[
CONTENTS ]
|Part-1| — |Part-2|
|Part-3| — |Part-4|
|
|
After the disappearance of the Roman Empire in 1453 the Four
Roman Patriarchs of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem
continued to oversee this work of the cure within the Ottoman Empire using the
monasteries as the training ground for those specializing in this method of
cure. Now missing from this foursome was the Roman Papacy of Elder Rome which
had been taken over forcefully by the Franco-Latins who transformed it into a
Franco-Latin Papacy. These new Franco-Latin proprietors continued to call their
Papacy "Roman" in order to trick the West Roman serfs and villains into thinking
that the Pope of Rome was still a Roman like themselves. The Franco-Latin
struggle to capture the Roman Papacy began in earnest in 983 and reached its
climax between 1009 and 1046.[
49 ]
The Carolingian Franks began their doctrinal career knowing
fully only Augustine. But Augustine was a Neo-Platonist before his baptism and
remained so the rest of his life. Because of this Franco-Latin Christianity
remained Neo-Platonic until Occam and Luther lead sizable portions of Western
Europe away from Neo-Platonic metaphysics and mysticism and their monastic
supports. What Luther and Occam had done was to liberate whole sections of
Franco-Latin Christianity from the metaphysical part of Augustinian paganism.
However, Augustine's pagan understanding of original sin, predestination and
revelation were still adhered to.
Charlemagne began his attack on the Roman Papacy by
contradicting Pope Hadrian's I (771-795) support of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council of 786/8. This illiterate king condemned this Ecumenical Council at his
own Council of Frankfurt in 794 in the very presence of Pope Hadrian's
legates. When the Franks captured the Papacy during 1009-1046, they had rejected
not only the Seventh, but also the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80 which had
been supported conjointly by Pope John VIII (872-882) of Elder Rome and
Patriarch Photius (877-886) of New Rome, as well as the remaining Roman
Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Council was convened to
get the Franks to accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council and to convince them to
remove their Filioque which they had added to the Roman Creed of the
Second Ecumenical Council. Instead the Franks continued to accept as
their Eighth Ecumenical that of 869. This Council had been annulled by
the common consent of the Roman Emperor and by all Five Roman Patriarchates,
i.e. Elder Rome, New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at their Eighth
Ecumenical Council of 879/80 already mentioned. The Council of 869 had removed
Patriarch Photius as one who had illegally replaced the former Patriarch
Ignatius (846-858). In the mean time Photius had been writing humorous attacks
on the Frankish addition of the Filioque to the Creed which infuriated
the Franks. So it served their interests to create the impression that Photius
had been condemned for doctrinal errors in 869 and that he had never been
recognized by the Roman Papacy. Of course Pope John VIII fully cooperated with
Patriarch Photius during the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80.[
50 ]
In other words a bunch of illiterate and barbarian Franks
began their career in dogma during the reign of Charlemagne (768-814) by being
against whatsoever is produced by Roman Emperors, Popes, and Patriarchs. This
same Charlemagne even added his Frankish Filioque (which has nothing
to do with the West Roman Orthodox Filioque[
51 ]) to the Creed of the Second Ecumenical
Council in order to improve it. In addition he condemned all who disagree as
heretics at his Council of Aachen in 809. All this has been
approved ever since 1009 by all "infallible" Franco-Latin Popes.
To the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils the
Franco-Latins added the annulled Council of 869 and their own 12 "Ecumenical"
Councils. However, their acceptance of the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils
has been only formal since they continue to distort them within the context of
Augustine's presuppositions. In other words the Franks transformed these
Councils from the cure of the sickness of religion into support of the
cause of the sickness of religion. They simply transformed them into
Augustine's own Neo-Platonic sickness of religion and therefore into a pagan
form of Christian teaching and practice based on metaphysics and mysticism.
The Roman Emperors from Constantine the Great (306-337) to
the last Roman Emperor Constantine XII (1449-1453) accepted Christianity as the
official cure of the sickness of religion and not as one more form of religion.
It was because the prophets of the Old and the New Testament knew by means of
their glorification in and by Yahweh the cure of this specific disease in
the heart that Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. This cure
had nothing to do with either religious or philosophical speculation. The
pinpointing of this sickness and its cure in the heart is also the only key to
the union of Christians among themselves and the reason why members of the
society practicing this cure accept the Nine Ecumenical Councils of the Roman
Empire. These Nine Ecumenical Councils are part of Roman Law. What unites
them into one whole is the cure of the sickness of religion by means of the
purification and illumination of the heart and glorification of the whole
person. Each of the Nine Ecumenical Councils condemned specific heresies of
their time exactly because they deviated from this cure by attempting to
transform the medical practice of the Church into systems of philosophical and
mystical speculations and practices.
However, Peter the Great lead the Russians into believing
that there are only seven officially approved Ecumenical Councils. These
Roman Councils happen to be the ones that the Franco-Latin Papacy continued to
accept in common with the four East Roman Orthodox Patriarchates after the
Franks captured the Patriarchate of Rome.[
52 ] This reduction of the Ecumenical Councils
from Nine to Seven had become a first step in the attempted union between the
Franco-Latin Papacy and the Roman Emperors of New Rome during the latter part of
the 13th to the middle of 15th centuries. Submission to the Franco-Latin Papacy
was the price that the Roman Emperor of New Rome was required to pay for
Franco-Latin help against the Turks. This union was supposed to have been
consummated at the union Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1442. This Council
was condemned by the three Roman Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem
at their Council of Jerusalem (1443). These three Roman Patriarchates
were within Moslem held territories. Then in 1453 New Rome fell to the Ottoman
Turks putting all four Roman Patriarchates within the Moslem world, putting an
end to the need for asking for help from the Franco-Latin royalties and
nobilities of Western Europe and their Pope. The reality of the matter was that
the three Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had opted to
continue their tradition of the cure of the sickness of religion of the Old and
New Testaments and of the Nine Ecumenical Councils and were re-joined in this
work by the Patriarchate of New Rome in 1453 after the Ottoman takeover of the
capital of the Roman Empire.
Perhaps the most serious among these deviations from the cure
in question was that of Augustine. Indeed the Ninth Ecumenical Council
condemned the philosophical and mystical speculations of Barlaam the
Calabrian not knowing that he was simply repeating the philosophical and
mystical speculations of Augustine. Since the rule of Charlemagne (768-814)
Augustine had become the heart and core of Frankish theology and spirituality.
As the Franks were becoming acquainted with Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils
they simply understood them within the context of Augustine's writings. From the
time of Charlemagne's rule until the beginning of Peter Lombard's doctrinal
career (d. 1160) these Franks knew not one Father of an Ecumenical
Council. Peter Lombard introduced St. John of Damascus' (c. 675-749) summary of
the doctrines of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which he and his fellow Franks
have been reading through Augustinian lenses since.
Augustine's doctrine of original sin, and by extension
his nonsense about predestination, was condemned at the Council of
Orange (529). This means that the Merovingian Franks belonged
to the Orthodox Patristic tradition. Augustine's teaching about revelation by
means of creatures which God brings into existence to be seen and heard and then
pass back into non-existence when their mission is accomplished was condemned by
the Ninth Ecumenical Council of New Rome in 1341. The Fathers of the Council did
not know at the time that the source of this nonsense was Augustine.
