The Sickness Of Religion

United To Modern Technology, The Sickness Of Religion Is Leading To Ecological Suicide, Happiness And Glorification Are Engaged In Their Primordial Combat, And The Science Of Falsifying History For Controlling Others Is Still Quite Busy.

by John S. Romanides

Table of contents

1. The task before us, the Overall Key to this study and its Five specific Keys.
   Key One: The French Dark Ages up to 1789.
2. 85% of the population of France were slaves when Her Revolution began in 1789.
3. The official census of the population of France just before the Revolution completely contradicts the claim that the Gallo-Romans and Franks had become one nation. This is especially so since these serfs and vilains became French in 1789.
4. Was it by their First Crusade that Teutonic barbarians began carrying their “hard won cultural and political dominion overseas…”?
5. The Sealed Letters of the King of France united the nobility and the middle class in demanding the rule of law agreed to by elected legislative assemblies.
6. But the nobles and middle class were divided over whether to have a British type Parliament with two houses, one of Lords and one of Commoners, or one mixed one.
7. The “Catonistes à la Robespierres.”
8. Outmaneuvered by Napoleon, the New Charlemagne
9. Key Two:
10. The primitive Greek Romans.
11. The first Roman historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. WHY?
12. The Sabine Claudius Appius Caecus and Porcius Cato were the first to write prose and history in Latin.
13. Key Three: The Judaio-Christian Romans.
14. Key Four: The sickness of religion based on the quest for happiness and its cure based on glorification. (see sections 3, 4, 6, 30, 33).
15. Key Five: The struggle between Romans and Carolingian Franks.
16. Those who hate Romans call themselves Romans. Why?
17. The key to the Bible is the cure of the sickness of religion.
18. The Five keys to the Bible.
19. Nothing of the above can be found in Augustine.
20. The sickness of religion within Franco-Latin Christendom and Orthodoxy today.
21. Sociology, religion and criminality.
22. There are no Greek and Latin Fathers of the Roman Orthodox Church. They are Latin and Greek speaking Roman Fathers of the Church.
23. Roman Christians and Roman Greeks.
24. The real Latins of Roman history.
25. Why “Byzantine”
26. The final version of Roman history.
27. More about the sickness of religion and the falsification of history.
28. The cure of the sickness of religion and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine.
29. The Final Official history of Rome.
30. Terms indicating the Greek background of the Latins, Romans and Sabines.
31. Equality based on the cure of the short circuit between the heart and the brain.
32. Charlemagne’s strategy required that real Romans be Latin speaking.
    • Frankish Defensive Needs.
    • The Real Latins and The Franco-Latins.
    • More about the Frankish need to falsify history
33. Because of their complete slavery to Augustine the Franks and their spiritual descendants never understood the Roman Fathers and still do not understand them.
34. Augustine (354-430) and Ambrose (340-397).
35. The rise of the Lie of “Byzantine” history and Balkanization.
36. Roman and Franco-Latin Popes of Rome.
37. Local and Ecumenical Councils.
38. The method underlying this part of the paper.
39. Historical context.
40. Robin Hood — Orthodox martyr?
41. Roman Christians and Roman Greeks.
42. The West Romans in bondage to the Franco-Latins.
    • Killer Bishops.
    • What happened to apostolic succession?
43. What is western civilization?
44. The sickness of religion.
45. Modification of the usual understanding of human nature.
46. The Council of Orange (529) rejected Augustine’s understanding of Rom. 5:12.
47. Synods as associations of neurological clinics for curing the sickness of religion:
    • Heaven and Hell;
    • Paul’s window on the Church;
    • Neurobiological clinic;
    • Not of the world but in the world;
    • Theology and dogma;
    • The Mysteries;
    • Prophets and intellectuals;
    • Prophets and Franco-Latin Popes;
    • Prophets and Fathers;
    • The Lord of Glory and the Ecumenical Councils;
    • “Do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thes. 5:19);
    • The charisma of translation.
48. Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity and the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils.
49. Synods and civilizations.
50. Conclusions
    • Select Bibliography.

