[ CONTENTS ]
|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". |