[ CONTENTS ]© John S. Romanides
1 ) The key to the transition of the Orthodox Catholic Tradition
from an illegal to a legal religion and then to an established
Church lies in the fact that the Roman Empire realised that it
was not confronted simply by another form of religion or philosophy,
but by a well organised society of psychiatric clinics which cured
the happiness-seeking sickness of humanity and produced normal
citizens with selfless love dedicated to the radical cure of personal
and social ills. The relation between State and Church which developed
was exactly parallel to that between the State and modern medicine.
The incorporation of the episcopate of Carolingian Francia into
the Frankish army and its occupation by military officers whose
duty was to pacify the revolutionary Gallo-Roman population is
the key to understanding the so-called Great Schism between Roman
and Latin Christendoms. These Frankish bishops and their successors
never understood the meaning of Apostolic Tradition and succession
which they reduced to episcopal power over a system of sacramental
magic which sends people either to heaven or hell. This they transferred
to the Papacy when they forcefully took it over during a struggle
which reached its final stages between 983 and 1046.
This break in Apostolic Tradition and succession was provoked
and sustained for centuries by military and political power as
a normal function within Latin Christendom. Considered just as
normal was the distortion of both the reality of the East Roman
Empire and its Church and civilisation which continues today under
modified guise. This guise caked in "Byzantine" honey
does not change distortion into truth.
2) Canon Law makes specific provisions for the regular convocation
of the Synods of bishops presided over by a Metropolitan, Archbishop,
or Patriarch at regular intervals for dealing with the proper
execution of the Church's mission of cure within society. There
are no such provisions for Ecumenical Councils.
The reason for this is that the local synods were part of the
original structure of the Church, whereas the Ecumenical Synod
was of an extra-ordinary and imperial nature. One may draw a
parallel between Ecumenical Councils and the Apostolic Council
convoked in Jerusalem (Acts 15, 6:6-29). Ecumenical Councils,
however, were convoked by the Roman Emperor for the purpose of
signing into Roman Law what the synods of Autocephalous and Autonomous
Churches believed and practised in common.
Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches were condemned by local Councils
first and then by Ecumenical Councils. Paul of Samosata was condemned
by a local council whose decision was accepted by all other synods.
The same was the case with Sabellius. Even at Ecumenical Councils
bishops participated as members of their own synods whose spokesmen
were their Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Patriarchs, or their
legates. It should be clear that neither can an Ecumenical Council
become a substitute for local synods, nor can local synods take
precedence over an Ecumenical Council, unless the one or the other
strays from the faith. The reason for this is that authority resides
neither in the Ecumenical nor Local Council, but in the glorified
Prophets, Apostles and Fathers who participate in Councils or
whose teachings the Councils follow.
The method underlying this presentation is rather simple. The
New Testament writers and the Fathers read back into history their
own experience of purification and illumination of the heart and
glorification which they identify with that of the Prophets of
all ages beginning at least with Abraham. This is parallel to
repetition of cure in medical science passed on from doctors to
doctors, except that in this case Christ is the doctor Who personally
cures and perfects His doctors in both the Old and New Testaments.
This historical succession of cure and perfection in the Lord
of Glory, both before and after His incarnation, is the heart
and core of the Biblical and Patristic Tradition and the Synodical
System.
We divide our presentation into 1) Historical Context, 2) Synods
as Associations of Psychiatric Clinics, 3) Synods and Civilisations,
4) Conclusions.
Biblical Faith is one's co-operation with the Holy Spirit Who
initiates the cure of the sickness of possessive love in the heart
and transforms it into love which does not seek its own. This
cure is consummated in glorification (theosis) and constitutes
the heart of the Orthodox Catholic Church, which replaced paganism
as the core of the Hellenic Civilisation of the Roman Empire.
Political architects whose historians report history within the
context of their plans for the future claim that the world is
being Westernised by means of technology and economics. Orthodox
Civilisation is listed among those which are arrested.
Their claim that the Hellenic Civilisation of the Roman Empire
disappeared in the 8th century [ 2 ] and was replaced
in the East by a "Byzantine" Civilisation and Empire
and in the West by a European Civilisation is a modern modification
of Charlemagne's theology of history.
Charlemagne (768-814) fabricated this disappearance of the Roman
Empire and its Civilisation in order to solve a family problem.
His grandfather, Charles Martel (715-741), had finally suppressed
Gallo-Roman revolutions in the battles of Poitiers and Provence
in 732 and 739, which were supported by Arabs and Numidian Romans
who, together with the Spanish Romans, had recently overthrown the
Goths in Spain (711-719). The Numidian Romans were under the command
of Gonstantinople's governor of Mauritania in Ceuta. Another Gallo-Roman
revolution was suppressed by Gharlemagne's father and uncle in
742, the year he was born.
Charlemagne had to find a way to break the religious and cultural
unity between his own enslaved Romans and the Roman Empire which
now extended from parts of Italy to the frontiers of Persia. He
devised a plan to convince his subjugated Romans that the Papal
States, called Romania and Res Publica Romana, under his family's
control since 756, was all that was left of the Roman Empire.
The rest of the Empire would become "heretical" and
therefore a hateful "Greece", inhabited not by Romans,
but by "Greeks", and headed not by an Emperor of the
Romans, but by an Emperor of "Greeks". The Franks called
the Empire Roman for the last time in their Libri Carolini which
attack the Empire as pagan and heretical. The Franks then decided
by their Council of Frankfurt in 794 to give the names Graeci
to the free Romans and Graecia to free Romania. This became Franco-Latin
customary law.
The modern guardians of this law 1) replaced "Greek"
with "Byzantine", and "heresy" with "change
of Civilisation". 2) Following Napoleon's plans for the dissolution
of the Ottoman Empire and of the ecclesiastical remains of the
Roman Empire within it, these same guardians destroyed the legal
identity of the citizens of Greece with the Romans of Constantinople,
by presenting them as having been under the yoke of this so-called
"Byzantine Empire". 3) They have used this fabrication
to Balkanize the "Roman Milet" [ 3 ] and destroy its Ecumenical
Patriarchate of New Rome Constantinople in the process.
Turning to 8th century Western Europe we are indeed
confronted by real and radical changes. Europe is dominated in
its centre by the Empire of Charlemagne. Gothic Spain is overrun
by Arabs and Numidian Romans, who together had fought as liberators
of the Spanish Romans but ended up as their masters. These Numidians
were converted to Islam several times according to Ibn Khaldoun.
The birth of Frankish Civilisation is described in a letter of
St. Boniface to Pope Zacharias (natione Graecus [ 4 ]) in 741. The
Franks had rid the Church in Francia of all Roman bishops by 661
and had made themselves its bishops and clerical administrators.