An essential part of Franco-Latin distortions has been their
falsification of Roman History itself. This was inaugurated by Charlemagne in
794 at the Council of Frankfurt. He then began the centuries old Franco-Latin
propaganda that the Romans attached to the Emperor of New Rome Constantinople
and his Roman Patriarchies of New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are a
bunch of "Greek heretics." Up until this time the Franks had always called the
Empire of Constantinople the Imperial Romanum and its citizens
Romani. The very last time that these Franks used these correct titles is
witnessed to in Charlemagne's Libri Carolini where he calls the
Empire of New Rome the pagan Imperium Romanum. But this position
evidently backfired against him because both enslaved and free West Romans were
still praying in their Church services for the Imperium Romanum.[
53 ] So he kept the names Romania and
Imperium Romanum for the Papal States only. He evidently believed that in
this way these prayers would become efficacious for the Papal States only and
baptized the rest of the Roman Empire the "Imperium Grecorum". Now the
Franco-Latin nobility has managed to lead naive historians into the use of terms
like "Byzantines" and "Byzantine Empire." There was never a "Greek" or
"Byzantine Empire" nor a "nation of Byzantines." Only those who dwelt in the new
capital of the Roman Empire called themselves "Byzantines" which was the name of
the small town which became Constantinople-New Rome in 331 AD.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to Rome, learned Latin, and
studied Roman sources in order to write his history of Rome. There is a tendency
to make him look like one who is looking for proofs that the Romans are Greeks.
But Dionysius, however, reports what the Romans themselves say about
their origins. It was the Roman Senator and leader Porcius Cato who wrote the
classical work on the origins of the Roman people in his book De Origines
which is also a history of the Italian cities besides Rome. This book inspired
the leaders of the French Revolution into realizing that they are descendants of
both the ancient Greeks and Romans. This book is now lost?
The keepers of the Lie of Charlemagne have, of course,
serious problems with Dionysius. An example of how they cope with this historian
is the introduction to the Loeb Classical Library edition of Dionysius' Roman
Antiquities. Earnest Cary claims that Dionysius "promises to prove that Rome's
founders were in reality Greeks, and Greeks from no mean tribes." But what E.
Cary omits to say here is that Dionysius allows the Roman writers themselves to
do the proving for him as follows: "But the most learned of the Roman
historians, among whom is Porcius Cato, who compiled with the greatest care the
genealogies of the Italian cities, Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say
they (the Aborigines) were Greeks who used to live in Achaia (in Southern
Greece) and migrated many generations before the Trojan war." After at least a
thousand years in Italy these "Aborigines no longer knew where exactly in Achaia
they came from, to which tribe they belonged and who the leaders of their
colonies were."[
54 ]
Having in mind the older Roman historians, like P. Cato and
G. Sempronius, both Livy and not only Dionysius agree with the tradition handed
down to them that the Greek-speaking nation of Latins came into existence when
the indigenous Greek-speaking Aborigines[
55 ] and the Greek-speaking Trojans of Aeneas
became one nation. The Aborigines occupied an area of the West Italian coastline
South of the Tiber river and the Greek speaking Trojans had landed on the coast
of the land of the Aborigines where they finally settled. The Aborigines and the
Trojans became one nation. This took place when King Latinus of the "Aborigines"
gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas, the leader of the Trojans who
migrated to Italy as refugees from the Trojan War. Because of this marriage they
called themselves Latins (after Lavinas' Father Latinus had passed away) and
their land Latium. The capital of this united Latin nation was Alba Longa. Some
time later the twin Greek-speaking Latin brothers, Romulus and Romus, left Alba
Longa and founded Rome. These Latins[
56 ] and some Sabines,[
57 ] also a Greek-speaking people, founded Rome
and the Roman nation. This is why the kings of Rome were mostly of Latin or
Sabine origin except for the Tarquins whose ancestors originated from Corinth.[
58 ] In time the Romans tried to convince the
Latins of Alba Longa to unite with them into one nation to better protect
themselves, especially against the Etruscans. The Latins of Alba Longa refused.
One of the basic reasons for their refusal was that the Sabines, whose ancestors
were Greeks from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece, were, according to the Latins,
no longer pure Greeks. A bit latter King Ancus Marcius of Rome (640-616 BC),
defeated the Latins and razed their capital in order to "force" the Latins of
Alba Longa to become Romans. The Latins of Alba Longa were settled on the
Aventine and were incorporated into the Roman system of the gentis. One
of these Latin gens or families of Alba Longa were the ancestors of
Julius Caesar. The term gens-gentis comes from the Greek word
genos meaning the family or tribe one belongs to. This term gens
became the difference between those of Greek origin and the tribes of those
not of Greek origin. The gentes were those who belonged to the Patrician
families who made up the Roman Senate. Eventually all Romans became members of
Tribes, but only those of Greek origin remained members of tribes or families
called gens and gentes. This is the origin of our word
"gentleman."
We return to the author of the above introduction to
Dionysius' "Roman Antiquities". He literally accuses Dionysius of adding
material to his history from his imagination. According to him Dionysius invents
many speeches where no speech is called for. In comparison Livy, who reports
many of the same historical events has no speeches for the same occasions. Not
taking seriously the claim of the Romans themselves that they are Greeks the
author does not take Dionysius seriously when he writes that he worked with the
Roman chronicles annalists. So therefore all Dionysius had to do is to
copy the Greek texts of speeches from the chronicles and annalists
and put them directly into his history. Livy wrote his history in Latin. He
would have had to translate all these many Greek speeches into Latin.
At the time that Dionysius went to Rome in about 8 BC he of
course had to study the spoken Roman dialect of what was still a Greek language,
although more mixed than usual with non Greek words and with a pronounced Roman
accent. This also means that the chronicles and annalists were
still in a more archaic form more easily readable to Dionysius than to Livy.
About this still Greek language Dionysius writes, "The language pronounced by
the Romans is neither utterly foreign, nor perfectly Greek, but a mixture, as it
were, of which the greater part is Aeolic (Greek) and the only pleasure they
(the Romans) enjoy, when they intermingle with various nations, is that they do
not always pronounce their sounds properly. But among all colonists they
preserve all indications of their Greek origin."[
59 ]
Apart from the description which the Romans make about
themselves, there are also linguistic indications which clearly point to the
Greek reality of the ancient Latins, Romans and Sabines.
The claim that the name Rome e.g. is simply a place name,
which may derive even from the Etruscans, is sheer nonsense. The name "Rome" in
Greek means "power," " force," "fighting army" and "speed tactics."[
60 ] The name "Rome" derives from two the Greek
verbs: 1) roomai which means "to move with speed or violence, to dart,
rush, rush on, esp. of warriors."[
61 ] The name "Rome" also derives from of the
Greek passive verb: 2) ronnymi which means "to strengthen, make
strong and mighty" and "to put forth strength, have strength or might.[
62 ] The closest Latin equivalent verb is
ruo, which is connected to the Greek verb reo meaning "to flow,
run, to hasten." Of all the uses of this verb both active and passive there is
none that even comes close to meaning "rome" in Greek.
Romans, Latins and Sabines were agreed that the name
quiris (sing.) quiretes (pl.) would be their common name which
dictionaries translate as citizen, but the Romans had a name for citizens, like
the Greeks, polites, i.e. civitas. But the names
quiris-quiretes derive from the Greek name kouros (sing.)
kouretes which means young men of fighting age and therefore warriors,
"young men, esp. young warriors," Iliad 19. 193, 248.[
63 ] So the Romans, Latins and Sabines called
themselves first "Warriors" and later citizens.
Because all three groups of Romans, Latins and Sabines came
to Italy by sea from Greece and Asia minor they were warrior sailors and sea
faring peoples. It is obviously for this reason that at their weddings they
shouted the Greek word Thalassios, sailor, at the groom and not the Latin
name marinos.
Of the seven hills of Rome the Quirinal, the hill of
Mars, was originally that of the Sabines. It was from here that the Roman
warriors of Romulus stole their wives from. Quiris was not only the Sabine name
for a spear, but also for their god of war. They called their god of war "The
Warrior" in their Greek language and later Mars.
In the Roman tradition Romulus did not die, but ascended
deified to heaven without leaving behind his body since he was or became the
Quirinus, a or one of the god(s) of war.
These are some of the contexts within which the Romans
thought and spoke about themselves. No historian has the right to change this.
