop these prayers, Charlemagne initiated the practice
within his own territories of restricting the name Imperium
Romanum only to the
recently established Papal
States by calling the
free part of the Imperium
Romanum in Southern
Italy to the borders of Persia the heretical "Imperium Grecorum"
whose real Emperor of the Romans became in the Frankish fiction the "Imperator
Grecorum." Evidently his barbarian mind believed that these prayers
for theImperium Romanum became
efficacious only for the Papal States still called Romania and
now incorporated into his Francia. This became especially so when he
coerced Pope Leo III (785-816) to crown him "Emperor" in exchange for
exonerating him from certain accusations. However, Pope Leo crowned him
"Emperor of the Romans." But Charlemagne never used the "of the Romans"
part of this title since his Roman subjects were not Franks, i.e. Free
(Franchised), and also because he wanted his title to be accepted by the
real Roman Emperor in the East.[ 42 ]
In
spite of the availability of more than enough ancient Roman sources to
correct the above series of inaccuracies, there is still a well
organized conspiracy against the restoration of historical truth in
these matters. One would think that the sources themselves would be
allowed to speak for themselves to let the students of history decide
for themselves. But instead, these sources are carefully manipulated by
those who fear what? a reunion of all those who have a Roman background
into using their overwhelming numbers politically?
It
is obvious that the overwhelming numbers of those who are neither members
of Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities nor Moslems
living within the former territories of the Roman Empire are mostly
descendants of former Roman citizens who were enslaved by Teutonic,
Arab, Slavic and Turkish conquerors. Those Romans who became Moslems
became either Arabs or Turks and were integrated into the Arab and
Turkish tribes and nations. The Romans who remained Orthodox Christians
in Islamic territories were not only protected by Islamic Law, but were
officially called Melkites Rum (Romans), i.e. Romans who belong to the
religion of the Roman Emperor in New Rome. The Moslems never considered
the Roman Orthodox among them as members of the Franco-Latin Pope's
religion which Moslems still call Francji.
However,
those Romans who were conquered by the Teutonic nations were reduced to
slavery and became the "serfs" and "villains" of Franco-Latin Feudalism.
Within this system of slavery the serfs and villains did not have a king
or emperor. What they had were Franco-Latin owners who were members of
Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities under the religious jurisdiction
of Franco-Latin Popes. This system was perfected after the process of
expelling the real Roman Popes (begun in 983) was completed in 1046.[ 43 ] If
the reader wishes to see a perfect example of Franco-Latin forgery of
history he should turn to the very large chapter on the history of the
Papacy in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1957, to the three sections
entitled "The Franks , the 'Donation' and Coronation," (pp. 203-204),
"The 9th Century" (pp. 204-205) and "The Popes and the Emperors,
918-1073" (pp. 205-206) and compare them with this writer's "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine" pp.
14-29. In the Brittanica article there is not one word about the fact
that the Germans were getting rid of Roman Popes by "smearing" them and
replacing them with Franco-Latin "saints," nor the reason why.[ 44 ]
The
reason for this continuing distortion of Roman history is the fact that
ancient and medieval histories of Europe had become the special domain
of the Franco-Latin Universities[ 45 ] which
still continue to distort the sources of Roman history through
implementing the lies of Charlemagne[ 46 ] and Emperor
Ludovicus II (855-875) in 871.[ 47 ] As
these Franco-Latin centers of research, likeOxford and Cambridge,
became aware of the sources of Roman history they simply resorted to
ridiculing them as products of a "Greek" desire for making everything
Greek.[ 48 ] But
there is a big difference between the sources themselves which are
simply there because inherited from the past and the deliberate
falsification of these sources in order to force them to repeat the
historical dogmas-lies of Emperors Charlemagne and Ludovicus II.
13. More about the sickness of
religion and the falsification of history
After
the disappearance of the Roman Empire in 1453 the Four Roman Patriarchs
of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem continued
to oversee this work of the cure within the Ottoman Empire using the
monasteries as the training ground for those specializing in this method
of cure. Now missing from this foursome was the Roman Papacy of Elder
Rome which had been taken over forcefully by the Franco-Latins who
transformed it into a Franco-Latin Papacy. These new Franco-Latin
proprietors continued to call their Papacy "Roman" in order to trick the
West Roman serfs and villains into thinking that the Pope of Rome was
still a Roman like themselves. The Franco-Latin struggle to capture the
Roman Papacy began in earnest in 983 and reached its climax between 1009
and 1046.[ 49 ]
The
Carolingian Franks began their doctrinal career knowing fully only
Augustine. But Augustine was a Neo-Platonist before his baptism and
remained so the rest of his life. Because of this Franco-Latin
Christianity remained Neo-Platonic until Occam and Luther lead sizable
portions of Western Europe away from Neo-Platonic metaphysics and
mysticism and their monastic supports. What Luther and Occam had done
was to liberate whole sections of Franco-Latin Christianity from the
metaphysical part of Augustinian paganism. However, Augustine's pagan
understanding of original sin, predestination and revelation were still
adhered to.
Charlemagne
began his attack on the Roman Papacy by contradicting Pope Hadrian's I
(771-795) support of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 786/8. This
illiterate king condemned this Ecumenical Council at his own Council
of Frankfurt in 794 in
the very presence of Pope Hadrian's legates. When the Franks captured
the Papacy during 1009-1046, they had rejected not only the Seventh, but
also the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80 which had been supported
conjointly by Pope John VIII (872-882) of Elder Rome and Patriarch
Photius (877-886) of New Rome, as well as the remaining Roman
Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Council was
convened to get the Franks to accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council and
to convince them to remove their Filioque which
they had added to the Roman Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council.
Instead the Franks continued to accept as their Eighth
Ecumenical that of 869. This Council had been annulled by the common
consent of the Roman Emperor and by all Five Roman Patriarchates, i.e.
Elder Rome, New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at their Eighth
Ecumenical Council of 879/80 already mentioned. The Council of 869 had
removed Patriarch Photius as one who had illegally replaced the former
Patriarch Ignatius (846-858). In the mean time Photius had been writing
humorous attacks on the Frankish addition of the Filioque to
the Creed which infuriated the Franks. So it served their interests to
create the impression that Photius had been condemned for doctrinal
errors in 869 and that he had never been recognized by the Roman Papacy.
Of course Pope John VIII fully cooperated with Patriarch Photius during
the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80.[50 ]
In
other words a bunch of illiterate and barbarian Franks began their
career in dogma during the reign of Charlemagne (768-814) by being
against whatsoever is produced by Roman Emperors, Popes, and Patriarchs.
This same Charlemagne even added his FrankishFilioque (which
has nothing to do with the West Roman Orthodox Filioque[ 51 ])
to the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council in order to improve it. In
addition he condemned all who disagree as heretics at his Council
of Aachen in 809.
All this has been approved ever since 1009 by all "infallible"
Franco-Latin Popes.
To
the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils the Franco-Latins added the
annulled Council of 869 and their own 12 "Ecumenical" Councils. However,
their acceptance of the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils has been
only formal since they continue to distort them within the context of
Augustine's presuppositions. In other words the Franks transformed these
Councils from the cure of
the sickness of religion into support of the cause of
the sickness of religion. They simply transformed them into Augustine's
own Neo-Platonic sickness of religion and therefore into a pagan form of
Christian teaching and practice based on metaphysics and mysticism.
14. The cure of the sickness of
religion and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine.
The
Roman Emperors from Constantine the Great (306-337) to the last Roman
Emperor Constantine XII (1449-1453) accepted Christianity as the
official cure of the sickness of religion and not as one more form of
religion. It was because the prophets of the Old and the New Testament
knew by means of their glorification in and by Yahweh the
cure of this specific disease in the heart that Christianity became the
religion of the Roman Empire. This cure had nothing to do with either
religious or philosophical speculation. The pinpointing of this sickness
and its cure in the heart is also the only key to the union of
Christians among themselves and the reason why members of the society
practicing this cure accept the Nine
Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Empire. These Nine Ecumenical
Councils are part of Roman Law. What unites them into one whole is the
cure of the sickness of religion by means of the purification and
illumination of the heart and glorification of the whole person. Each of
the Nine Ecumenical Councils condemned specific heresies of their time
exactly because they deviated from this cure by attempting to transform
the medical practice of the Church into systems of philosophical and
mystical speculations and practices.
However,
Peter the Great lead the Russians into believing that there are only seven officially
approved Ecumenical Councils. These Roman Councils happen to be the ones
that the Franco-Latin Papacy continued to accept in common with the four
East Roman Orthodox Patriarchates after the Franks captured the
Patriarchate of Rome.[ 52 ] This
reduction of the Ecumenical Councils from Nine to Seven had become a
first step in the attempted union between the Franco-Latin Papacy and
the Roman Emperors of New Rome during the latter part of the 13th to the
middle of 15th centuries. Submission to the Franco-Latin Papacy was the
price that the Roman Emperor of New Rome was required to pay for
Franco-Latin help against the Turks. This union was supposed to have
been consummated at the union Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1442.
This Council was condemned by the three Roman Patriarchs of Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem at their Council
of Jerusalem (1443). These three Roman Patriarchates were within
Moslem held territories. Then in 1453 New Rome fell to the Ottoman Turks
putting all four Roman Patriarchates within the Moslem world, putting an
end to the need for asking for help from the Franco-Latin royalties and
nobilities of Western Europe and their Pope. The reality of the matter
was that the three Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and
Jerusalem had opted to continue their tradition of the cure of the
sickness of religion of the Old and New Testaments and of the Nine
Ecumenical Councils and were re-joined in this work by the Patriarchate
of New Rome in 1453 after the Ottoman takeover of the capital of the
Roman Empire.
Perhaps
the most serious among these deviations from the cure in question was
that of Augustine.
Indeed the Ninth Ecumenical Council condemned the philosophical and
mystical speculations of Barlaam
the Calabrian not knowing
that he was simply repeating the philosophical and mystical speculations
of Augustine. Since the rule of Charlemagne (768-814) Augustine had
become the heart and core of Frankish theology and spirituality. As the
Franks were becoming acquainted with Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils
they simply understood them within the context of Augustine's writings.
From the time of Charlemagne's rule until the beginning of Peter
Lombard's doctrinal career (d. 1160) these Franks knew not
one Father of an
Ecumenical Council. Peter Lombard introduced St. John of Damascus' (c.
675-749) summary of the doctrines of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which
he and his fellow Franks have been reading through Augustinian lenses
since.
Augustine's
doctrine of original sin,
and by extension his nonsense about predestination,
was condemned at the Council
of Orange (529).
This means that the Merovingian Franks
belonged to the Orthodox Patristic tradition. Augustine's teaching about
revelation by means of creatures which God brings into existence to be
seen and heard and then pass back into non-existence when their mission
is accomplished was condemned by the Ninth Ecumenical Council of New
Rome in 1341. The Fathers of the Council did not know at the time that
the source of this nonsense was Augustine.
15. The Final Official History of
Rome
An
essential part of Franco-Latin distortions has been their falsification
of Roman History itself. This was inaugurated by Charlemagne in 794 at
the Council of Frankfurt. He then began the centuries old Franco-Latin
propaganda that the Romans attached to the Emperor of New Rome
Constantinople and his Roman Patriarchies of New Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem are a bunch of "Greek heretics." Up until this
time the Franks had always called the Empire of Constantinople the Imperial
Romanum and its citizens Romani.
The very last time that these Franks used these correct titles is
witnessed to in Charlemagne's Libri
Carolini where he
calls the Empire of New Rome the pagan Imperium
Romanum. But this position evidently backfired against him because
both enslaved and free West Romans were still praying in their Church
services for the Imperium
Romanum.[ 53 ] So
he kept the names Romania and Imperium
Romanum for the Papal
States only. He evidently believed that in this way these prayers would
become efficacious for the Papal States only and baptized the rest of
the Roman Empire the "Imperium Grecorum". Now the Franco-Latin
nobility has managed to lead naive historians into the use of terms like
"Byzantines" and "Byzantine Empire." There was never a "Greek" or
"Byzantine Empire" nor a "nation of Byzantines." Only those who dwelt in
the new capital of the Roman Empire called themselves "Byzantines" which
was the name of the small town which became Constantinople-New Rome in
331 AD.
Dionysius
of Halicarnassus came to Rome, learned Latin, and studied Roman sources
in order to write his history of Rome. There is a tendency to make him
look like one who is looking for proofs that the Romans are Greeks. But
Dionysius, however, reports what the Romans themselves say
about their origins. It was the Roman Senator and leader Porcius Cato
who wrote the classical work on the origins of the Roman people in his
book De Origines which
is also a history of the Italian cities besides Rome. This book inspired
the leaders of the French Revolution into realizing that they are
descendants of both the ancient Greeks and Romans. This book is now
lost?
The
keepers of the Lie of Charlemagne have, of course, serious problems with
Dionysius. An example of how they cope with this historian is the
introduction to the Loeb Classical Library edition of Dionysius' Roman
Antiquities. Earnest Cary claims that Dionysius "promises to prove that
Rome's founders were in reality Greeks, and Greeks from no mean tribes."
But what E. Cary omits to say here is that Dionysius allows the Roman
writers themselves to do the proving for him as follows: "But the most
learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato, who
compiled with the greatest care the genealogies of the Italian cities,
Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say they (the Aborigines) were
Greeks who used to live in Achaia (in Southern Greece) and migrated many
generations before the Trojan war." After at least a thousand years in
Italy these "Aborigines no longer knew where exactly in Achaia they came
from, to which tribe they belonged and who the leaders of their colonies
were."[ 54 ]
Having
in mind the older Roman historians, like P. Cato and G. Sempronius, both
Livy and not only Dionysius agree with the tradition handed down to them
that the Greek-speaking nation of Latins came into existence when the
indigenous Greek-speaking Aborigines[55 ] and
the Greek-speaking Trojans of Aeneas became one nation. The Aborigines
occupied an area of the West Italian coastline South of the Tiber river
and the Greek speaking Trojans had landed on the coast of the land of
the Aborigines where they finally settled. The Aborigines and the
Trojans became one nation. This took place when King Latinus of the
"Aborigines" gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas, the leader
of the Trojans who migrated to Italy as refugees from the Trojan War.
Because of this marriage they called themselves Latins (after Lavinas'
Father Latinus had passed away) and their land Latium. The capital of
this united Latin nation was Alba Longa. Some time later the twin
Greek-speaking Latin brothers, Romulus and Romus, left Alba Longa and
founded Rome. These Latins[56 ] and
some Sabines,[ 57 ] also
a Greek-speaking people, founded Rome and the Roman nation. This is why
the kings of Rome were mostly of Latin or Sabine origin except for the
Tarquins whose ancestors originated from Corinth.[ 58 ] In
time the Romans tried to convince the Latins of Alba Longa to unite with
them into one nation to better protect themselves, especially against
the Etruscans. The Latins of Alba Longa refused. One of the basic
reasons for their refusal was that the Sabines, whose ancestors were
Greeks from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece, were, according to the
Latins, no longer pure Greeks. A bit latter King Ancus Marcius of Rome
(640-616 BC), defeated the Latins and razed their capital in order to
"force" the Latins of Alba Longa to become Romans. The Latins of Alba
Longa were settled on the Aventine and were incorporated into the Roman
system of the gentis.
One of these Latin gens or
families of Alba Longa were the ancestors of Julius Caesar. The term gens-gentis comes
from the Greek word genos meaning
the family or tribe one belongs to. This term gens became
the difference between those of Greek origin and the tribes of those not
of Greek origin. The gentes
were those who belonged to the Patrician families who made up
the Roman Senate. Eventually all Romans became members of Tribes, but
only those of Greek origin remained members of tribes or families called gens and gentes.
This is the origin of our word "gentleman."
We
return to the author of the above introduction to Dionysius' "Roman
Antiquities". He literally accuses Dionysius of adding material to his
history from his imagination. According to him Dionysius invents many
speeches where no speech is called for. In comparison Livy, who reports
many of the same historical events has no speeches for the same
occasions. Not taking seriously the claim of the Romans themselves that
they are Greeks the author does not take Dionysius seriously when he
writes that he worked with the Roman chronicles
annalists. So therefore all Dionysius had to do is to copy the Greek
texts of speeches from the chronicles and annalists and
put them directly into his history. Livy wrote his history in Latin. He
would have had to translate all these many Greek speeches into Latin.
At
the time that Dionysius went to Rome in about 8 BC he of course had to
study the spoken Roman dialect of what was still a Greek language,
although more mixed than usual with non Greek words and with a
pronounced Roman accent. This also means that thechronicles and annalists were
still in a more archaic form more easily readable to Dionysius than to
Livy. About this still Greek language Dionysius writes, "The language
pronounced by the Romans is neither utterly foreign, nor perfectly
Greek, but a mixture, as it were, of which the greater part is Aeolic
(Greek) and the only pleasure they (the Romans) enjoy, when they
intermingle with various nations, is that they do not always pronounce
their sounds properly. But among all colonists they preserve all
indications of their Greek origin."[ 59 ]
16. Linguistic indications of the
Greek background of the Latins, Romans and Sabines.
Apart
from the description which the Romans make about themselves, there are
also linguistic indications which clearly point to the Greek reality of
the ancient Latins, Romans and Sabines.
The
claim that the name Rome e.g. is simply a place name, which may derive
even from the Etruscans, is sheer nonsense. The name "Rome" in Greek
(ΡΩΜΗ) means "power," " force," "fighting army" and "speed tactics."[ 60 ] The
name "Rome" derives from two the Greek verbs: 1) roomai which
means "to move with speed or violence, to dart, rush, rush on, esp. of
warriors."[ 61 ] The
name "Rome" also derives from of the Greek passive verb: 2) ronnymi which
means "to strengthen, make strong and mighty" and "to put forth
strength, have strength or might.[ 62 ] The
closest Latin equivalent verb is ruo, which is connected to the
Greek verb reo meaning
"to flow, run, to hasten." Of all the uses of this verb both active and
passive there is none that even comes close to meaning "rome" in Greek.
Romans,
Latins and Sabines were agreed that the name quiris (sing.) quiretes (pl.)
would be their common name which dictionaries translate as citizen, but
the Romans had a name for citizens, like the Greeks, polites,
i.e. civitas. But the
names quiris-quiretes derive
from the Greek name kouros (sing.) kouretes which
means young men of fighting age and therefore warriors, "young men, esp.
young warriors," Iliad 19. 193, 248.[ 63 ] So
the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves first "Warriors" and
later citizens.
Because
all three groups of Romans, Latins and Sabines came to Italy by sea from
Greece and Asia minor they were warrior sailors and sea faring peoples.
It is obviously for this reason that at their weddings they shouted the
Greek word Thalassios,
sailor, at the groom and
not the Latin name marinos.
Of
the seven hills of Rome the Quirinal,
the hill of Mars, was originally that of the Sabines. It was from here
that the Roman warriors of Romulus stole their wives from. Quiris was
not only the Sabine name for a spear, but also for their god of war.
They called their god of war "The Warrior" in their Greek language and
later Mars.
In
the Roman tradition Romulus did not die, but ascended deified to heaven
without leaving behind his body since he was or became the Quirinus,
a or one of the god(s) of war.
These
are some of the contexts within which the Romans thought and spoke about
themselves. No historian has the right to change this. Now whether this
version of Roman history is correct or not is entirely another matter.
But it remains a fact, however, that the Romans themselves, the Latins
themselves and the Sabines themselves believed and wanted to believe
that they are Greeks. Not only this, the united Roman nation of Romans,
Latins and Sabines, spoke their own common Greek Language.
Now
some scholars may search for sources which may prove otherwise, i.e. for
some reason the Romans who were not really Greeks came to believe that
they are Greeks. So what? That would be like proving that a black
American is not an American because he is black.