They had divided up the Church's property into fiefs which had
been doled out as benefices according to rank within the pyramid
of military vassalage. These Frankish bishops had no Archbishop
and had not met in Synod for eighty years. They had been meeting
as army officers with their fellow war-lords. They are, in the
words of St. Boniface, "voracious laymen, adulterous clergy
and drunkards, who fight in the army fully armed and who with
their own hands kill both Christians and pagans" [ 5 ].
Fifty three years later the successors to these illiterate barbarians
condemned the East Roman Empire as "heretical" and
"Greek" on Icons at their Council of Frankfurt in 794
and then on the Filioque at their Council of Aachen in 809. For
215 years the Roman Popes refused to conform to their Frankish
masters on Icons and the Filioque.
These Frankish bishops were neither familiar with the Fathers
of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, nor were they aware of, nor
interested in learning anything about, illumination and glorification
which were the presuppositions of these Councils. Between the
end of the 8th and the l2th centuries the Franks were
familiar only with St. Augustine, who was neither a Father of
an Ecumenical Council, nor did he understand Biblical illumination
and glorification, which he confounded with Neo-Platonic mysticism.
He therefore did not understand the Apostolic Tradition and succession
and deviated sharply from St. Ambrose who had baptized him. What
the Franks finally accepted from the Eastern and Western Fathers
they forced into Augustinian categories and so created the myth
of Platonising Eastern Fathers, which is still dominant.
The Frankish bishops encountered by St. Boniface understood Apostolic
succession as a magical power which allowed them to make it the
property of their race and use it as the prime means of keeping
their subjugated populations pacified by fear of their religious
and military powers. Augustine's theories about original sin and
predestination helped them in this direction.
This schism between Franks and Romans expanded into a schism between
Franco-Latin and Roman Christendom with their diametrically opposed
understandings of the mission of bishops and their synods within
the Church and in society. The Franks literally captured a medical
association and transformed it into a quack medical association.
The East Franks completed the job when they took over the Papacy
definitively between 1012-1046.
While the Norman Franks were in process of expelling the Roman
army from Southern Italy and of helping the Italo-Franks wrest
the Papacy from the Franconian emperors, their Duke, William of
Normandy, invaded England with Pope Alexander II's blessing in
1066. He had his Lombard friend, the "Blessed Saint"
Lanfranc, the pope's teacher, installed as the first non-Roman
/Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, and together they replaced
all native bishops with Franco-Latins. All Celtic and Saxon bishops
and abbots were dismissed en masse [ 6 ] and sentenced to
prison to die premature deaths by torture and starvation [ 7 ].
The new noblemen bishops from the Frankish Empire were in turn
killed by the people whenever opportunity presented itself [ 8 ].
Indeed the Saxons and Celts celebrated the death of Lanfranc in
1089 by launching their third and most severe revolt against the
foreign intruders [ 9 ]. Such reforms by military might became crusades
in both East and West. They ultimately provoked the Protestant
Reformation and met with little success among the East Romans
and some among the Slavs.
This .tradition of killer bishops, clergy and monks was given
its near final theological foundation by "Saint" Bernard
of Clairvaux in his sermons "De Laude novae militiae ad
midites Templi" [ 10 ] in which he argues that the religious
Knight Templer "who kills for religion commits no evil but
rather does good, for his people and himself. If he dies in battle,
he gains heaven; if he kills his opponents, he avenges Christ.
Either way, God is pleased," [ 11 ]. Its final form was given
by the Inquisition which condemned to death but usually turned
executions over to laymen:
Orthodox Civilisation may indeed become arrested, not, however,
because of Westernisation; but because of strong doses of Franco-Latinisation
introduced by Peter the Great (1682-1725), whose religious policies
became the law of the Neo-Hellenic Nation in 1827.
Western Europe had been in a long process of De-Franco-Latinisation
by means of powerful elements of Re-Greco-Romanisation, but not
in its Apostolic form. Its embryo appeared in the l2th century
with the rise of the middle class and went into labor during the
Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation. It was born in the
Enlightenment and matured during the American and French Revolutions.
American and French Democracies, based on human rights and the
equality of all citizens, began the progressive destruction of
the class distinctions which had been imposed by the Franks and
their allies, who had brought Latin Christendom into existence
on the ruins of those parts of Roman Christendom they conquered,
including the Papacy. Franco-Latin metaphysics, cosmology and
psychology were made past history by parallel developments in
modern science.
But this has neither all happened everywhere, nor at the same
time. Royalties, nobilities, the Papacy, and those Reformation
Churches which still serve as props for the remnants of Teutonic
royalty and nobility, badly need the identification of Franco-Latin
and Western Civilisations for their own survival.
It is exactly this identity which parts of the Reformation and
the American and French Revolutions rejected.
We must have a clear vision of the context within which both Church
and State saw the contribution of the Prophets to the cure of
the sickness of the human personality and its perfection in order
to understand both the mission of Synods and the reason why the
Roman Empire incorporated them into its code of law. Neither Church
nor State reduced the mission of the Church to salvation by forgiveness
of sins for entrance into heaven after death. This would be identical
to doctors forgiving their patients for being sick so that they
may be cured after death. Both Church and State knew very well
that forgiveness of sins was only the beginning of the cure of
the happiness-seeking sickness of humanity. This cure passed through
the purification and illumination of the heart and culminated
in the perfection of glorification. This resulted not only in
proper preparation for life after death but also in the transformation
of society here and now from that of selfish and self-centred
individuals to that of individuals with selfless love which does
not seek its own.
Everyone will see the glory of God in Christ and reach that degree
of perfection one has both chosen and worked for. Following Saint
Paul and the Gospel of John, the Fathers support that those who
do not see the resurrected Christ in glory in this life, either
in a mirror dimly by unceasing prayers and psalms in the heart,
or face to face in glorification, will see His glory as eternal
and consuming fire and outer darkness in the next life. The uncreated
glory that Christ has by nature from the Father is heaven for
those whose selfish love has been cured and transformed into selfless
love, and hell for those who choose to remain uncured in their
selfishness.
Not only are the Bible and the Fathers clear on this, but so are
the Orthodox Icons of the last judgement. The same golden light
of glory within which Christ and His friends are enveloped becomes
red as it flows down to envelope the damned. This is the glory
and love of Christ, which purifies the sins of all but does not
glorify all. All humans will be led by the Holy Spirit into all
the Truth which is to see Christ in glory, but not all will be
glorified. "Those whom he justified those he also glorified",
according to St. Paul (Rom. 8:30). The parable of Lazarus in the
bosom of Abraham and of the rich man in the place of torment is
clear. The rich man sees but he does not participate (Luke 16:19-31
) .
The Church does not send anyone to heaven or hell, but prepares
the faithful for the vision of Christ in glory, which everyone
will have. God loves the damned as much as He loves His saints.
He wants the cure of all but not all accept His cure. This means
that the forgiveness of sins is not sufficient preparation for
seeing Christ in glory.
It goes without saying that the Anselmian tradition whereby the
saved are those to whom Christ supposedly reconciled God is not
an option within the Orthodox Tradition. Commenting on 2 Cor.