United To Modern Technology, The Sickness Of Religion Is Leading To Ecological Suicide, Happiness And Glorification Are Engaged In Their Primordial Combat, The Science Of Falsifying History For Controlling Others Is Still Quite Busy

by John S. Romanides

The task before us, the Overall Key to this study and its Five specific Keys

The turns of historical events described in this study is part of a primordial conflict between centers for the cure of the sickness of religion and centers for the propagation of the sickness of religion. In other words the transformation has been from Old and New Testament centers of the cure of the sickness of religion by the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification into centers for the pursuit of the fantasy of happiness now united to modern technology, is driving the world to ecological suicide.

A time of such a destruction was debated between God and Abraham (Gen. 18;23-33). The latter had gotten up enough courage to ask Yaweh how many just ones must exist in Sodom in order to avoid the destruction of the city. Abraham began by asking “Will you (Yahweh) indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” Abraham began bargaining with God for fifty righteous, then for forty five, then for forty, then thirty, then twenty, then finally ten. In the Old and New Testaments the just ones are those who are undergoing the cure for the sickness of happiness by means of the purification and illumination of the heart on their way to glorification. This tradition of cure was that which was being abandoned by every heresy condemned by the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils. Indeed the Roman Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341 condemned the heretical teachings and practices of Barlaam the Calabrian not knowing that they were the teaching and practices of Augustine. Herein we have the difference between the Roman Orthodox tradition and the Augustinian Franco-Latin tradition. But how did this difference come about?

The basic reason for this development was that Charlemagne’s (742(3)-814) newly established Palatine School knew not one Father of an Ecumenical Council. This first Frankish school knew completely only Augustine and therefore used him as the key to its theology and dogmas. In this way Augustinian Platonism captured the foundations of Carolingian thinking and action. Augustine’s work Beata Vita (the Happy Life) became the chief cornerstone of Carolingian Civilization, now called Western Civilization. This corner stone was transferred to the Papacy when it was captured by the Franco-Latins during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated between 1009-1046 making this new Frankish Papacy the center of this happiness seeking Civilization.. This fact is graphically****demonstrated at the very end of the service of the Beatification of a candidate for sainthood when the Pope shouts at him, “You are Indeed Happy.”

There is no way of dealing with the reality of Christianity today except in terms of the Franco-Latin falsification of the history of the Roman Empire. That this is the only route to follow is clear from the very fact that the dogmas and canons of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils were, from 325 AD to 1341, incorporated into Roman Law. To get at this reality we are obliged to deal with the falsification of this historical reality by the Franco-Latins since the time of Charlemagne (742(3)-814) on the one hand and by the Russians since Peter the Great (1672-1724) on the other hand. The latter’s Latinization of the Russian Church was transferred with the cooperation of the British and French Empires to most of the Orthodox Churches within a dissolving Ottoman Empire. Rather than supporting Churches as centers for the cure of the sickness of religion, these Three Empires supported instead the transformation of these Orthodox Churches into centers for the spread of the sickness of religion.

John 17 is the par excellence prayer of Christ for the unity of His disciples and their disciples in the cure of the sickness of religion by means of their glorification by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit which is the culmination of the purification and illumination of their centers of their personalities in their hearts. This prayer of the Lord of Glory Incarnate has nothing whatsoever to do with divided Churches which have not the slightest inkling of the cure of glorification in question.

Most Christians, Jews and many Moslems who live in or derive from the former territories of the Roman Empire have Roman ancestry. In contrast the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility came into the Roman Empire as conquerors of the West Romans whom they transformed into their serfs and vilains and their middle class. The descendants of these conquerors are on the whole the royalties and nobilities of Europe. In other words those West Europeans who are not members of these royalties and nobilities are at least mostly descendants of conquered Romans.

Moslem Arabs came into Roman territories via the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. Then Moslem Turks began conquering Roman provinces via Armenia and Cappadocia and finally Constantinople New Rome itself in 1453 followed by the capture of great segments of Eastern Europe. This had been made easier by the conquest of Constantinople New Rome by the Franks in 1204. The Romans expelled the Franks from their capital in 1261, but were so weakened by the Frankish occupation that the Turkish conquest of 1453 had become easier. During the time of these conquests by Franks, Arabs and Turks many Romans had become Moslem but hardly anyone joined the religion of the Frankish Pope of Rome. But the Romans who did not choose to become Moslems were allowed to remain Christians, whereas the Franco-Latins each time forced bishops upon the Romans as a matter of historical policy.

