[ CONTENTS ]
|Part 1| — |Part 2|
|Part 3|
In part I we presented a summary of evidence which testifies
that feudalism in Western Europe did not result from the
commingling of the Roman and Germanic races and customs, as
commonly believed, but rather from the subjugation of the West
Romans to their conquerors. The Franks then turned their
attention to the ecclesiastical and doctrinal enslavement of
Papal Romania, attempting to cause a split between Papal and East
Romania. This effort failed so long as the Roman nation remained
in control of the Papal throne.
European and American histories treat the alienation between
East and West as though it were inevitable, because of an alleged
separation of the Roman Empire itself into East and West, because
of alleged linguistic and cultural differences, and because of an
alleged difference between the legal West and the speculative
East.[ 1 ] Evidence strongly suggests that such
attempts to explain the separation between East and West are
conditioned by prejudices inherited from the cultural tradition
of the Franks, and from the he centuries-old propaganda of the
Frankish Papacy.
The evidence points clearly to the national, cultural, and
even linguistic unity between East and West Romans (which at
times almost brought Francia to her knees), and which survived to
the time when the Roman popes were replaced by Franks. That the
pre-Tusculan Roman popes never accepted the Frankish condemnation
of the East Romans for alleged heresy, but, on the contrary,
participated in the condemnation of the Franks, (albeit without
naming them) are facts to be seriously considered.
The Decretal principles of juridical procedure had been a part
of the Papacy for at least a hundred years before the East Franks
took over. However, it is certain that Roman popes would never
have thought of applying these principles to administration so
that the local synods would be replaced by direct monarchical
rule of the popes, as happened later. The Franks resisted the
Roman popes's juridical surveillance. They would never have
accepted a Roman pope's direct rule, just as the East Romans
would never accept the direct rule of a Frankish pope.
Had the Franks not taken over the Papacy, it is very probably
that the local synod of the Church of Rome (with the pope as
president), elected according to the 769 election decree approved
by the Eighth Ecumenical Synod in 879, would have survived, and
that there would not have been any significant differences
between the papacy and the other four Roman Patriarchates.
However, things did not turn out that way. The Papacy was
alienated from the East by the Franks, so we now are faced with
the history of that alienation when we contemplate the reunion of
divided Christians. In any case, the administrative structure of
the church cannot be judged and evaluated simply by whether or
not it complies with ancient canon law and custom, as is usually
done on the Orthodox side. Nor can one simply appeal to an
alleged need of the Church to adapt itself to changing times and
circumstances, in order to allegedly improve what is good by
making it more efficient.
Many of today's Protestants would accept such an approach, but
would not agree that the adaptation could not be elevated to
dogma, as has been done by the Papacy itself. Orthodox, Latin,
and Protestant theologians would agree that authentic
Christianity has to have a continuity with its apostolic past,
but at the same time must adapt to current situations and needs.
This means that the interplay between theology and society is
accepted as a normal necessity in the history of Christianity.
Nevertheless, Christians are divided because each group sees the
adaptation of the other as a serious break in continuity and,
therefore, in authenticity.
Perhaps the key to unwinding the mass of questions awaiting
examination by the specialists in dialogue would be to adopt
methods used in the positive sciences, and to relegate the
methods already in use from the social sciences to a dependent
level. Of course, one could not readily apply such methods to an
examination of God and the life after death, but one could
certainly do so for this life, with regard to spiritual
experiences in the various religions.
In the Orthodox partisan tradition, genuine spiritual
experience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations which, in
turn, are necessary guides for leading to glorification.
Translated into the language of science, this would mean that
verification by observation is expressed in descriptive symbols
which, in turn, act as guides for others to repeat this same
verification by observation. Thus, the observations of prior
astronomers, biologists, chemists, physicists, and doctors become
the observations of their successors.
In exactly the same manner, the experience of glorification of
the prophets, apostles, and saints are expressed in linguistic
forms, whose purpose is to act as a guide to the same experience
of glorification by their successors.
The tradition of empirical observation and verification is the
cornerstone of sifting factual reality from hypotheses in all of
the positive sciences. The very same is true of the Orthodox
patristic theological method also.
A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method,
mislead by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism,
had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of
things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the
Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual
observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul
when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for
metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had
foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality.