5:19, for example, St. John Chrysostom says that one must "be
reconciled to God. Paul did not say, `Reconcile God to yourselves',
for it is not He who hates, but we. For God never hates".
It is within the above context that the State understood the Church's
mission of cure within society. Otherwise religions promising
happiness after death are not much different from each other.
1 Cor. 12-15 is a unique window through which one may look at
the reality of the Church as the Body of Christ. Membership in
the Church has its degrees of cure and perfection within two groupings,
the illumined and the glorified. The members of the Body of Christ
are clearly listed in 1 Cor. 12:28.
One begins by becoming a private individual believer (idiotes)
who says "amen" during corporate audible worship. At
this stage one is engaged in the purification of one's heart under
the direction of those who are already temples of the Holy Spirit
and members of the Body of Christ.
The degrees of illumination begin with the foundation charisma
of "kinds of tongues" at the bottom in eighth place
and reach up to the "teachers" in third place.
At the head of the local Church are the "Prophets" in
second place, who have received the same revelation as the "Apostles"
(Eph. 3:5) in first place, and are together with them the foundation
of the Church (Eph. 2:20). Apostles and Prophets are the foundation
of the Church in a way similar to doctors being the foundation
of hospitals.
"Kinds of tongues" are the foundation on which all the
charismata are built and are temporarily suspended only during
glorification (1 Cor.13:8). As an Apostle, St. Paul puts himself
at the head of the list of members God has placed in the Church.
Yet he still has the foundation charisma of "kinds of tongues".
He writes, "I thank God in tongues more than all of you"
(1 Cor. 14:18). This means that "kinds of tongues" belong
to all levels of charismata within the Body of Christ. Paul's
question, "do all speak in tongues?" is a reference
to the "private individuals" who do not yet have the
gift of tongues and are therefore not yet members of the Body
of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit [ 13 ].
The illumination and glorification of the members of the Body
of Christ are not grades of authority by human appointment or
election. They are those whom God prepares and places within the
Church for advancement to higher degrees of cure and perfection.
That Paul calls on all lower degrees of membership in the Body
of Christ to seek advancement to higher spiritual stages means
clearly that all are supposed to become Prophets, i.e. to reach
glorification. "I indeed want all of you to speak in tongues
that you may prophesy" (1 Cor. 14:5).
This Pauline Church is like a psychiatric clinic. But its understanding
of the malady of human personality is much more sophisticated
than anything now known in modern medicine. In order to see this
reality we must look through Paul into the Biblical understanding
of human normality and abnormality.
The normal human being is he who has been led into all the Truth
by the Spirit of Truth, i. e. into vision of Christ in His Father's
glory (John 17). It is because the Apostles and Prophets are glorified
in Christ that the people believe that God has sent His Son and
that they too can be cured by selfless love (ibid.). Humans who
do not see the uncreated glory of God are not normal. "All
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).
In other words the only human who was born normal is the Lord
of Glory, Who by choice assumed the blameless passions (i. e.
hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep, fear of death, etc.), although
by nature the source of glory, which abolishes them.
The other side of this coin is that God does not reveal His glory
to everyone because He does not wish to harm those not prepared
for such a vision. The surprise of the Old Testament Prophets
that they have seen God and yet live and the people's request
that Moses ask God to cease showing His glory, which had
become unbearable, is clear in this respect.
The concern of the Apostolic Churches was not to reflect and speculate
about God in Himself, since He remains a mystery to the intellect
even when He reveals His glory in Christ to those who participate
in the mystery of His Son's Cross by their glorification. Their
only concern was each individual's cure in Christ, which is brought
about by the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification
in this life (1 Cor. 12:26) for service to society. "...
Those whom he has justified, he has also glorified" (Rom.
8:30) means that illumination and glorification are interdependent
in this life, yet not identical.
The sickness of human personality consists of the weakening of
the heart's communion with the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), by its
being swamped by the thoughts of the environment (Rom. 1:, 21,24,
2:5). In such a state one imagines God to be in the image of one's
sick self or even of animals (Rom. 1:22). The inner person (eso
anthropos) suffers spiritual death "because of which (eph'ho)
[ 14 ] all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12) by becoming enslaved to
the instinct to self-preservation which deforms love by its bondage
to the self-centred search for security and happiness.
The cure of this sickness begins by the purification of the heart
of all thoughts (Rom. 2:29), both good and bad, and their restriction
to the intellect. In order to do this one's spirit dissipated
in the brain must spin itself by prayer into a ball of light and
return to the heart. It becomes like a repaired diskette to which
prayer texts from the brain may be transferred and back to the
brain. One thus becomes free from slavery to everything in the
environment, e. g. to self indulgence, wealth, property and even
to one's parents and relatives (Math. 10:37; Luke 14:26). The
purpose of this is not to attain to Stoic indifference or lack
of love, but to allow the heart to accept the prayers and psalms
that the Holy Spirit transfers there from the intellect and energises
unceasingly while the intellect is occupied with daily activities
and while asleep. It is thus that sick love begins its cure.
This is the context of St. Paul's reference to the Holy Spirit
praying in the heart. The Holy Spirit as such advocates on
behalf of all humans "with sighs not spoken" (Rom.8:26).
But He transfers the prayers and psalms of the intellect to the
human spirit in the heart when it is purified of all thoughts,
both good and bad. At this point one's own spirit empowered by
the Holy Spirit does nothing else but pray and recite psalms unceasingly
while the intellect engages in its normal daily activities liberated
from happiness-seeking self-centredness. Thus one prays with one's
spirit in the heart unceasingly and one prays with the intellect
at given times. This is what Paul means when he writes, "I
will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the intellect.
I will recite psalms with the spirit, but I will also recite psalms with
the intellect" (1 Cor. 14:15).
Paul has just told us that praying by means of other tongues than
one's own includes Old Testament psalms. He is, therefore, not
speaking about incomprehensible audible prayers since the psalms
were familiar to all. Paul is speaking about the prayers of one's
spirit in the heart which are audible only to those with this
same charisma of "kinds of tongues". Those who did not
yet have this gift could not hear the prayers and psalms in the
hearts of those who did have this gift.
The Corinthians in the state of illumination had introduced the
innovation of conducting corporate worship in the heart in the
presence of the "private individuals" who had not yet
received this gift of "kinds of tongues". This made
it impossible for these "private individuals" to be
edified and say their "amen" at the proper times simply
because they could not hear.
Paul states clearly that "no one hears", (1 Cor.14,2).
"if I come to you speaking by tongues, what will I benefit
you if I do not speak to you?" (ibid. 14:6-7). "For
if the trumpet gives an unmanifested sound, who will prepare for
battle? Thus also you, if you do not give a well-shaped word by
means of the tongue, how will that which is spoken be known?...