West Romans had no choice when Franco-Latin nobility and bishops were forced upon them and forcefully transformed them into their slaves as serfs and vilains. This was part of the process of being converted to Frankish Christianity which forcefully took over the Roman Orthodox Churches of Elder Rome between 1009 and 1046, of Southern Italy in 1071 and of England in 1066-1070.

It was only in Spain and Portugal that the Roman Orthodox Church was surviving under the Umayyad Arabs and by agreement were called Melkites i.e. the Rum Orthodox who belonged to the Roman Emperor in New Rome. When the Goths re-conquered Spain they purified the country as the Normans had done in England. The Spanish Inquisition was the most barbaric of all such accomplishments.

In sharp contrast to this Franco-Latin enslavement of West Roman society by removing Roman bishops and putting it under Latin ones, both Moslem Arabs and Turks did not transform conquered Romans into their slaves. On the contrary they appointed the Roman clergy as leaders of Roman society which became a very important source of taxes. The Umayyad Arabs of Spain accepted the Roman Emperor as the Chief of the Rum (Roman) Orthodox and the Abbasid Arabs did the same within their Empire.

Of the five Roman Patriarchates of The Roman Empire, i.e.

• Elder Rome
• Constantinople New Rome
• Alexandria
• Antioch
• Jerusalem

that of Elder Rome was captured by the Franks during a struggle which broke out in 983 when German Emperors began trying to impose Franco-Latin Popes on the Papal throne. This struggle reached its climax in 1009 or 1014 when the German Emperor appointed turncoat Romans who grabbed the lucrative Papal throne in exchange for adding the Filioque to the Creed. Finally the German Emperor Henry IV replaced this breed of Roman Pope by a Saxon German as Clement II on Christmas eve 1046 and have been Franco-Latin since.

Being Franco-Latin since 1047 the Papacy and its bishops continue to call themselves “Roman” Catholics. In this way they have been playing at being a “Roman” Papacy and Church since. During this time they reduced most of their conquered West Romans to slavery and kept the free East Romans from West Roman view under the cover of the names “Greeks” and “heretics.” When the Empires of Great Britain, France and Russia gained influence or occupied parts of the Ottoman Empire they managed to get the Orthodox Churches of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to call themselves Greek in English and French. Thus the Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem continue to call themselves Roman in Greek, Arabic and Turkish, but were obliged or tricked into calling themselves Greeks in the English, French and Russian languages.

The re-union of all the descendants of the Romans throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand in their ancient Roman identity may be a possibility to be looked at with some interest and usefulness.

This re-union of the Roman Orthodox world is at the same time each one’s cure of the sickness of religion and is at the same time the power which will slam down the brakes on the happiness mongering fiends who are destroying society and nature.

Within the above context the two Overall Keys to this study are:

1. the primordial conflict between happiness and glorification
2. the use of the falsification of history to enslave others.

These two overall keys are broken down into the following

Five Keys]

• Key One: **The French Dark Ages.
• Key Two: **The primitive Greek Romans.
• Key Three: Greek Romans and Christian Romans
• Key Four: The Struggle between Romans and Carolingian Franks
• Key Five: the Biblical foundation of the cure of the neurobiological sickness of religion, especially based on 1 Cor. 12-15:11.]

We will not deal with these parts in consecutive order. The reason for this is that the vision of history of both the pagan Romans and Christian Romans has been so adulterated by Franco-Latin propaganda that we are obliged at times to mix these parts together.

Key One: The French Dark Ages up to 1789

1. 85% of the population of France were still slaves when Its Revolution began in 1789.

These 22,525,000 Gallo-Roman slaves belonged to either the smaller group of vilains or to the larger group of serfs.