No one would today accept as true what is not empirically
observable, or at least verifiable by inference, from an attested
effect. so it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculation
about God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only those
things which can be tested by the experience of the grace of God
in the heart are to be accepted. "Be not carried about by
divers and strange teachings. For it is good that the heart by
confirmed by grace," a passage from Hebrews 13.9, quoted by
the Fathers to this effect.
The Fathers did not understand theology as a theoretical or
speculative science, but as a positive science in all respects.
This is why the patristic understanding of Biblical inspiration
is similar to the inspiration of writings in the field of the
positive sciences.[ 2 ]
Scientific manuals are inspired by the observations of
specialists. For example, the astronomer records what he observes
by means of the instruments at his disposal. Because of his
training in the use of his instruments, he is inspired by the
heavenly bodies, and sees things invisible to the naked eye. The
same is true of all the positive sciences. However, books about
science can never replace scientific observations. These writings
are not the observations themselves, but about these
observations.
This holds true even when photographic and acoustical
equipment is used. This equipment does not replace observations,
but simply aids in the observations and their recordings.
Scientists cannot be replaced by the books they write, nor by the
instruments they invent and use.
The same is true of the Orthodox understanding of the Bible
and the writings of the Fathers. Neither the Bible nor the
writings of the Fathers are revelation or the word of God. They
are about the revelation and about the word of God.
Revelation is the appearance of God to the prophets, apostles,
and saints. The Bible and the writings of the Fathers are about
these appearances, but not the appearances themselves. This is
why it is the prophet, apostle, and saint who sees God, and not
those who simply read about their experiences of glorification.
It is obvious that neither a book about glorification nor one who
reads such a book can never replace the prophet, apostle, or
saint who has the experience of glorification.
The writings of scientists are accompanied by a tradition of
interpretation, headed by successor scientists, who, by training
and experience, know w what their colleagues mean by the language
used, and how to repeat the observations described. So it is in
the Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Only those who have
the same experience of glorification as their prophetic,
apostolic, and patristic predecessors can understand what the
Biblical and Patristic writings are saying about glorification
and the spiritual stages leading to it. Those who have reached
glorification know how they were guided there, as well as how to
guide others, and they are the guarantors of the transmission of
this same tradition.
This is the heart of the Orthodox understanding of tradition
and apostolic succession which sets it apart from the Latin and
Protestant traditions, both of which stem from the theology of
the Franks.
Following Augustine, the Franks identified revelation with the
Bible and believed that Christ gave the Church the Holy Spirit as
a guide to its correct understanding. This would be similar to
claiming that the books about biology were revealed by microbes
and cells without the biologists having seen them with the
microscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire future
teachers to correctly understand these books without the use of
the microscope.
And, indeed, the Franks believed that the prophets and
apostles did not see God himself, except possibly with the
exception of Moses and Paul. What the prophets and apostles
allegedly did see and hear were phantasmic symbols of God, whose
purpose was to pass on concepts about God to human reason.
Whereas these symbols passed into and out of existence, the human
nature of Christ is a permanent reality and the best conveyor of
concepts about God.
One does not, therefore, need telescopes, microscopes, or a
vision of God, but rather, concepts about invisible reality,
which human reason is by nature allegedly capable of
understanding.
Historians have noted the naiveté of the Frankish
religious mind which was shocked by the first claims for the
primacy of observation over rational analysis. Even Galileo's
telescopes could not shake this confidence. However, several
centuries before Galileo, the Franks had been shocked by the East
Roman claim, hurled by Saint Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), of the
primacy of experience and observation over reason in theology.
Today's Latin theologians, who still use their predecessor's
metaphysical approach to theology, continue to present East Roman
theologians, such as the hesychasts, as preferring ignorance to
education in their ascent to union with God. This is equivalent
to claiming that a scientist is against education because he
insists on the use of telescopes and microscopes instead of
philosophy in his search for descriptive analysis of natural
phenomena.
The so-called humanist movement in Eastern Romania was an
attempt to revive ancient Greek philosophy, whose tenets had
already been rejected, long before modern science led to their
replacement in the modern West. To present this so-called
humanist movement as a revival of culture is to overlook the fact
that the real issue was between the primacy of reason and that of
observation and experience.
Modern science has arisen by the accumulated techniques of
testing with the aid of instruments the imaginative theories
proposed by the intellect. Observation by means of these man-made
instruments has opened up vast areas of knowledge which would
have been absolutely impossible for the intellect to even begin
to imagine.