Each
Roman gens sometimes
was composed of several thousand Romans each one headed by a Patrician
member of the senate. The members of gentis memorized
their laws from childhood and kept their laws a secret among themselves.[ 64 ] A
form of an Italian language was that of their slaves and dependents which
also evolved into the Latin dialect mixed with Greek. It was these
non Greek speaking dependents of Rome who finally forced the Romans to
reduce the laws to written form. It was because of the violent protests
of their Italian dependents that the Romans produced a text of laws in
primitive Latin in about 450 BC. The problem was serious because these
dependents did not know the laws by which they were being punished by
Roman magistrates. Faced with the revolt of these dependents the senate
sent a delegation to Athens to search for a solution to the problem. The
result was a set of 10 texts on bronze tables which finally became the
"The Code of Twelve Tables." Table 11 forbade the marriage between
members of the gentes and
the rest of the population of Rome, in other words between those of
Greek origin and those of non-Greek origin.
The
origin of this problem was that for centuries the members of Greek
colonies were being assimilated by the barbarians among whom they lived.
This was solved by the position that the gentes had
to remain a pure race so that the offerings of their priests to their
gods may be heard and that the auspices be taken correctly and correct
answers received from the gods when making decisions on legal, social
and especially military matters. "The tribune of the Plebs, Gaius
Canuleis, proposed a bill regarding the intermarriage of patricians and
plebians which the patricians looked upon as involving the debasement of
their blood and the subversion of the principles inhering in the gentes,
or families and a suggestion, cautiously put forward at first by the
tribunes, that it should be lawful for one of the consuls to be chosen
from the plebs, was afterwards carried so far that nine tribunes
proposed a bill giving the people power to choose consuls as they might
see fit from either the plebs or the patriciansàWhat tremendous schemes
had Gaius Canuleis set on foot! He was aiming to contaminate the gentis and
throw the auspices, both public and private into confusion, that nothing
might be pure, nothing unpolluted; so that, when all distinctions had
been obliterated, no man might recognize either himself or his kindred.
For what else, they asked, was the object of promiscuous marriages, if
not that plebeians and patricians might mingle together almost like the
beasts?"[ 65 ]
That
the debate was not about the rights between rich and poor is shown by
the following joke told by Gaius Canuleis in the same speech, "Why,
pray, do you not introduce a law that there shall be no intermarrying of
rich and poor"?
17. Equality derives from the cure of
the short circuit between the heart and the brain.
(a)
From Roman racism to Orthodox equality.
All
humans suffer from this short-circuit "since all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) The difference among humans is
not equality or inequality of race, but whether one is being cured or
not. Within this context we have a complete reversal of the above
foundation of the Hellenic paganism of the Roman Empire. The great
struggle between paganism and Christianity in the time of Emperor
Constantine the Great (306-337) is reflected in the difference between
Roman Greeks (meaning Pagans) and Roman Christians. All Pagan Romans
were defending their aristocratic ancient Hellenic identity and
traditions which was being torn apart by the aristocratic identity of
the cure of glorification which was open to all Romans, both gentis and
non-gentis, and to all non-Romans.[ 66 ]The
"Aristocracy" of Glorification is no respector of the aristocracy of
birth.
(b) Examples of racism even in the theology of Pan-Germanism and
Pan-Slavism.
Having
conquered the West Romans the Franco-Latins called themselves the "gentis" and
their Roman slaves "serfs" and "villains". Pan-German ideology was
clearly expressed to an extreme degree by the followers of Hitler who
were out to enslave at least the Slavs. But a theological expression of
this Germanic racism is found in Albert Schweitzer's book, "The Quest Of
The Historical Jesus." For example, on the first page of Chapter I he
claims that,
"When, at some future day, our civilization shall lie, closed and
completed, before the eyes of later generations, German theology
will stand out as a great, a unique phenomenon in the mental and
spiritual life of our time. For nowhere save in the German
temperament can there be found in the same perfection in the living
complex of conditions and factors — of philosophic thought, critical
acumen, historic insight, and religious feeling — without which no
deep theology is possible."
"And the greatest achievement of German theology is the critical
investigation of the life of Jesus. What it has accomplished here
has laid down the conditions and determined the course of the
religious thinking of the future.."
"In the history of doctrine its work has been negative; it so to
speak, cleared the site for the new edifice of religious thought. In
describing how the ideas of Jesus were taken possession of by the
Greek spirit, it was tracing the growth of what must necessarily
become strange to us, and, as a matter of fact, has become strange
to us."[ 67 ]
All
this has been done without the slightest knowledge of what glorification
in the Lord (Yahweh) of Glory is (in both Old and New
Testaments). This is ignored equally by both Germans and their
Protestant and or 'Catholic' colleagues. Because of Augustine's
Neo-Platonism, both Protestants and Latins have always imagined that the
Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils accepted both the analogia
entis between God and His
creation and analogia
fidei between God and the
Bible. This created not only their Biblical fundamentalism, but also
made Greek philosophy the foundation of their understanding of the
History of Dogma which is certainly not that of the reality of the Roman
Ecumenical Councils. The reason for this is that Western Biblical and
doctrinal scholars are ignorant of the Four Patristic Keys to the Bible
and the Dogmas of the Roman Ecumenical Councils explained earlier. But
even many "Orthodox" scholars follow either the Protestant or 'Catholic'
scholars by "sniffing."
Albert
Schweitzer and his students saw clearly where their quest for the
"historical Jesus" was leading, i.e. to the dissolution of the doctrinal
fabric of what passes off as Christian Tradition in the Franco-Latin
West. One typical Orthodox reaction has been to become proud that the
Fathers of the Church had supposedly Hellenized Christianity thereby
making it acceptable to the Hellenic mind of the Roman Empire.
The
Slavophil branch of Pan-Slavism also believed that the Slavs understood
the Bible better than other races. But the supposed reason for this is
that among the Orthodox the Greco-Roman Fathers of the Church belong to
the historical manifestation of the Kouchite movement in history,
whereas the Slavs belong to the Iranian movement in history.[ 68 ] In
other words the Slavic Orthodox are a superior brand of Christians than
the Roman Fathers of the Church, not because they may have reached
glorification, but simply because they are Slavs.[ 69 ]
18. Why Charlemagne wanted to believe
that real Romans are Latins and Latin-speaking.
It
is a fact that the Carolingian Franks wanted and decided to believe that
the Romans were an Italo-Latin speaking race. Latin was beginning to be
made the official language of the Franks. Their own language was a
Teutonic Dialect. The tradition that the Romans were Latin and Latin
speaking was invented within the Carolingian circles and became manifest
in the year 794. In the Libri Carolini the Franks were still calling the
Empire of New Rome the Imperium
Romanum. But since 794 this same Empire begins to be called "Imperium
Grecorum." It must be emphasized that when this change took place
the Franks were ignorant barbarians. Since Charlemagne himself was
illiterate it is probable that the Saxon Alcuin,
the director of his Palatine School, perhaps did some kind of research
which convinced him that the Romans were a people who spoke Latin only.
This would mean that the Greek language became a Roman language only
because so many Greeks had become Romans in the course of Roman
conquests. The Franks knew very well that the Romans in Southern Spain,
Southern Gaul, Southern Italy were Greek-speaking. Even Rome itself had
been a Greek-speaking city until Constantine moved the Roman Capital to
Constantinople-New Rome. The void left by the so many Romans who moved
to New Rome was filled mostly by Latin-speaking Romans. This obliged
Pope Damasus to introduce Latin into the services of Rome. Italy had two
Synods of bishops: the Northern Synod centered in Milan and the Synod of
Rome whose members were all the bishops not only of the rest of Italy
but the whole of the Balkans excepting Thrace which had been transferred
to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The
reason for this falsification was the Frankish need to convince their
West Romans serfs and villains that their Emperor and fellow Romans in
the East were nothing but a bunch of "Greeks" and "heretics." The
purpose was to cut off the West Romans from the East Romans who were
still trying to help their fellow-Romans in the West enslaved to the
Franco-Latins. But what about modern historians today? Why are they not
better historians of Rome than their barbarian ancestors of the Dark
Ages?
The
last group of Latins of Roman history were created as part of the
settlement between Rome and those Italians who revolted between 91-83 BC
demanding Roman citizenship. A second group of Italians also revolted at
the same time and fought for their complete independence from Rome. The
first group was not given the Roman franchise, but the "Latin name." The
second group was simply defeated. This distinction between Roman and
Latin citizens of Rome which resulted from this war was abolished by
Emperor Caracala in 212 AD when he gave these Italian Latins the "Roman
name."
It
is possible that the Merovingian Franks
may have been given the "Latin name" as indicated by the fact that their
gold coins bore the effigy of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople-New
Rome from Anastasius I (491-518) through the reign of Heraclius
(610-641). The latter's rule coincided with his ally the Frankish King
Dagobert I (d. 639). Together they fought the Bulgarians and Slavs.
The
title of the Merovingian kings was "King of the Franks." Dagobert's
reign was followed by the "do nothing kings," evidently made that way by
their Carolingian Mayors of the Palace who after the reign of Dagobert
become the real rulers of the Roman Province of Gaul. It is significant
that the name Francia is not once mentioned in Gregory of Tours'
"History of the Franks" since it remained the Roman Province named
Gallia. In other words the Frankish King was the King of the Franks not
the King of the Romans. The ruler of the West Romans was still the
Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople-New Rome, especially after the
West Roman Emperor disappeared in 476.
It
is also possible that the Carolingian Franks may have been given the
"Latin" name in conjunction with Pope Leo III's (795-816) crowning
Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans" in 800. In any case we call the
Teutonic Latins of the Middle Ages Franco-Latins in order to distinguish
them from the Greek Latins who were Romans and the Italian Latins who
became Romans in 212 AD. The Franks never became Romans, but rulers of
the Romans. In sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks, who were allies
of New Rome, the Carolingian Franks literally hated the Romans. This is
clear from the Libri
Carolini, the Carolingian preface to Salic Law and Otto I's
Ambassador to New Rome Luitbrand of Cremona who revealed this same
reality in his tirade against the very name "Roman," which, according to
him, all Franco-Latins use to insult their enemies.[ 70 ] Frankish
hatred for Romans, and not dogma, was the basis of Charlemagne's
condemnation of Romans as "heretics" and "Greeks" at his Councils of
Frankfurt in 794 and Aachen in 809. The main purpose of these titles,
"heretic" and "Greek" was to teach the enslaved West Romans that the
only Romania left was Papal Romania and their prayers for Romania and
its Emperor should stop there.[ 71 ] The
Franks began brainwashing their now subjected Roman revolutionaries into
believing that this Romania of their Pope is all that exists since the
rest of the Empire was a "heretical Grecia" somewhere in the East.
The
second reason we use the term Franco-Latins is because the mostly
Teutons in question looked upon Charlemagne as the founder of their
Latin Empire and Civilization which its leaders believed was destined to
rule the world. They call Charlemagne's Empire the First Reich, Emperor
Otto I's (912-973) "Roman" Empire the Second Reich, while some of the
Franco-Latin royalty and nobility considered Hitler's (1889-1945)
candidate Empire the "Third Reich." In any case Charlemagne is
considered the primary Father of today's United Europe whose real
purpose is to compete with the United States dollar for control of the
world's wealth.
One
Orthodox nation, Greece, is part of today's United Europe and a second
one, Cyprus, is a candidate. Others want to follow. This means that
United Europe is indeed becoming not only the real "Third Reich," but
also a Third Imperium
Romanum, both combined into one. In such a case this State should be
named "Franco-Romania" and its citizens Franco-Romans. This is a
historical reality since almost all Europeans are descendants of either
Franco-Latins or Romans. But this can become a reality only by the
recognition of religion as a neurobiological sickness which divides
people, according to the figments of their religious imaginations, into
fanatic enclaves. This sickness is exactly what divides Europeans in the
sphere of religion and to a certain degree in culture also.
It
is also a reality that the prophets of the Old Testament and their
students had been one of the sources of this tradition whereby religion
was considered a sickness of man's spirit in the heart and which is
cured by the purification and illumination of the heart, as we shall
see. This prophetic tradition was preserved by the Hasidim through the
Hellenistic and Roman periods of Jewish history and preserved, as it
seems, by them even up to our time.[ 72 ]
The
very cure of the sickness of religion is what had been incorporated into
the foundation of Constantine the Great's New Rome in 330 AD However,
this sickness and its cure has been forgotten by many Orthodox because
of Peter the Great's (1672-1725) Westernization of his Russian Orthodox
Church. This was imposed as policy by Britain, France and Russian upon
those nations which were created by Balkanization of the European part
of the Ottoman Empire. This is why both the Vatican and most Protestants
continue to believe dogmatically indeed, that the only key
to relations with the Orthodox is the "way" of Tsar Peter. Both the
Anglican and the Vatican Churches have specialists who follow Orthodox
theological developments and carefully pick out those Orthodox
"specialists" who follow such lines of convergence with the Augustinian
tradition in order to promote them to key dialogue positions.[ 73 ]
In
sharp contrast to Peter the Great's policies, the Merovingian Franks,
who ruled Gallo-Roman Christians were part of this tradition of the cure
of the sickness of religion. Even the few Christian Lombards at the time
belonged to this tradition.[ 74 ] However,
this was never understood by the Carolingian Franks who made Augustine's
Neo-Platonism their religion (and sickness) in sharp contrast to the
Merovingian Franks who witnessed and supported the condemnation of
Augustine's teaching about grace and original sin at the Council
of Orange (529). The Carolingian doctrinal tradition began with this
Platonism of Augustine which they never abandoned and which still
dominates both Vaticanism and Protestantism. In other words both Western
and Eastern Europeans must return to the unity they had in this cure of
the sickness of religion under New Rome and the Merovingians in order to
complete the current effort for European union. What is of interest is
that many Jews still belong to this tradition of the cure. To speak of a
separation between East and West is nonsense. In reality the separation
is one between those who do not know that religion is a sickness and
those who know that religion is a sickness and know its cure. Since one
is speaking about a common disease of all humans one can not confine its
cure only to a United Europe.
There
are two keys to this study which may be distinguished but in reality are
two faces of the same coin. For this reason we will deal with them
together.
One
key to this study is that religion is a neurobiological sickness. It
stems from a short-circuit between the heart and the brain. The "spirit
of man in the heart" should be spinning in a circle praying when in its
normal state of communion with the uncreated glory (shekina),
i.e. the uncreated "reign (basilea) of God." This uncreated glory or
reigning power of God is everywhere present saturating all of creation.
Like the rest of creation all humans are already in communion with this
glory's creating, providential, ruling and even purifying energy at
various levels. However, few go on to participating in the
"illuminating" and "glorifying" energy of the "glory" of God. The reason
for this is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
(Rom. 3:23)" The reason for this is that the "spirit" or the noetic
faculty of each one
usually begins to unfold itself out of its natural circular state during
infancy into a straight line and sticks itself to the brain causing a
short-circuit. In this way this "spirit" in infants, while always
anchored in the heart, becomes enslaved by means of the brain to the
shortcomings of its parents and its general environment since all
thoughts in the brain originate thence.
It
seems that the reason why neurologists have not yet found a center for
religion in the brain, as far as I know, is that it resides in this
short-circuit between the heart and the brain and not in the brain
itself. It is this short-circuit which creates the fantasies of
religious convictions, as well as other signs of a disorded mind, from
mild to serious, including acute criminality and barbarism.
The
second key to this study is the phenomenon of deliberate falsification
of history as part of the enslavement of others. It is generally agreed,
even by the Franco-Latin nobility, that the civilization of the Roman
Empire was Hellenic in its inception. But this same nobility claims that
this Romano-Hellenic Civilization changed into a Western Civilization in
the 8-9th centuries in Western Europe and into a Byzantine Civilization
in the East at about the same time. But what had really happened was
that the Franco-Latins had reverted to a period of sheer barbarity under
the leadership of the Carolingian Franks which up until recently was
still being called the "Dark Ages." How else can one describe France,
for example, in 1789 when 85% of her population were still serfs and
villains guarded from escape by 40,000 castles.[ 75 ] How
can such a France be better described than part of the Dark Ages. It
can, of course, be made to look like a civilized society only when
history is controlled by the aristocracy and the middle class of 13%
which still keep this so-called "free" 85% in abject slavery to history
as written by themselves.[ 76 ]
So
that we may not be accused of exaggerations we quote a description of
the condition of the serfs of France before the French Revolution
written by Germaine de Stael, the daughter of Jacques Necker (1732-1804)
the finance minister of Louis XVI. She writes, "Young people and
strangers who had not known France before the revolution, and today see
the people enriched by the division of properties and the suppression of
the tithe and the feudal regime, can have no idea of the condition of
this country, when the nation was carrying the weight of all the
privileges. The supporters of slavery in the colonies have often said
that a peasant in France was more unfortunate than an Negro. This was an
argument to comfort the whites, but not to harden them against the
blacks."[ 77 ]
From
this viewpoint the real beginning of Western Civilization is the
American Revolution of 1775-81 which was completed by the abolition of
slavery in 1865. The French Revolution of 1789 was also a beginning of
Western Civilization since it immediately liberated the serfs and
villains from their captivity to the 40,000 castles which the peasants
enjoyed burning together with their castellani inhabitants. But
democracy itself was squelched by Napoleon in 1800. After he fell from
power the rest of the nobility returned from mostly self-imposed exile.
Both the Napoleonists and the other royalists got down to work and
re-enslaved the 85% of Gallo-Romans. Of course they were no longer
called serfs and villains. However, they are still called "peasants" (paysan)
which had been the collective name for the "serfs" and "villains" before
the revolution. Now all Gallo-Roman children are being brainwashed by
the comic figure "Asterix" into believing that they are the "Celts" who
were enslaved to the Romans as though they were not Gallo-Roman citizens
during Imperial and Merovingian times. It was the ancestors of these
children now being brainwashed by "Asterix" who are the descendants of
the 85% of Gallo-Roman serfs and villains liberated in 1789.
The
leaders of the falsification of history today are the nobilities of
France, England and Russia. What these nobilities had been losing in
battle and politics has been gradually recouped by their progressive
re-writing of history. One of their greatest successes has been creating
a partnership between the Encyclopaedia Britannica and naïve Chicago
University in order to put it into every American home. It has been
transforming the way Americans think about so many aspects of historical
reality into conformity with the interests of European nobility. The
basic reason for their success is that it is easier for Americans doing
historical research to copy English scholars rather than learn the
sources themselves which are in a wide range of languages. Americans in
general could never suspect that scholars of such prestigious
Universities as Oxford and Cambridge and British professors teaching in
American Universities are capable of deliberately shading or even
falsifying historical reality in support of their class interests. After
all isn't Charlemagne still their Great Father?
Being
misled, as it seems, by their first teacher, the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin, the
Carolingians came to believe that the ancient Romans spoke Latin and
were therefore Latins. As we already saw it was the Latins who were
absorbed into the Roman nation. Also the first language of the Romans
was Greek because they were simply Greeks who came to Italy as a result
of the War between Trojan Greeks and the Achaean Greeks. What is even
more interesting is that the basic reason the Latins refused to become
Romans before they were conquered by King Ancus Marcius is that the
Latins considered the Romans impure Greeks because they had intermarried
with the Sabines who were also Greeks, but not pure Greeks. The Latin
General Mettius Fufetius argues with the Roman King Tullus Hostius that
"...if we should yield the command to you, the base born will rule over
the true born, the barbarians over Greeks,
and immigrants over the native born."[ 78 ]
In
sharp contrast to this historical reality the Franks believed that the
Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) had abandoned the Latin
language and tradition in favor of the Greek language and tradition when
he moved his capital from Rome to New Rome officially in 330. This
nonsense was clearly argued by Emperor Louis II (855-875) against
Emperor Basil I (867-886) in 871.[ 79 ] The
falsification of Roman history in question has become the power base of
the Franco-Latin nobility's ability of ruling so many millions of Romans
by means of their ignorance of their true identity and why they are not
really members of the ruling class.