A little before the outbreak of the French Revolution the King of France had ordered a census of the population as part of his preparation for convoking the Estates General which was composed of

1. the Higher Clergy, almost all of them noble
2. the lay Nobility
3. the Middle Class.

The total of this Estates General would be composed of an assembly of 300 members of each group for a total of 900.

The census thus taken revealed approximately the following results:

1. The Nobility numbered 530,000 or Two (2%) Percent of the population,
2. the Middle Class numbered 3,445,000 or Thirteen (13%) Percent of the total and
3. the Serfs and Vilains numbered 22,525,000 or Eighty Five (85%) Percent of the population. The grand total was some 26,500,000. The slave population of vilains and serfs numbered some22,525,000and were guarded from escape by thecastellani (châtelaines) of some40,000****fortresses.

The Middle Class revolted at the start of the Assembly Constituantedemanding a total of 600 members (which finally became 700) to counterbalance the 600 Clergy and Lay nobles. Their revolt paid off making a grand total of 1,200 or 1,300 seats, Noble and Middle Class, the latter of which **finally included 38 farmers and only one real vilain. This single vilain was supposed to be representing 22,525,000 Gallo-Roman slaves, i.e. vilains and serfs.**There was not one serf delegate to represent the serfs.

One can clearly see from these statistics why the history of the France up to 1789 was considered the tail end of the Dark Ages and of the Ancient Regime.

This official census of the population of France just before the Revolution completely contradicts the claim that the Gallo-Romans and Franks of France had become one nation. This is so especially since these serfs and vilains became French in 1789.

This 1789 figure of 85% serfs and vilains, guarded from escape by the castellani (Châtelaines) of 40,000 castles, completely belies the claim of modern historians that the Franks and Romans of Merovingian Gaul had already become one nation going into the age of the Carlovingian Franks which officially began in 751.

This position about the fusion of the Frankish and Gallo-Roman races is supported by such British Noble Historians as Sir Samuel Dill in his book “Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age,” Macmillan, London 1926. It is also supported by such American specialists as Gerald Simons and the Editors of Time-Life Books in their volume entitled BARBARIAN EUROPE, 1968. In his introduction to this volume Prof. Karl F. Morrison, of the University of Chicago, observes that, “For a long time, it was usual to think of the six centuries that followed (i.e. the Teutonic conquest of the West Romans) as an age of gloomy and static barbarism. We know now that it was instead an age of great challenges and magnificent achievements, a time when the most essential elements of Western civilization-and indeed the very ethnic composition of Europe-hung in the balance …By the mid-11th Century the die was cast. Europe had passed from a conglomeration of wandering tribes to stable kingdoms, and it was on the verge of carrying its hard-won cultural and political dominion overseas, through the Crusades.”

Was it by their First Crusade that Teutonic barbarians carried their “hard won cultural and political dominion overseas…”?

Indeed the First of these Crusades was the Norman conquest of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror. He and his bishops condemned all native Saxon, Irish, Welsh and Scottish bishops as heretics and schismatics and sentenced them to life in prison where they died of torture and starvation. These native bishops of England were condemned because 1) they had not accepted the Popes who had been forced upon the Papacy by the German Emperors after 1014 and because 2) these bishops of England had been abiding by the faith of the Seventh (786/7) and Eighth (879) Roman Ecumenical Councils. Both these Roman Councils were condemned by two Frankish Councils, that of Frankfurt (794) against Icons and that of Aachen (809) which condemned those who refuse the Frankish addition of the Filioque to the Roman Creed of 381.

From its very birth Frankish theology and dogma came into existence as an attack weapon against the Roman Empire. During the first of these Frankish doctrinal attacks against the Roman Empire in 794 the very the first Frankish theologian in history, Rabanus Maurus (776-856), was 18 years old and during this second doctrinal attack in 809 he was 33 years old.. Rabanus had been a student at Charlemange’s Palatine School directed by the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin (735-804).

It was this Alcuin who evidently composed the Libri Carolini which calls the Imperium Romanum pagan and heretical. Then the Franks realized that it is not good policy to degrade the name Romania in this way since this was the name of the Papal States, but also South Italy, being attacked by the Arabs, was also called Romania because still part of the Roman Empire of New Rome. So Charlemagne decided to call the Roman Empire by the name The Heretical Greek Empire in order to exclude Papal Romania from this accusation of heresy and thus promote the lie that the Roman Papacy sided with him.