The universe has turned out to be a much greater mystery to
man than anyone was ever able to imagine, and indications are
strong that it will yet prove to be an even greater mystery than
man today can yet imagine. In the light of this, one thinks
humorously of the bishops who could not grasp the reality, let
alone the magnitude, of what they saw through Galileo's
telescope. But the magnitude of Frankish naiveté becomes even
greater when one realizes that these same church leaders who
could not understand the meaning of a simple observation were
claiming knowledge of God's essence and nature.
The Latin tradition could not understand the significance of
an instrument by which the prophets, apostles, and saints had
reached glorification.
Similar to today's sciences, Orthodox theology also depends on
an instrument which is not identified with reason or the
intellect. The Biblical name for this is the heart. Christ says,
"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."[ 3 ]
The heart is not normally clean, i.e., it does not normally
function properly. Like the lens of a telescope or microscope, it
must be polished so that light may pass through and allow man to
focus his spiritual vision on things not visible to the naked
eye.
In time, some Fathers gave the name nous
(nouV) to the faculty of the soul which operates within
the heart when restored to normal capacity, and reserved the
names logos_(logoV) and dianoia (dianoia) for the intellect and reason, or
for what we today would call the brain. In order to avoid
confusion, we use the terms noetic faculty and noetic prayer to
designate the activity of the nous in the heart called (noera euch).
The heart, and not the brain, is the area in which the
theologian is formed. Theology includes the intellect as all
sciences do, but it is in the heart that the intellect and all of
man observes and experiences the rule of God.
One of the basic differences between science and Orthodox
theology is that man has his heart or noetic faculty by nature,
whereas he himself has created his instruments of scientific
observation.
A second basic difference is the following: By means if his
instruments, and the energy radiated by and/or upon what he
observes, the scientist sees things which he can describe with
words, even though at times inadequately. These words are symbols
of accumulated human experience.
In contrast to this, the experience of glorification is to see
God who has no similarity whatsoever to anything created, not
even to the intellect or to the angels. God is literally unique
and can in no way be described by comparison with anything that
any creature may be, know or imagine. No aspect about God can be
expressed in a concept or collection of concepts.
One can readily see why Plato's theory of ideas, even in
Augustinian form (whereby creatures are literally copies of real
archetypal prototypes in the divine mind), are consistently
rejected by the Fathers of the Church.
Thus, the experience of glorification has no room either for
Augustine's speculation about God by the use of psychological
analogies, nor for the claim of some Russian theologians that the
Fathers of the Church allegedly theologize about God on the basis
of some kind of 'personalism.' Neither the term, nor the concept,
is ever applied to God by the Fathers. The reason is clear. All
the Fathers emphasize, and mean what they say, that there is
absolutely no similarity between God and any of His creatures.
This means that the names of God or language about God are not
intended to be the means by which the human intellect can attain
to concepts which reveal the essence of God to the intellect.
Rather, the purpose of language about God is to be a guide in the
hand of a spiritual father who leads his student through various
stages of perfection and knowledge to glorification where one
sees for himself what the saints before him insisted upon-that
God is completely different from concepts used about Him.
It is for this reason that positive statements about God are
counterbalanced by negative statements, not in order to purify
the positive ones of their imperfections, but in order to make
clear that God is in no way similar to the concepts conveyed by
words, since God is above every name and concept ascribed to Him.
The Fathers insisted against the Eunomian heresy that language
is a human development and not created by God. Arguing from the
Old Testament itself, Saint Gregory of Nyssa claimed that Hebrew
is one of the newer languages in the Middle East, a position
considered today correct. Compare this with Dante's claim that
God created Hebrew for Adam and Eve to speak, and preserved it so
that Christ would speak this language of God also. Of course,
Christ did not speak Hebrew, but Aramaic.
Nyssa's analysis of Biblical language has always been dominant
among East Roman writers. I have found Dante-type theories so far
only among the Eunomians and Nestorians. Given such
presuppositions, one can see why the Fathers insist that to study
the universe, or to engage in philosophical speculation adds
nothing to the stages of perfection leading to glorification.
The doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of the incarnation, when
taken out of their empirical or revelatory context, become and
have become ridiculous. The same is true of the distinction
between the essence and uncreated energy of God. We know this
distinction from the experience of glorification since the time
of the prophets. It was not invented by Saint Gregory Palamas.
Even modern Jewish theologians continue to see this clearly in
the Old Testament.
Although God created the universe, which continues to depend
on Him, God and the universe do not belong to one category of
truth. Truths concerning creation cannot apply to God, nor can
the truth of God be applied to creation.