Since
religion had been one of the determining factors in this change we shall
concentrate a bit here. Under the weight of Augustine Franco-Latin
Christianity became one of the barbaric forms of religion and one of the
clearest manifestations of the sickness of religion. At the very same
time the Roman Empire in the East had continued to promote this cure of
the sickness of religion. The very foundation of the Dark Ages was the
cultivation of the short-circuit between the brain and the heart which
is the basis of the sickness of religion. At this very same time the
Roman Empire in the East was still concentrating on the cure of this
short circuit between the brain and the heart among its citizens, being
guided by monasticism which had become the center of this cure. In sharp
contrast Franco-Latin monasticism was mere Augustinian Neo-Platonic
mysticism in Christian dress. This is exactly what much of Protestantism
rejected during the Reformation. A basic reason why many Orthodox do not
see this any more is that they follow the Franco-Latin translation of
the Patristic term Secret Theology by Mystical Theology. Secret Theology
simply means that the uncreated glory of God seen in glorification has
no similarity whatsoever to anything created
and therefore cannot be described or expressed in words or concepts.
Mystical Theology means union with the so-called archetypes of creation
in God which is an "invention of demons" according to the Orthodox
Fathers, as we shall see. Words and concepts may lead to glorification
in which one sees in not seeing since it is the uncreated glory which
sees itself by means of the glorified. There is here no liberation of a
soul from a body since the individual, body and soul, and everything in
sight is saturated by uncreated glory of God dividing itself without
division and is everywhere present.
In
order to make the function of this short-circuited "spirit" in the heart
more intelligible to the Hellenic mind the Fathers of the early Church
called it also by the Greek term noera
energeia which we
translate noetic energy or noetic
faculty. Of the three Greek terms for rational activity, i.e. nous, dianoiaand logos,
the Fathers used nous to
designate the "spirit" of man which prays in the heart without ceasing
when restored to normal. In this way they accorded this spirit in the
heart a reality equal to the brain. The original use of this praying
spirit is to be found in St. Paul. "I will pray with the spirit, but I
will also pray with the intellect. I will recite psalms with the spirit,
but I will also recite psalms with the intellect (nous)" 1 Cor.
14:14. These are the Old
Testament psalms being
recited quietly in the heart and not the strange sounds being passed off
today as "speaking in tongues" by the aid of a translator.
The
cure of this short-circuit which causes the sickness of religion is the
key to both the Old and New Testaments. Within this context such titles
as Christian, Jew, Moslem, heretic, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant,
atheist, infallible Pope, etc., are in reality meaningless when this
sickness of religion and its cure is ignored and sometimes accompanied
with phenomenal pretensions and even with barbaric conduct. The center
stage in the cure of this sickness is held by the prophets of both the
Old and the New Testaments and their successors, who having been cured
themselves guide others in this same process of cure. If one does not
know this cure, yet fancies himself, or is fancied by others, to be
inspired by God, he is indeed inspired, but only by his own
short-circuit.
That
quite a few religions have been historically dangerous to the liberty of
the individual and to the proper functioning of society is obvious
enough and must be handled accordingly. More recently the communists had
handled religion as a psychological and social problem and tried to
uproot it by means not very democratic. In contrast to such approaches
the prophets of the Old and New Testaments practiced a concrete cure of
the sickness of religion which the Roman Empire espoused in order to
produce normal citizens who would put the common good and neighbor over
self at the center of individual efforts. Most Jews and Christians are
no longer aware of this short-circuit let alone its cure. In contrast
the leaders of the Roman Empire had become very much aware of this
sickness and cure and incorporated it into its administration, exactly
as modern medicine is being supported by governments today.
19. Augustine (354-430) and Ambrose
(340-397)
However,
Augustine, in sharp contrast to Ambrose who had baptized him, was not
aware of this sickness and cure and passed on his ignorance to his
followers. The Carolingian Franks, their allies, the Vatican and most
Protestants have been and continue to be his followers. Add to this all
Orthodox victims of Peter the Great's Westernization of Russian
Orthodoxy.
Augustine
himself tells us how he came to first believe that Christianity and
Platonism were two sides of the same coin and how he later came to see
some basic differences. He tells us in his Confessions how he yearned to
discuss his problems of faith with Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, but
ended up speaking about them only with Simplicianus, (VIII.ii) the
presbyter who was to succeed Ambrose as bishop of Milan. As soon as
Augustine mentioned that he was studying the Platonists, Simplicianus
reacted by rejoicing "over me, that I had not fallen upon any other
philosophers' writings" Then Simplicianus recounted how, when he was a
priest in Rome, he had received Victorinus into the Church. He was the
very same translator of the Platonists whose writings Augustine was
studying. Augustine left this meeting with Simplicianus with the
impression that Platonism and the Bible are both two sides of the same
coin. Had Augustine paid closer attention to Ambrose's sermons he would
seen how the bishop of Milan saw no identity in doctrine between
Platonism and Christianity. In answer to Augustine's query about what to
study in preparation for his baptism, Ambrose wrote back that he should
study the book of Isaiah.
Augustine
tells us that he did not understand this Book of Isaiah. So he and his
friends engaged in philosophical discussions in their preparation for
baptism. Minutes of these discussions were kept and later published. One
of the basic conclusions of these discussions was the following
statement of Augustine: "Meanwhile, I am confident that I shall find
among the Platonists what is not in opposition to our Sacred
Scriptures."[ 80 ] He
later corrected himself in his Confessions by pointing out those
Biblical teachings which he claims to have found in the Platonists and
those which he did not find there.[ 81 ] This
became the Franco-Latin distinction between natural revelation to the
pagan philosophers and supernatural revelation in the Bible. According
to Augustine the doctrine of the Holy Trinity belongs to natural
revelation and the incarnation and related matters to supernatural
revelation, a position rejected by all Fathers including Ambrose.
For
the Fathers of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils there is no such
distinction between natural and supernatural revelation since there is
no similarity between the created and the uncreated. There is only the
cure of the sickness of religion by means of the stages of the
purification and illumination of the heart which leads to glorification
during which one sees that there is no similarity whatsoever between the
created and the uncreated.
Augustine
did not have the slightest suspicion of the existence of these
fundamental presuppositions for understanding the Old and New Testaments
from the viewpoint of those who had reached glorification and which
ordains prophets. Therefore, he never understood "that there is no
similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated and that,
therefore, it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to
conceive God." On the contrary he writes "I will not be slow to search
out the substance of God, whether through His Scripture or through the
creature. For both of these are set forth for our contemplation to this
end, that He may Himself be loved, who inspired the one, and created the
other." The technical term for this division between supernatural and
natural revelation is analogia
fide and analogia
entis which are both
rejected by the Fathers of the Church as the fundamental basis of
heresy.
The
Carolingian Franks started their theological tradition in the latter
part of the 9th century knowing only Augustine. These Franks had not yet
become acquainted with at least a second Father of the Church when
Charlemagne went ahead with condemning the Roman Empire as "pagan" and
"heretical" in his Libri
Carolini. This is the first time in history that a whole nation was
condemned as pagan and heretical and indeed by illiterate barbarians who
knew only the text of the Bible and Augustine. Up until this time
individual leaders and their followers were considered pagan or
heretical, but not a whole nation. What is most amazing is that at this
time the first Frankish theologian in history, Rabanus Maurus, was an 18
year old student of the Saxon Alcuin, the director of Charlemagne's
Palatine school, who himself knew only Augustine. Then Charlemagne's
Council of Frankfurt (794) re-confirmed the heretical and pagan nature
of the Roman Empire. It was at Frankfurt that Charlemagne started the
tradition of calling the Roman Empire by the name "Greek Empire."
However, he kept the name "Roman Empire" for the "Papal States." In this
way all enslaved West Romans, including the Irish after 1066,[82 ] would
now be praying only for the "Papal Roman Empire" and no longer for the
now supposedly heretical and pagan "Greek Empire."
20. The Rise of the "Byzantine"
History Lie and Balkanization
Being
a "commoner," and therefore not privy to the reasons for the
Franco-Latin nobility's falsification of Roman history, Edward Gibbons
(1737-1794) used the name "Roman Empire" in his "Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire" right up to its fall in 1453. He read history out of the
Roman sources and not as a scheming member of a conspiracy. This is what
he found in all the sources of Roman history. The keepers of the
Carolingian tradition reacted by transforming the Roman Empire into a
"Byzantine Empire" which supposedly appeared in about 717AD. This date
comes quite close to Charlemagne's date whereby he transformed the Roman
Empire of his Libri
Carolini into the Greek
Empire of his Council of Frankfurt in 794. However, the real reason for
the transformation of Charlemagne's Greek Empire into a Byzantine Empire
was avoid the ridiculous reality of what was becoming reality
in, for example, the London
Protocol No.59 of January 30, 1836. There "Greeks" who fought in
their revolution to break away from Turkey and establish their own
state, but were left outside of its borders, are depicted as becoming
"Hellenes" by virtue of the right they are being given to leave Turkey
and immigrate to Hellas. In other words they are being liberated not
only from the Ottoman Empire, but also from Charlemagne's "Greek" Empire
which had survived as a Church within the Ottoman Empire. This is
reality from the linguistic Franco-Latin and Russian viewpoints.
However, from the viewpoint of the linguistic tradition of these
"Greeks" and of the Turks these "Greeks" are called Romans in Greek,
Turkish, Arabic, Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, etc. In other
words Charlemagne's "Greek" was at this time limited to the confines of
the Franco-Latins. This Protocol was signed upon the occasion of the
settlement of the final maps which had been drawn up showing the
boundaries between Hellas and the Ottoman Empire and to permit those
"Greek" or Roman revolutionaries, who ended up in Turkey, now that the
maps between the two countries had settled, to go to the new State of
Hellas as being now already "Hellenes."
We
translate from the original "Lingua Franca.": "Always understood that,
those who will be considered Hellenes from now on, and will take their
place in the category of those who will profit with the right of
emigration are: - 1st All the native Greeks of the Ottoman territory,
who had emigrated before June 16, 1830, and who did not return to Turkey
to re-settle there: 2nd. The Greeks to whom the right of emigration had
been accorded by the Protocol of June 16, 1830, and who emigrated
between the date of said Protocol and December 9, 1835, the day that the
Map of the frontier had been delivered to the Port; on condition that
they have fulfilled the conditions in regard to this present Act." Here
we have a distinction between Greek Hellenes and Greeks who are not
Greek Hellenes which we find in a Declaration of the Three Courts
(Britain, France and Russia) "0n the occasion of the election of Prince
Othon to throne of Greece" dated august 30, 1832 which opens with the
salutation "Hellenes!" and goes on to call these Hellenes "Greek" also.
So here we have a distinction between Greek Hellenes of Greece and those
simply Greeks within the Ottoman Empire.
But
the British, French and Russians had also set the trap for the eventual
disappearance of the Roman name. After we deal with how they almost
finished the job, we will turn our attention to the reason why. One may
have a clue by asking oneself whether one is a member of the
Franco-Latin royalty or nobility or not. If the answer in no, then one
is a Roman or a descendent of Romans or of ancestors who migrated to, or
were taken by force, to former Roman Provinces.
During
the French Revolution the Gallo-Roman serfs and villains made up 85% of
the population and were being guarded from escape by 40,000 castles. The
mostly former Gallo-Romans and now the Middle Class made up the 13% of
the population. This means that the Gallo-Romans made up 98% of the
population of France in 1789. In other words the nobility comprised only
2% of the population.Napoleon destroyed
the power of the Gallo-Romans and saved France and Noble Europe and
Russia from a general takeover of Europe by the sub-strata of society
which at the time was not educated enough to make profit on their
overwhelming numbers.
But
the greater danger facing the royalties and nobilities of Europe lay in
Edward Gibbons' revelation that the so-called "Greek Empire" is really
the Roman Empire. This history was translated into French in time to
have an impact on the French Revolution. This intensified the awareness
of the Roman unity between East and West Romans which had been distorted
by Charlemagne's "Greek Empire" which was hidden from the enslaved West
Romans. Because of Gibbon the Gallo-Romans produced their revolutionary
song called the CHANSON DE
BELISAIRE (The Song of
Belisarius) the great Roman general who was sent by Emperor Justinian to
liberate the West Romans from their Teutonic conquerors. Napoleon
finally suppressed the overwhelming power of the Gallo-Roman element and
restored the power of the Frankish nobility. He himself belonged to that
part of the Franco-Tuscan nobility which had remained faithful to the
Carolingians and for this reason supported the French Revolution against
the descendants of King Hugh Capet (987-996) who hadterminated the
Carolingian line in France. By means of Napoleon's victory over the
Gallo-Romans and his suppression of their revolution, he personally
transformed the Robespierrian plans to support an East Roman Revolution
against the Ottomans into an Ancient Greek Revolution against both the
Romans and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. Napoleon and Tsar Alexander
I agreed on this plan in
1806. Their successors continued the effort and were joined by Great
Britain.
The
foundation of the plan for the destruction and the dividing up of the
Ottoman Empire between Britain, France and Russia became the
Balkanization of Ottoman Rumeli and the Westernization of both the
Orthodox Christians and the Moslems. But this process required the use
of a new term in order to cover up the falsification in progress. What
had to be solved was a problem inherited from the Franco-Latin tradition
which came into existence in 794. Since this year the Franco-Latins had
been calling the East Romans by the name "Greeks." But these so-called
"Greeks" were still calling themselves Romans while the Turks, Arabs and
other non Franco-Latin peoples were calling them Romans also. So to
claim that Hellenes are being liberated from Romans made sense in these
languages, but not within the Franco-Latin tradition. To say in the
Franco-Latin tradition that "Hellenes" are being liberated from "Greeks"
is a nonsensical contradiction in terms. The name "Greek" is the Latin
word for Greek and "Hellene" is the Greek word for Greek. So the term
"Byzantine" was finally chosen by Britain, Russia and France to make it
possible to depict the Hellenic Greeks as being liberated from the
Byzantines. This position was first made public in George Finlay's
"History of Greece" But before Finlay's "History" appeared, we come
across decisions whereby Greeks are being legally transformed into
Hellenes. Thus, in the London Protocol of 1/30/1836 signed by Britain,
France and Russia, we come across "Greeks" being legally transformed
into "Hellenes" in the French language. In Turkish we have "Romans"
being legally transformed into "Hellenes." Because Greek diplomats at
the time knew French they therefore felt that they did not require
translations. But in translations subsequently made we find "Hellenes"
being transformed into "Hellenes" instead of "Greeks" being transformed
into "Hellenes." In other words they did not know that the Franco-Latin
use of the name "Greek" had become a substitute for the name "Roman"
since 794.
In
order to hammer more nails into the coffin he was building for the
eventual demise of the Roman Empire, Charlemagne added theFilioque to
the Roman Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council of 381 and condemned
all who disagreed with him as heretics at his Council of Aachen in 809.
Charlemagne accomplished all the above when his specialists knew only
Augustine. Franco-Latins who could read and write were a rarity.
When
these Franks realized that they could not quote only Augustine when
debating with free Romans, as had happened in Bari in
1088, they began their peculiar tradition of collecting isolated
sections of the Fathers which they found in collections of canons
(Church laws) and scholia on the Bible and enslaved them all to
Augustinian categories. They continued to do the same with complete
books of the Fathers as they became available. In this way the whole
Franco-Latin tradition got bogged down into trying to understand texts
of the Bible, Fathers and Councils out of context in an Augustinian
mindset. This tradition was followed by all the allies of the Franks.
Even
in this age of so-called dialogue the nobility of the Vatican and that
of the Protestants, in their new cooperation via the World Council of
Churches, is still searching for those Orthodox who use their own
Augustinian categories to negotiate with.[ 83 ] What
comprises the core of the last part of this paper was adopted by the
Central Committee of the World Council of Churches meeting in Moscow as
part of the material to be studied at its General Assembly of the World
Council of Churches in Canberra. In other words the Central Committee
which is the legislative body of the Council was circumvented by those
who really run the WCC's show.
What
is left is to translate the biblical "spirit of man" and the patristic
"noetic energy" into the categories of neurobiological sickness due to
the short-circuit between the heart and the brain and its cure. And
indeed the whole of Vaticanian, Protestant and Peter the Great Orthodox
theology is indeed nothing else than the result of this short-circuit
between the heart and the brain.
What
one must realize is that terms which belong to metaphysical categories
were and are used only by heretics in support of their positions. The
Fathers were forced to use these terms and categories against the
heretics themselves, but never with the intention of using these terms
and categories as parts of definitions of God. This Augustine never
understood.
In
sharp contrast to the Augustinian metaphysical tradition all decisions
of the Nine Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Empire are founded on the
following three axioms:
1)
There is no similarity whatsoever between the uncreated and the created.
2)
It is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive
God.
3)
What is common in the Holy Trinity is common to all Three Persons and
what is individual belongs to only One Person.
One
can understand how and why Augustine is not aware of these axioms. He
simply did not pay attention to Ambrose's sermons. I am not aware of any
Western history of Christian doctrine which is aware of the existence of
these three axioms in the theology of the Fathers of the Ecumenical
Councils.
The
second key to this study is the historical context within which the
sickness and cure in question was sidestepped by the Teutonic conquerors
of the West Romans who fell in love with Augustine's doctrine
of predestination which
coincided with their tradition of settling questions of truth by trial
by fire. According to Augustine everyone has inherited the guilt of Adam
and Eve and is worthy of eternal damnation. But God has predestined that
number of humans to replace the fallen angels regardless of their
inherited guilt and worthiness for eternal damnation. Therefore, the
salvation of those predestined does not depend on their personal
worthiness, but solely on God's choice. Because many French
revolutionaries of 1789 assumed that Augustine's version of the
teachings of St. Paul and the Bible were correct they blamed their many
centuries of enslavement under the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility on
Christianity itself.[ 84 ]
The
most important of the Teutons were the Goths, Franks, Burgundians,
Lombards, Normans and West Saxons. Most of the East Saxons of England
were enslaved by the Normans and remained part of European Roman society
and found it normal to join the Varangian army of New Rome. The
Franco-Latins conquered the whole of West Roman society and reduced it
the status of serfs and villains. By about the 11th-12th century some
Roman serfs and villains began the process of becoming the middle class
of the Franco-Latin feudal system. They began to appear in walled towns
defending themselves from their former owners, i.e. the castellani (the
dwellers in fortresses with their families) who guarded the slave camps
from which these Romans had been escaping.
The
castellani in question had become virtually independent of their emperor
and kings during the 10th and 11th centuries. This was because of the
power they had acquired as the ones who had become mainly responsible
for enslaving the revolutionary Romans in turmoil during the period that
the Franks were fighting to take over the Roman Papacy. Otto II
(973-983) forcefully placed the first non Roman, the Lombard Peter of
Pavia, on the papal throne as John XIX (983-984) and provoked a
revolution of the Romans in Rome aided by the Roman Emperor in
Constantinople New Rome. Then Otto III (983-1002) placed Bruno of
Carinthia on the papal throne as Gregory V (996-999) and Gerbert de
Aurillac to succeed him as Silvester II (991-1003). These efforts having
failed the German Emperors devised an interim plan of putting Tusculan Roman Popes
on the papal throne between 1012-1046 in exchange of adding the Filioque to
the Creed of Papal Romania. Then the Franco-Latins dropped this facade
with their outright takeover of the Papacy in 1046.
The
Franco-Latins had been forced to take over the Papacy because the Roman
Popes had been using the Pseudo-Isidorean
Decretals, which appeared about 850 AD, to take control of all
Franco-Latin bishops in order to either bring the Franco-Latin
leadership under the rule of law and order and Roman Orthodoxy or even
under Roman rule.[ 85 ]
Having
lost any real control over the castellani the Rex
Francorum (King of the
Franks) in West Francia retaliated by taking the rebel Roman towns in
question under his protection. He placed his military within the
citadels of these Roman towns and franchised their citizens. At the time
the name Frank meant not only a member of the Frankish race but also a
free person. This gave rise to the distinction between middle class
Franks, who descended from serfs and villains, and "noble" Franks, who
descended from the race of the conquerors. The taxes paid by these
middle class Franchised Romans made the Rex
Francorum (Roy des
Francois), the richest and most powerful monarch of Western Europe.