Thus many may happen to be the kinds of sounds in the world, and
none are soundless. For if I do not know the force of the sound,
I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner
to me". (1 Cor. 14:8-11). Those without the gift of "kinds
of tongues" must hear the "force of the sound"
of the prayers and psalms to react with their "amen"
(ibid. 14:11,16). One must not pray and recite psalms with "unmanifested
sound," in the presence of those without this gift of tongues
(ibid. 14:10,11). "For you give thanks well, but the other
is not edified" (ibid. 14:17).
When Paul says, "he who prophesies is greater than him who
speaks in tongues, except if he interprets that the church may
receive edification" (1 Cor. 14:5), he means that he who
speaks only in tongues must learn to translate the psalms and
prayers in his heart into psalms and prayers of his intellect
to be recited audibly. When he thus learns to pray and recite
psalms simultaneously with his spirit and his intellect he may
then participate in corporate thanksgiving for the benefit of
the "private individuals" who will know when to say
their Amen. "Thus let him who speaks in tongues pray that
he may translate. For if I pray in tongue, my spirit prays, but
my intellect is without fruit. So what is (the situation)? I will
pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the intellect.
I will recite psalms with the spirit, but I will also recite psalms
with the intellect. For if you bless with the spirit, how will
he who occupies the place of the private individual say the Amen
to your thanksgiving? Because he does not know what you say. You
give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank God in
tongue more than all of you, but in church I prefer to speak five
words with my intellect, so that I may instruct others, rather
than ten thousand words in tongue" (1 Cor. 14:13-19).
Paul never says that one interprets what another is saying in
tongues. One interprets what he himself is saying in tongues.
In each case where Paul relates "speaking in tongues"
to "translation" it is always the one who has the gift
of tongues who translates himself in order to be heard audibly
for the benefit of the "private individuals". It is
within this context that Paul directs that "if one speaks
in tongues, he should be grouped in twos or the most threes, and
let one translate. If there is not a translator, let him keep
quiet in church, let him speak to himself and to God" (1
Cor. 14:27-28). The interpreter is clearly he who has the gift
of translating his own prayers of his own spirit in his own heart
to his own intellect that they may become audible for the edification
of others. Otherwise he must keep quiet and restrict himself to
praying in tongues which others are also doing but also audibly.
Paul thus deprives those with only the gift of kinds of tongues
of their majority power to impose their innovation of corporate
prayers by only tongues in the presence of the "private individuals".
Paul is speaking about psalms and prayers not recited by one's
own tongue, but heard coming from the heart. This illumination
of the heart neutralises enslavement to the instinct to self-preservation
and begins the transformation of possessive love into selfless
love. This is the gift of faith to the inner person which is one's
justification, reconciliation, adoption, peace, hope and vivification.
These unceasing prayers and psalms in the heart (Eph. 5:18-20),
otherwise called "kinds of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:28),
transform the private individual into a temple of the Holy Spirit
and member of the Body of Christ. They are the beginning of one's
liberation from bondage to the environment, not by retreat from
it, but by controlling it, not exploitatively, but by selfless
love. It is thus that, "the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus has liberated me from the law of sin and death...If
one does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to
Him. If Christ is in you, then the body is dead to sin, whereas
the Spirit is life unto justice..." (Rom. 8:2ff).
As love is being cured by perfection one receives the higher charismata
listed by Paul in 1 Cor. 12:28 which are consummated in glorification.
Paul states that, "if one is glorified, all members rejoice"
(1 Cor.12:26) in order to explain why Prophets are second to the
Apostles and before all other members of the body of Christ. To
be justified by the prayers and psalms of the Holy Spirit in the
heart is to see Christ in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12). Glorification
is the coming of "the Perfect" (1 Cor. 13:10) by seeing
Christ face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). In saying, "I know now
in part" (ibid.) Paul is referring to his current state of
illumination or justification. By his next phrase, "but then
I will be known as I was known" (ibid.), Paul is saying that
he will be glorified as he had been glorified. In the state of
illumination one is a child. Once glorified one returns to illumination
a man (1 Cor. 13:11).
During glorification, which is revelation, prayer in the heart
(tongues), knowledge and prophecy, together with faith and hope,
are abolished since replaced by Christ Himself. Only love does
not fall away (1 Cor. 13:8-11). During revelation words and concepts
about and to God (prayers) are abolished. After glorification
one returns to illumination. Knowledge, prophecy, tongues, faith
and hope return to join love which had not fallen away. Those
words and concepts used in prayer and teaching by one glorified
to lead others to glorification are inspired and to be abolished
in glorification.
It is this vision of the resurrected Christ in glory which Paul
had and which puts Apostles and Prophets at the head (1 Cor. 12:28)
and foundation (Eph. 2:20) of the Church. This foundation includes
women prophets (Acts 2:17, 21:9, 1 Cor. 11:5) and is the context
of Paul's statement that in Christ there is neither male nor female
(Gal. 3:28).
Glorification is not a miracle, but the normal final stage of
the transformation of selfish love into selfless love. Both Paul
and John clearly consider vision of Christ in glory in this life
as necessary for the perfection of love and service to society
(John 14:21-24, 16:22, 17:24, 1 Cor. 13:10-13, Eph. 3:3-6). The
appearances of the resurrected Christ in glory were not and are
not miracles to astound observers into believing in His Godhead.
The miracle was the crucifixion of the Lord of Glory, not His
resurrection. The resurrected Christ appears only for the perfection
of love, even in the case of Paul who had reached the threshold
of glorification (Gal.1:14ff), not knowing the Lord of Glory he
was about to see had been born, crucified and resurrected. 1
Cor. 15:1-11 are the glorifications which complete Paul's
treatment of spiritual gifts begun in 1 Cor. 12:1.
All subsequently glorified in history are equal to the Apostles
in their participation in Pentecost because they too have been
guided into all the Truth (Acts 10. 47-11:18). All the Truth is
the resurrected and ascended Christ Who returned in the uncreated
tongues of fire of Pentecost to dwell with His Father in the faithful
who have become temples of His Spirit advocating in their hearts.
He thus made the Church His body against which the gates of death
can no longer prevail.
Glorification is both the soul's and body's participation in immortality
and incorruption for the perfection of love. This may be of short
or long duration. After an initial loss of orientation one goes
about one's daily work seeing everything saturated by the glory
of God which is neither light nor darkness, nor similar to anything
created. The passions, which had been neutralised and made blameless
by illumination, are abolished. During glorification one does
not eat, drink, sleep, or fatigue and one is not effected by heat
or cold. These phenomena in the lives of saints (prophets) both
before and after the incarnation of the Lord of Glory are not
miracles but the restoration of humans to normality. It is within
this context that one places such sayings of Christ to the living,
but sick, that "I came that they have life (in illumination)
and that they have it (in glorification) abundantly"
(John 10:10). The gospel of John, and especially 14-16, is a detailed
description of the cure of illumination and John 17 is Christ's
prayer for the cure of glorification.