Now whether this version of Roman history is correct or not is entirely another
matter. But it remains a fact, however, that the Romans themselves, the Latins
themselves and the Sabines themselves believed and wanted to believe that they
are Greeks. Not only this, the united Roman nation of Romans, Latins and
Sabines, spoke their own common Greek Language.
Now some scholars may search for sources which may prove
otherwise, i.e. for some reason the Romans who were not really Greeks came to
believe that they are Greeks. So what? That would be like proving that a black
American is not an American because he is black.
Each Roman gens sometimes was composed of several
thousand Romans each one headed by a Patrician member of the senate. The members
of gentis memorized their laws from childhood and kept their laws a
secret among themselves.[
64 ] A form of an Italian language was that of
their slaves and dependents which also evolved into the Latin dialect mixed
with Greek. It was these non Greek speaking dependents of Rome who finally
forced the Romans to reduce the laws to written form. It was because of the
violent protests of their Italian dependents that the Romans produced a text of
laws in primitive Latin in about 450 BC. The problem was serious because these
dependents did not know the laws by which they were being punished by Roman
magistrates. Faced with the revolt of these dependents the senate sent a
delegation to Athens to search for a solution to the problem. The result was a
set of 10 texts on bronze tables which finally became the "The Code of Twelve
Tables." Table 11 forbade the marriage between members of the gentes and
the rest of the population of Rome, in other words between those of Greek origin
and those of non-Greek origin.
The origin of this problem was that for centuries the members
of Greek colonies were being assimilated by the barbarians among whom they
lived. This was solved by the position that the gentes had to remain a
pure race so that the offerings of their priests to their gods may be heard and
that the auspices be taken correctly and correct answers received from the gods
when making decisions on legal, social and especially military matters. "The
tribune of the Plebs, Gaius Canuleis, proposed a bill regarding the
intermarriage of patricians and plebians which the patricians looked upon as
involving the debasement of their blood and the subversion of the principles
inhering in the gentes, or families and a suggestion, cautiously put
forward at first by the tribunes, that it should be lawful for one of the
consuls to be chosen from the plebs, was afterwards carried so far that nine
tribunes proposed a bill giving the people power to choose consuls as they might
see fit from either the plebs or the patriciansàWhat tremendous schemes had
Gaius Canuleis set on foot! He was aiming to contaminate the gentis and
throw the auspices, both public and private into confusion, that nothing might
be pure, nothing unpolluted; so that, when all distinctions had been
obliterated, no man might recognize either himself or his kindred. For what
else, they asked, was the object of promiscuous marriages, if not that plebeians
and patricians might mingle together almost like the beasts?"[
65 ]
That the debate was not about the rights between rich and
poor is shown by the following joke told by Gaius Canuleis in the same speech,
"Why, pray, do you not introduce a law that there shall be no intermarrying of
rich and poor"?
[
Return ] (a) From Roman racism to Orthodox equality.
All humans suffer from this short-circuit "since all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) The difference among
humans is not equality or inequality of race, but whether one is being cured or
not. Within this context we have a complete reversal of the above foundation of
the Hellenic paganism of the Roman Empire. The great struggle between paganism
and Christianity in the time of Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) is
reflected in the difference between Roman Greeks (meaning Pagans) and Roman
Christians. All Pagan Romans were defending their aristocratic ancient Hellenic
identity and traditions which was being torn apart by the aristocratic identity
of the cure of glorification which was open to all Romans, both gentis
and non-gentis, and to all non-Romans.[
66 ] The "Aristocracy" of Glorification is no
respector of the aristocracy of birth.
Having conquered the West Romans the Franco-Latins called
themselves the "gentis" and their Roman slaves "serfs" and "villains".
Pan-German ideology was clearly expressed to an extreme degree by the followers
of Hitler who were out to enslave at least the Slavs. But a theological
expression of this Germanic racism is found in Albert Schweitzer's book, "The
Quest Of The Historical Jesus." For example, on the first page of Chapter I he
claims that,
"When, at some future day, our civilization shall lie, closed and completed, before the eyes of later generations, German theology will stand out as a great, a unique phenomenon in the mental and spiritual life of our time. For nowhere save in the German temperament can there be found in the same perfection in the living complex of conditions and factors — of philosophic thought, critical acumen, historic insight, and religious feeling — without which no deep theology is possible."
All this has been done without the slightest knowledge of
what glorification in the Lord (Yahweh) of Glory is (in both Old and New
Testaments). This is ignored equally by both Germans and their Protestant and or
'Catholic' colleagues. Because of Augustine's Neo-Platonism, both Protestants
and Latins have always imagined that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils
accepted both the analogia entis between God and His creation and
analogia fidei between God and the Bible. This created not only their
Biblical fundamentalism, but also made Greek philosophy the foundation of their
understanding of the History of Dogma which is certainly not that of the reality
of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. The reason for this is that Western Biblical
and doctrinal scholars are ignorant of the Four Patristic Keys to the Bible and
the Dogmas of the Roman Ecumenical Councils explained earlier. But even many
"Orthodox" scholars follow either the Protestant or 'Catholic' scholars by
"sniffing."
Albert Schweitzer and his students saw clearly where their
quest for the "historical Jesus" was leading, i.e. to the dissolution of the
doctrinal fabric of what passes off as Christian Tradition in the Franco-Latin
West. One typical Orthodox reaction has been to become proud that the Fathers of
the Church had supposedly Hellenized Christianity thereby making it acceptable
to the Hellenic mind of the Roman Empire.
The Slavophil branch of Pan-Slavism also believed that the
Slavs understood the Bible better than other races. But the supposed reason for
this is that among the Orthodox the Greco-Roman Fathers of the Church belong to
the historical manifestation of the Kouchite movement in history, whereas the
Slavs belong to the Iranian movement in history.[
68 ] In other words the Slavic Orthodox are a
superior brand of Christians than the Roman Fathers of the Church, not because
they may have reached glorification, but simply because they are Slavs.[
69 ]
It is a fact that the Carolingian Franks wanted and decided
to believe that the Romans were an Italo-Latin speaking race. Latin was
beginning to be made the official language of the Franks. Their own language was
a Teutonic Dialect. The tradition that the Romans were Latin and Latin speaking
was invented within the Carolingian circles and became manifest in the year 794.
In the Libri Carolini the Franks were still calling the Empire of New Rome the
Imperium Romanum. But since 794 this same Empire begins to be called
"Imperium Grecorum." It must be emphasized that when this change took
place the Franks were ignorant barbarians. Since Charlemagne himself was
illiterate it is probable that the Saxon Alcuin, the director of his
Palatine School, perhaps did some kind of research which convinced him that the
Romans were a people who spoke Latin only. This would mean that the Greek
language became a Roman language only because so many Greeks had become Romans
in the course of Roman conquests. The Franks knew very well that the Romans in
Southern Spain, Southern Gaul, Southern Italy were Greek-speaking. Even Rome
itself had been a Greek-speaking city until Constantine moved the Roman Capital
to Constantinople-New Rome. The void left by the so many Romans who moved to New
Rome was filled mostly by Latin-speaking Romans. This obliged Pope Damasus to
introduce Latin into the services of Rome. Italy had two Synods of bishops: the
Northern Synod centered in Milan and the Synod of Rome whose members were all
the bishops not only of the rest of Italy but the whole of the Balkans excepting
Thrace which had been transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The reason for this falsification was the Frankish need to
convince their West Romans serfs and villains that their Emperor and fellow
Romans in the East were nothing but a bunch of "Greeks" and "heretics." The
purpose was to cut off the West Romans from the East Romans who were still
trying to help their fellow-Romans in the West enslaved to the Franco-Latins.
But what about modern historians today? Why are they not better historians of
Rome than their barbarian ancestors of the Dark Ages?