The
Gallo-Roman serfs and villains called the middle class Romans "Francimander,"
apers of the Franks, especially because they spoke the Frankish
language. They called the Franks "Franciman," evidently because the
Franks at the time of the conquest called themselves so in their own
Germanic language. This name Franciman survived in Gallo-Roman patois
right up the revolution of 1789 and in popular poetry and songs.
We
remind ourselves once more that when the French Revolution broke out in
1789 the population of France had just been counted for the convocation
of the Estates General. The total was about 26 million broken down into
2% nobility, 13% middle class and 85% serfs and villains. The position
of historians[ 86 ] that
the Romans and Franks had become one people even in the time of the
Merovingian Franks needs a bit more proof than is usually provided. In
any case it is highly unlikely that more than 20 million Gallo-Roman
serfs and villains in 1789 had descended from ancestors who had
volunteered to become the serfs and villains of the ancestors of the
Castellani (Chatelaine) of 1789 who were still living in 40,000 castles
and guarding more than 20 million serfs and villains from escape.
William the Conqueror's "Book of Winchester" (Doomsday Book) seems to
also corroborate the plight of the conquered medieval West Romans. At
the time of the conquest even the Irish were praying for the Imperium
Romanum not realizing
that Charlemagne had restricted the name to the Papal States and had
begun the Franco-Latin tradition of calling the Empire of New Rome, the
Irish were praying for, the heretical "Imperium Graecorum."
Roman and Franco-Latin Popes of Rome
The
key to the transition of the Orthodox Catholic Tradition from an illegal
to legal religion and then to an established Church lies in the fact
that the Roman Nation realized that it was not confronted simply by
another form of religion, but by a well organized system of
neurobiological clinics which cured the noetic energy in one's heart and
its happiness-seeking sickness. It is this cure which produced normal
citizens with selfless love dedicated to the radical cure of personal
and social ills.
In
sharp contrast the Carolingian Franco-Latin tradition incorporated
Augustine's Neo-Platonic search for happiness as the core of its
civilization. The incorporation of the military into the episcopate of
Carolingian Francia, whose duty was to pacify the revolutionary
Gallo-Roman population, is the key to understanding the so-called Great
Schism between Roman and Latin Christendoms. These Frankish bishops and
their successors never understood the meaning of apostolic tradition and
succession which they reduced to Episcopal power over a system of
sacramental magic which sends people either to heaven or hell. This they
transferred to the papacy when they forcefully took it over.
This
break in apostolic tradition and succession was provoked and sustained
for centuries by military and political power as a normal function
within Latin Christendom. Considered just as normal was the distortion
of both the reality of the East Roman Empire and its Church and
Civilization which continues today under modified "Byzantine" guise.
Following a weak Gothic lead Charlemagne was the first to generally
impose the names "Greek" and "heretical" on the free parts of the Roman
Empire.
Local and Ecumenical Councils
Canon
Law makes specific provisions for the regular convocation of the Synods
of bishops presided over by a Metropolitan, Archbishop, or Patriarch at
regular intervals for dealing with the proper execution of the Church's
mission of cure within society. There are no such provisions for
Ecumenical Councils. The reason for this is that the local synods were
part of the original structure of the Church, whereas the Ecumenical
Synod was of an extraordinary and imperial nature. One may draw a
parallel between Ecumenical Councils and the Apostolic Council convoked
in Jerusalem (Acts 15, 6:6-29). Ecumenical Councils, however, were
convoked by the Roman Emperor for the purpose of signing into Roman Law
what the synods of Autocephalous and Autonomous Churches believed and
practiced in common.
Arius,
Nestorius and Eutyches were first condemned by local Councils and then
by Ecumenical Councils. Paul of Samosata was condemned by a local
council whose decision was accepted by all other synods. The same was
the case with Sabbelius. Even at Ecumenical Councils bishops
participated as members of their own synods whose spokesmen were their
Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Patriarchs, or their legates. It should
be clear that neither can an Ecumenical Council become a substitute for
local synods, nor can local synods take precedence over an Ecumenical
Council, unless the one or the other strays from the faith. The reason
for this is that authority resides neither in the Ecumenical nor Local
Council, but in the glorified prophets, apostles and Fathers who
participate in Councils or whose teachings the Councils follow. The
reason for this is that the only thing which is at stake is the cure of
a neurobiological sickness and not metaphysical concepts about God. The
Fathers used the metaphysical terms of heretics in order to make clear
the teaching of the prophetic tradition as opposed to them, not as part
of an effort to understand intellectually or philosophically the
uncreated. We repeat that for the Fathers who condemned heretics at
Roman Ecumenical and local Councils, as opposed to Augustinian
Franco-Latin Councils, there is no similarity whatsoever between the
created and the uncreated and therefore "it is not possible to express
God and even more impossible to conceive God."
23. The
method underlying this part of the paper
The
difference between the cure of the neurobiological sickness of religion
and the resulting Neo-Hellenic civilization of the Roman Empire, and the
return to this sickness of religion by Augustine of Hippo and all his
followers, is the underlying outline of this study. The difference is
between the cure of a neurobiological sickness residing in a
short-circuit between the heart and the brain and no cure. Since this
sickness and its cure is an historical reality and not part of the
histories of philosophy and religion, this study, in intention at least,
is part of history and in this sense part of tradition. For this reason
nominal "Orthodox" belong to the history of religion.
The
New Testament writers and the Fathers read back into history their own
experience of purification and illumination of the heart and
glorification which they identify with that of both the Old and New
Testament prophets beginning at least with Abraham. One begins with the
current sickness of religion steming from the short-circuit between the
heart and the brain and its cure. Then one reads its cure back into the
past as the key to understanding the Old and New Testament prophets and
the Fathers and into the future. This is parallel to repetition of the
cure of sickness in medical science passed on from doctors to doctors.
In this case Christ, the Lord (Yahweh) of Glory Himself is the
doctor who personally cures and perfects his doctors in both the Old and
New Testaments by the unceasing prayer in the hearts which repairs the
short-circuit between the heart and the brain. This historical
succession of cure and perfection in the Lord of Glory, both before and
after his incarnation, is the heart and core of the Biblical and
Patristic Tradition and the Synodical System.
We
divide the remainder of this study into 1) Historical Context, 2) the
sickness of religion, 3) Synods as Associations of Neurological Clinics,
4) Synods and Civilizations and 5) Conclusions.
24. Historical Context
Biblical
Faith is one's cooperation/operation with the Holy Spirit Who initiates
the cure of the sickness of possessive love caused by the short-circuit
in the heart and transforms it into love which does not seek its own.
This cure is consummated in glorification (theosis) and
constitutes the heart of the Orthodox Catholic Church which replaced
paganism as the core of the Hellenic Civilization of the Roman Empire.
Noble
Architects, whose historians report history within the context of their
plans for the future, claim that the world is being Westernized by means
of technology and economics. Orthodox Civilization is listed among those
which are supposed to be in a state of arrested development.
Their
claim that the Hellenic Civilization of the Roman Empire disappeared in
the 8th century[ 87 ] and
was replaced in the East by a "Byzantine Civilization and Empire" and in
the West by a "European Civilization" is a Franco-Latin, i.e. noble
modification of Charlemagne's theory of history. Charlemagne (768-814)
fabricated this disappearance of the Roman Empire and its Civilization
in order to solve a family problem. His grandfather, Charles
Martel (715-741), had
finally suppressed Gallo-Roman Revolutions in the battles of Poitiers[ 88 ] and
Provence in 732 and 739 which were supported by Arabs and Numidian
Romans who, together with the Spanish Romans, had recently overthrown
the Goths in Spain (711-719). The Numidian Romans were under the command
of Constantinople's governor of Mauritania in Ceuta. Another Gallo-Roman
Revolution was suppressed by Charlemagne's father and uncle the year he
was born in 742.
Charlemagne
had to find a way to break the religious and cultural unity between his
own enslaved Romans and the Roman Empire which now extended from parts
of Italy to the frontiers of Persia. Led by their great father the
Franks decided at their Council of Frankfurt (794) to give the names Graeci to
the free Romans and Graecia to
free Romania. This
became Franco-Latin customary law.
The
modern guardians of this law replaced "Greek" with "Byzantine," and
"heresy" with "change of Civilization." Following Napoleon's plans for
the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and of the ecclesiastical remains
of the Roman Empire within it, these same guardians destroyed the legal
identity of the citizens of Greece with the Romans of Constantinople by
presenting them as having been under the yoke of this so-called
"Byzantine Empire." They used this fabrication as the core for
Balkanizing the "Roman Milet"[ 89 ] and
destroy its Ecumenical Patriarchate of New Rome Constantinople in the
process.
Turning
to 8th century Western Europe we are indeed confronted by real and
radical changes. Europe is dominated in its center by the Empire of
Charlemagne. Gothic Spain is overrun by Arabs and Numidian Romans who
together had fought as liberators of the Spanish Romans but ended up as
their masters. These Numidians were converted to Islam several times
according to Ibn Khaldoun.
The
birth of Frankish Civilization is described in a letter of St. Boniface
to Pope Zacharias (Natione Graecus[ 90 ])
in 741. The Franks had rid the Church in Francia of all Roman bishops by 661
AD and had made
themselves its bishops and clerical administrators. They had divided up
the Church's property into fiefs which had been doled out as benefices
according to rank within the pyramid of military vassalage. These
Frankish bishops had no Archbishop and had not met in Synod for eighty
years. They had been meeting as army officers with their fellow
war-lords. They are, in the words of St. Boniface, "voracious laymen,
adulterous clergy and drunkards, who fight in the army fully armed and
who with their own hands kill both Christians and pagans."[ 91 ]
Fifty
three years later the successors to these illiterate barbarians
condemned the East Roman Empire as "heretical" and "Greek" on Icons at
their Council of Frankfurt in 794 and then on the Filioque at
their Council of Aachen in 809. For 215 years
the Roman Popes refused to conform to their Frankish masters on Icons
and the Filioque.
These
Frankish bishops were neither familiar with the Fathers of the Seven
Ecumenical Councils, nor were they aware of nor interested in learning
anything about the cure of illumination and glorification which were the
presuppositions of these Councils. Between the end of the 8th and the
12th centuries the Franks were familiar only with Augustine who was not
a Father of an Ecumenical Council, nor did he understand Biblical
illumination and glorification which he confounded with Neo-Platonic
mysticism. He therefore did not understand apostolic tradition and
succession and deviated sharply from St. Ambrose who had baptized him.
What the Franks finally accepted from the Eastern and Western fathers
they forced into Augustinian categories and so created the myth of
Platonising Eastern fathers which is still dominant.
The
Frankish bishops encountered by St. Boniface understood apostolic
succession as a magical power which allowed them to make it the property
of their race and use it as the prime means of keeping their subjugated
populations pacified by fear of their religious and military powers. Augustine's
theories about original sin and predestination helped them in this
direction.
This
schism between Franks and Romans expanded into a schism between
Franco-Latin and Roman Christendom with their diametrically opposed
understandings of the mission of bishops and their synods within the
Church and in society. The Franks literally captured a medical
association and transformed it into a quack medical association. The
East Franks completed the job when they took over the Papacy
definitively between 1012-1046.
While
the Norman Franks were in the process of expelling the Roman army from
Southern Italy and of helping the Italo-Franks wrest the papacy from the
Franconian emperors, their Duke William of Normandy, invaded England
with Pope Alexander's II blessing in 1066. He had his Lombard friend the
"Blessed Saint" Lanfranc, the pope's teacher, installed as the first non
Roman/Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070 and together they replaced
all native bishops with Franco-Latins. All Celtic and Saxon bishops and
abbots were dismissed en masse[ 92 ] and
sentenced to prison to die premature deaths by torture and starvation.[ 93 ] The
new noblemen bishops from the Frankish Empire were in turn killed by the
people whenever opportunity presented itself.[ 94 ] Indeed
the Saxons and Celts celebrated the death of Lanfranc in 1089 by
launching a third and most severe revolt against the foreign intruders.[ 95 ] These
revolts continued until the 13th century.
25. Robin Hood — Orthodox Martyr?
The
most famous of the Saxon revolutionary leaders against the Normans was
Robin Hood. He had become ill and was taken by Little John to a nunnery
where someone recognized him. The Norman nun who was curing him by
bloodletting converted this cure into an assassination by letting him
bleed to death. Little John and his men escaped to Ireland to continue
their war against the Normans.[ 96 ]
So
many Saxons made their way to Constantinople New Rome after the Norman
conquest to join the Roman Emperor's Varangian army that they displaced
the Scandinavians as the majority.[ 97 ] One
of the great generals of this Varangian army had been King Harald III
Hadrada of Norway (1015-1066). This means that Norway was still
Orthodox. He had become the head of the Varangian army under Emperor[ 98 ] Zoe
(1042-1056). General Harald led his Varangians "to frequent victory in
Italy, Sicily and North Africa, also penetrating to Jerusalem. In Italy
and Sicily he was fighting Franks and Normans at the time they were
getting ready to rid themselves of the facade of Tusculan Roman Popes
(1014-1056) in favor of real Franco-Latin Popes. It is very probable
that his attention had been turned for some time to the beginnings of
the penetration of the Carolingian heresy into Scandinavia which may
explain his frequent attempts to subjugate Denmark. In 1064 he gave up
this attempt and made peace with Denmark. His invasion of England in
1066 at Eburacum was evidently an attempt to defeat the
Pro-Franco-Norman party which was trying to get the upper hand among the
Saxons. Evidently it was not only at the instigation of the Pro-Roman
Orthodox Saxon Earl of Tostig that he undertook the invasion of England
since he also had Orthodox Scots, Irish and Ebor (Yorkshire in Norman)
allies who supported his invasion of England.
There
can be no doubt that the Orthodox Christians of England knew very well
that their Roman Papacy had been struggling against a Frankish takeover
in 983-984, in 996-999, in 999-1003 and finally in 1009-1046 when
turncoat Tusculanum Romans were forced upon the Papacy by the German
Emperors until it became finally Franco-Latin by 1046. It is within this
context that the Norman invasion of England took place with the
blessings of the Lombard Pope Alexander II (1061-1073).
In
any case the Saxon King Harold of West Essex met the Norwegian army at
Eburacum (the Norman York) and in the ensuing battle the King of Norway
was killed. However, while celebrating his victory Saxon King Harold
learned that an Norman army had just landed. Without waiting for his
observers to get a good look at this Norman foe, King Harold rushed with
his army, fresh from his victory over the Norwegians, to meet the
Normans only to be confronted with the new type of heavily armored horse
and men. A phenomenon which they had yet not heard of nor could imagine.
William
landed on the shores of Britain carrying the papal banner at the head of
what was essentially the army of the first Crusade. Francophile Harold
was quite stunned when he learned that the Lombard Pope Alexander II had
given his papal blessing to William's invasion. He took very little and
very poor defensive action in the field at Hastings that day and he and
his men were completely crushed.[99 ]
Surely
Norwegian Harald was never aware that he was fighting for a so-called
"Greek" or "Byzantine" emperor. He had been living and working for the
Roman Empire and its Roman Emperor Zoe knowing that she and her people
were Romans. With the battle of Hastings it was the turn of the Saxon,
Welsh, Irish and Scot Romans to become the slaves of the Franco-Latin
noblemen who were now plundering their land. All these real "Roman
Catholic" Christians of England had still been praying in their Churches
for the Imperium Romanum
whose Roman Emperor and capital were in Constantinople-New Rome which
was also the headquarters of the Varangian Army in which their boys were
serving.
The
name "Greek" for the Eastern part of the Roman empire was inaugurated by
Charlemagne in 794, as already noted. But the term "Byzantine" was
established by Great Britain, France and Russia as part of their plans
to break up and divide up the Ottoman Empire among them. The first plan
was evidently drawn up during the meeting between Emperors Napoleon I
and Alexander I floating on a raft in the river at Tilsit, Germany in
1806. The core of Napoleon's plan was the liberation of the ancient
Hellenes, now called Romans, from both their Roman conquerors and from
their Turkish conquerors with one cannon shot. In other words the
Neo-Hellenes will end up being slaves from the time they were conquered
by the Romans and liberated by the Turks. The very same plan would be
multiplied to convert all Balkan peoples who called themselves Romans.
Part
of this same plan was to convince Orthodox peasants that the ancient
Romans did not speak Greek, like the Romans of Patriarchate of
Constantinople, but Latin. Therefore the Church of New Rome cannot be
Roman. So it is in reality a Greek Church and nation just like Great
Father Charlemagne always said.
In
this way the agents of Russia, Britain and France swarmed over the
European part of the Ottoman Empire, called the "Land of the Romans"
(the Balkans), telling all who for centuries have been calling
themselves Romans and getting their education in Greek, that their
ethnic enemies are those from the Phanar who also call themselves
Romans, but are in reality a bunch of Greeks.
26. Roman Christians and Roman Greeks
Many
or most of the people now occupying the area of ancient Greece were
Roman citizens since before the time of Christ. With the arrival of
Christianity Roman citizens began to be divided into Roman Christians and
Roman Greeks. The term
"Greek" here simply meant pagan. Charlemagne's so-called "Greek Empire"
continued to call itself the Roman Empire right down to 1453 when New
Rome fell to the Ottoman Turks in spite of the so-called "Greek Empire"
of the illiterate Franco-Latin barbarians. So the inhabitants of Greece,
as well as most Orthodox Christians of the Balkans, still were calling
themselves Romans.
What
is especially interesting is the fact that the Ottoman Empire continued
to call the whole European part
of itself Romania/Roumeli,
i.e. the land of the Romans. Between 1821-36 the British, French and
Russian Empires caused a small Southern tip of this Ottoman Romania to
revolt and become the State of Hellas. The most basic condition for
helping these Romans to revolt against the Turks was that they must also
legally revolt against the Romans, i.e. against themselves and become
only ancient Greeks still enslaved to Romans. In this way these Neo-Hellenes
legally liberated themselves not only from the Turks but also from their
Roman selves. The same was caused to happen to the rest of the
Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire during the process of
their Balkanization. British, French and Russian propaganda caused
Charlemagne's imaginary "Greek Empire" to replace the "Roman
Empire" in each
linguistic identity which was obliged to accept that it had been
enslaved to a "Greek Empire." This worked fine in the case of
Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians, but not in the case of the "Neo-Hellenes." How
could one explain how "Hellenes" could
be enslaved to "Greeks" when
these names historically mean the same thing since they are Latin and
Greek terms for the same Greek speaking people. So the problem was
solved by inventing a "Byzantine
Empire" and a "Byzantine
people" which never
existed and to which "Neo-Hellenes" had
been enslaved "until liberated by the Turks."
27. The West Romans in bondage to the
Franco-Latins.
What happened to Apostolic Succession?
(a)
Killer Bishops
We
have already seen the tradition of Killer Bishops which had made its
appearance with the rise of the Carolingian Franks as described in the
letter of St. Boniface to Pope Zacharias written in A.D. 741. Evidently
this tradition seems to have remained dormant, as far as this writer
knows, until it was awakened again in the aftermath of the results which
the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals produced.
At
about 850 AD the so-called Pseudo-Isidorean
Decretals appeared. These
forged documents very quickly became popular, not only among the Romans,
but also among the Franks. These Decretals gave the Roman Pope the power
to intervene at any point of the Feudal pyramidal system to place
Frankish society under the rule of law and order. They were used by the
Franks even to sabotage each other. We have described the situation
elsewhere.[ 100 ] This
Roman attempt to put Frankish society under the rule of law and order by
giving the Roman Pope the power of accepting appeals from all levels of
Frankish society and even to intervene by bringing cases before his
court for judgement backfired. It created a reaction from Frankish
leaders which obliged them to take over the Papacy in order to save
their feudal social structures. Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims (845-882)
warned Pope Hadrian II (867-872) not to try "to make slaves of us
Franks," since the pope's "predecessors laid no such yoke on our
predecessors, and we could not bear it...so we must fight to the death
for our freedom and birthright."[ 101 ]
The
Decretals were an attack on the very heart of the Frankish feudal
system, since they uprooted its most important administrative officials,
i.e., the bishops responsible for the "piety" of the Roman population,
and put them under the direct control, of all things, of aRoman head
of State, the Pope of Rome. The Frankish counterattack was decisive and
reached its climax between 1009 and 1046 with the complete takeover of
the Papacy by the Franco-Latins.