Having reached this point, we will turn our attention to those
aspects of differences between Roman and Frankish theologies
which have had a strong impact on the development of difference
is the doctrine of the Church. The basic difference may be listed
under diagnosis of spiritual ills and their therapy.
Glorification is the vision of God in which the equality of
all mean and the absolute value of each man is experienced. God
loves all men equally and indiscriminately, regardless of even
their moral statues. God loves with the same love, both the saint
and the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franks
did, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightest
idea of what glorification was.
God multiplies and divides himself in His uncreated energies
undividedly among divided things, so that He is both present by
act and absent by nature to each individual creature and
everywhere present and absent at the same time. This is the
fundamental mystery of the presence of God to His creatures and
shows that universals do not exist in God and are, therefore, not
part of the state of illumination as in the Augustinian
tradition.
God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment.
All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated
glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or
punishment, depends on man's response to God's love and on man's
transformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love,
to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends.
One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell,
poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce, are
so foreign to the Orthodox tradition. This is another of the
reasons why the so-called humanism of some East Romans (those who
united with the Frankish papacy) was a serious regression and not
an advance in culture.
Since all men will see God, no religion can claim for itself
the power to send people either to heaven or to hell. This means
that true spiritual fathers prepare their spiritual charges so
that vision of God's glory will be heaven, and not hell, reward
and not punishment. The primary purpose of Orthodox Christianity
then, is to prepare its members for an experience which every
human being will sooner or later have.
While the brain is the center of human adaptation to the
environment, the noetic faculty in the heart is the primary organ
for communion with God. The fall of man or the state of inherited
sin is: a.) the failure of the noetic faculty to function
properly, or to function at all; b.) its confusion with the
functions of the brain and the body in general; and c.) its
resulting enslavement to the environment.
Each individual experiences the fall of his own noetic
faculty. One can see why the Augustinian understanding of the
fall of man as an inherited guilt for the sin of Adam and Eve is
not, and cannot, be accepted by the Orthodox tradition.
There are two known memory systems built into living beings,
1.) cell memory which determines the function and development of
the individual in relation to itself, and 2.) brain cell memory
which determines the function of the individual in relation to
its environment. In addition to this, the patristic tradition is
aware of the existence in human beings of a now normally
non-functioning or sub-functioning memory in the heart, which
when put into action via noetic prayer, includes unceasing memory
of God, and therefore, the normalization of all other relations.
When the noetic faculty is not functioning properly, man is
enslaved to fear an anxiety and his relations to others are
essentially utilitarian. Thus, the root cause of all abnormal
relations between God and man and among me is that fallen man,
i.e., man with a malfunctioning noetic faculty, uses God, his
fellow man, and nature for his own understanding of security and
happiness. Man outside of glorification imagines the existence of
god or gods which are psychological projections of his need for
security and happiness.
That all men have this noetic faculty in the heart also means
that all are in direct relation to God at various levels,
depending on how much the individual personality resists
enslavement to his physical and social surroundings and allows
himself to be directed by God. Every individual is sustained by
the uncreated glory of God and is the dwelling place of this
uncreated glory of God and is the dwelling place of this
uncreated creative and sustaining light, which is called the
rule, power, grace, etc. of God. Human reaction to this direct
relation or communion with God can range from the hardening of
the heart (i.e., the snuffing out of the spark of grace) to the
experience of glorification attained to by the prophets,
apostles, and saints.
This means that all men are equal in possession of the noetic
faculty, but not in quality or degree of function.
It is important to not the clear distinction between
spirituality, which is rooted primarily in the heart's noetic
faculty, and intellectuality, which is rooted in the brain. Thus:
1.) A person with little intellectual attainments can raise to
the highest level of noetic perfection.
2..) On the other hand, a man of the highest intellectual
attainments can fall to the lowest level of noetic imperfection.
3.) One may also reach both the highest intellectual
attainments and noetic perfection.
Or 4.) One may be of meager intellectual accomplishment with
the hardening of the heart.
The role of Christianity was originally more like that of the
medical profession, especially that of today's psychologists and
psychiatrists.
Man has a malfunctioning or non-functioning noetic faculty in
the heart, and it is the task especially of the clergy to apply
the cure of unceasing memory of God, otherwise called unceasing
prayer or illumination.
Proper preparation for vision of God takes place in two
stages: purification, and illumination of the noetic faculty.