The last group of Latins of Roman history were created as
part of the settlement between Rome and those Italians who revolted between
91-83 BC demanding Roman citizenship. A second group of Italians also revolted
at the same time and fought for their complete independence from Rome. The first
group was not given the Roman franchise, but the "Latin name." The second group
was simply defeated. This distinction between Roman and Latin citizens of Rome
which resulted from this war was abolished by Emperor Caracala in 212 AD when he
gave these Italian Latins the "Roman name."
It is possible that the Merovingian Franks may have
been given the "Latin name" as indicated by the fact that their gold coins bore
the effigy of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople-New Rome from Anastasius I
(491-518) through the reign of Heraclius (610-641). The latter's rule coincided
with his ally the Frankish King Dagobert I (d. 639). Together they fought the
Bulgarians and Slavs.
The title of the Merovingian kings was "King of the Franks."
Dagobert's reign was followed by the "do nothing kings," evidently made that way
by their Carolingian Mayors of the Palace who after the reign of Dagobert become
the real rulers of the Roman Province of Gaul. It is significant that the name
Francia is not once mentioned in Gregory of Tours' "History of the Franks" since
it remained the Roman Province named Gallia. In other words the Frankish King
was the King of the Franks not the King of the Romans. The ruler of the West
Romans was still the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople-New Rome,
especially after the West Roman Emperor disappeared in 476.
It is also possible that the Carolingian Franks may have been
given the "Latin" name in conjunction with Pope Leo III's (795-816) crowning
Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans" in 800. In any case we call the Teutonic
Latins of the Middle Ages Franco-Latins in order to distinguish them from the
Greek Latins who were Romans and the Italian Latins who became Romans in 212 AD.
The Franks never became Romans, but rulers of the Romans. In sharp contrast to
the Merovingian Franks, who were allies of New Rome, the Carolingian Franks
literally hated the Romans. This is clear from the Libri Carolini, the
Carolingian preface to Salic Law and Otto I's Ambassador to New Rome Luitbrand
of Cremona who revealed this same reality in his tirade against the very name
"Roman," which, according to him, all Franco-Latins use to insult their
enemies.[
70 ] Frankish hatred for Romans, and not dogma,
was the basis of Charlemagne's condemnation of Romans as "heretics" and "Greeks"
at his Councils of Frankfurt in 794 and Aachen in 809. The main purpose of these
titles, "heretic" and "Greek" was to teach the enslaved West Romans that the
only Romania left was Papal Romania and their prayers for Romania and its
Emperor should stop there.[
71 ] The Franks began brainwashing their now
subjected Roman revolutionaries into believing that this Romania of their Pope
is all that exists since the rest of the Empire was a "heretical Grecia"
somewhere in the East.
The second reason we use the term Franco-Latins is because
the mostly Teutons in question looked upon Charlemagne as the founder of their
Latin Empire and Civilization which its leaders believed was destined to rule
the world. They call Charlemagne's Empire the First Reich, Emperor Otto I's
(912-973) "Roman" Empire the Second Reich, while some of the Franco-Latin
royalty and nobility considered Hitler's (1889-1945) candidate Empire the "Third
Reich." In any case Charlemagne is considered the primary Father of today's
United Europe whose real purpose is to compete with the United States dollar for
control of the world's wealth.
One Orthodox nation, Greece, is part of today's United Europe
and a second one, Cyprus, is a candidate. Others want to follow. This means that
United Europe is indeed becoming not only the real "Third Reich," but also a
Third Imperium Romanum, both combined into one. In such a case this State
should be named "Franco-Romania" and its citizens Franco-Romans. This is a
historical reality since almost all Europeans are descendants of either
Franco-Latins or Romans. But this can become a reality only by the recognition
of religion as a neurobiological sickness which divides people, according to the
figments of their religious imaginations, into fanatic enclaves. This sickness
is exactly what divides Europeans in the sphere of religion and to a certain
degree in culture also.
It is also a reality that the prophets of the Old Testament
and their students had been one of the sources of this tradition whereby
religion was considered a sickness of man's spirit in the heart and which is
cured by the purification and illumination of the heart, as we shall see. This
prophetic tradition was preserved by the Hasidim through the Hellenistic and
Roman periods of Jewish history and preserved, as it seems, by them even up to
our time.[
72 ]
The very cure of the sickness of religion is what had been
incorporated into the foundation of Constantine the Great's New Rome in 330 AD
However, this sickness and its cure has been forgotten by many Orthodox because
of Peter the Great's (1672-1725) Westernization of his Russian Orthodox Church.
This was imposed as policy by Britain, France and Russian upon those nations
which were created by Balkanization of the European part of the Ottoman Empire.
This is why both the Vatican and most Protestants continue to believe
dogmatically indeed, that the only key to relations with the Orthodox is
the "way" of Tsar Peter. Both the Anglican and the Vatican Churches have
specialists who follow Orthodox theological developments and carefully pick out
those Orthodox "specialists" who follow such lines of convergence with the
Augustinian tradition in order to promote them to key dialogue positions.[
73 ]
In sharp contrast to Peter the Great's policies, the
Merovingian Franks, who ruled Gallo-Roman Christians were part of this tradition
of the cure of the sickness of religion. Even the few Christian Lombards at the
time belonged to this tradition.[
74 ] However, this was never understood by the
Carolingian Franks who made Augustine's Neo-Platonism their religion (and
sickness) in sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks who witnessed and
supported the condemnation of Augustine's teaching about grace and original sin
at the Council of Orange (529). The Carolingian doctrinal tradition began
with this Platonism of Augustine which they never abandoned and which still
dominates both Vaticanism and Protestantism. In other words both Western and
Eastern Europeans must return to the unity they had in this cure of the sickness
of religion under New Rome and the Merovingians in order to complete the current
effort for European union. What is of interest is that many Jews still belong to
this tradition of the cure. To speak of a separation between East and West is
nonsense. In reality the separation is one between those who do not know that
religion is a sickness and those who know that religion is a sickness and know
its cure. Since one is speaking about a common disease of all humans one can not
confine its cure only to a United Europe.
There are two keys to this study which may be distinguished
but in reality are two faces of the same coin. For this reason we will deal with
them together.
One key to this study is that religion is a neurobiological
sickness. It stems from a short-circuit between the heart and the brain. The
"spirit of man in the heart" should be spinning in a circle praying when in its
normal state of communion with the uncreated glory (shekina), i.e. the
uncreated "reign (basilea) of God." This uncreated glory or reigning power of
God is everywhere present saturating all of creation. Like the rest of creation
all humans are already in communion with this glory's creating, providential,
ruling and even purifying energy at various levels. However, few go on to
participating in the "illuminating" and "glorifying" energy of the "glory" of
God. The reason for this is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God. (Rom. 3:23)" The reason for this is that the "spirit" or the noetic
faculty of each one usually begins to unfold itself out of its natural
circular state during infancy into a straight line and sticks itself to the
brain causing a short-circuit. In this way this "spirit" in infants, while
always anchored in the heart, becomes enslaved by means of the brain to the
shortcomings of its parents and its general environment since all thoughts in
the brain originate thence.
It seems that the reason why neurologists have not yet found
a center for religion in the brain, as far as I know, is that it resides in this
short-circuit between the heart and the brain and not in the brain itself. It is
this short-circuit which creates the fantasies of religious convictions, as well
as other signs of a disorded mind, from mild to serious, including acute
criminality and barbarism.