So from its very beginning Frankish theology and dogma was simply an anti Roman weapon disguised under the name anti Greek heresy.

The fact remains that 85% of the population of France were still “slaves” in 1789. These slaves were neither not yet even French, nor even anywhere near to participating in these great achievements of Western Civilization. For in 1788 thegloomand thebarbarismof the Dark Ages** were still working against them and began dissipating only in 1789 when they were freed from slavery and made part of this nation of Franchised Gallo-Roman by becoming the middle class along with the noble Franks. The very verb Franchised (Affrancie) means that one has become free by becoming a Frank who were alone free until the middle class began to be created about the 11-12th century and in 1789 when the free peasant class began to be created. They are still called peasants, but no longer serfs and vilains. The nobles themselves were either nobles of the sword, descended from the original conquerors, or nobles of the robe, Franks by royal adoption.

The Sealed Lettersof the King of France united the nobility and the middle class in demanding the rule of law agreed to by elected legislative assemblies

The nobility and middle class enjoyed relative freedom and wealth when compared to the serfs and vilains. Yet they lived in fear, however, that someone may manage to get the king, or the king may on his own initiative, issue a Royal Sealed Letter naming a certain individual. This individual would be taken into custody by the police and made to disappear. In other words the King had a similar power over the individual members of the nobility and the middle class as the nobles had over their serfs and vilains in the heyday of Feudalism.

Lady Germaine de Stael, the daughter of the French King’s Finance Minister Necker, writes the following about these letters: “The sealed letters permit the royal power, and consequently the ministerial also, to exile, to banish, to deport, to imprison for life, without judgment, any individual whoever he may be. Such a power, wherever it exists, constitutes despotism itself: It must need be annihilated the day when the deputies of the nation will be reunited in France.” One can see why the French Revolution began as a common struggle of the nobility and the middle class against the absolutism of the king’s power. The French historian Jules Michelet (1798-1874) gives some interesting details in this footnote below about this tradition of Royal Sealed Letters in his Histoire de la révolution française.

But the nobles and middle class were divided over whether to have a British type Parliament with two houses, one for Lords and one for Commoners, or one mixed one

Having a single house parliament in mind the middle class schemers, led by the Abbot Emanuel Sieyes and inspired by the medical doctor Jean Paul Marat, both of whom wrote classical works against the British type democracy. Inspired by these two men the middle class held out in their demand for the additional 300 seats and won. The middle class leadership knew in advance some of members of the clergy and the nobility who will join them against the adoption of the British model.

The “Catonistes à la Robespierres”

The danger of real Roman history for this Frankish establishment, as well as for the Empire of Great Britain, is demonstrated by the use of the Roman historian Porcius Cato during the French Revolution. 85% of the population were Gallo-Romans. There was even a movement of the “Catonistes à la Robespierres"who, like their leader, had their own Roman idea about the future of not only of France, but also of the liberation of former territories of the Roman Empire occupied by not only Teutonic conquerors of Western Europe, but also by Moslems in South Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In Cato the Gallo-Roman revolutionaries had in hand the ancient genealogy of not only the Gallo-Romans now in revolt, but also that of most former Roman citizens of the Roman Empire also enslaved to other royalties and nobilities, both Christian and Moslem. In other words Romans must be in revolt not only against the Franks in France, but everywhere in Western Europe, including the Papal States, and against Islam.

The Government of Robespierres even supported plans to provoke a revolution of East Romans within the Ottoman Empire coordinated by an underground movement established in Constantinople New Rome with branches in key places of Rumeli. One reason underlying this development was that “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Edward Gibbon was being translated into French under the loan name (Leclercq de Sept-Chênes) of King Louis XVI himself, as the French Revolution was about to begin. Reading about their own history in Gibbon’s masterpiece the Gallo-Romans realized that the heretical Greeks (now baptized Byzantines) Empire of Frankish propaganda is in reality their own Roman Empire.