Gerontologists have concluded that the aging process is a sickness
and are looking into whether death itself is also a sickness.
In this respect both the glorified and their relics should prove
of interest since many hundreds of them remain with their bodies
intact for centuries in an intermediary state between corruption
and incorruption. One of the oldest examples is St. Spyridon on
the island of Corfu who was a Father of the First Ecumenical Council
in 325. There are 120 in Kiev alone.
This is the context of Paul's statement that "even this
creation will also be liberated from bondage to corruption unto
the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21).
It is clear from the context that "the freedom of the glory"
is here freedom from mortality and corruption. But even those
whose inner person has been adopted by illumination and who have
tasted of physical immortality and incorruption during and limited
to the period of their glorification await "the adoption,
the liberation of our body" (Rom. 8:23). "The dead will
be raised incorruptible and we will be changed... this corruptible
will put on incorruption and this mortal will put on immortality..."
(1 Cor. 15:53,54). One knows this not by speculation on Biblical
texts, but from the experience of glorification, i. e. from "the
freedom of the glory of the children of God." The experience
of glorification and not only Biblical texts is the basis of the
Church's belief in the physical resurrection of the biological
part of the person.
The distinction between active and contemplative lives does not
exist within the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit's gift of unceasing
prayers and psalms in the heart makes such a distinction impossible.
It can exist only outside the Body of Christ.
No one can say Lord Jesus in the heart except by the Spirit and
no one can say Anathema Jesus in the Spirit (1 Cor.12:3). This
is Biblical and Patristic spirituality and the power by which
it was impossible to torture a temple of the Holy Spirit into
renunciation of Christ. Such renunciation simply proved that one
had not been a member of the Church. The primary mission of the
temples of the Holy Spirit was to work at whatever profession
they were engaged in and to seek to pass on their own cure to
others. They literally worked in their societies in a capacity
similar to that of psychiatrists. Unlike them, however, they did
not seek mental equilibrium by conformity to social standards
of normality. Their standard of normality was glorification. Their
healing power was not and is not of this world. Yet they are in
this world as part of its transformation.
All who have reached glorification testify to the fact that "it
is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive
Him" because they know by their experience that there is
no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated.
God is "unmoved mover" and "moved" and "neither
one. nor oneness nor unity,. nor divinity... nor sonship, nor
fatherhood, etc." in the experience of glorification. The
Bible and dogmas are guides to and abolished during glorification.
They are not ends in themselves and have nothing to do with metaphysics,
either with analogia entis or with analogia fidei.
This means that words and concepts which do not contradict the
experience of glorification and which lead to purification and
illumination of the heart and glorification are Orthodox. Words
and concepts which contradict glorification and lead away from
cure and perfection in Christ are heretical.
This is the key to the decisions of all Seven Roman Ecumenical
Councils as well as that of the Eighth of 879 and especially of
the Ninth of 1341.
Most historians of dogma do not see this because they believe
the Fathers were, like Augustine, searching by meditation and
contemplation to understand the mystery of God behind words and
concepts about Him. They induct even such Fathers as Gregory the
Theologian into the army of Latin theology by translating him
to say that to philosophise about God is permitted only to "past
masters of meditation," instead of "to those who have
passed into theoria", which is vision of Christ "in
a mirror dimly", by "kinds of tongues" and "face
to face" in "glorification".
The Fathers never understood the formulation of dogma as part
of an effort to intellectually understand the mystery of God and
the incarnation. St. Gregory the Theologian ridicules such heretics:
"Do tell me, he says, what is the unbegottenness of the Father,
and I will explain to you the physiology of the generation of
the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of
us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God".
Neither did the Fathers ever entertain the Augustinian notion
that the Church understands the faith better with the passage
of time. Every glorification is a participation in all the Truth
of Pentecost, which can neither be added to nor better understood.
This also means that Orthodox doctrine is purely pastoral since
it does not exist outside the context of the cure of individual
and social ills and perfection.
Being a theologian is first and foremost to be a specialist in
the ways of the Devil. Illumination and especially glorification
convey the charisma of the discernment of spirits for outwitting
the Devil, especially when he resorts to teaching theology and
spirituality to those slipping from his grip.
The most important result of l8th and l9th century Franco-Latinisation
of Orthodox theological education has been the disappearance of
the context of the very existence of the Church in purification,
illumination and glorification from Dogmatic Manuals, and especially
from chapters on the Mysteries. These manuals were not aware
of the biblical and patristic fact that the charisma of the presbyterate
presupposed the state of prophecy. "...do not neglect the
charisma within you which was given to you by means of prophecy
with the laying on of hands of the presbyterate (1 Tim. 4:14)."
Creation is completely dependent on God although there is no similarity
whatsoever between them. This means that there is no difference
whatsoever between the educated and non-educated when both are
passing through the cure of illumination on their way to becoming
Prophets by glorification. Superior knowledge about created
reality does not give one any special claim on knowledge of the
uncreated. Nor is ignorance about created reality a disadvantage
for reaching the highest knowledge of uncreated reality.
Of the five Roman Patriarchates the Franks captured that of Rome
and replaced the Roman Popes with Teutonic Popes by military force
during a struggle which began in 983 and ended in 1046. They thus
extended their control of Apostolic succession to the Papacy as
part of their plans for world dominion. They transformed the Roman
Fathers into Greeks and Latins and attached themselves to the
latter and so invented the idea of two Christendoms. For Islam
the Papacy is still Latin and Frank, and the Patriarchs of New
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are still Roman.
Ignorance of who and what the glorified are and why they are second
and successors to the Apostles created the void which was filled
by the infallibility of the Latin Pope.
Gregory of Nyssa informs his readers that heresies appear in those
churches which have no Prophets. The reason is that their leaders
attempt to commune with God by means of meditation and contemplation
about Him instead of by illumination and glorification. To confuse
one's concepts about God with God is idolatry, not to mention
bad scientific method.
It is about Apostles and Prophets that St. Paul says, "For
the spiritual person examines all, but he is examined by no one"
(1 Cor. 3:15). The reason for this is that by their glorification
in the uncreated glory of God in Christ they became witnesses
to the fact that "the leaders of this age" "crucified
the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:8). This is the very same Lord
of Glory (the Angel of Great Council), Who calls Himself "He
Who Is, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob",
the Almighty, the Wisdom of God, the Rock which followed (1 Cor.
10:1-4), which the Old Testament Prophets saw. St. John the Baptist
was the first of the Prophets to see this same Lord of Glory in
the Flesh. Of course the Jews also, who formally believed in the
Lord of Glory, "had they known, would not have crucified
the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:8).
Paul adapts the sayings, "that which eye has not seen and
ear has not heard and has not arisen in the heart of man, which
God has prepared for those who love him", to the crucifixion
of the Old Testament Lord of glory, which "God has revealed
to us by His Spirit" (1 Cor.3:9-10). Those thus glorified
are the only authorities within the Orthodox Church. They produce
the doctrinal formulations which serve as guides to the cure of
the centre of the human personality and as warning signs to stay
away from quack doctors who promise much and have nothing to
give in preparation for the experience of God's glory in Christ
which everyone will finally have.