Without this, it is impossible for man's selfish love to be
transformed into selfless love. This transformation takes place
during the higher level of the stage of illumination called theoria,
literally meaning vision-in this case vision by means of
unceasing and uninterrupted memory of God.
Those who remain selfish and self-centered with a hardened
hear, closed to God's love, w ill not see the glory of God in
this life. However, they will God's glory eventually, but as an
eternal and consuming fire and outer darkness.
In the state of theoria the noetic faculty is liberated from
its enslavement to the intellect, passions, and environments, and
prays unceasingly. It is influenced solely by this memory of God.
Thus continual noetic prayer functions simultaneously with the
normal activities of everyday life. It is when the noetic faculty
is in such a state that man has become a temple of God.
Saint Basil the Great writes that "the indwelling of God
is this-to have God established within ourself by means of
memory. We thus become temples of God, when the continuity of
memory is not interrupted by earthly cares, nor the noetic
faculty shaken by unexpected sufferings, but escaping form all
things this (noetic faculty ) friend of God retires to God,
riving out the passions which tempt it to incontinence and abides
in the practices which lead to virtues."[ 4 ]
Saint Gregory the Theologian points out that "we ought to
remember God even more often than we draw out breath; and if it
suffice to say this, we ought to do nothing else... or, to use
Moses' words, whether a man lie asleep, or rise up, or walk by
the way, or whatever else he is doing, he should also have this
impressed in his memory for purity."[ 5 ]
Saint Gregory insists that to theologize "is permitted
only to those who have passed examinations and have reached theoria,
and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at
least are being purified."[ 6 ]
This state of theoria is twofold of has two stages: a.)
unceasing memory of God and b.) glorification, the latter being a
gift which God gives to His friends according to their needs and
the needs of others. During this latter sate of glorification,
unceasing noetic prayer is interrupted since it is replaced by a
vision of the glory of God in Christ. The normal functions of the
body, such as sleeping, eating, drinking, and digestion are
suspended. In other respects, the intellect and the body function
normally. One does not lose consciousness, as happens in the
ecstatic mystical experiences of non-Orthodox Christian and pagan
religions. One is fully aware and conversant with his environment
and those around him, except that he sees everything and everyone
saturated by the uncreated glory of God, which is neither light
nor darkness, and nowhere and everywhere at the same time. This
state may be of short, medium, or long duration. In the case of
Moses it lasted for forty days and forty nights. The faces of
those in this state of glorification give off an imposing
radiance, like that of the face of Moses, and after they die,
their bodies become holy relics. These relics give off a strange
sweet smell, which at times can become strong. In many cases,
these relics remain intact in a good state of preservation,
without having been embalmed. They are completely stiff from head
to toes, light, dry, and with no signs of putrefaction.
There is no metaphysical criterion for distinguishing between good
and bad people. It is much more correct to distinguish
between ill and more healthy persons. The sick ones
are those whose noetic faculty is being cleansed and illumined.
These levels are incorporated into the very structure of the
four Gospels and the liturgical life of the Church. Gospels of
Mark, Matthew, and Luke reflect the pre-baptismal catechism for
cleansing the heart, and the Gospel of John reflects the
post-baptismal catechism which leas to theoria by way of
the stage of illumination. Christ himself is the spiritual Father
who led the apostles, as He had done with Moses and the prophets,
to glorification by means of purification and illumination.[ 7 ]
One can summarize these three stages of perfection as a.) that
of the slave who performs the commandments because of fear of
seeing God as a consuming fire; b.) that of the hireling whose
motive is the reward of seeing God as glory, and c.) that of the
friends of God whose noetic faculty is completely free, whose
love has become selfless and, because of this, are willing to be
damned for the salvation of their fellow man, and in the cases of
Moses and Paul.
Theoretically, the clergy is supposed to be elected from among
the faithful who have reached illumination or glorification. The
historical outline of the process, whereby it became customary to
elect bishops who had not reached the spiritual experience of
which dogmas are a verbal expression, is described by Saint
Symeon the New Theologian (d. 1042), recognized as one of the
greatest Fathers of the Church. This means that his historical
analysis is part of the Orthodox Church's self-understanding.
The three stages of perfection are three stages of spiritual
understanding and, at one time, existed in each community. This
is comparable to having in each community university students,
graduate students, and professors. This would be the case when
religious leaders are at the higher levels of illumination.
However, it is possible that the religious leaders may not be
spiritually at the level of the students.