It was the solution of this very dangerous threat that the French and Russian Empires, joined by the British Empire, were obliged to find a solution. Indeed the problem was compounded by the fact that Ottoman Eastern Europe was officially called Rumeli (land of the Romans) and Romania in Greek and Latin and that all Orthodox Christians within the Moslem world were and are still called and call themselves “Romans.” They call their Church “Roman Orthodox” in Arabic and Turkish. But then the Russians, French and British managed to get illiterate Orthodox to believe, or even force them to accept, that the Arabic and Turkish name Rum means Greek. The East Romans, Arabs and Turks had always refused Charlemagne’s decision of 794 that the Romans East of Italy must be called Greeks in their own languages. But being on the whole illiterate, Arab speaking Orthodox fell for the French, British and Russian lie that the name Rum means Greek and that these Rum are their enemies. The Russian Empire established 120 schools in the Middle East to teach the Rum there that they are not Rum but Arabs. But the real Arabs are Moslems and knew well the Romans they had conquered. The Arabs knew well that what the Vatican and Protestants wanted was to get the Arabs accustomed to the idea of the existence of Arab Christians. The problem was partly solved by Balkanization imposed by the three Empires of France, Russia and Great Britain who replaced Romans with Romanians, Serbians, Bulgarians and Greeks. The exact same principle has been applied to the Arabs.

Napoleon, the New Charelemagne

The Greco-Romanizing “Catonistes à la Robespierres” were finally outmaneuvered by the Tuscan Frank Napoleon who dreamed about the reinstitution of the Empire of Charlemagne. At the ceremony of his coronation as emperor he had placed two large statues in the portico of Notra Dame, one of Clovis and another of Charlemagne. Not only did he call himself Charlemagne, but even his spies in the field referred to him in their missiles by the Turkish code name Son of Charlemagne, i.e. ‘Carolosmanoglou.’ Napoleon had a theory that the ancient Greeks still survived in places like Sparta. There was a community of them is Corsica who were his friends. One of them, Dimo Stephanopoli, was a botanist who had been sent in 1797 with his nephew Nicolo to the South Balkan area by the French government in search of a rare herb for ‘medicinal’ purposes. Now as the general of the Army of Italy Napoleon sent Diimo and his nephew back, but this time to meet with the leaders of the underground Roman revolutionary society in the port of Maratonisi. Some of its key leaders came to this port town from Albania, Macedonia, Crete and nearby Leibadia. One of the key leaders not present was Regas Feraios who was a member of Napoleon’s staff during his negotiations with the Austrians which ended with the treaty of Campo Formio in Oct. 17, 1797 which ceded to France the Ionian Islands, chief of which was Corfu from which the French would pass over to Turkey to begin the revolution. The Romans at Maratonisi suggested that only 6,000 French troops were all that were needed, the Roman secrete army would do the rest. .But in the mean time Regas had been captured with five companions by the Austrians at the port city of Triest in December 1797 as they were preparing to embark to begin the revolution against the Turks. Regas and his collaborators were arrested by the Austrian police in Triest about to embark loaded with their revolutionary pamphlets on their way to begin the revolution. They had a boy companion with them who was set free because of his youth. For years as he grew old no one believed him that Regas had been a collaborator in touch with Napoleon. The problem was kindly solved for by C. M. Woodhouse quoted in the footnote. The French Consulate was not allowed to see Regas even though the latter was a French subject. General Bernadotte, under the command of Napoleon in the army of Italy and the future king of Norway and Sweden, was slated to replace Napoleon as the general of the army of Italy. Instead he was sent to the surprise of evreyone as French Ambassador to Vienna January 1778, i.e. shortly after the capture of Regas and his companions. He finally left this post in Vienna April 14. It would have been his responsibility to support the planed Roman revolution against the Turks crossing over from the Ionian Islands into Turkey. It was Benardotte who adived Tsar Alexander how defend Moscow against Naoleon and was at the battle of Waterloo with his Norwegan and Sweedish army waiting his turn to pounce on Napoleon. There was something about Napoleon which evidently made him enjoy working for the downfall of his one time commander.