The second key to this study is the phenomenon of deliberate
falsification of history as part of the enslavement of others. It is generally
agreed, even by the Franco-Latin nobility, that the civilization of the Roman
Empire was Hellenic in its inception. But this same nobility claims that this
Romano-Hellenic Civilization changed into a Western Civilization in the 8-9th
centuries in Western Europe and into a Byzantine Civilization in the East at
about the same time. But what had really happened was that the Franco-Latins had
reverted to a period of sheer barbarity under the leadership of the Carolingian
Franks which up until recently was still being called the "Dark Ages." How else
can one describe France, for example, in 1789 when 85% of her population were
still serfs and villains guarded from escape by 40,000 castles.[
75 ] How can such a France be better described
than part of the Dark Ages. It can, of course, be made to look like a civilized
society only when history is controlled by the aristocracy and the middle class
of 13% which still keep this so-called "free" 85% in abject slavery to history
as written by themselves.[
76 ]
So that we may not be accused of exaggerations we quote a
description of the condition of the serfs of France before the French Revolution
written by Germaine de Stael, the daughter of Jacques Necker (1732-1804) the
finance minister of Louis XVI. She writes, "Young people and strangers who had
not known France before the revolution, and today see the people enriched by the
division of properties and the suppression of the tithe and the feudal regime,
can have no idea of the condition of this country, when the nation was carrying
the weight of all the privileges. The supporters of slavery in the colonies have
often said that a peasant in France was more unfortunate than an Negro. This was
an argument to comfort the whites, but not to harden them against the blacks."[
77 ]
From this viewpoint the real beginning of Western
Civilization is the American Revolution of 1775-81 which was completed by the
abolition of slavery in 1865. The French Revolution of 1789 was also a beginning
of Western Civilization since it immediately liberated the serfs and villains
from their captivity to the 40,000 castles which the peasants enjoyed burning
together with their castellani inhabitants. But democracy itself was squelched
by Napoleon in 1800. After he fell from power the rest of the nobility returned
from mostly self-imposed exile. Both the Napoleonists and the other royalists
got down to work and re-enslaved the 85% of Gallo-Romans. Of course they were no
longer called serfs and villains. However, they are still called "peasants"
(paysan) which had been the collective name for the "serfs" and
"villains" before the revolution. Now all Gallo-Roman children are being
brainwashed by the comic figure "Asterix" into believing that they are the
"Celts" who were enslaved to the Romans as though they were not Gallo-Roman
citizens during Imperial and Merovingian times. It was the ancestors of these
children now being brainwashed by "Asterix" who are the descendants of the 85%
of Gallo-Roman serfs and villains liberated in 1789.
The leaders of the falsification of history today are the
nobilities of France, England and Russia. What these nobilities had been losing
in battle and politics has been gradually recouped by their progressive
re-writing of history. One of their greatest successes has been creating a
partnership between the Encyclopaedia Britannica and naïve Chicago University in
order to put it into every American home. It has been transforming the way
Americans think about so many aspects of historical reality into conformity with
the interests of European nobility. The basic reason for their success is that
it is easier for Americans doing historical research to copy English scholars
rather than learn the sources themselves which are in a wide range of languages.
Americans in general could never suspect that scholars of such prestigious
Universities as Oxford and Cambridge and British professors teaching in American
Universities are capable of deliberately shading or even falsifying historical
reality in support of their class interests. After all isn't Charlemagne still
their Great Father?
Being misled, as it seems, by their first teacher, the
Anglo-Saxon Alcuin, the Carolingians came to believe that the ancient Romans
spoke Latin and were therefore Latins. As we already saw it was the Latins who
were absorbed into the Roman nation. Also the first language of the Romans was
Greek because they were simply Greeks who came to Italy as a result of the War
between Trojan Greeks and the Achaean Greeks. What is even more interesting is
that the basic reason the Latins refused to become Romans before they were
conquered by King Ancus Marcius is that the Latins considered the Romans impure
Greeks because they had intermarried with the Sabines who were also Greeks, but
not pure Greeks. The Latin General Mettius Fufetius argues with the Roman King
Tullus Hostius that "...if we should yield the command to you, the base born
will rule over the true born, the barbarians over Greeks, and immigrants
over the native born."[
78 ]
In sharp contrast to this historical reality the Franks
believed that the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) had abandoned
the Latin language and tradition in favor of the Greek language and tradition
when he moved his capital from Rome to New Rome officially in 330. This nonsense
was clearly argued by Emperor Louis II (855-875) against Emperor Basil I
(867-886) in 871.[
79 ] The falsification of Roman history in
question has become the power base of the Franco-Latin nobility's ability of
ruling so many millions of Romans by means of their ignorance of their true
identity and why they are not really members of the ruling class.
Since religion had been one of the determining factors in
this change we shall concentrate a bit here. Under the weight of Augustine
Franco-Latin Christianity became one of the barbaric forms of religion and one
of the clearest manifestations of the sickness of religion. At the very same
time the Roman Empire in the East had continued to promote this cure of the
sickness of religion. The very foundation of the Dark Ages was the cultivation
of the short-circuit between the brain and the heart which is the basis of the
sickness of religion. At this very same time the Roman Empire in the East was
still concentrating on the cure of this short circuit between the brain and the
heart among its citizens, being guided by monasticism which had become the
center of this cure. In sharp contrast Franco-Latin monasticism was mere
Augustinian Neo-Platonic mysticism in Christian dress. This is exactly what much
of Protestantism rejected during the Reformation. A basic reason why many
Orthodox do not see this any more is that they follow the Franco-Latin
translation of the Patristic term Secret Theology by Mystical Theology. Secret
Theology simply means that the uncreated glory of God seen in glorification has
no similarity whatsoever to anything created and therefore cannot be
described or expressed in words or concepts. Mystical Theology means union with
the so-called archetypes of creation in God which is an "invention of demons"
according to the Orthodox Fathers, as we shall see. Words and concepts may lead
to glorification in which one sees in not seeing since it is the uncreated glory
which sees itself by means of the glorified. There is here no liberation of a
soul from a body since the individual, body and soul, and everything in sight is
saturated by uncreated glory of God dividing itself without division and is
everywhere present.
In order to make the function of this short-circuited
"spirit" in the heart more intelligible to the Hellenic mind the Fathers of the
early Church called it also by the Greek term noera energeia which we
translate noetic energy or noetic faculty. Of the three Greek
terms for rational activity, i.e. nous, dianoiaand
logos, the Fathers used nous to designate the "spirit" of
man which prays in the heart without ceasing when restored to normal. In this
way they accorded this spirit in the heart a reality equal to the brain. The
original use of this praying spirit is to be found in St. Paul. "I will pray
with the spirit, but I will also pray with the intellect. I will recite psalms
with the spirit, but I will also recite psalms with the intellect (nous)"
1 Cor. 14:14. These are the Old Testament psalms being recited quietly in
the heart and not the strange sounds being passed off today as "speaking in
tongues" by the aid of a translator.
The cure of this short-circuit which causes the sickness of
religion is the key to both the Old and New Testaments. Within this context such
titles as Christian, Jew, Moslem, heretic, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant,
atheist, infallible Pope, etc., are in reality meaningless when this sickness of
religion and its cure is ignored and sometimes accompanied with phenomenal
pretensions and even with barbaric conduct. The center stage in the cure of this
sickness is held by the prophets of both the Old and the New Testaments and
their successors, who having been cured themselves guide others in this same
process of cure. If one does not know this cure, yet fancies himself, or is
fancied by others, to be inspired by God, he is indeed inspired, but only by his
own short-circuit.
That quite a few religions have been historically dangerous
to the liberty of the individual and to the proper functioning of society is
obvious enough and must be handled accordingly. More recently the communists had
handled religion as a psychological and social problem and tried to uproot it by
means not very democratic. In contrast to such approaches the prophets of the
Old and New Testaments practiced a concrete cure of the sickness of religion
which the Roman Empire espoused in order to produce normal citizens who would
put the common good and neighbor over self at the center of individual efforts.
Most Jews and Christians are no longer aware of this short-circuit let alone its
cure. In contrast the leaders of the Roman Empire had become very much aware of
this sickness and cure and incorporated it into its administration, exactly as
modern medicine is being supported by governments today.
