[ CONTENTS
]
1927-2001
|Part-1|
|Part-2| — |Part-3| — |Part-4|
|
|
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 cure of 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 ]
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.
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 Orange in 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ]
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?
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.
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 the Imperium 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,
like Oxford 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.
|
[ 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 ] Diosysius 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.
|
|
|
 © HydroGraphiX. |
 "Romanity". |