By Scriptures both Christ and the Apostles meant the Old Testament
to which the New Testament was added. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew
and Luke were edited to serve as pre-baptismal guides during the
stages of the purification and the illumination of the inner person
in the heart. That Christ is the same Lord of Glory Who revealed
Himself to his O. T. Prophets became manifest at His baptism and
transfiguration wherein He showed the glory and rule (βασιλεία)
of His Father as His
own by nature. The Gospel of John was edited for the purpose of
continuing one's advance within illumination (John 13:31-16) and
press on to glorification (John 17) by which one fully sees the
glorification of the Lord of Glory in His Father and the latter
in His Son (John 13:31, 18-21). This was the reason why John was
called the "spiritual Gospel" [ 16 ].
Those being thus initiated into the Body of Christ did not learn
about the incarnation, baptism, transfiguration, crucifixion,
death, burial, resurrection, ascension and pentecostal return
of the Lord of Glory in His Spirit's uncreated tongues of fire
to become the head of His Body, the Church, by simply studying
texts of the Bible. They studied the Bible as an integral part
of the process of having their hearts purified, illumined and
readied for glorification, in the same Lord of Glory, Who had
glorified His Old Testament Prophets, but now in His human nature
born from the Virgin Mary.
It was within this context that the ancient Church identified
Christ with the Lord, Angel and Wisdom by Whom God created the
world and glorified His friends, the prophets, and by Whom He
delivered Israel from bondage and guided her to the time when
He Himself became flesh to put an end to the rule of death over
His (O. T.) Church (Matt. 16:18). In spite of their glorification
the O. T. Prophets died. But now "if one keeps my word, one
will never see death" (John 8:52-53). There is now a first
resurrection of the inner person (Rev. 20:5) and a second resurrection
of the body (Rev. 20:6) and there is also a second death of the
body (Rev. 20:14).
Even such heretics as the Arians and Eunomians, condemned by the
First and Second Ecumenical Councils
[ 17 ], took this identity of Christ with the Old Testament
Lord of Glory for granted. However, they claimed that this Angel
of Glory was the first creation of God's will from non-being before
both time and the ages and not co-eternal with the Father. They
used the visibility of the Angel of Glory to the Prophets as proof
of His created nature in a way somewhat similar to those gnostics
who identified this Old Testament Angel with their lesser creator
god of this supposed evil world and who duped Israel.
The Arians and Eunomians either ignored or rejected the fact that
by glorification one becomes god by grace (theosis) and that one
therefore sees the uncreated glory and rule (βασιλεία)
of God in Christ by
means of God Himself. At stake was the fact that God Himself reveals
Himself to His glorified friends and not by means of a creature, with the sole exception of the created nature of His Son.
Yet the grace and rule
(βασιλεία)
of illumination and glory which Christ communicates to His Body
the Church is uncreated. The Franco-Latin doctrine that communicated grace is created has no place in the
tradition of the Ecumenical
Councils.
The reason why the above aspects of the Ecumenical Councilsplay no role in the Latin and Protestant histories of
doctrine is thefact
that Augustine deviated sharply from Ambrose and the Fathers in
his understanding of the appearances of the Logos to the O. T.
prophets [ 18 ]. His misunderstandings became the core of the Franco-Latin
tradition. The Protestant and Latin histories of doctrine, which
are aware of Augustine's deviation from this ancient identification
of Christ with this Angel of Glory, assume that it was dropped
from the tradition because of its usage by the Arians. However
this tradition was preserved intact within the Churches of the
Roman Empire and continues to be the heart of the Orthodox tradition.
This is the sole context for the Trinitarian and Christological
terms: Three substances, one essence and the homoousion of the
Logos with the Father and us. They were and remain meaningless
in the Augustinian context.
Augustine had mistakenly believed that it was only the Arians
who identified the Logos with this O. T. Angel of Glory. He was
not aware that both Ambrose, the bishop he claims to have opened
his Manichaean mind to the Old Testament and baptised him, and
all other Fathers did the same. The Arians and Eunomians had argued
that proof that the Logos was created was that He was by nature
visible to the Prophets, whereas the Father alone was invisible.
Augustine had not understood the Biblical experiences of illumination
and glorification, which he had confounded with Neo-Platonic
illumination and ecstasy. He relegated glorification to life after
death and identified it with the vision of the divine substance
which supposedly satisfies man's desire for absolute happiness.
His utilitarian understanding of love made it impossible for
him to understand the selfless love of glorification in this life.
In this regard he did not differ from the Arians he was attacking.
Within the above Neo-Platonic presuppositions Augustine solved
the problem at hand with the following explanation: the Three
Persons of the Holy Trinity, being equally invisible, supposedly
reveal themselves and their messages to the prophets by means
of various creatures which they bring into existence to be seen
and heard and which they then cause to pass out of existence,
such as the glory, cloud, fire, burning bush, etc. God permanently
became visible in the human nature of His Son by Whom He communicates
messages and concepts. Yet He supposedly also continues to reveal
visions and messages by created means which He passes into and
out of existence as needed, such as the bird at the baptism of
Christ, the tongues of fire of Pentecost, the glory /light /rule
(βασιλεία)
of God revealed at the transfiguration, the cloud /glory on which
Christ went to heaven, the voice of the Father by whichHe announced His pleasure in His Son, the fire of hell,
etc.
These verbal symbols by which the Old and New Testamentwriters expressed experiences of illumination and glorification
werethus reduced to
temporary objects and unbelievable miracles [ 19 ]. This became the Franco-Latin tradition to which both Latins
and Protestants still basically adhere to.
One of the most remarkable side effects of such misunderstandings
is the use of the word "kingdom" which saturates translations
ofthe New Testament
and which never once appears in the Greek original. The Greek
term "βασιλεία
of God" designates the uncreated rule of God and not the
created Kingdom ruled by God.
The Holy Spirit advocating in one's heart "with sighs unspoken",
(Rom. 8:26) is not in itself membership in the Body of Christ.
One must respond with one's own unceasing prayer of one's spirit
so that the Spirit of God may testify to our spirit "that
we are children of God and co-heirs of Christ, that since we co-suffer
that we may also be co-glorified", (Rom. 8:16-17). Although
this response is our own, it is also a gift of God. This is exactly
what St. Paul presupposes when he commands, "Pray unceasingly...
Quench not the Spirit. Do not disregard prophecies". (1 Thes.