The outcome of the collapse among the clergy in the spiritual
life and understanding thus far described, was the rise of an
ascetic movement parallel to the Episcopal communities. This
became the monastic movement, which preserved the prophetic and
apostolic tradition of spirituality and theology. When he custom
prevailed that bishops were recruited mostly from monasticism,
the ancient tradition of bishops as masters in spirituality and
theology was greatly restored, due to the very powerful influence
of Saint Symeon the New Theologian. This restoration was so
strong that it gave the East Roman Churches the strength to not
only survive the dissolution and disappearance of the Empire, but
also to keep spirituality and theology at a surprisingly high
level during the Ottoman occupation of the four East Roman
Patriarchates, right down to the so-called "Greek"
revolution.
Under the influence of the French citizen and agent Adamantios
Koraes, officially recognized by the 1827 Hellenic Third National
Assembly as the Father of Neo-Hellenism, the new Greek
state decided the Church of Greece should follow the example of
Russian Orthodox, because it was in an advanced state of
Westernization, especially since the time of Peter the Great
(1672-1725). The Greek state founded a Greek Church, and
literally forced it to separate from the Ecumenical patriarchate
of Constantinople-New Rome, and at the same time declared war on
monasticism. The unbelievable ignorance of Adamantios Koraes
became the ideology upon which the Church of Greece's new
spirituality and new theology was founded.
The Russian Church had dealt a blow to Orthodox spirituality
and theology by condemning Maximos of Mount Athos and Trans-Volga
elders in the sixteenth century. In other words, the Russian
Church became like a keeper of books about astronomy, biology,
and medicine, but had gotten rid of the telescopes, microscopes,
and the scientist who used them. This made the Church ripe for
Westernization under Peter the Great.
One of the amazing quirks in history is that while the Greek
state was getting rid of theology and spirituality based on
noetic prayer, this same tradition was being reintroduced into
Russia by means of the spiritual children of Paisios
Velitchkovsky of Moldavia who passed away in 1817.
It was extremely fortunate for Orthodoxy at the same time when
Koraes' followers were in power that the Greek state did not
extend to Mount Athos and the many monasteries within what was
left of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, the imbecilities of
Adamantios Koraes would have had an even more destructive effect
on Roman Orthodoxy, now called Byzantine Orthodoxy, because of
this same Adamantios Koraes who undertook to convince the
inhabitants of Old Greece that they were not also Romans, but
exclusively Greeks, who had allegedly forgotten their real
national identity. The vision of Adamantios Koraes was to replace
patristic spirituality, theology, and Roman nationality with
Greek philosophy and nationalism as the basis of theology and
political philosophy. It is perhaps not an accident that
Napoleonic France revived such policies pertaining to East Romans
which are similar to the Charlemagnian ones described in Lecture
1. Napoleon was, after all, a descendant from the Frankish
nobility of Tuscany, established there since the time of
Charlemagne.
Now this vision is dead, put into the grave by the further
advances in modern science and the very strong revival of
patristic theology and spirituality along with Roman or so-called
Byzantine national identity.
In order to have a clear picture of what this means in terms
of today's dialogues, we have only to be reminded that the
theology and spirituality of Roman Christians was the same in
both East and West, whether written in Greek or Latin, with,
however, the exception of Augustine.
The later differences between Carolingian Frankish and Roman
Orthodox theology are clearly visible in the differences between
Augustine and Saint Ambrose, who is usually presented as
Augustine's teacher. However, not only is there no evidence that
there were intimate relations between the two, but their
theologies point in different directions. We have pointed this
out in some detail elsewhere.
However, we shall turn our attention to Gregory of Tours, who
gives us clear testimony that during Merovingian Frankish rule,
Orthodox spirituality and theology were flourishing in Francia.
At the same time, they were not very well understood by the new
class of aristocratic administrator bishops created by the
Frankish kings. (We skip Saint John Cassian, since he is
pre-Frankish and his identification with Eastern spirituality and
theology is unquestioned.)
Gregory of Tours was a great admirer of the spirituality and
theology described in this lecture. He recognizes and expresses
his high regard for Saint Basil the Great and Saint John Cassian
of Marseilles (one time deacon of Saint John Chrysostom) as the
guides of monasticism in Gaul. IN his many writings, Gregory of
Tours never mentions Augustine. Yet Gregory's understanding of
the spirituality and theology of Saint Basil and Saint John
Cassian is very limited and is colored by some basic and, at
times, humorous errors.