It
is no accident that the rise of the power of the castellani coincided
with the fall of the Roman Papacy. The castellani were the heads of
fighting men who lived in castles with their families. Usually in the
tradition of walled towns and cities the military families lived in
homes within the city walls while the soldiers were quartered on the
wall while on duty. In sharp contrast the castellani who appear in the
10th century lived in their castles with their families. The obvious
reason for this was the fact that the castellani were now supervising an
immense Roman population of slaves. So their families could not live
among these Roman slaves. At the time of the French Revolution in 1789
there were 40,000 castles guarding 85% of the population of France
organized into slave camps isolated from each other. After so many
centuries of isolation each group's language, called patois, developed
differently so that they could no longer understand each other. There
are 32 patois recorded. At this time 13% of France's population were the
bourgeois living within walled towns since about the 12th century. The
nobility constituted only 2% of the population and lived mostly in
castles. These Francois were almost all descendants of the Frankish
conquerors of the Gallo-Romans.
Francis
I, King of France (1494-1547), caused Latin to be replaced by the French
language in government administration. Rex
Francorum became Roy
des Francois and Francos/Franci became Francois.
The Legislative Assembly of 1789 dropped these titles together with Roy
de France. All citizens whatever their origin became Francais and
King became Roi des
Francais. All this happened over the vigorous protest of Louis XVI
who became "Citizen King Mr. Capet." In French dictionaries Francois is
now simply a name of a boy or girl. Also the name Francos/Franci in
Frankish sources are translated interchangeably one time Franc then
next time Francais.
This is all part of an effort to change the real history of France. This
is evidently part of a frantic effort to create the impression that all
Frenchman were always equal.
In
any case these Franco-Latin reforms by military might became crusades in
both East and West. They ultimately provoked the Protestant Reformation
and met with little success among the East Romans and some among the
Slavs.
This
tradition of killer bishops, clergy and monks was given its near final
theological foundation by "Saint" Bernard of Clairvaux in his sermons
"De Laude novae militiae ad milites Templi"[ 102 ] in
which he argues that the religious Knight Templer "who kills for
religion commits no evil but rather does good, for his people and
himself. If he dies in battle, he gains heaven; if he kills his
opponents, he avenges Christ. Either way, God is pleased."[ 103 ] Its
final form was given by the Episcopal courts and the Inquisition wherein
the bishops passed death sentences executed by their soldiers. The fear
of the bishops' confessor priests and the machines of torture of the
Episcopal castle indeed provoked piety among the serfs and villains. But
most reacted violently against the king's clergy and nobility who did
not have the sense to emigrate in time during the French revolution.
(b)
What happened to Apostolic Succession?
In
no way can apostolic succession mean that one receives this gift by
participating in the murder of one's Orthodox predecessors. The usual
Biblical way to receive apostolic succession is to arrive at the cure of
glorification after passing through purification and being on the way to
or having tasted the state of glorification. That the charisma of the
presbyterate presupposed the state of prophecy, i.e. glorification, is
stated clearly by St. Paul: "...do not neglect the charisma within you
which was given to you by means of prophecy with
the laying on of hands of the presbyterate" (I Tim. 4:14).
One
can see current examples of how Orthodox scholars deal with Anglican
apostolic succession. They are generally in the dark about Western
Medieval history and even more so about this writer's publications about
said killer bishops since 1992. In a book first published in 1982 with
several reprints since because it is a university text book, the
Orthodox scholar in question takes a positive position on the question
of whether or not Archbishop of Canterbury Parker has Apostolic
Succession which the Vatican had been denying and which has been
resulting in its rejection of Anglican Orders.[ 104 ] The
position of this professor in question has been quite correct had
Anglican ordinations derived from the Synod of Augustine, the first
Archbishop of Canterbury, appointed by Pope Gregory the Great, and if
the Anglicans accept ordination as one of the traditional seven
sacraments. Then they would have apostolic succession. If not, then no!
But
this otherwise very correct position would presuppose that the Norman
bishops of 1070 and the Vatican itself would have apostolic succession
in spite of the fact that they sentenced all Saxon, Welsh, Irish and
Scottish Orthodox bishops of England in 1070 to life in prison for
schism and heresy, where they died by torture and starvation. Hardly the
usual way that one receives apostolic succession.
28. What is Western Civilization?
Is
the Franco-Latin tradition of the enslavement of the West and East
Romans part of what is now being called Western Civilization? If one is
not a member of Franco-Latin royalty and nobility then one is descended
from Roman ancestors. This means that the United States of Europe is
essentially and overwhelmingly a Roman reality.
Orthodox
Civilization may indeed become arrested, not, however, because of
Westernization, but because of strong doses of Franco-Latinisation
introduced by Peter the Great (1682-1725) whose religious policies
became the law of the Neo-Hellenic Nation in 1827.
Western
Europe had been in a long process of de-Franco-Latinisation by means of
powerful elements of Re-Greco-Romanization, but not in its apostolic form.
Its embryo appeared in the 12th century with the rise of the middle
class and went into labor during the Renaissance and the Protestant
Reformation. It was born in the Enlightenment and matured during the
American and French Revolutions. American and French Democracies, based
on human rights and the equality of all citizens, began the progressive
destruction of the class distinctions which had been imposed by the
Franks and their allies who had brought Latin Christendom into existence
on the ruins of those parts of Roman Christendom they conquered,
including the Papacy. Franco-Latin metaphysics, cosmology and psychology
were made past history by parallel developments in modern science.
But
this has neither all happened everywhere, nor all at the same time.
Royalties, nobilities, the Papacy, and those Reformation Churches which
still serve as props for the remnants of Teutonic royalty and nobility,
badly need the identification of Franco-Latin and Western Civilizations
for their own survival.
It
is exactly this identity which parts of the Reformation and the American
and French Revolutions rejected.
29. The Sickness of Religion
The
patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testaments, the apostles and prophets
of the New Testaments and their successors know well this sickness of
religion and the Doctor Who cures it, that is the Lord (Yahweh)
of Glory. He is the Doctor of our souls and bodies. He cured this
sickness in His friends and faithful before His incarnation and
continues to cure it as the God-man.
The
sickness in question consists of a short-circuit between the spirit of
man in the heart (the patristic noetic
faculty) and the brain. In its natural state this noetic faculty
spins in a circle within the heart praying. In its sick state it does
not spin in a circle, but still anchored in the heart it unfolds itself
and it sticks itself to the brain causing a short-circuit between the
brain and the heart. In this way the thoughts in the brain, which are
all from the environment, become thoughts of the noetic faculty anchored
always in the heart. It is in this way that the patient becomes a slave
to his environment. One of the results of this is that he confuses
certain thoughts from his environment with his god or gods.
By
the term religion we mean each identification of the uncreated with the
created and indeed each identification of representations of the
uncreated with thoughts and words of human thought, which is the basis
of idol worship. These thoughts and words may simply be thoughts and
words or else also representations with statues and icons taken from a
supposedly inspired text. In other words the identification of even
Biblical thoughts and words about God with the uncreated also belongs to
the world of idolatry and is the basis of all heresies to date. Biblical
thoughts and words when properly used lead to glorification but are not
themselves glorification.
In
the curative tradition of the Old and New Testament proper thoughts and
words are used as means during the period of purification and
illumination of the heart and which are abolished during the time of
one's glorification when the indescribable, incomprehensible and
uncreated glory of God which saturates all things is revealed to have as
its natural source the body of Christ. Upon the termination of
glorification the thoughts and words of noetic prayer in the heart
return. He who has thus suffered glorification has now seen for himself
that there is no similarity whatsoever between the uncreated and the
created and that "It is impossible to express God and even more
impossible to conceive Him."
The
foundation stone of the fallacies of the Vaticanists and the Protestants
is the fact that they followed Augustine who construed the glory of God
revealed in both the Old and New Testament to be indeed a creature,
being indeed brought into existence and passed out of existence with
each revelation. Not only this, and what is worse, he construed the
Angel of Great Counsel and His glory, Who appeared to the prophets and
to Moses in the burning bush, as creatures, which God brings into
existence from non-being to be seen and heard and returned back into
non-existence after their mission is accomplished. He expounds these
imbecilities is his De
Trinitate.[ 105 ]
But
in order to have correct guidance in the cure of one's noetic faculty
one must have as guide the experience of those who know by their own
glorification (OT patriarchs and prophets and NT apostles and prophets
and fathers) three basic axioms: 1) Between the uncreated God and his
uncreated glory and His creation there is no similarity whatsoever. 2)
"It is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive
God" (St. Gregory the Theologian). 3) Everything in the Holy Trinity is
either common to the Three Persons (the common essence and energies) or
else belongs to only One Person alone, called the "incommunicable"
characteristics. It is only by using these three axioms that one may
avoid the plight of acquiring the devil as a guide by means of so-called
theologians who speculate about God and things divine.
In
its natural state the noetic faculty spins in the heart praying
regulated by its communion with the glory of God so that the passions
(hunger, thirst, sleep, bearing children, the instinct to
self-preservation (fear of death) are blameless. These same passions,
detached from a spinning noetic faculty in the heart and attached to the
brain, cause the brain to create imaginary magical religions for
controlling nature and destiny or to achieve the salvation of the soul
from matter in a state of happiness or else of the happiness of the soul
and the body.
We
are obliged to have a clear picture of the context within which the
Church and the State viewed the contribution of the glorified to the
cure of the sickness of religion which warps the human personality by
means of its search for happiness both in this life and after the death
of the body. It is within this context that the Roman Empire legally
incorporated the Orthodox Church into its administrative structure.
Neither the State nor the Church saw the mission of the Church as the
simple forgiveness of sins of the faithful for their entrance into
heaven in the next life. This would be equivalent to a doctor's
forgiveness of his patients for being sick for their cure in the next
life. Both the Church and the State knew well that the forgiveness of
sins was only the beginning of the cure of the happiness seeking
sickness of humanity. This cure begins by the purification of
the heart, it arrives at the restoration of the heart to its natural
state of illumination and
the whole person begins to be perfected beyond one's natural capacities
by the glorification of
body and soul by God's uncreated glory (shekina). The result of
this cure and perfection was not only the proper preparation for life
after the death of one's body, but also the transformation of society
here and now from a collection of selfish and self-centered individuals
to a society of persons with selfless love "which does not seek its
own."
30. Modification of the usual
understanding of human nature
Those
not engaged in the cure of the short-circuit between the brain and the
heart are not aware that according to the OT the spirit of man has the
ability to pray. So the Fathers of the Church took three Greek words
related to intellectual functions, i.e. nous, logos anddianoia,
and used nous to
designate the faculty which prays in the heart when the short circuit is
repaired, and kept logos and dianoia for
activities of the brain or intellect. By identifying the Old and New
Testament "spirit of man" with the Greek term "nous-intellect" the
Fathers gave this human spirit praying in the heart, when restored to
normal, a reality and importance equivalent and parallel to the brain in
the development of the human personality.
It
is only within this context that we may understand the worship and
theological terminology of the Orthodox tradition. It is thus that one
may appreciate the distinction between "logical worship" (logike
latria Rom. 12:1)
conducted by the "royal priesthood" (the illumined and the glorified) in
which the private individuals participate with their "amen", and worship
by tongues with the human spirit (1 Cor. 14:1ff.) called noetic worship
conducted in the heart wherein infants of illumination who see in a
mirror dimly pass on to glorification wherein they see the "perfect face
to face" and come back as men (1 Cor. 13:10-12), i.e. prophets. Paul
writes that "now (in illumination) I know in part, then I will be known
as I was known" (1 Cor. 13:12). By this phrase "as I was known" Paul is
referring to his glorification(s) by which he realized that he was
persecuting Yahweh Himself.
To be glorified is to be known by the Lord (Yahweh) of Glory (1
Cor. 2:8) both before and in His incarnation.
It
is to be noticed that during unceasing prayer in the heart the brain
continues to function normally within one's environment. The same
happens also during one's inward glorification by Christ. This can be of
momentary, short, or long duration. Having been a child of illumination
one returns from glorification a man (1 Cor. 13:11), i.e. a prophet or
an apostle as in the case of Paul. During illumination one sees Christ
in a mirror dimly, during glorification one sees "face to face (1 Cor.
13:12)." "Now" during illumination writes Paul "I know in part, then
(when I will be glorified again) I will be known as I was known (1 Cor.
13:12)." In glorification one does not know, but is known by Christ the
Lord (Yahweh) of Glory. To see or know the Lord of Glory in
glorification is to see or know above one' s power of seeing or knowing.
Therefore, one does not see or know, but is seen or known by the Lord of
Glory. This is why the Fathers call the experience of glorification the
becoming God by grace.
Within
the above context the victims of Neo-Platonic mysticism of Augustine,
i.e. the Carolingian Franks, their theological descendants and allies
and certain so-called "Orthodox", seek ecstasies of their intellect from
the confines of matter and their bodies in order to have contact or
union with immaterial reality or archetypes. Summarizing the Patristic
tradition on such endeavors St. Gregory Palamas calls this an "invention
of demons."
It
was this heresy of Barlaam the Calabrian which the Ninth
Ecumenical Council (1341) condemned
together with his so-called divine ideas. Unfortunately the Fathers of
this Council never dreamed that this was the teaching and practice of
Augustine which began capturing what became the Franco-Latin world in
the latter part of the 8th century.
31. The Council Of Orange 529
Condemned Augustine's Interpretation of Romans 5:12
The Merovingian Franks
abided by the Orthodoxy of their Roman Church which supported St. John
Cassian against Augustine on grace and original sin. That the Council
of Orange (529) was
supposed to be a compromise between Cassian and Augustine is simply a
figment of the Franco-Latin and Protestant imagination.[ 106 ] Canon
2 of this Council completely contradicts Augustine's
interpretation of Rom. 5:12. Augustine claims that all humans have
sinned in Adam. The Council, however, interprets Rom. 5:12 as saying
that, "By one man sin entered the world , and by sin death, and thus to
all men [death] passed, in which all have sinned." In other words all
sin because of the spiritual death which each one suffers by not being
in communion with the glory of God. "All have sinned and are deprived of
the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)."[ 107 ] One
can see the correct approach to the Council of Orange from Gregory of
Tours who mentioned that the monasticism within Merovingian Gaul is that
of St. Basil the Great and St. John Cassian. Not one word about
Augustine either in his history or in his lives (miracles) of saints.
Up
to the 12th century the Carolingian Franks had a thorough knowledge of
only the works of Augustine. In the 9th century they acquired the works
of St. Dionysius the Areopagite which were translated by John
Scotus Eriugena. This translator wrote books of his own which should
be investigated by the Orthodox. In any case the Franks enslaved
Dionysius to Augustine's Neo-Platonic mysticism. In the 12th century the
Franks acquired the "The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" of St.
John of Damascus and enslaved it to Augustine. In the mean time the
Franks had been collecting sentences of the Fathers quoted in various
collections of canons and scholia on the Bible. Under the leadership of
Peter Lombard the Franks began the peculiar tradition of writing
"patristic" theology quoting these sentences out of context. They
assumed that all these sentences from the Fathers came from the same
contextual tradition as that of Augustine. These Franks and their
theological descendants, both the Franco-Latins, who captured the papacy
between 1012-1246 and hold it since, and the Protestants still do not
know that Augustine never became aware of even the context of the
theology of St. Ambrose of Milan who had baptized him.
St.
Gregory Palamas (1296-14 ) summarizes the patristic tradition against
mysticism as follows: "The practice of making the nous[108 ] abandon,
not the physical thoughts,[ 109 ] but
the body itself in order to come upon rational spectacles, is the
strongest of the Greek delusions and the root and source of every
erroneous opinion, the invention of demons and the punishment which
gives birth to despair and is the offspring of madness."[ 110 ]
An
inseparable part of the cure in question is that the glorified have
become specialists on the thoughts of Satan since "we are not ignorant
of his thoughts."[ 111 ] The
invincible weapon against the devil is the repair of the short-circuit
between the noetic faculty in the heart and the brain. This cure
consists of confining all thoughts, good and bad, to the brain which is
brought about only when the noetic faculty in the heart returns to its
natural circular motion by means of unceasing prayer. Naive are those
who think it is possible to keep only good thoughts in the brain by
getting rid of bad thoughts. Not only is this impossible but one is
obliged to know exactly how the devil manipulates human thoughts from
the environment in order to defeat him at his own game.
Success
in this contest against the devil is guaranteed by means of the circular
motion of the noetic faculty in the heart. St. Gregory Palamas
summarizes the patristic tradition as follows: "For indeed it did not
escape their attention that the act of vision sees other things visible,
but it does not see itself. So it is with the noetic faculty. It acts on
the one hand upon other things, surveying what it needs, which the Great
Dionysius calls motion in a straight line. When it returns to itself and
acts upon itself the noetic faculty sees itself. This again the same one
(Dionysius) calls circular motion. This again is the best and special
motion of the noetic faculty by which it transcends itself and finds
itself with God. "For the noetic faculty," he says, "not scattered
outside of itself", you see that it is outside? since outside, it needs
to return, so therefore he continues saying "it returns to itself,
therefore by means of itself it finds itself with God" i.e. it ascends
by means of the way without error. For also it is impossible for such a
motion of the noetic faculty to fall into error."[ 112 ] During
this state of either illumination or glorification the brain is
functioning normally in communion with the environment and adding no
kind of metaphysics or ontology to this experience of "seeing (Christ)
in a mirror dimly" or "or face to face" (1 Cor. 13:12). The only ecstasy
involved in one's first glorification is a loss of orientation until one
gets used to seeing everything saturated by Christ's uncreated glory of
the Father which has no similarity whatsoever to anything created.
The
uncreated glory of God is everywhere present saturating creation and
therefore in each person and his heart. This uncreated glory's ruling,
creative, providential and even purifying energy is already at work in
each individual and in one's heart. However, not all respond in the same
way to the uncreated purifying energy of God because of the
short-circuit in the heart and one's environment. That one searches like
Augustine for God outside of oneself in some kind of mystical experience
by sending a supposedly immaterial soul into a world of immaterial
archetypes is of course nonsense and according to the Fathers demonic.
Dionysius
the Areopagite was never understood by Orthodox Fathers as a mystic. He
did not write a book on Mystical Theology, but on Secret Theology, so
called because there is no similarity between the created and the
uncreated and therefore it is "impossible to express God and even more
impossible to conceive God." In other words Dionysius has nothing to do
with Neo-Platonism and nothing to do with the Franco-Latins and
pseudo-Orthodox who imagine that they are his disciples.
The
reason why there is no speculative theology in the Orthodox Church is
the fact that the sickness of religion is neurobiological and its cure
is a tested fact. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see
God."
32. Synods as Associations of
Neurological Clinics
We
must have a clear vision of the context within which both Church and
State saw the contribution of the prophets to the cure of the sickness
of the human personality and its perfection in order to understand both
the mission of Synods and the reason why the Roman Empire incorporated
them into its code of law. Neither Church nor State reduced the mission
of the Church to salvation by forgiveness of sins for entrance into
heaven after death. This would be identical to doctors forgiving their
patients for being sick so that they may be cured after death. Both
Church and State knew very well that forgiveness of sins was only the
beginning of the cure of the happiness-seeking sickness of humanity.
This cure passed through the purification and illumination of
the heart and culminated in the perfection of
glorification. This resulted not only in proper preparation
for life after death but also in the transformation of society here and
now from that of selfish and self-centered individuals to that of
individuals with selfless love which does not seek its own.