5:17-19). Paul is here telling us to take care to remain temples
of the Holy Spirit by preserving our spirit's unceasing prayer
in the heart that we may become prophets by glorification. This
is also why such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom says, "Let
us not think that we have become members of the Body once and
for all" [ 20 ]
Baptism by water unto forgiveness of sins is an indelible mystery
because God's forgiveness for being sick is the given fact for
the beginning of cure. However, baptism by the Spirit is not an
indelible mystery since one either does have, or does not have,
or may lose, unceasing prayer in the heart. Whether one responds
or not the Holy Spirit advocates in the heart of every single
human being whether he believes in Christ or not. In other words
the love of God calls everyone equally but not all respond.
Those who do not respond should not imagine themselves to be temples
of the Holy Spirit and members of the Body of Christ and thereby
impede others from responding. Those in the state of illumination
pray together in their liturgies as temples of the Holy Spirit
and members . of the Body of Christ that non-members become members
and former members become again members since this was not guaranteed
to them by their baptism of water unto forgiveness of sins.
At some point in the history of the early Church the charisma
of simultaneously translating the psalms and prayers from the
heart to the intellect for the corporate worship benefit of the
private individuals was replaced by fixed written liturgical texts
with fixed points at which laypersons (idiotes) responded with
their amen, Kyrie eleison, etc. Also the prayer in the heart was
reduced to either a short prayer (e. g. Lord Jesus Christ have
mercy upon me the sinner) or a sentence from a psalm (a form found
in the desert Fathers of Egypt brought to the West by St. John
Casaian). Otherwise the charismata remained intact.
Gregory of Tours described the phenomena of both unceasing prayer
and glorification. But having not understood what they are, he
described them as miracles and in a confused way [ 21 ]. The Franks
continued this confusion and finally confounded illumination
and glorification with Augustine's Neo-Platonic mysticism, rightly
rejected by most of the Reformation.
The origin of the synodical system are 1) the group of Prophets
within each congregation and 2) the Apostles who supervised churches
they established.
It was from among the Prophets that the bishop and presbyters
originated within the congregations. The general oversight of
geographical groupings of churches by the Apostles was continued
by the mutual supervision of churches by Synods of Bishops representing
their own clergy of glorified and illumined. This is why the bishops
were successors to the apostles.
At some point congregations like the one in Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22)
increased to such a point that they were accepted as semi-normal
so long as they remained under supervision. It was evidently at
this juncture that congregations appeared headed by presbyters
instead of bishops since there were not enough glorified to cover
them.
That bishops must be elected from among the glorified remained
the standard requirement within the Orthodox tradition especially
supported by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, right up to the l9th
century. The Prophets became generally detached from the congregational
clergy to become the central figures of what came to be known
as monasticism which in turn became the supply source for the
episcopacy and presidents of synods, i. e. Patriarchs, Metropolitans
and Archbishops.
The main responsibility of the Synods of Bishops was the promotion
of the cure of illumination and the perfection of glorification
by their full support of all programs dedicated to this task.
This presupposed the election and ordination of genuine doctors
and the protection of the faithful from quack doctors whose speculations
either led away from this cure and perfection or stopped short
of them.
It is exactly because of the identity of cure and perfection in
all illumined and glorified that the Orthodox never understood
doctrinal authority as imposed from above. Also because this common
experience establishes the fact that "it is impossible to
express God and even more impossible to conceive Him", it
was not possible for the glorified to become split over the use
of differing terms, so long as they led to illumination and glorification.
The split between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians
is an example of one side accepting varying ways of saying the
same thing and of the other accepting only one way.
The power of illumination and glorification not only withstood
persecutions, but captured the Roman Empire and became the heart
of its Hellenic Civilisation. Historians not familiar with this
reality have no way of understanding its impact on society. The
criterion by which the Roman Empire made the Orthodox faith and
practice part of Roman law and its synodical system part of the
imperial administration was not much different from today's legal
support for genuine medicine and for the protection of citizens
from unlicensed quack doctors. Religions and dogmas which lead
away from illumination and glorification were not only considered
dangerous for salvation, but also not conducive to producing
the kind of citizens who could help transform society.
The contribution of the illumined and glorified to Hellenic Civilisation
in both the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire was
much greater than historians have been able to imagine, even though
much of the imperial expectations proved to be utopian.
The claim that the Roman Empire and its Hellenic Civilisation
was replaced by a "Byzantine" Empire and Civilisation
is sheer caricature. Glorification had become the heart and core
of both the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire. This
tradition of cure and perfection was of no interest to the Germanic
conquerors of the West Romans. But the East Romans continued this
tradition which is not "Byzantine" but Apostolic.
The Merovingian Kings of the Franks first usurped veto powers
over the election of Roman bishops. Then they usurped the right
to appoint Roman bishops. In doing this they discovered the profit
to be had by selling the office of bishop to the highest bidder.
At this point Roman bishops within Francia lost contact with the
illumination and glorification which survived among their clergy,
monks and people. Then the Carolingian Franks forced themselves
upon the Church as bishops with the special responsibility of
policing the Romans, now all reduced to variations of serfdom.
Latin royalties and nobilities made apostolic succession their
class property. The disobedience of slaves and commoners to
this apostolic succession was corrected by the episcopal
armies.
Not one of the 8th and 9th century Frankish
doctrinal initiatives were the result of searching for information
and explanations from the Romans whose doctrinal formulations
they were tampering with. The Franks were at this time not capable
of dialogue simply because they were ignorant barbarians with
an unbelievable self-confidence that they are God's chosen race
and that Augustine is the best guide to all essentials of the
faith. Unfortunately the bishop of Hippo did not understand Biblical
illumination and glorification.
Some centuries later the Franks did begin to become aware of the
Fathers of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. They simply subjected
them to their own tradition and made Augustine the key to their
interpretation. Thus they did not see and the Latins still do
not see illumination of the heart and glorification either in
the Old and New Testaments or in the Fathers. They had not and
still do not see the need to transform selfish happiness-seeking
love into selfless love. They continue to believe that vision
of God satisfies the desire for happiness and that the lack of
this vision makes one unhappy.
Parts of the Reformation made a cleaner break with Franco-Latin
Christendom than other parts and returned to justification by
that faith which is the gift of the Holy Spirit in the heart.
The recent agreement between Lutherans and Orthodox on the Canon
of Holy Scripture and Divine Inspiration accepted that justification
as gift of the Holy Spirit in the heart is completed in this life
by glorification. This should prove to be the major step in the
right direction, not only for the re-union of the Churches, but
also for the elevation of a still developing Western Civilisation.
Franco-Latin and Western Civilisation and Islam have been consistently
dominated by the quest for happiness. It is this very sickness
which has been at the centre of all personal and social ills.
When left unchecked it cannot but lead to conflicts of interest
at all levels of society and to the selfish exploitation of humans
and the environment by humans. Modern science and technology have
been forced into the service of this sickness as expressed in
consumer economics which is saturating social structures and pushing
exploitation of natural resources to the limit.
Humanity has managed to survive past destructions caused by this
sickness: However, our generation has the honour of being that
part of human history which for the first time is witnessing to
the ability of humanity to destroy itself completely either by
a nuclear event or by ecological contamination and disequilibrium.