Gregory reports that in the treasury of Saint Martin's Church,
he found the relics of the Agaune Martyrs, members of the Theban
Legion sent to Gaul in 287 to crush a revolt. Gregory writes that
"the relics themselves were in a terrible state of
putrefaction."[ 8 ] It is clear that
Gregory did not know how to recognize holy relics. Corpses in
even a slight, let alone terrible, state of putrefaction are not
holy relics.
Gregory terminates his History of the Franks with the
miracles and death of Saint Aredius Abbot of Limoges. He writes
that, "One day when the clergy were chanting psalms in the
cathedral, a dove flew down from the ceiling, fluttered gently
around Aredius and then alighted on his head. This was, in my
opinion, a clear sign that he was filled with the grace of the
Holy Spirit. He was embarrassed at what had happened and tried to
drive the dove away. It flew around for a while and then settled
down again, first on his head and then on his shoulder. Not only
did this happen in the cathedral, but when Aredius went off to
the bishop's cell, the dove accompanied him. This was repeated
day after day..."[ 9 ]
Aredius clearly had reached the state of glorification of long
duration. However, Gregory's ignorance of this tradition led him
to confuse and substitute the linguistic symbol of the dove used
to describe this experience, with a real bird. The attempt to
drive the dove off is Gregory's understanding of Aredius' testing
of the vision, to make sure it is not demonic or hallucinatory.
That the dove left, and returned, and then remained on him day
after day means that he was in a state of glory, first of short
duration and then of long duration. That he went about his
business as usual during this state, and that the state was in
perceptible to those around him who themselves were in a state of
illumination, was also evidence of his being in a state of glory.
Gregor's misunderstanding can also be seen in his description
of the life of Patroklos the Recluse. Gregory writes that his
"diet was bread soaked in water and sprinkled with salt. His
eyes were never closed in sleep. He prayed unceasingly, or if he
stopped praying for a moment, he spent his time reading or
writing."[ 10 ]
Gregory believes that to pray unceasingly, one would have to
somehow stay awake unceasingly. Also since Patroklos was known to
spend time reading and writing, this means for Gregory that he
had to stop praying to do so. Gregory was unaware that unceasing
prayer continues without intermission, while asleep or while
awake, and while reading, writing, walking, talking, toiling,
etc.
In addition, Gregory's claim that Patroklos' "eyes were
never closed in sleep" would be an unheard of miracle. When
Patroklos was in a state of glorification, he not only did not
sleep, but he did not eat bread or drink water either. But he was
not unceasingly in such a state in this life. During this state
he stopped praying. When he was not in this state of glory, he
both slept his three or so hours per day, and prayed without any
interruption whatsoever. However, at the time these
misunderstandings were being recorder, there were many bishops in
Francia who understanding was less that that of Gregory.
This can be seen in the case where certain bishops ordered the
Lombard ascetic Vulfolaic to come down from his column, claiming
that "It is not right what you are trying to do. Such an
obscure person as you can never be compared with Symeon the
Stylite of Antioch. The climate of the region makes it impossible
for you to keep tormenting yourself in this way."[ 11 ] Evidently the life of Saint Daniel the Stylite
of Constantinople was still unknown in Francia.
While in the state of noetic prayer or glory, wherein one
passes back and forth between these two stages, one attains to
such physical resources that one resists the normal effects of
the environment. This has nothing to do with self torment or an
attempt to appease God. Noetic prayer is also the key to
understanding the spiritual power by which Orthodox Christians
persevered in martyrdom, and also why those who renounced Christ
under torture were considered to have fallen from the state of
grace, i.e., illumination, or noetic prayer.
What is important for Gregory is that he presents Vulfolaic as
saying "Now, it is considered a sin not to obey bishops, so
of course, I came down...I have never dared to set up again the
column...for that would be to disobey the commands of the
bishops."[ 12 ]
Here we have an important distortion of the meaning of
obedience. It is clear that neither Gregory nor his colleagues
knew what Vulfolaic had been doing. However, what they did know
is that they had to secure the obedience of the faithful in order
to preserve, as much as possible, law and order for their master,
the Frankish king, who appointed them. Therefore, disobedience to
a bishop is a sin that has a special importance.