(a) Heaven and Hell
Everyone will
see the glory of God in Christ and reach that degree of perfection one
has both chosen and worked for. Following Saint Paul and the gospel of
John the Fathers support that those who do not see the resurrected
Christ in glory in this life, either in a mirror dimly by unceasing
prayers and psalms in the heart, or face to face in glorification, will
see his glory as eternal and consuming fire and outer darkness in the
next life. The uncreated glory that Christ has by nature from the Father
is heaven for those whose selfish love has been cured and transformed
into selfless love and hell for those who choose to remain uncured in
their selfishness.
Not
only are the Bible and the Fathers clear on this, but so are the
Orthodox Icons of the last judgment. The same golden light of glory
within which Christ and his friends are enveloped becomes red as it
flows down to envelope the damned. This is the glory and love of Christ
which purifies the sins of all but does not glorify all. All humans will
be led by the Holy Spirit into all the Truth which is to see Christ in
glory, but not all will be glorified. "Those whom he justified those he
also glorified," according to St. Paul (Rom. 8:30). The parable of
Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham and of the rich man in the place of
torment is clear. The rich man sees but he does not participate (Luke
16:19-31).
The
Church does not send anyone to heaven or hell, but prepares the faithful
for the vision of Christ in glory which everyone will have. God loves
the damned as much as he loves his saints. He wants the cure of all but
not all accept his cure. This means that the forgiveness of sins is not
enough preparation for seeing Christ in glory.
It
goes without saying that the Anselmian tradition whereby the saved are
those to whom Christ supposedly reconciled God is not an option within
the Orthodox Tradition. Commenting on 2 Cor. 5:19, for example, St. John
Chrysostom says that one must "be reconciled to God. Paul did not say,
"Reconcile God to yourselves, for it is not He who hates, but we. For
God never hates."
It
is within the above context that the State understood the Church's
mission of cure within society. Otherwise religions promising happiness
after death are not much different from each other.
(b) Paul's window on the Church[ 113 ]
1
Cor. 12-15:11 is a unique window through which one may look at the
reality of the Church as the Body of Christ. Membership in the Church
has its degrees of cure and perfection within two groupings, the
illumined and the glorified. The members of the body of Christ are
clearly listed in 1 Cor. 12:28.
One
begins by becoming a private individual believer (idiotes) who
says "amen" during corporate audible worship. At this stage one is
engaged in the purification of one's heart under the direction of those
who are already temples of the Holy Spirit and members of the Body of
Christ.
The
degrees of illumination begin with the foundation charisma of "kinds of
tongues" at the bottom in eighth place and reach up to the "teachers" in
third place.
At
the head of the local Church are the "prophets" in second place who have
received the same revelation as the "apostles" (Eph. 3:5) in first place
and are together with them the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20).
Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church in a way similar
to doctors being the foundation of hospitals.
"Kinds
of tongues" are the foundation on which all the charismata are built and
are temporarily suspended only during glorification (1 Cor. 13:8). As an
apostle St. Paul puts himself at the head of the list of members God has
placed in the Church. Yet he still has the foundation charisma of "kinds
of Tongues." He writes, "I thank God in tongues more than all of you" (1
Cor. 14:18). This means that "kinds of tongues" belong to all levels of
charismata within the body of Christ. Paul's question, "do all speak in
tongues?" is a reference to the "private individuals" who do not yet
have the gift of tongues and are therefore not yet members of the body
of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit.[ 114 ]
The
illumination and glorification of the members of the body of Christ are
not grades of authority by human appointment or election. They are those
whom God prepares and places within the Church for advancement to higher
degrees of cure and perfection. That Paul calls on all lower degrees of
membership in the body of Christ to seek advancement to higher spiritual
stages means clearly that all are supposed to become prophets, i.e. to
reach glorification. "I indeed want all of you to speak in tongues that
you may prophesy" (1 Cor. 14:5).
(c) Neurobiological Clinic
This
Pauline Church is like a neurobiological clinic. But its understanding
of the malady of human personality is much more sophisticated than
anything now known in modern medicine. In order to see this reality we
must look through Paul into the Biblical understanding of human
normality and abnormality.
The
normal human being is he who has been led into all the Truth by the
Spirit of Truth, i.e. into vision of Christ in his Father's glory (John
17). It is because the apostles and prophets are glorified in Christ
that the people believe that God has sent his Son and that they too can
be cured by selfless love (ibid.). Humans who do not see the uncreated
glory of God are not normal. "All have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). In other words the only human who was born
normal is the Lord of Glory who by choice assumed the blameless passions
(i.e. hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep, fear of death, etc.), although by
nature the source of glory which
abolishes them.
The
other side of this coin is that God does not reveal his glory to
everyone because he does not wish to harm those not prepared for such a
vision. The surprise of the Old Testament prophets that they have seen
God and yet live and the people's request that Moses ask God to cease
showing his glory which had become unbearable is clear in this respect.
The
concern of the Apostolic Church was not to reflect and speculate about
God in Himself since He remains a mystery to the intellect even when He
reveals His glory in Christ to those who participate in the mystery of
his Son's Cross by their glorification. Their only concern was each
individual's cure in Christ which is brought about by the purification
and illumination of the heart and glorification in this life (1 Cor.
12:26) for service to society. "...Those whom he has justified, he has
also glorified" (Rom. 8:30) means that illumination and glorification
are interdependent in this life, yet not identical.
The
sickness of human personality consists of the weakening of the heart's
communion with the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), by its being swamped by the
thoughts of the environment (Rom. 1:21,24, 2:5). In such a state one
imagines God to be in the image of one's sick self or even of animals
(Rom. 1:22). The inner person (eso anthropos) suffers spiritual
death "because of which[ 115 ] all
have sinned" (Rom. 5:12) by becoming enslaved to the instinct to
self-preservation which deforms love by its bondage to the self-centered
search for security and happiness.
The
cure of this sickness begins by the purification of the heart of all
thoughts (Rom. 2:29), both good and bad, and their restriction to the
intellect. In order to do this one's spirit dissipated in the brain must
spin itself by prayer into a ball of light and return to the heart. One
thus becomes free from slavery to everything in the environment, e.g. to
self indulgence, wealth, property and even to one's parents and
relatives (Math. 10:37; Luke 14:26). The purpose of this is not to
attain to Stoic indifference or lack of love, but to allow the heart to
accept the prayers and psalms that the Holy Spirit transfers there from
the intellect and energizes unceasingly while the intellect is occupied
with daily activities and while asleep. It is thus that sick love begins
its cure.
This
is the context of St. Paul's repeated reference to the Holy Spirit
praying in the heart. The Holy Spirit as such advocates on behalf of all
humans "with sighs not spoken" (Rom. 4:26). But he transfers the prayers
and psalms of the intellect to the human spirit in the heart when it is
purified of all thoughts, both good and bad. At this point one's own
spirit empowered by the Holy Spirit does nothing else but pray and
recite psalms unceasingly while the intellect engages in its normal
daily activities liberated from happiness seeking selfishness. Thus one
prays with one's spirit in the heart unceasingly and one prays with the
intellect at given times. This is what Paul means when he writes, "I
will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the intellect. I
will recite psalms with the spirit, but I will also recite psalms with
the intellect" (1 Cor.14:15).
Paul
has just told us that praying by means of tongues other than one's own
includes Old Testament psalms. He is, therefore, not speaking about
incomprehensible audible prayers since the psalms were familiar to all.
Paul is speaking about the prayers of one's spirit in the heart which
are audible only to those with this same charisma of "kinds of tongues."
Those who did not yet have this gift could not hear the prayers and
psalms in the hearts of those who did have this gift.
The
Corinthians in the state of illumination had introduced the innovation
of conducting corporate worship in the heart in the presence of the
"private individuals" who had not yet received this gift of "kinds of
tongues." This made it impossible for these "private individuals" to be
edified and say their "amen" at the proper times simply because they
could not hear.
Paul
states clearly that "no one hears" (1 Cor. 14,2). "if I come to you
speaking by tongues, what will I benefit you if I do not speak to you.?"
(ibid. 14:6-7). "For if the trumpet gives an unmanifested sound, who
will prepare for battle? Thus also you, if you do not give a well shaped
word by means of the tongue, how will that which is spoken be
known?...This many may happen to be the kinds of sounds in the world,
and none are soundless. For if I do not know the force of the sound, I
will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me."
(1 Cor. 14:8-11). Those without the gift of "kinds of tongues" must hear
the "force of the sound" of the prayers and psalms to react with their
"amen" (ibid. 14:11,16). One must not pray and recite psalms with "unmanifested
sound" in the presence of those without this gift of tongues (ibid.
14:10,11). "For you give thanks well, but the other is not edified"
(ibid. 14:17).
When
Paul says, "he who prophesies is greater than him who speaks in tongues,
except if he interprets that the church may receive edification," (1
Cor. 14:5) he means that he who speaks only in tongues must learn to
translate the psalms and prayers in his heart into psalms and prayers of
his intellect to be recited audibly. When he thus learns to pray and
recite psalms simultaneously with his spirit and his intellect he may
then participate in corporate thanksgiving for the benefit of the
"private individuals" who will know when to say their Amen. "Thus let
him who speaks in tongues pray that he may translate. For if I pray in
tongue, my spirit prays, but my intellect is without fruit. So what is
(the situation)? I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with
the intellect. I will recite psalms with the spirit, but I will also
recite psalms with the intellect. For if you bless with the spirit, how
will he who occupies the place of the private individual say the Amen to
your thanksgiving? Because he does not know what you say. You give
thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank God in tongue more
than all of you, but in church I prefer to speak five words with my
intellect, so that I may instruct others, rather than ten thousand words
in tongue." (1 Cor. 14:13-19).
Paul
never says that one interprets what another is saying in tongues. One
interprets what he himself is saying in tongues. In each case where Paul
relates "speaking in tongues" to "translation" it is always the one who
has the gift of tongues who translates himself in order to be heard
audibly for the benefit of the "private individuals." It is within this
context that Paul directs that "if one speaks in tongues, he should be
grouped in twos or the most threes, and let one translate. If there is
not a translator, let him keep quiet in church, let him speak to himself
and to God" (1 Cor. 14:27-28). The interpreter is clearly he who has the
gift of translating his own prayers of his own spirit in his own heart
to his own intellect that they may become audible for the edification of
others. Otherwise he must keep quite and restrict himself to praying in
tongues which others are also doing but also audibly. Paul thus deprives
those with only the gift of kinds of tongues of their majority power to
impose their innovation of corporate prayers by only tongues in the
presence of the "private individuals."
Paul
is speaking about psalms and prayers not recited by one's own tongue,
but heard coming from the heart. This illumination of the heart
neutralizes enslavement to the instinct to self-preservation and begins
the transformation of possessive love into selfless love. This is the
gift of faith to the inner person which is one's justification,
reconciliation, adoption, peace, hope and vivification.
These
unceasing prayers and psalms in the heart (Eph. 5:18-20), otherwise
called "kinds of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:28), transform the private
individual into a temple of the Holy Spirit and member of the Body of
Christ. They are the beginning of one's liberation from bondage to the
environment, not by retreat from it, but by controlling it, not
exploitatively, but by selfless love. It is thus that, "the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has liberated me from the law of sin and
death...If one does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to
him. If Christ is in you, then the body is dead to sin, whereas the
Spirit is life unto justice..." (Rom. 8:2ff.).
As
love is being cured by perfection one receives the higher charismata
listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:28 which are consummated in glorification.
Paul states that, "if one is glorified, all members rejoice" (1 Cor.
12:26) in order to explain why prophets are second to the apostles and
before all other members of the body of Christ. To be justified by the
prayers and psalms of the Holy Spirit in the heart is to see Christ "in
a mirror dimly" (1 Cor. 13:12). Glorification is the coming of "the
Perfect" (1 Cor. 13:10) by seeing Christ "face to face" (1 Cor. 13:12).
In saying, "I know now in part" (ibid.) Paul is referring to his current
state of illumination or justification. By his next phrase, "but then I
will be known as I was known" (ibid.), Paul is saying that he will be
glorified as he had been glorified. In the state of illumination one is
a child. Once glorified one returns to illumination a man (1 Cor.
13:11).
During
glorification, which is revelation, prayer in the heart (tongues),
knowledge and prophecy, together with faith and hope, are abolished
since replaced by Christ himself. Only love does not fall away (1 Cor.
13:8-11). During revelation words and concepts about and to God
(prayers) are abolished. After glorification one returns to
illumination. Knowledge, prophecy, tongues, faith and hope return to
join love which had not fallen away. Those words and concepts used in
prayer and teaching by one glorified to lead others to glorification are
inspired and to be abolished in glorification.
It
is this vision of the resurrected Christ in glory which Paul had and
which puts apostles and prophets at the head (1 Cor. 12:28) and
foundation (Eph. 2:20) of the Church. This foundation includes women
prophets (Acts 2:17, 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5) and is the context of Paul's
statement that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28).
Glorification
is not a miracle, but the normal final stage of the transformation of
selfish love into selfless love. Both Paul and John clearly consider
vision of Christ in glory in this life as necessary for the perfection
of love and service to society (John 14:21-24, 16:22, 17:24; 1 Cor.
13:1013; Eph. 3:3-6). The appearances of the resurrected Christ in glory
were not and are not miracles to astound observers into believing in his
Godhead. The miracle was the crucifixionof
the Lord of Glory, not his resurrection. The resurrected Christ appears
only for the perfection of love, even in the case of Paul who had
reached the threshold of glorification (Gal. 1:14ff.) not knowing the
lord of Glory he was about to see had been born, crucified and
resurrected. In 1 Cor. 15:
1-11 are the
glorifications which complete Paul's treatment of spiritual gifts began
in 1 Cor. 12:1.
All
subsequently glorified in history are equal to the apostles in their
participation in Pentecost because they too have been guided into all
the Truth (Acts 10.47-11:18). All the Truth is the resurrected and
ascended Christ who returned in the uncreated tongues of fire of
Pentecost to dwell with His Father in the faithful who have become
temples of His Spirit advocating in their hearts. He thus made the
Church His body against which the gates of death can no longer prevail.
Glorification
is both the soul's and body's participation in immortality and
incorruption for the perfection of love. This may be of short or long
duration. After an initial loss of orientation one goes about one's
daily work seeing everything saturated by the glory of God which is
neither light nor darkness, nor similar to anything created. The
passions, which had been neutralized and made blameless by illumination,
are abolished. During glorification one does not eat, drink, sleep, or
fatigue and one is not effected by heat or cold. These phenomena in the
lives of saints (prophets) both before and after the incarnation of the
Lord of Glory are not miracles
but the restoration of humans tonormality. It is within this
context that one places such sayings of Christ to the living, but sick,
that "I came that they have life (in illumination) and that they have it
(in glorification) abundantly" (John 10:10). The gospel of John, and
especially 14-16, is a detailed description of the cure of illumination
and John 17 is Christ's prayer for the cure of glorification.
Gerontologists
have concluded that the aging process is a sickness and are looking into
whether death itself is also a sickness. In this respect both the
glorified and their relics should prove of interest since many hundreds
of them remain with their bodies and cells intact for centuries in an
intermediary state between corruption and incorruption. One of the
oldest examples is St. Spyridon on the Island of Corfu who was a Father
of the First Ecumenical Council in 325. There are 120 in Kiev alone.
This
is the context of Paul's statement that, "even this creation will also
be liberated from bondage to corruption unto the freedom of the glory of
the children of God" (Rom. 8:21). It is clear from the context that "the
freedom of the glory " is here freedom from mortality and corruption.
But even those whose inner person has been adopted by illumination and
who have tasted of physical immortality and incorruption during and
limited to the period of their glorification await "the adoption, the
liberation of our body" (Rom. 8:23). "The dead will be raised
incorruptible and we will be changed...this corruptible will put on
incorruption and this mortal will put on immortality..." (1 Cor.
15:53,54). One knows this not by speculation on Biblical texts, but from
the experience of glorification, i.e. from "the freedom of the glory of
the children of God." The experience of glorification and not only
Biblical texts is the basis of the Church's belief in the physical
resurrection of the biological part of the person.
(d) Not of the world but in the world
The
distinction between active and contemplative lives does not exist within
the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit's gift of unceasing prayers and
psalms in the heart makes such a distinction impossible. It can exist
only outside the body of Christ.
No
one can say, "Lord Jesus" in the heart except by the Spirit and no one
can say, "Anathema Jesus" in the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). This is Biblical
and Patristic spirituality and the power by which it was impossible to
torture a temple of the Holy Spirit into renunciation of Christ. Such
renunciation simply proved that one had not been a member of the Church.
The primary mission of the temples of the Holy Spirit was to work at
whatever profession they were engaged in and to seek to pass on their
own cure to others. They literally worked in their societies in a
capacity similar to that of psychiatrists. Unlike them, however, they
did not seek mental equilibrium by conformity to social standards of
normality. Their standard of normality was glorification. Their healing
power was not and is not of this world. Yet they are in this world as
part of its transformation.
(e) Theology and dogma
All
who have reached glorification testify to the fact that "it is
impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive him"
because they know by their experience that there is no similarity
whatsoever between the created and the uncreated. God is "unmoved"
"mover" and "moved" and "neither one, nor oneness nor unity, nor
divinity...nor sonship, nor fatherhood, etc." in the experience of
glorification. The Bible and dogmas are guides to and abolished during
glorification. They are not ends in themselves and have nothing to do
with metaphysics, either with analogia
entis or with analogia
fidei.
This
means that words and concepts which do not contradict the experience of
glorification and which lead to purification and illumination of the
heart and glorification are Orthodox. Words and concepts which
contradict glorification and lead away from cure and perfection in
Christ are heretical.
This
is the key to the decisions of the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils
as well as that of the Eighth (879) and especially of the Ninth (1341).
Most
historians of dogma do not see this because they believe the Fathers
were, like Augustine, searching by meditation and contemplation to
understand the mystery of God behind words and concepts about him. They
induct even such Fathers as Gregory the Theologian into the army of
Latin theology by translating him to say that to philosophize about God
is permitted only to "past masters of meditation," instead of "to those
who have passed into theoria," which is vision of Christ "in a mirror
dimly" by "kinds of tongues" and "face to face" in "glorification."
The
Fathers never understood the formulation of dogma as part any
metaphysical effort to intellectually understand the mystery of God and
the incarnation. St. Gregory the Theologian ridicules such heretics: "Do
tell me, he says, what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will
explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son and the
procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for
prying into the mystery of God."
Neither
did the Fathers ever entertain the Augustinian notion that the Church
understands the faith better with the passage of time. Every
glorification is a participation in all the Truth of Pentecost which can
neither be added to nor better understood.
This
also means that Orthodox doctrine is purely pastoral since it does not
exist outside the context of the cure of individual and social ills and
perfection.
Being
a theologian is first and foremost to be a specialist in the ways of the
Devil. Illumination and especially glorification convey the charisma of
the discernment of spirits for outwitting the Devil, especially when he
resorts to teaching theology and spirituality to those slipping from his
grip.
(f) The Mysteries
The
most important result of the 18th and 19th century Franco-Latinisation
of Orthodox theological education has been the disappearance of the
context of the very existence of the Church in purification,
illumination and glorification from Dogmatic manuals, and especially
from chapters on the Mysteries. These manuals were not aware of the
biblical and patristic fact that the charisma of the presbyterate
presupposed the state of prophecy. "...do not neglect the charisma
within you which was given to you by means of prophecy with the laying
on of hands of the presbyterate. (1 Tim. 4:14)."
(g) Prophets and Intellectuals
Creation
is completely dependent on God although there is no similarity
whatsoever between them. This means that there is no difference
whatsoever between the educated and non educated when both are passing
through the cure of illumination on their way to becoming prophets by
glorification. Superior knowledge about created reality does not give
one any special claim on knowledge of the uncreated. Nor is ignorance
about created reality a disadvantage for reaching the highest knowledge
of uncreated reality.