However, Augustine, in sharp contrast to Ambrose who had
baptized him, was not aware of this sickness and cure and passed on his
ignorance to his followers. The Carolingian Franks, their allies, the Vatican
and most Protestants have been and continue to be his followers. Add to this all
Orthodox victims of Peter the Great's Westernization of Russian Orthodoxy.
Augustine himself tells us how he came to first believe that
Christianity and Platonism were two sides of the same coin and how he later came
to see some basic differences. He tells us in his Confessions how he yearned to
discuss his problems of faith with Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, but ended up
speaking about them only with Simplicianus, (VIII.ii) the presbyter who was to
succeed Ambrose as bishop of Milan. As soon as Augustine mentioned that he was
studying the Platonists, Simplicianus reacted by rejoicing "over me, that I had
not fallen upon any other philosophers' writings" Then Simplicianus recounted
how, when he was a priest in Rome, he had received Victorinus into the Church.
He was the very same translator of the Platonists whose writings Augustine was
studying. Augustine left this meeting with Simplicianus with the impression that
Platonism and the Bible are both two sides of the same coin. Had Augustine paid
closer attention to Ambrose's sermons he would seen how the bishop of Milan saw
no identity in doctrine between Platonism and Christianity. In answer to
Augustine's query about what to study in preparation for his baptism, Ambrose
wrote back that he should study the book of Isaiah.
Augustine tells us that he did not understand this Book of
Isaiah. So he and his friends engaged in philosophical discussions in their
preparation for baptism. Minutes of these discussions were kept and later
published. One of the basic conclusions of these discussions was the following
statement of Augustine: "Meanwhile, I am confident that I shall find among the
Platonists what is not in opposition to our Sacred Scriptures."[
80 ] He later corrected himself in his
Confessions by pointing out those Biblical teachings which he claims to have
found in the Platonists and those which he did not find there.[
81 ] This became the Franco-Latin distinction
between natural revelation to the pagan philosophers and supernatural revelation
in the Bible. According to Augustine the doctrine of the Holy Trinity belongs to
natural revelation and the incarnation and related matters to supernatural
revelation, a position rejected by all Fathers including Ambrose.
For the Fathers of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils there
is no such distinction between natural and supernatural revelation since there
is no similarity between the created and the uncreated. There is only the cure
of the sickness of religion by means of the stages of the purification and
illumination of the heart which leads to glorification during which one sees
that there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated.
Augustine did not have the slightest suspicion of the
existence of these fundamental presuppositions for understanding the Old and New
Testaments from the viewpoint of those who had reached glorification and which
ordains prophets. Therefore, he never understood "that there is no similarity
whatsoever between the created and the uncreated and that, therefore, it is
impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive God." On the
contrary he writes "I will not be slow to search out the substance of God,
whether through His Scripture or through the creature. For both of these are set
forth for our contemplation to this end, that He may Himself be loved, who
inspired the one, and created the other." The technical term for this division
between supernatural and natural revelation is analogia fide and
analogia entis which are both rejected by the Fathers of the Church as
the fundamental basis of heresy.
The Carolingian Franks started their theological tradition in
the latter part of the 9th century knowing only Augustine. These Franks had not
yet become acquainted with at least a second Father of the Church when
Charlemagne went ahead with condemning the Roman Empire as "pagan" and
"heretical" in his Libri Carolini. This is the first time in history that
a whole nation was condemned as pagan and heretical and indeed by illiterate
barbarians who knew only the text of the Bible and Augustine. Up until this time
individual leaders and their followers were considered pagan or heretical, but
not a whole nation. What is most amazing is that at this time the first Frankish
theologian in history, Rabanus Maurus, was an 18 year old student of the Saxon
Alcuin, the director of Charlemagne's Palatine school, who himself knew only
Augustine. Then Charlemagne's Council of Frankfurt (794) re-confirmed the
heretical and pagan nature of the Roman Empire. It was at Frankfurt that
Charlemagne started the tradition of calling the Roman Empire by the name "Greek
Empire." However, he kept the name "Roman Empire" for the "Papal States." In
this way all enslaved West Romans, including the Irish after 1066,[
82 ] would now be praying only for the "Papal
Roman Empire" and no longer for the now supposedly heretical and pagan "Greek
Empire."
Being a "commoner," and therefore not privy to the reasons
for the Franco-Latin nobility's falsification of Roman history, Edward Gibbons
(1737-1794) used the name "Roman Empire" in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire" right up to its fall in 1453. He read history out of the Roman sources
and not as a scheming member of a conspiracy. This is what he found in all the
sources of Roman history. The keepers of the Carolingian tradition reacted by
transforming the Roman Empire into a "Byzantine Empire" which supposedly
appeared in about 717AD. This date comes quite close to Charlemagne's date
whereby he transformed the Roman Empire of his Libri Carolini into the
Greek Empire of his Council of Frankfurt in 794. However, the real reason for
the transformation of Charlemagne's Greek Empire into a Byzantine Empire was
avoid the ridiculous reality of what was becoming reality in, for
example, the London Protocol No.59 of January 30, 1836. There "Greeks"
who fought in their revolution to break away from Turkey and establish their own
state, but were left outside of its borders, are depicted as becoming "Hellenes"
by virtue of the right they are being given to leave Turkey and immigrate to
Hellas. In other words they are being liberated not only from the Ottoman
Empire, but also from Charlemagne's "Greek" Empire which had survived as a
Church within the Ottoman Empire. This is reality from the linguistic
Franco-Latin and Russian viewpoints. However, from the viewpoint of the
linguistic tradition of these "Greeks" and of the Turks these "Greeks" are
called Romans in Greek, Turkish, Arabic, Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian,
etc. In other words Charlemagne's "Greek" was at this time limited to the
confines of the Franco-Latins. This Protocol was signed upon the occasion of the
settlement of the final maps which had been drawn up showing the boundaries
between Hellas and the Ottoman Empire and to permit those "Greek" or Roman
revolutionaries, who ended up in Turkey, now that the maps between the two
countries had settled, to go to the new State of Hellas as being now already
"Hellenes."
We translate from the original "Lingua Franca.": "Always
understood that, those who will be considered Hellenes from now on, and will
take their place in the category of those who will profit with the right of
emigration are: - 1st All the native Greeks of the Ottoman territory, who had
emigrated before June 16, 1830, and who did not return to Turkey to re-settle
there: 2nd. The Greeks to whom the right of emigration had been accorded by the
Protocol of June 16, 1830, and who emigrated between the date of said Protocol
and December 9, 1835, the day that the Map of the frontier had been delivered to
the Port; on condition that they have fulfilled the conditions in regard to this
present Act." Here we have a distinction between Greek Hellenes and Greeks who
are not Greek Hellenes which we find in a Declaration of the Three Courts
(Britain, France and Russia) "0n the occasion of the election of Prince Othon to
throne of Greece" dated august 30, 1832 which opens with the salutation
"Hellenes!" and goes on to call these Hellenes "Greek" also. So here we have a
distinction between Greek Hellenes of Greece and those simply Greeks within the
Ottoman Empire.
But the British, French and Russians had also set the trap
for the eventual disappearance of the Roman name. After we deal with how they
almost finished the job, we will turn our attention to the reason why. One may
have a clue by asking oneself whether one is a member of the Franco-Latin
royalty or nobility or not. If the answer in no, then one is a Roman or a
descendent of Romans or of ancestors who migrated to, or were taken by force, to
former Roman Provinces.
During the French Revolution the Gallo-Roman serfs and
villains made up 85% of the population and were being guarded from escape by
40,000 castles. The mostly former Gallo-Romans and now the Middle Class made up
the 13% of the population. This means that the Gallo-Romans made up 98% of the
population of France in 1789. In other words the nobility comprised only 2% of
the population. Napoleon destroyed the power of the Gallo-Romans and
saved France and Noble Europe and Russia from a general takeover of Europe by
the sub-strata of society which at the time was not educated enough to make
profit on their overwhelming numbers.