The effectiveness of the bishops as officers of the law was
also enhanced by the pagan distinction between heaven and hell
which we find in Augustine and Gregory of Tours. Both are unaware
that the clergy are supposed to prepare people for the vision of
God, which everyone will have either as heaven or as consuming
fire. This unawareness is coupled with the peculiar shift of the
need to change from man to God. For Gregory, God must be
satisfied by obedience to the clergy and participation in their
sacraments as the condition for man's entry into paradise.
Augustine's position had been even more consistent in that God
had allegedly decided in advance who is going to heaven and who
is to remain in hell. Because of the alleged inherited guilt of
Adam and Eve, all are worthy of hell, so that those chosen for
heaven have no merit of their own to warrant God's choice, which
is therefore allegedly unconditioned and free. These ideas of
Augustine would be quite humorous if it were not for the fact
that so many millions of Europeans and Americans used to believe
in them, and many still do.
The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot
be different from those used for the union of associations of
scientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that they
would unite with astrologers. Members of a modern medial
association would be shocked at the suggestion that they should
become one with an association of quack doctors and tribal
medicine men. In the same way, the Fathers would be shocked at
the idea of a union between Orthodoxy and religious superstitions
which has not the slightest idea about the production of
authentic holy relics. Avoiding this issue by claiming that such
a theology is for monks only, is like claiming that the cure of
cancer is for doctors only.
The correct interplay between theology and society is not much
different from a correct interplay between science and society.
Thus, the question of organizational and administrative
structure, as in the sciences, is resolved into the question of
the success of theology in producing the results for which it
exists.
"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."
|
[ 1 ] The European and Middle Eastern parts of the Roman Empire were carved out of areas which, among other linguistic elements, contained two bands, the Celtic and the Greek, which ran parallel to each other from the Atlantic to the Middle East. The Celtic band was north of the Greek band, except in Asia Minor, where Galatia had the Greek band to the east, the north, and the south. Northern Italy itself was part of the Celtic band and Southern Italy a part of the Greek band (here called Magna Graecia) which in the West covered Southern Spain, Gaul, and their Mediterranean islands. Due consideration should be given to the fact that both the Celtic and Greek bands were east and west of Roman Italy. The Romans first took over the Greek and Celtic parts of Italy and then the Greek and Celtic speaking peoples of the two bands. The Celtic band was almost completely Latinized, whereas, the Greek band, not only remained intact, but was even expanded by the Roman policy of completing the Hellenization of the Eastern provinces initiated by the Macedonians. The reason why the Celtic band, but not the Greek band, was Latinized was that the Romans were themselves bilingual in fact and in sentiment, since in the time of their explosive expansion they spoke both Latin and Greek, with a strong preference for the latter. Thus, one is obliged to speak of both the Western and Eastern parts of European Romania in terms of a Latin North and a Greek South, but certainly not of a Latin West and a Greek East, which is a Frankish myth, fabricated for the propagandistic reasons described in Lecture I, which survives in text books until today. Indeed, the Galatians of Asia Minor were in the fourth century still speaking the same dialect as the Treveri of the province of Belgica in the Roman diocese of Gaul. (Albert Grenier, Les Galois [Paris, 1970], p. 115.) That the Latin West/Greek East division of Europe is a Frankish myth is still witnessed to today by some 25 million Romans in the Balkans, who speak Romance dialects, and by the Greek speaking inhabitants of the Balkans and the Middle East, who call themselves Romans. It should be noted that it is very possible that the Galatians of Asia Minor still spoke the same language as the ancestors of the Walloons in the area of the Ardennes when the legate of Pope John XV, Abbot Leo, was at Mouzon pronouncing the condemnation of Gerbert d'Aurillac in 995. [ 2 ] For further details on this subject one may consult my studies: "Critical Examination of the Applications of Theology," Proces - Verbaux du Deuxieme Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe. (Athens, 1978), pp. 413-41, and the various works quoted therein. [ 3 ] Matthew 5.8. [ 4 ] Epistle 2. [ 5 ] Theological Oration 1.5. [ 6 ] Ibid. 1.3 [ 7 ] On the relations between the Johanine and Synoptic gospel traditions see my study, "Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 4 (1958-59), pp. 115-39. [ 8 ] The History of the Franks 10.31, trans. Lewis Thorpe (London, 1977), p. 601. [ 9 ] Ibid. 10.20, p. 589. [ 10 ] Ibid. 5.10, p. 265 [ 11 ] Ibid.8.15, p. 447. [ 12 ] Ibid. |
 © HydroGraphiX. |
 "Romanity". |