(h) Prophets
and Franco-Latin Popes
Of
the five Roman Patriarchates the Franks captured that of Rome and
replaced the Roman Popes with Teutonic Popes by military force during a
struggle which began in 983 and ended in 1046. They thus extended their
control of apostolic succession to the Papacy as part of their plans for
world dominion. They transformed the Roman fathers into "Greeks" and "Latins"
and attached themselves to the latter and so invented the idea of two
Christendoms. For Islam the Papacy is still Latin and Frank and our
Patriarchs of New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are still
Roman. Ignorance of who and what the glorified are and why they are
second and successors to the apostles created the void which was filled
by the infallibility of the Franco-Latin Pope.
(i) Prophets and Fathers
Gregory
of Nyssa informs his readers that heresies appear in those churches
which have no prophets. The reason is that their leaders attempt to
commune with God by means of meditation and contemplation about him
instead of by illumination and glorification (speculation versus
experience). To confuse one's concepts about God with God is idolatry,
not to mention bad scientific method.
It
is about apostles and prophets that St. Paul says, "For the spiritual
person examines all, but he is examined by no one" (1 Cor. 2:15). The
reason for this is that by their glorification in the uncreated glory of
God in Christ they became witnesses to the fact that "the leaders of
this age" "crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8). This is the very
same Lord of glory (the Angel of Great Council, Who calls himself "He
Who Is, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the
Almighty, the Wisdom of God, the Rock" which followed (1 Cor. 10:1-4)),
which the Old Testament prophets saw. St. John the Baptist was the first
of the prophets to see this same Lord of Glory in the Flesh. Of course
the Jews also, who formally believed in the Lord of Glory, "had they
known, would not have crucified the Lord (Yahweh) of glory" (1
Cor. 2:8).
Paul
adapts the sayings, "that which eye has not seen and ear has not heard
and has not arisen in the heart of man, which God has prepared for those
who love him," to the crucifixion of the Old Testament Lord of glory,
which "God has revealed to us by his Spirit" (1 Cor. 3:9-10). Those thus
glorified are the only authorities within the Orthodox Church. They
produce the doctrinal formulations which serve as guides to the cure of
the center of the human personality and as warning signs to stay away
from quack doctors who promise much and have nothing to give in
preparation for the experience of God's glory in Christ which everyone
will finally have.
(j) The Lord of glory and the
Ecumenical Councils[ 116 ]
By
Scriptures both Christ and the apostles meant the Old Testament to which
the New Testament was added. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were
edited to serve as pre-baptismal guides during the stages of the
purification and the illumination of the inner person in the heart. That
Christ is the same Lord of Glory who revealed himself to his Old
Testament prophets became manifest at His baptism and transfiguration
wherein He showed the glory and rule of His Father as his own by nature.
The Gospel of John was edited for the purpose of continuing one's
advance within illumination (John 13:31-16) and press on to
glorification (John 17) by which one fully sees the glorification of the
Lord of Glory in His Father and the latter in His Son (John
13:31;18-21). This was the reason why John was called the "spiritual
Gospel."[ 117 ]
Those
being thus initiated into the Body of Christ did not learn about the
incarnation, baptism, transfiguration, crucifixion, death, burial,
resurrection, ascension and Pentecostal return of the Lord of glory in
His Spirit's uncreated tongues of fire to become the head of his Body,
the Church, by simply studying texts of the Bible. They studied the
Bible as an integral part of the process of having their hearts
purified, illumined and readied for glorification, in the same Lord of
Glory Who had glorified His Old Testament prophets, but now in His human
nature born from the Virgin Mary.
It
was within this context that the ancient Church identified Christ with
the Lord, Angel and Wisdom by Whom God created the world and glorified
His friends the prophets and by whom He delivered Israel from bondage
and guided her to the time when He Himself became flesh to put an end to
the rule of death over his (O. T.) Church (Matt. 16:18). In spite of
their glorification the O. T. prophets died. But now "if one keeps my
word, one will never see death" (John 8:52-53). There is now a first
resurrection of the inner person (Rev. 20:5) and a second resurrection
of the body (Rev. 20:6) and there is also a first death of the inner
person (1 Tim. 5:6; Rev. 20:14) and a second death of the body (Rev.
20:14).
Even
such heretics as the Arians and Eunomians, condemned by the First and
Second Ecumenical Councils,[ 118 ] took
this identity of Christ with the Old Testament Lord of Glory for
granted. However, they claimed that this Angel of Glory was the first
creation of God's will from non-being before both time and the ages and
not co-eternal with the Father. They used the visibility of the Angel of
Glory to the prophets as proof of his created nature in a way somewhat
similar to those Gnostics who identified this Old Testament Angel with
their lesser creator god of this supposed evil world and who duped
Israel.
The
Arians and Eunomians either ignored or rejected the fact that by
glorification one becomes god by grace (theosis) and that one
therefore sees the uncreated glory and rule of God in Christ by means of
God Himself. At stake was the fact that God Himself reveals Himself to
His glorified friends and not by means of a creature, with the sole
exception of the created nature of His Son. Yet the grace and rule of
illumination and glory which Christ communicates to His Body the Church
is uncreated. The Franco-Latin doctrine that communicated grace is
created has no place in the tradition of the Ecumenical Councils.
The
reason why the above aspects of the Ecumenical Councils play no role in
the Vaticanist and Protestant histories of doctrine is the fact that
Augustine deviated sharply from Ambrose and the Fathers in his
understanding of the appearances of the Logos to the Old Testament
prophets.[ 119 ] His
misunderstandings became the core of the Franco-Latin tradition. The
Protestant and Vaticanist histories of doctrine, which are aware
of Augustine's deviation from this ancient identification of Christ with
this Angel of glory, assume that it was dropped from the tradition
because of its usage by the Arians. However this tradition was preserved
intact within the Churches of the Roman Empire and continues to be the
heart of the Orthodox tradition. This is the sole context for the
Trinitarian and Christological terms: Three substances, one essence and
the homoousion of the Logos with the Father and us. They were and remain
meaningless in the Augustinian context.
Augustine
had mistakenly believed that it was only the Arians who identified the
Logos with this O. T. Angel of glory. He was not aware that both
Ambrose, the bishop he claims to have opened his Manichaean mind to the
old Testament and baptized him, and all other Fathers did the same. The
Arians and Eunomians had argued that proof that the Logos was created
was that he was by nature visible to the prophets, whereas the Father
alone is invisible. Augustine had not understood the Biblical
experiences of illumination and glorification, which he had confounded
with Neo-Platonic illumination and ecstasy. He relegated glorification
to life after death and identified it with the vision of the divine
substance which supposedly satisfies man's desire for absolute
happiness. His utilitarian understanding of love made it impossible for
him to understand the selfless love of glorification in this life. In
this regard he did not differ from the Arians he was attacking.
Within
the above Neo-platonic presuppositions Augustine solved the problem at
hand with the following explanation: the Three Persons of the Holy
Trinity, being equally invisible, supposedly reveal themselves and their
messages to the prophets by means of various creatures which they bring
into existence to be seen and heard and which they then cause to pass
out of existence, such as the glory, cloud, fire, burning bush, etc. God
permanently became visible in the human nature of his Son by whom He
communicates messages and concepts. Yet He supposedly also continues to
reveal visions and messages by created means which He passes into and
out of existence as needed, such as the bird at the baptism of Christ,
the tongues of fire at Pentecost, the glory/light/rule of God revealed
at the transfiguration, the cloud/glory on which Christ went to heaven,
the voice of the Father by which He announced His pleasure in His Son,
the fire of hell, etc.
These
verbal symbols by which the Old and New Testament writers expressed
experiences of illumination and glorification were thus reduced to
temporary objects and unbelievable miracles.[ 120 ] This
became the Franco-Latin tradition to which both Vaticanists and
Protestants still basically adhere to.
One
of the most remarkable side effects of such misunderstandings is the use
of the word "kingdom" which saturates translations of the New Testament
and which never once appears in the original Greek. The Greek term basileia of
God designates the uncreated
rule of God and not the created
Kingdom ruled by God.
(k) "...do not quench the Spirit" (1
Thes. 5:19)
The
Holy Spirit advocating in one's heart "with sighs unspoken" (Rom. 8:26)
is not in itself membership in the body of Christ. One must respond with
one's own unceasing prayer of one's spirit so that the Spirit of God may
testify to our spirit "that we are children of God and coheirs of
Christ, that since we co-suffer that we may also be coglorified" (Rom.
8:16-17). Although this response is our own, it is also a gift of God.
This is exactly what St. Paul presupposes when he commands, "Pray
unceasingly... Quench not the Spirit. Do not disregard prophecies." (1
Thes. 5:17-19). Paul is here telling us to take care to remain temples
of the Holy Spirit by preserving our spirit's unceasing prayer in the
heart that we may become prophets by glorification. This is also why
such Fathers as St. John Chrysostomos says, "Let us not think that we
have become members of the Body once and for all."[ 121 ]
Baptism
by water unto forgiveness of sins is an indelible mystery because God's
forgiveness for being sick is the given fact for the beginning of cure.
However, baptism by the Spirit is not an indelible mystery since one
either does have or does not have or may lose unceasing prayer in the
heart. Whether one responds or not the Holy Spirit advocates in the
heart of every single human being whether he believes in Christ or not.
In other words the love of God calls everyone equally but not all
respond.
Those
who do not respond should not imagine themselves to be temples of the
Holy Spirit and members of the Body of Christ and thereby impede others
from responding. Those in the state of illumination pray together in
their liturgies as temples of the Holy Spirit and members of the body of
Christ that non members become members and former members become again
members since this was not guaranteed to them by their baptism of water
unto forgiveness of sins.
(l) The charisma of translation
At
some point in the history of the early Church the charisma of
simultaneously translating the psalms and prayers from the heart to the
intellect for the corporate worship benefit of the private individuals
was replaced by fixed written liturgical texts with fixed points at
which lay persons (idiotes) responded with their "amen", "Kyrie
Eleison", etc. Also the prayer in the heart was reduced to either a
short prayer (e.g. Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon me the sinner) or a
sentence from a psalm (a form found in the desert Fathers of Egypt
bought to the West by St. John Cassian). Otherwise the charismata
remained intact.
Gregory
of Tours described the phenomena of both unceasing prayer and
glorification. But having not understood what they are, he described
them as miracles and in a confused way.[ 122 ] The
Carolingian Franks continued this confusion but also confounded
illumination and glorification with Augustine's Neo-Platonic mysticism.
33. Augustine's Doctrine of the
Trinity held by Vaticanians and Protestants
is not that of the Bible and the Ecumenical Councils.
This
means that those who are indeed baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity
are those who believe and confess that the Second Person thereof is the Yahweh (Lord)
of Glory Himself, Who appeared to Abraham, to Moses, Elijah and to all
the prophets of the Old Testament and Who was born as man from the
Virgin Mary, Who was baptized by John the Baptist, Whose disciples where
the Twelve, Who was betrayed by one of them and replaced by another, Who
was crucified , buried and resurrected and Who made the Church of both
the Old and the New Testament His Body on the Day of Pentecost.
Those
Who do not believe that Christ is this Old and New Testament Lord (Yahweh)
of Glory Incarnate have not been baptized in the Holy Trinity of the
Fathers of the Old and New Testaments. The addition of the Frankish
Filioque to the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council is only part of
this same problem.
34. Synods and Civilizations
(a) The origins of Synods
The
origin of the Synodical system are 1) the group of prophets within each
congregation and 2) the apostles who supervised churches they
established.
It
was from among the prophets that the bishop and presbyters originated
within the congregations. The general oversight of geographical
groupings of churches by the apostles was continued by the mutual
supervision of churches by synods of bishops representing their own
clergy of glorified and illumined. This is why the bishops were
successors to the apostles.
At
some point congregations like the one in Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22)
increased to such a point that they were accepted as semi-normal so long
as they remained under supervision. It was evidently at this juncture
that congregations appeared headed by presbyters instead of bishops
since there were not enough glorified to cover them.
That
bishops must be elected from among the glorified remained the standard
requirement within the Orthodox tradition, especially supported by St.
Dionysius the Areopagite, right up to the 19th century. The prophets
became generally detached from the congregational clergy to become the
central figures of what came to be known as monasticism which in turn
became the supply source for the episcopacy and presidents of synods,
i.e. Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Archbishops.
The
main responsibility of the Synods of Bishops was the promotion of the
cure of illumination and the perfection of glorification by their full
support of all programs dedicated to this task. This presupposed the
election and ordination of genuine doctors and the protection of the
faithful from quack doctors whose speculations either led away from this
cure and perfection or stopped short of them.
It
is exactly because of the identity of cure and perfection in all
illumined and glorified that the Orthodox never understood doctrinal
authority as imposed from above. Also because this common experience
establishes the fact that "it is impossible to express God and even more
impossible to conceive him" it was not possible for the glorified to
become split over the use of differing terms so long as they led to
illumination and glorification. The split between the Chalcedonians and
the non-Chalcedonians is an example of one side accepting varying ways
of saying the same thing and of the other accepting only one way.
(b) Hellenic Civilization of the Romans
The
power of illumination and glorification not only withstood persecutions,
but captured the Roman Empire and became the heart of its Hellenic
Civilization. Historians not familiar with this reality have no way of
understanding its impact on society. The criterion by which the Roman
Empire made the Orthodox faith and practice part of Roman law and its
Synodical system part of the imperial administration was not much
different from today's legal support for genuine medicine and for the
protection of citizens from unlicensed quack doctors. Religions and
dogmas which lead away from illumination and glorification were not only
considered dangerous for salvation, but also not conducive to producing
the kind of citizens who could help transform society.
The
contribution of the illumined and glorified to Hellenic Civilization in
both the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire was much greater
than historians have been able to imagine, even though much of the
imperial expectations proved to be utopian.
The
claim that the Roman Empire and its Hellenic Civilization was replaced
by a "Byzantine" Empire and Civilization is sheer caricature.
Glorification had become the heart and core of both the Eastern and
Western parts of the Roman Empire. This tradition of cure and perfection
was of no interest to the Germanic conquerors of the West Romans. But
the East Romans continued this tradition which is not "Byzantine" but
apostolic.
(c) Franco-Latin Civilization
The
Merovingian Kings of the Franks first usurped veto powers over the
election of Roman bishops. Then they usurped the right to appoint Roman
bishops. In doing this they discovered the profit to be had by selling
the office of bishop to the highest bidder. At this point Roman bishops
within Francia lost contact with the illumination and glorification
which survived among their clergy, monks and people. Then the
Carolingian Franks forced themselves upon the Church as bishops with the
special responsibility of policing the Romans, now all reduced to
variations of serfdom. Latin royalties and nobilities made apostolic
succession their class property. The disobedience of slaves and
commoners to this apostolic succession was corrected by the Episcopal
armies.
Not
one of the 8th and 9th century Frankish doctrinal initiatives were the
result of searching for information and explanations from the Romans
whose doctrinal formulations they were tampering with. The Franks were
at this time not capable of dialogue simply because they were ignorant
barbarians with an unbelievable self-confidence that they are God's chosen
race and that Augustine
is the best guide to all essentials of the faith. Unfortunately the
bishop of Hippo did not understand Biblical illumination and
glorification.
Some
centuries later the Franks did begin to become aware of the Fathers of
the Roman Ecumenical Councils. They simply subjected them to their own
tradition and made Augustine the key to their interpretation. Thus they
did not see and the Latins still do not see illumination of the heart
and glorification either in the Old and New Testaments or in the
Fathers. They had not and still do not see the need to transform selfish
happiness-seeking love into selfless love. They continue to believe that
vision of God satisfies the desire for happiness and that the lack of
this vision makes one unhappy.
(d) Western Civilization
Parts
of the Reformation made a cleaner break with Franco-Latin Christendom
than other parts and returned to justification by that faith which is
the gift of the Holy Spirit in the heart. The recent agreement between
Lutherans and Orthodox on the Canon of Holy Scripture and Divine
Inspiration accepted that justification as gift of the Holy Spirit in
the heart is completed in this life by glorification. This should prove
to be the major step in the right direction, not only for the re-union
of the Churches, but also for the elevation of a still developing
Western Civilization.
35. Conclusions
Franco-Latin
and Western Civilizations and Islam have been consistently dominated by the
quest for happiness. It is this very sickness which has been at the
center of all personal and social ills. When left unchecked it cannot
but lead to conflicts of interest at all levels of society and to the
selfish exploitation of humans and the environment by humans. Modern
science and technology have been forced into the service of this
sickness as expressed in consumer economics which is saturating social
structures and pushing exploitation of natural resources to the limit.
Humanity
has managed to survive past destructions caused by this sickness.
However, our generation has the honor of being that part of human
history which for the first time is witnessing to the ability of
humanity to destroy itself completely either by a nuclear event or by
ecological contamination and disequilibrium.
Sheer
self-interest for the world's survival and society's well being may
finally force a solution to the specter of either atomic or ecological
destruction. Ascetical restraint is the obvious key. The Biblical
messages, that 1) the drive for happiness is the sickness
of humanity and that 2) its cure is purification, illumination and
glorification, are two truths of revelation which society may do well
not to ignore. Otherwise, this planet Earth will end up like planet Mars
in a state of Actus Purus happiness
like that of the god of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and their like.
This
also happens to be the key to the unity in glorification Christ prays
for in John 17 that the world may believe.
OOTNOTES
[ 1 ] John
S. Romanides 1996. My analysis that "religion is a neurological sickness
caused by a short circuit between the brain and the heart" was first
published in 1996 under the title "Religion
is a Neurological Sickness, but Orthodoxy is its Cure," by
Koutloumousiou Monastery of Mount Athos in its volume entitled
"Orthodoxy and Hellenism On Her Way Toward the 3rd millennium."
[ 2 ] Lecture
delivered at a conference in Dalton, GA. hosted by the Glorious
Ascension Monastery, Resaca, Georgia, USA, May 25, 1997. It was read for
me by Father Christodoulos of the Cathedral of St. Markella, Astoria,
NY; It was also delivered at a conference hosted by St. Demetrius
Orthodox Church, Seattle, Washington May 31, 1997. There it was read by
Patrick Bradford Barnes.
[ 3 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy
Cross Orthodox Press 1981, p. 18.
[ 4 ] "But
the most learned of Roman historians, among who is Porcius Cato, who
compiled with the greatest care the genealogies of the Italian cities,
Gaius Semporonis and many others, say they are Greeks, part of those who
once dwelt in Achaia, and migrated many generations before the Trojan
war." as quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, I, XI.
It is in the light of this that we read Livy's remarks about the
Aborigines in his "From the Founding of the City," I, 5-II, 6.
[ 5 ] Dionysius,
Ibid I, xvii-xxx, 5.
[ 6 ] Plutarch's
Lives, Romulus, XVI "Now the Sabines were a numerous and war like
people, and dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behooved them,
since they were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless."
[ 7 ] Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, RA I.LXXIII, 1. These "hierais deltois" are usually
understood to be the annales maximi kept each year by the Pontifex
Maximus. The foundation narratives about Rome's beginnings do not vary
substantially from the final tradition. The names involved in the final
Roman foundation tradition are basically the same as in the earliest 3
traditions. 1) "Some of these say that Romulus and Romos, the founders
of Rome , were the sons of Aeneas, 2) others say that they were the sons
of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was the
father; they were delivered as hostages to Latinus, the king of the
Aborigines, when the treaty as made between the inhabitants and the new
comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only
did them many other offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left
them his successors to some part of his kingdom. 3) Others say that
after the death of Aeneas, Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire
sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces into
three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Romos. He
himself, they say, built Alba Longa; Romos built cities which he named
Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his
grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum),
after his father, and Rome after himself. This last city was for some
time deserted, but upon the arrival of an other colony, which the Albans
sent out under leadership Romulus and Romos, it received again its
ancient name."