Sheer self-interest for the world's survival and society's well-being
may finally force a solution to the spectre of either atomic or
ecological destruction. Ascetial restraint is the obvious key.
The Biblical messages, that 1) the drive for happiness is "the"
sickness of humanity and that 2) its cure "is" purification,
illumination and glorification, are two truths of revelation which
society may do well not to ignore.
This also happens to be the key to the unity in glorification
Christ prays for in John 17 that the world may believe.
Collection of Patristic Sources in the original Greek on Prayer in the Heart entitled "Philokalia," edited by the Metropolitan of Corinth, Panteleimon Karanikolas, vol. 1-5, Athens, 1957-1963.
- "Original Sin According to St Paul," in St. Vladimir's Quarterly (in the original George Florovsky numbering discontinued by new editors who expelled him from the School.), New York 1955, vol. IV, nos. 1-2. Paper delivered in 1954 to the faculty of St. Sergius Orthodox Theological School in Paris.
- "The Ancestral (Original) Sin," 1st edition Athens 1957, 2nd edition by Domos Athens 1987, 1992.
- "The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch," Atlanta 1956, reprinted in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Brookline 1961-62, vol. VII, nos. 1-2, pp. 53-77.
- "Dogmatics", vol I and "Symbolic", vol II (in Greek) Pournaras Press, 1973.
- "Romanity, Roumeli, Romania," Thessaloniki 1975, Athens 1997.
- "Critical Examination of the Applications of Theology," in Procès Verbaux du Deuxième Congrès de Théologie Orthodoxe tenu à Athènes 1976, ed. S. C. Agourides, Athens 1978.
- "St. Cyril's 'One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate' and Chalcedon," in "Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?" Edited by Paul Gregorios, William H. Lazereth, Nikos Nissiotis, WCC, Geneva 1981, pp. 50-75. Published also in "Christ in East and West," edited by Paul R. Fries and Tiran Nersoyan, Mercer University Press, 1987, pp. 15-34.
- "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine," Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline 1982.
- "Jesus Christ-The Life of the World," A study which demonstrates from passages of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council that Christ is Jehovah who appeared to the Old Testament Prophets, a tradition unknown to the Augustinian tradition. Published in Xenia Oecumenica, Helsinki 1983, no. 39, pp. 232-275.
- "Justice and Peace in Ecclesiological Context", edited by Gennadios Limouris, in "Come Holy Spirit Renew the Whole Creation", Holy Cross Press, Boston 1990, pp. 234-249.
- "Charlemagne, Napoleon, Roman Revolutions, and The United States of Europe", Domos, Athens 1992.
|
[ 1 ] VIth Meeting of the Lutheran - Orthodox Joint Commission
31/5 - 8/6/1991 Moscow, USSR. Revised for Subcommision Meeting,
June 17-21,1992, Geneva.
[ 2 ] The exact date has been shifting from time to time.
[ 3 ] Islamic Law provided for the self rule of each of the Jewish
and Christian societies called a Milet.
[ 4 ] I.e. a native of the Roman province, Magna Graecia, in Southern
Italy.
[ 5 ] Migne P. L. 89, 744; Mansi 12, 313-314.
[ 6 ] For documented sources of the details of the murder of the
Celtic and Saxon Bishops and abbots and their replacement by
nobles from the Frankish realms of Francia, i.e. Gallia, Germania
and Italia see Auguste Thierry, Histoire de la Conquête
de l' Angleterre par les Normands, Paris 1843, vol. 2, pp. 147
(1071-1072), 215-219 (1075-1076), 284, 313-314, 318 (1087-1094);
vol. 3, pp. 35 (1110-1138 ), 214-215 (1203 ).
[ 7 ] Ibid. voI. 2, pp. 55;' 66 (1068 ) 111,145,184 (1070-1072
), 215 (1075-1076), 240-242 (1082), 313-316 (1088-1089); vol.
3, pp. 35, 44, 47 (1110-1140).
[ 8 ] Ibid.; vol. 2, pp. 232, 236 (1080); vol. 3; pp. 27, 36-37;
39 (1110-1138), 55 (1141-1142); vol. 4, p. 349 (1387).
[ 9 ] Ibid., vol, 2, p. 315.
[ 10 ] Migne, P. L.182, .921-940.
[ 11 ] As summarised in The History of Feudalism, edited
by David Herlihy, 1970, p. 282-283.
[ 12 ] This interpretation of Paul is based on the Patristic Tradition,
but also on information provided during a dialogue meeting in
Bucharest (October 1979) between Orthodox and Jews. The latter
pointed out that the Patristic illumination and glorification
I described to them was that of the Hasidim. Evidently the Apostles
and the Pharisees of Paul belong to this tradition.
[ 13 ] Commenting on 1 Cor. 12:27-28 St. Simeon the New Theologian
writes, "That he may prove the differences of the members
and what they are and who they are, he says: You then are the
body of Christ... kinds of tongues. Do you see the differences
among the members of Christ? Did you learn who are his members?"
Book Six on Ethics, entitled, "How one is united to Christ
and God and how all the saints become one with Him."
[ 14 ] For Patristic interpretation of Paul's "eph'ho"
in Rom. 5:12 see J. S. Romanides, "Original Sin According
to St. Paul," in St. Vladimir's Quarterly (in the original
Georges Florovsky numbering discontinued by new editors) New
York, 1955, vol. IV, nos. 1-2: ΤΟ ΠΡOΠΑΤΟΡΙΚΟ ΑΜΑΡΤΗΜΑ, Athens
1957, 2nd ed. 1989, chapter 6.
[ 15 ] See bibliography for Christ in the Old Testament according
to the Fathers, and especially of the Ecumenical Councils.
[ 16 ] J. S. Romanides, "Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel",
in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, IV, 2 (1958-59),115-139.
[ 17 ] For the common philosophical presuppositions between Paul of Samosata, his Co-Lucianist Arians and the Nestorians see my " Debate over Theodore of Mopsuestia s Christology," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. VII, 2 (1959-60), pp. 140-185.
[ 18 ] For analyses of these deviations see ibl>bibliography.
[ 19 ] One may find the above concentrated in Augustine's following
writings: De Beata Vita, Contra Academicos, Confessions, and
scattered in a11 his writings. Especially interesting are his
explanations of the visions of God in both the Old and New Testaments
by the Prophets and Apostles in his De Trinitate, Books II and
III. Also of interest are his writings against the Pelagians and
the so-called Semi-Pelagians who belong to the Pauline tradition
of this paper.
[ 20 ] Migne, P. G. 60, 23: J. S. Romanides, Original Sin (in
Greek) 1st ed. Athens 1957; 2nd ed. Athens
1989, p. 173.
[ 21 ] John S. Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,
Brookline 1981, p. 53-57. |
 © HydroGraphiX. |
 "Romanity". |