But the greater danger facing the royalties and nobilities of
Europe lay in Edward Gibbons' revelation that the so-called "Greek Empire" is
really the Roman Empire. This history was translated into French in time to have
an impact on the French Revolution. This intensified the awareness of the Roman
unity between East and West Romans which had been distorted by Charlemagne's
"Greek Empire" which was hidden from the enslaved West Romans. Because of Gibbon
the Gallo-Romans produced their revolutionary song called the CHANSON DE
BELISAIRE (The Song of Belisarius) the great Roman general who was sent by
Emperor Justinian to liberate the West Romans from their Teutonic conquerors.
Napoleon finally suppressed the overwhelming power of the Gallo-Roman element
and restored the power of the Frankish nobility. He himself belonged to that
part of the Franco-Tuscan nobility which had remained faithful to the
Carolingians and for this reason supported the French Revolution against the
descendants of King Hugh Capet (987-996) who had terminated the
Carolingian line in France. By means of Napoleon's victory over the Gallo-Romans
and his suppression of their revolution, he personally transformed the
Robespierrian plans to support an East Roman Revolution against the Ottomans
into an Ancient Greek Revolution against both the Romans and the Turks of the
Ottoman Empire. Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I agreed on this plan in
1806. Their successors continued the effort and were joined by Great Britain.
The foundation of the plan for the destruction and the
dividing up of the Ottoman Empire between Britain, France and Russia became the
Balkanization of Ottoman Rumeli and the Westernization of both the Orthodox
Christians and the Moslems. But this process required the use of a new term in
order to cover up the falsification in progress. What had to be solved was a
problem inherited from the Franco-Latin tradition which came into existence in
794. Since this year the Franco-Latins had been calling the East Romans by the
name "Greeks." But these so-called "Greeks" were still calling themselves Romans
while the Turks, Arabs and other non Franco-Latin peoples were calling them
Romans also. So to claim that Hellenes are being liberated from Romans made
sense in these languages, but not within the Franco-Latin tradition. To say in
the Franco-Latin tradition that "Hellenes" are being liberated from "Greeks" is
a nonsensical contradiction in terms. The name "Greek" is the Latin word for
Greek and "Hellene" is the Greek word for Greek. So the term "Byzantine" was
finally chosen by Britain, Russia and France to make it possible to depict the
Hellenic Greeks as being liberated from the Byzantines. This position was first
made public in George Finlay's "History of Greece" But before Finlay's "History"
appeared, we come across decisions whereby Greeks are being legally transformed
into Hellenes. Thus, in the London Protocol of 1/30/1836 signed by Britain,
France and Russia, we come across "Greeks" being legally transformed into
"Hellenes" in the French language. In Turkish we have "Romans" being legally
transformed into "Hellenes." Because Greek diplomats at the time knew French
they therefore felt that they did not require translations. But in translations
subsequently made we find "Hellenes" being transformed into "Hellenes" instead
of "Greeks" being transformed into "Hellenes." In other words they did not know
that the Franco-Latin use of the name "Greek" had become a substitute for the
name "Roman" since 794.
In order to hammer more nails into the coffin he was building
for the eventual demise of the Roman Empire, Charlemagne added the
Filioque to the Roman Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council of 381 and
condemned all who disagreed with him as heretics at his Council of Aachen in
809. Charlemagne accomplished all the above when his specialists knew only
Augustine. Franco-Latins who could read and write were a rarity.
When these Franks realized that they could not quote only
Augustine when debating with free Romans, as had happened in Bari in
1088, they began their peculiar tradition of collecting isolated sections of the
Fathers which they found in collections of canons (Church laws) and scholia on
the Bible and enslaved them all to Augustinian categories. They continued to do
the same with complete books of the Fathers as they became available. In this
way the whole Franco-Latin tradition got bogged down into trying to understand
texts of the Bible, Fathers and Councils out of context in an Augustinian
mindset. This tradition was followed by all the allies of the Franks.
Even in this age of so-called dialogue the nobility of the
Vatican and that of the Protestants, in their new cooperation via the World
Council of Churches, is still searching for those Orthodox who use their own
Augustinian categories to negotiate with.[
83 ] What comprises the core of the last part
of this paper was adopted by the Central Committee of the World Council of
Churches meeting in Moscow as part of the material to be studied at its General
Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra. In other words the
Central Committee which is the legislative body of the Council was circumvented
by those who really run the WCC's show.
What is left is to translate the biblical "spirit of man" and
the patristic "noetic energy" into the categories of neurobiological sickness
due to the short-circuit between the heart and the brain and its cure. And
indeed the whole of Vaticanian, Protestant and Peter the Great Orthodox theology
is indeed nothing else than the result of this short-circuit between the heart
and the brain.
What one must realize is that terms which belong to
metaphysical categories were and are used only by heretics in support of their
positions. The Fathers were forced to use these terms and categories against the
heretics themselves, but never with the intention of using these terms and
categories as parts of definitions of God. This Augustine never understood.
In sharp contrast to the Augustinian metaphysical tradition
all decisions of the Nine Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Empire are founded on
the following three axioms:
1) There is no similarity whatsoever between the uncreated
and the created.
2) It is impossible to express God and even more impossible
to conceive God.
3) What is common in the Holy Trinity is common to all Three
Persons and what is individual belongs to only One Person.
One can understand how and why Augustine is not aware of
these axioms. He simply did not pay attention to Ambrose's sermons. I am not
aware of any Western history of Christian doctrine which is aware of the
existence of these three axioms in the theology of the Fathers of the Ecumenical
Councils.
The second key to this study is the historical context within
which the sickness and cure in question was sidestepped by the Teutonic
conquerors of the West Romans who fell in love with Augustine's doctrine of
predestination which coincided with their tradition of settling questions of
truth by trial by fire. According to Augustine everyone has inherited the guilt
of Adam and Eve and is worthy of eternal damnation. But God has predestined that
number of humans to replace the fallen angels regardless of their inherited
guilt and worthiness for eternal damnation. Therefore, the salvation of those
predestined does not depend on their personal worthiness, but solely on God's
choice. Because many French revolutionaries of 1789 assumed that Augustine's
version of the teachings of St. Paul and the Bible were correct they blamed
their many centuries of enslavement under the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility
on Christianity itself.[
84 ]
The most important of the Teutons were the Goths, Franks,
Burgundians, Lombards, Normans and West Saxons. Most of the East Saxons of
England were enslaved by the Normans and remained part of European Roman
society and found it normal to join the Varangian army of New Rome. The
Franco-Latins conquered the whole of West Roman society and reduced it the
status of serfs and villains. By about the 11th-12th century some Roman serfs
and villains began the process of becoming the middle class of the Franco-Latin
feudal system. They began to appear in walled towns defending themselves from
their former owners, i.e. the castellani (the dwellers in fortresses with their
families) who guarded the slave camps from which these Romans had been escaping.
The castellani in question had become virtually independent
of their emperor and kings during the 10th and 11th centuries. This was because
of the power they had acquired as the ones who had become mainly responsible for
enslaving the revolutionary Romans in turmoil during the period that the Franks
were fighting to take over the Roman Papacy. Otto II (973-983) forcefully placed
the first non Roman, the Lombard Peter of Pavia, on the papal throne as John XIX
(983-984) and provoked a revolution of the Romans in Rome aided by the Roman
Emperor in Constantinople New Rome. Then Otto III (983-1002) placed Bruno of
Carinthia on the papal throne as Gregory V (996-999) and Gerbert de Aurillac to
succeed him as Silvester II (991-1003). These efforts having failed the German
Emperors devised an interim plan of putting Tusculan Roman Popes on the
papal throne between 1012-1046 in exchange of adding the Filioque to the
Creed of Papal Romania. Then the Franco-Latins dropped this facade with their
outright takeover of the Papacy in 1046.