[ 8 ] Just
quoted.
[ 9 ] During
a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Jews in Bucharest, Rumania in
1979, the Jewish scholars revealed the fact that the purification and
illumination of the heart and glorification is still the practice of the
Hasidim Jews.
[ 10 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society,", pp. 25-31.
[ 11 ] Relatio
de Legatione Constantinopolitana 12, Migne, P.L. 136, 815.
[ 12 ] Including
perhaps the majority of the Orthodox still under the influence of Peter
the Great's so-called reforms and all the theological schools
established to Westernize, i.e. Augustinianize, the Orthodox.
[ 13 ] An
example of this is the book of Professor George Mantzarides, "Theosis
According to St. Gregory Palamas (in Greek and English)." Misled by this
book, American Orthodox in dialogue with American Lutherans agreed that
the teaching about theosis is mainly Patristic and not clearly a
Biblical teaching.
[ 14 ] St.
Gregory the Theologian, Theological Orations, 2.4.
[ 15 ] John
S. Romanides, "Ancestral Sin," (in Greek) Athens 1957, p. 82, note 7
wherein St. Gregory Palamas explains how one cannot become reconciled to
God without participating in the mystery of the Cross which operates in
all who reach Glorification in both the Old and New Testaments till
today.
[ 16 ] Augustine's
letter CLXXIV.
[ 17 ] See
his De Trinitate,
Books II and III.
[ 18 ] To
which we will return to in part 30.
[ 19 ] Being
a Neo-Platonist, Augustine believed and practised the tradition whereby
one becomes united to the uncreated universals in the essence of God
when one's soul transcends his body and becomes united with these
uncreated realities.
[ 20 ] For
a typical Augustinian misunderstanding of Mk 9:1ff see "Promise and
Fulfillment, The Eschatological Message of Jesus," by W. G. Kummel, p
25-28, 44, 60 f., 66f., 88, 133, 142, 149.This so-called kingdom
promised by Christ does not yet exist when He pronounces this promise,
but will come into existence sometime in the future.
[ 21 ] Summa
Theologica, Prima Pars, De Deo Uno, q. 26.
[ 22 ] Rom.
9:3. According to Thomas Aquinas, Paul had believed this before his
baptism. Summa Theologica.
[ 23 ] We
will deal with this at length in some detail later.
[ 24 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," pp.
63-64.
[ 25 ] According
to Father Florovsky, Father Alexander Schmemann's book, "The Historical
Road of Orthodoxy," is an example of history written from the viewpoint
of Panslavism, which Father Florovsky attacked along with its daughter
Slavophilism.
[ 26 ] 4-316b;10-781a,
846c;19-638c,653d.
[ 27 ] Perhaps
the term Teutonic Latins would be an equivalent term. In this case the
Anglo-Saxons were not Latins, but Romans when they were still praying
for the Imperium Romanum and fighting in the Roman army of
Constantinople-New Rome. Nor did the Anglo-Saxons who continued to fight
the Norman invaders identify themselves with the Franco-Latin Papacy.
This is why most of them today are neither Anglicans nor members of the
Franco-Latin Papacy.
[ 28 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy
Cross Orthodox Press 1981, pp.14-18.
[ 29 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society,"
[ 30 ] Vol.
IV, Part I p. 776.
[ 31 ] "Romanity,
Romania, Roumeli," p.
28. One may find this position supported by Adamatius Koraes, the Father
of Neo-Hellenism. See his "Salpisma Polemisterion."
[ 32 ] We
find him in Rome at the time Caesar had quelled the revolution and
flourishing during the reign of Augustus.
[ 33 ] Loeb
Classical Library, RA, early history, 1 55-59,
91 f.; in Italy, 29, 43, 55, 59-69, 73-84, 91-99, 109, 143, 201, 307,
315 f., 373, 451, 2 217.
[ 34 ] RA,
II. 49, 2.
[ 35 ] Of
course, The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959, vol. 17, 448-449.
[ 36 ] AUC,
1, 9-13.
[ 37 ] RA,
Aborigines, origin of 1, 31-43, 307, 415; cities of, 43-49, 51-55, 61,
65 f., 515, 449, 451, 457; unite with Pelasgians, 55, 61-67, 69, 75, 83,
315, 451; early dwellers on site of Rome, 29, 99, 109. 125, 129, 305,
313 f.; under rule of Faunus, 101, 139, 141, 143; under Latinus, 143,
189f., 195-201, 209, 239-241; called Latins, 31, 143, 201.
[ 38 ] Since
this is not a Greek term it was evidently given to them by latter
arrivals in the area.
[ 39 ] Dionysius
is not satisfied that the Aborigines came from Achaia. He tries to
pinpoint that part of Southern Greece they must have come from. He
concludes that they must have come from Arcadia.
[ 40 ] The
Eneti, according to Livy, AUC, I, 1, 2-3, "had been expelled from
Paphlagonia in a revolution and were looking for a home and a leader —
for they had lost their king, Pylaemenes, at Troy (Iliad, v. 576) #151;
came to the inmost bay of the Adriatic. There, driving out the Euganei,
who dwelt between the sea and the Alps, the Eneti and Trojans took
possession of those lands. And in fact the place where they first landed
is called Troy, and the district is therefore called Troia, while the
people are called the Veneti."
[ 41 ] George
Every, "The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204," London 1947, p. 114.
[ 42 ] John
S. Romanides, Ibid pp. 14-18.
[ 43 ] John
S. Romanides, Ibid pp. 25-32.
[ 44 ] Ibid.
[ 45 ] Paris
circa 1200 followed by Bologna, by Padua in 1222, Naples in 1224,
Toulouse 1229, Oxford 1240 followed by Cambridge at the end of the same
century and Salamanca and Seville in the following century.
[ 46 ] John
S. Romanides, Ibid, pp. 14ff.
[ 47 ] Ibid.,
p. 18.
[ 48 ] See
e.g. The British historian M. Cary, "A History of Rome down to the reign
of Constantine" London 1962, pp. 34-36. Being a Roman whose parents are
Romans from the fortress town Arabissus in Cappadocia where Emperor
Maurice (582-602) was born and having a family name which speaks for
itself, "Son of Roman," and from the Ottoman Empire where all Orthodox
Christians are called "Roman Orthodox," I was puzzled and quite curious
by such an attitude. This was the basic book plus sources used by my
professor of Roman history at Harvard, Mason Hammond, the author of "The
Augustan Principate" (Harvard University Press, 1933). He was also a
member of the three man committee which handled my oral exams. One may
have a detailed general view of this negative approach to Greek language
Roman sources in "The Cambridge Ancient History," volumes VIII, Chapter
X, "The Sources for the Tradition of Early Roman History," by Prof. H.
Stuart Jones of Oxford and Wales, pp. 312-331 and Chapter XI, "The
Founding of Rome," by Hugh Last of Oxford, pp. 333-368.
[ 49 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy
Cross Orthodox Press 1981, pp. 25 ff.
[ 50 ] For
an example of the original position of the Franks on this subject see F.
Cayre, Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, Translated by H.
Howitt, Paris, Tournai, Rome 1940, vol 2, pp. 378-380. For a much fairer
but not exactly correct position see Francis Dvornik, "The Photian
Schism," Cambridge University Press 1948.
[ 51 ] See
the chapter "The
Filioque" in my "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine," pp. 60-98.
[ 52 ] John
S. Romanides, Ibid, pp. 25-29.
[ 53 ] George
Every, "The Byzantine Patriarchate," p. 114.
[ 54 ] RA,
I, XI, 1.
[ 55 ] Livy,
Ab Urbe Condita, I,1,2.
[ 56 ] Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, III, 1-6. Mettius Fufetius, the
chief of the Latins, who were resisting the pressure of King Tullus
Hostilius of Rome (672-640) to become one Greek nation with the Romans
argued as follows, "As for us, Tullus, we deserve to rule over even all
the rest of Italy, inasmuch as we are a Greek and the largest of all
that inhabit this country." Another argument: "One cannot point to any
race of mankind, except Greeks and Latins, to whom we have granted
citizenship; whereas you have corrupted the purity of your body politic
by admitting Tyrrhenians, Sabines, and some others — and that in great
numbers too, so that the true born element among you that went out from
our midst become small, or a tiny fraction, in comparison with those who
have been brought in and are of an alien race. And if we should yield
the command to you, the base-born will rule over the true-born,
barbarians over Greeks, and immigrants over the native-born."
[ 57 ] 'Plutarch's
Lives' XVI, 1. "The Sabines were a numerous and warlike people, and
dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behooved them since they
were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless."
[ 58 ] Livy
l, xlvii, 1ff. Dionysius, RA lll, xlvi1-5, xlvii ff
[ 59 ] RA,
I, 90, 1.
[ 60 ] H.
G. Liddell and R. Scot, "Greek-English Lexicon," at name "rome."
[ 61 ] Ibid.,
at verb "roomai."
[ 62 ] Ibid.,
at verb "ronnyni."
[ 63 ] Ibid.,
at name "kouretes."
[ 64 ] Diosysius,
RA X, 2ff.
[ 65 ] Livy,
Ibid, IV, 1f.
[ 66 ] See
my "Romanity,
Romania, Rumeli." (in
Greek), Thessaloniki 1975.
[ 67 ] Albert
Schweitzer, "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", New York; A. and C.
Black, 1910. Pg. 1.
[ 68 ] John
S. Romanides, "Orthodox Ecclesiology According to Alexis Khomiakov
(1804-1860), The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol.11, no. 1, 1956,
pp. 58 ff.
[ 69 ] This
is why Father Georges Florovsky attacked the theology of the Slavophiles
whose modern supporters finally retaliated by getting him fired as dean
of St. Vladimir's Seminary.
[ 70 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy Cross
Orthodox Press 1981, p. 27.
[ 71 ] All
Orthodox Christians, including the Irish, were praying for their
Imperium Romanum. G. Every, "The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451-1204,"
London 1947, p.114.
[ 72 ] This
was discovered during a dialogue meeting between Orthodox Christians and
Jews in Bucharest, October 1979.
[ 73 ] This
is how the first General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, a
Dutch Calvinist, dumped Father G. Florovsky as the natural leader of the
Orthodox in dialogue in favor of Prof. N. Nissiotis. The latter had
promised "to perform a marriage between John Calvin and the Orthodox
Fathers" as the key to the union of the Churches.
[ 74 ] John
S. Romanides, Ibid., pp. 53-57.
[ 75 ] Louis
Madelin, La Revolution, Deuxieme Edition, Paris 1912, p. 74.
[ 76 ] For
these population figures see the edition of Germaine de Stael's book,
Considerations Sur La Revolution Fancaise, par Tallandier, Paris 1881,
p. 610. Jacques Godechot who prepared the reedition of this book cites
J. Dupaquiers, La population francais aux XVII et XVIII siecles, Paris (Que
sais-Je?) 1979.
[ 77 ] Ibid,
p. 96.
[ 78 ] Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, III, 10, 3-5.
[ 79 ] Ibid,
pp. 17-18.
[ 80 ] Contra
Academicos, III, 43.n.
[ 81 ] VII,
IX.
[ 82 ] George
Every S.S.M., The
Byzantine Patriarchate, London
1947, p.114.
[ 83 ] Both
the Vatican and the World Council of Churches are using every means to
make this old Franco-Latin tradition work in the 20th century and will
indeed continue, unless the behind the scene Protestant nobility decides
otherwise.
[ 84 ] See
e.g. Jule Michle, Histoire de la revolution Française, part one, De la
religion du moyen age, Paris 1868.
[ 85 ] See
my "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy Cross
Orthodox Press, 1981.
[ 86 ] E.g.
Sir Samuel Dill, "Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age," London
1926. For a popular version of this same position supported by the
editors of Time-Life Books see Gerald Simons, "Barbarian Europe," 1968.
It seems that this position is strongly supported by some European
nobilities while others claim that they are "nobles of the sword"
because of their decent directly from the Teutonic conquerors of Western
Europe.
[ 87 ] The
exact date has been shifting from time to time.
[ 88 ] This
is what the Franks themselves report in their own source as follows:
"...when Duke Eudo saw that he was beaten and an object of scorn, he
summoned to his assistance against Prince Charles and his Franks the
unbelieving Saracen people. So they rose up... and crossed the
Garonne... From thence they advanced on Poitiers..." Fredegarii,
Chronica Continuationes 13, trans. J.M. Wallace Hadril (London ,1960),
page 90. That Eudo was a Roman and not a Frank is clear from the fact
this same Frankish source calls his son Chunoald "a beaten Roman."
Ibid., chapter 25.
[ 89 ] Islamic
Law provided for the self rule of each of the Jewish and Christian
societies called a Milet.
[ 90 ] I.e.
a native of the Roman province Magna Graecia in Southern Italy.
[ 91 ] Migne
P L, 89, 744; Mansi 12, 313-314.
[ 92 ] For
documented sources of the details of murder of the Celtic and Saxon
bishops and abbots and their replacement by nobles from the Frankish
realms of Francia, i.e. Gallia, Germany and Italia see August Thierry
�Histoire de la conqute de l' Angleterre par les Normandes― Paris 1843,
vol 2 p 147 (1071-1072), 215-219 (1075-1076), 284, 313-314, 318,
(1087-1094); vol. 3. p. 35, (1110-1138), 214-215 (1203).
[ 93 ] Ibid.,
vol. 2, pp.55, 66 (1068), 111, 145, 184 (1070-1072), 215 (1075-1076),
240-242 (1082), 313-316 (1088-1089); vol. 3, pp. 35, 44, 47 (1110-1140).
[ 94 ] Ibid.,
vol. 2, pp. 232, 236 (1080); vol. 3, pp. 27, 36-37, 39 (1110-1138), 55
(1141-1142); vol. 4, p. 349 (1387).
[ 95 ] Ibid.,
vol. 2, p. 315.
[ 96 ] 1189-1194.
Accuse des ballades qui nous ont été conservées ne raconte la mort de
Robin Hood; la tradition vulgaire est qu'il périt dans un convent de
femmes; où un jour, se sentant malade, il était allé demander des
secours. On devait lui tirer du sang, et la nonne qui savait faire cette
opération, ayant reconnu Robin Hood, la pratiqua sur lui de manière à le
tuer. (Percy's Reliquides of Ancient English Poetry, vol. I, p.198, 6e
cdd.)
Ce récit, qu'on ne peut ni affirmer ni contester, est assez conforme aux
moeurs du XIIe siècle; beaucoup de femmes dans les riches monastères,
s'occupaient alors à étudier la médicine, et à composer des remèdes
qu'elles offraient gratuitement aux pauvres. De plus, en Angleterre,
depuis la conquête, les supérieures des abbayes et la plus grande partie
des religieuses étaient d'extraction normande, ainsi que le prouvent
leurs statuts, rédigés en vieux français (Regula monialium Beatae Mariae
de Sopwell, in auctuario, additamentor, ad Matth. Paris, t I,p. 261):
cette circonstance explique peut-être comment le chef des bandits saxons,
que les ordonnances royals avait mis hors la loi, trouva des ennemis
dans le couvent où il était allé chercher assistance. Après sa mort, la
troupe dont il était le chef et l'âme se dispersa; et Petit-Jean, son
fidèle compagnon, désespérant de se maintenir en Angleterre, et poussé
par l'envie de continuer la guerre contre les Normands, se rendit en
Irlande, où il prit part aux révoltes des indigènes Ainsi fut dissoute
la dernière troupe de brigands anglais qui ait eu un objet et un
caractère politique, et qui mèrite par là une mention dans l'histoire.
[ 97 ] See
G. Ostrogorsky, "History of the Byzantine State," New Brunswick, New
Jersey, 1957, p. 293.
[ 98 ] Roman
women rulers bore the title "Emperor" never Empress.
[ 99 ] David
Howarth, "1066 The Year Of Conquest," 1978 Viking Press.
[ 100 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, 1981, pp. 20-25.
[ 101 ] "...nos
Francos non jubeat servire, quia istud jugam sui antecessores nostris
antecessoribus non imposuerunt, et nos illud portare non possumus, qui
scriptum esse in sanctis libris audimus, ut pro libertate et haereditate
nostra usque ad mortatem certare debeamus." Migne, PL 126:181.
[ 102 ] Migne,
P.L. 182, 921-940. Preached between 1128 and May 1136.
[ 103 ] As
summarized in "The History of Feudalism," edited by David Herlihy, 1970,
pp. 282-283.
[ 104 ] Constantine
Scouteris, "The 39 Articles of the Anglican Church under the light of
Orthodox Symbolic Theology (in Greek)," Athens, 1982. Reprinted without
change since then as a university textbook. See pp. 419-423.
[ 105 ] Books
B and C.
[ 106 ] Canon
2 quotes Rom. 5:12 as follows: "Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in
mundum [mundo], et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines [mors]
pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt." It is clear that it is not
Adam's sin which is passed on, but death in which all sin. In the
original Greek text of Paul it is "because of which [death] all have
sinned." In other words the Council rejected Augustine's unique position
that all sinned in and with Adam and therefore all inherit his guilt.
See my work "Original
Sin According to St. Paul," in
St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, NY, 1955, vol. IV, nos. 1-2
(according to the older numbering). "The Ancestral Sin" (in Greek)
Athens 1957, second edition published by Domos 1987, chapter 6.
[ 107 ] Compare
the Council's original Latin text with the following English translation
of this Council's Canon 2 found on the Web at: http://www.fordham.edu\halsall\basis\orange.txt which
reads, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men because all
men sinned." (Rom. 5:12)
[ 108 ] The
noetic faculty in the heart.
[ 109 ] Which
are all from one's environment.
[ 110 ] On
Behalf of the Hesychasts, I,B,11.
[ 111 ] II
Cor. 2:11.
[ 112 ] On
Behalf of the Hesychasts, I,B,5.
[ 113 ] This
interpretation of Paul is based on the patristic tradition, but also on
information provided during a
dialogue meeting in Bucharest October 1979 between Orthodox and Jews. The
latter pointed out that the patristic illumination and glorification I
described to them was that of the Hasidim. Evidently the apostles and
the Pharisees of Paul belonged to this tradition.
[ 114 ] Commenting
on 1 Cor 12:27-28 St. Simeon the New Theologian writes: "That he may
prove the differences of the members and what they are and who they are,
he says 'You then are the body of Christ... kinds of tongues.' Do you
see the differences among the members of Christ? Did you learn who are
his members?" Book Six on Ethics, entitled, "How one is united to Christ
and God and how all the saints become one with Him."
[ 115 ] For
Patristic interpretation of Paul's "eph'ho" in Rom. 5:12 see J. S.
Romanides, "Original
Sin According to St. Paul," in
St. Vladimir's Quarterly (in the original Georges Florovsky numbering
system discontinued by new editors) New York, 1955, vol. IV, nos. 1-2:
"The Ancestral Sin," in Greek, Athens 1957, 2nd ed. 1989, chapter 6.
[ 116 ] See
bibliography for Christ in the Old Testament according the Fathers, and
especially of the Ecumenical Councils.
[ 117 ] J.
S. Romanides, "Justin
Martyr and the Fourth Gospel," in
The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, IV, 2 (1958-59), 115-139.
[ 118 ] For
the common philosophical presuppositions between Paul of Samosata, his
Co-Lucianist Arians and the Nestorians see my "Debate
over Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology," The
Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. VII, 2 (1959-60), pp. 140-185.
[ 119 ] For
analyses of these deviations see bibliography.
[ 120 ] One
may find the above concentrated in Augustine's following writings: De
Beata Vita, Contra Academicos, Confessions,
and scattered in all his writings. Especially interesting are his
explanations of the visions of God in both the Old and New Testaments by
the prophets and apostles in his De
Trinitate, Books II and III.
[ 121 ] Migne,
P.G.60,23: J. S. Romanides, Original Sin (in Greek) 1st ed. Athens 1957;
2nd ed. Athens 1989, p. 173.
[ 122 ] John
S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Brookline
1981, p. 53-57.
|