The Franco-Latins had been forced to take over the Papacy
because the Roman Popes had been using the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals,
which appeared about 850 AD, to take control of all Franco-Latin bishops in
order to either bring the Franco-Latin leadership under the rule of law and
order and Roman Orthodoxy or even under Roman rule.[
85 ]
Having lost any real control over the castellani the Rex
Francorum (King of the Franks) in West Francia retaliated by taking the
rebel Roman towns in question under his protection. He placed his military
within the citadels of these Roman towns and franchised their citizens. At the
time the name Frank meant not only a member of the Frankish race but also a free
person. This gave rise to the distinction between middle class Franks, who
descended from serfs and villains, and "noble" Franks, who descended from the
race of the conquerors. The taxes paid by these middle class Franchised Romans
made the Rex Francorum (Roy des Francois), the richest and most
powerful monarch of Western Europe.
The Gallo-Roman serfs and villains called the middle class
Romans "Francimander," apers of the Franks, especially because they spoke the
Frankish language. They called the Franks "Franciman," evidently because the
Franks at the time of the conquest called themselves so in their own Germanic
language. This name Franciman survived in Gallo-Roman patois right up the
revolution of 1789 and in popular poetry and songs.
We remind ourselves once more that when the French Revolution
broke out in 1789 the population of France had just been counted for the
convocation of the Estates General. The total was about 26 million broken down
into 2% nobility, 13% middle class and 85% serfs and villains. The position of
historians[
86 ] that the Romans and Franks had become one
people even in the time of the Merovingian Franks needs a bit more proof than is
usually provided. In any case it is highly unlikely that more than 20 million
Gallo-Roman serfs and villains in 1789 had descended from ancestors who had
volunteered to become the serfs and villains of the ancestors of the Castellani
(Chatelaine) of 1789 who were still living in 40,000 castles and guarding more
than 20 million serfs and villains from escape. William the Conqueror's "Book of
Winchester" (Doomsday Book) seems to also corroborate the plight of the
conquered medieval West Romans. At the time of the conquest even the Irish were
praying for the Imperium Romanum not realizing that Charlemagne had
restricted the name to the Papal States and had begun the Franco-Latin tradition
of calling the Empire of New Rome, the Irish were praying for, the heretical
"Imperium Graecorum."
|
[ 50 ] For an example of the original
position of the Franks on this subject see F. Cayre, Manual of Patrology
and History of Theology, Translated by H. Howitt, Paris, Tournai, Rome
1940, vol 2, pp. 378-380. For a much fairer but not exactly correct
position see Francis Dvornik, "The Photian Schism," Cambridge University
Press 1948.
[ 51 ] See the chapter "The
Filioque" in my "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine," pp. 60-98.
[ 52 ] John S. Romanides, Ibid, pp.
25-29.
[ 53 ] George Every, "The Byzantine
Patriarchate," p. 114.
[ 54 ] RA, I, XI, 1.
[ 55 ] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, I,1,2.
[ 56 ] Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Roman Antiquities, III, 1-6. Mettius Fufetius, the chief of the Latins,
who were resisting the pressure of King Tullus Hostilius of Rome (672-640)
to become one Greek nation with the Romans argued as follows, "As for us,
Tullus, we deserve to rule over even all the rest of Italy, inasmuch as we
are a Greek and the largest of all that inhabit this country." Another
argument: "One cannot point to any race of mankind, except Greeks and
Latins, to whom we have granted citizenship; whereas you have corrupted
the purity of your body politic by admitting Tyrrhenians, Sabines, and
some others — and that in great numbers too, so that the true born element
among you that went out from our midst become small, or a tiny fraction,
in comparison with those who have been brought in and are of an alien
race. And if we should yield the command to you, the base-born will rule
over the true-born, barbarians over Greeks, and immigrants over the
native-born."
[ 57 ] 'Plutarch's Lives' XVI, 1.
"The Sabines were a numerous and warlike people, and dwelt in unwalled
villages, thinking that it behooved them since they were Lacedaemonian
colonists, to be bold and fearless."
[ 58 ] Livy l, xlvii, 1ff. Dionysius,
RA lll, xlvi1-5, xlvii ff
[ 59 ] RA, I, 90, 1.
[ 60 ] H. G. Liddell and R. Scot,
"Greek-English Lexicon," at name "rome."
[ 61 ] Ibid., at verb
"roomai."
[ 62 ] Ibid., at verb
"ronnyni."
[ 63 ] Ibid., at name "kouretes."
[ 64 ] Diosysius, RA X, 2ff.
[ 65 ] Livy, Ibid, IV, 1f.
[ 66 ] See my "Romanity,
Romania, Rumeli." (in Greek), Thessaloniki 1975.
[ 67 ] Albert Schweitzer, "The Quest
of the Historical Jesus", New York; A. and C. Black, 1910. Pg. 1.
[ 68 ] John S. Romanides, "Orthodox
Ecclesiology According to Alexis Khomiakov (1804-1860), The Greek Orthodox
Theological Review, vol.11, no. 1, 1956, pp. 58 ff.
[ 69 ] This is why Father Georges
Florovsky attacked the theology of the Slavophiles whose modern supporters
finally retaliated by getting him fired as dean of St. Vladimir's
Seminary.
[ 70 ] John S. Romanides, "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, p. 27.
[ 71 ] All Orthodox Christians,
including the Irish, were praying for their Imperium Romanum. G. Every,
"The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451-1204," London 1947, p.114.
[ 72 ] This was discovered during a
dialogue meeting between Orthodox Christians and Jews in Bucharest,
October 1979.
[ 73 ] This is how the first General
Secretary of the World Council of Churches, a Dutch Calvinist, dumped
Father G. Florovsky as the natural leader of the Orthodox in dialogue in
favor of Prof. N. Nissiotis. The latter had promised "to perform a
marriage between John Calvin and the Orthodox Fathers" as the key to the
union of the Churches.
[ 74 ] John S. Romanides, Ibid., pp.
53-57.
[ 75 ] Louis Madelin, La Revolution,
Deuxieme Edition, Paris 1912, p. 74.
[ 76 ] For these population figures
see the edition of Germaine de Stael's book, Considerations Sur La
Revolution Fancaise, par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p. 610. Jacques Godechot
who prepared the reedition of this book cites J. Dupaquiers, La population
francais aux XVII et XVIII siecles, Paris (Que sais-Je?) 1979.
[ 77 ] Ibid, p. 96.
[ 78 ] Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Roman Antiquities, III, 10, 3-5.
[ 79 ] Ibid, pp. 17-18.
[ 80 ] Contra Academicos, III, 43.n.
[ 81 ] VII, IX.
[ 82 ] George Every S.S.M., The
Byzantine Patriarchate, London 1947, p.114.
[ 83 ] Both the Vatican and the World
Council of Churches are using every means to make this old Franco-Latin
tradition work in the 20th century and will indeed continue, unless the
behind the scene Protestant nobility decides otherwise.
[ 84 ] See e.g. Jule Michle, Histoire
de la revolution Française, part one, De la religion du moyen age, Paris
1868.
[ 85 ] See my "Franks,
Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and
Society," Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981.
[ 86 ] E.g. Sir Samuel Dill, "Roman
Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age," London 1926. For a popular
version of this same position supported by the editors of Time-Life Books
see Gerald Simons, "Barbarian Europe," 1968. It seems that this position
is strongly supported by some European nobilities while others claim that
they are "nobles of the sword" because of their decent directly from the
Teutonic conquerors of Western Europe.
|
|
|
 ©
HydroGraphiX. |
 "Romanity". |