As it turned out the Naoleon’s Greeks as Maratonisi turned out to be Romans who sang songs and danced about their “Land of the Romans (Rumeli) inhabited at one time by the ancient Greeks.” The revolutionary leaders at Maratonisi called themselves the genos (gens) of the Romans (τò γένος των Ρωμαίων). Dimo and his Nephew sailed to Corfu and arrived there as the Ionian Islands were being taken over by the French army as part of the settlement at Campo Formio while Austria was compensated with the Republic of Venice. Josephine’s son Beauharnais had come to Corfu for the incorporation ceremonies by which the Ionian Islands became part of the French Republic and indeed on the feast day of St. Spyridon, the patron saint of the Island, Dec. 12, 1787. Dimo and his nephew left Corfu with the same warship with Beauharnais. He debarked at the small port of Manfrentonia to travel to Naples and they went on to Venice. However Napoleon had left Milan, so they tried to catch up with him but ended up seeing him in Paris. Dimo reported to Napoleon personally in writing what he knew Napoleon had wanted to hear, i.e the “Greeks” were waiting to welcome him as their liberator. However, the text of said song recorded told Napoleon otherwise. The botanist Dimo brought back proof that Napoleon’s Spartans turned out to be a bunch of Romans. Evidently Napoleon already knew this from his specialists, but also from the Austrians who had been making official translations whereby the Greek name for Romans (Ρωμαιοι) was being officially translated into German as Griechen according to the lie of Great Father Charlemagne. Regas and his companions were finally turned over to the Turks for execution. The Austrians carefully covered up the traces of Napoleon’s involvement in the affair of Regas.

Napoleon refused to be sent to Ireland with a small French army to organize an Irish army to invade England. Instead he asked and was sent to conquer Egypt. His advisor on Ottoman affairs, Adamntius Koraes, the future Father of the Neo-Hellenism of Greece, sent an appeal on his behalf to the said army, ready to liberate ‘Rumeli’ from the Turks, to send fighting men to Egypt to help the ‘glorious’ French army there. At the same time he argues in this same appeal that the Romans of Rumeli are not really Romans, but descendants of the Ancient Greeks who simply call themselves Romans because of so any centuries under Roman and Turkish rule. Yes indeed they were so, because the primitive Romans were indeed a collection of Greek speaking tribes but called themselves by the Greek name Romans and their capital Rome. This the Catonistes à la Robespierre had understood very well.

Key Two

• The Primitive Greek Romans:
• The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Why?
• The first Roman Historians who wrote in Latin.

The very existence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins from the free East Romans. Frankish Emperor Louis II (855-875) clearly supports Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I (867-885) that “…we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city (of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different nationality and language.”

Let us contrast this Frankish nonsense with historical reality and the process by which Rome became the Empire of the whole Greek speaking world. The primitive Greek Romans were the result of the union of the Greek speaking tribes of Italy. These Greek tribes are the following: The Aborigines who came to the area of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the Trojan War. These Aborigines had already accepted into their tribe what was left of the Greek Pelasgians of Italy who had been decimated by a mysterious sickness. Porcius Cato’s inclusion of the history of the Pelasgians in Italy and their union with the Aborigines in his De Origines, repeated in detail by Dionysius, is the only mention of them that this writer is aware of. These combined Aborigines and Pelasgians united with some Trojans who migrated to their land and together they became the ancient Greek speaking Latins whose capital was Alba Longa. A branch of these Greek speaking Latins of Alba Longa, led by the brothers Romulus and Romus, founded Rome on the Palatine and Capitoline Hills. They were joined by some of the Greek Sabines of Italy who had been settled on the adjacent Quirinal Hill. The Sabines had migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece. The Romans continued the process of subduing and including the rest of the Greek Latins and Sabines into their political system.

Some of the Danubian Celts entered Northern Italy and began pressing upon the Etruscans who turned to Rome for help. But these Celts overran the Roman forces who tried to stop them and drove down toward Rome and defeated the main Roman army in battle and entered Rome in 390 BC They occupied the whole of the city except the steep Capitoline Hill. The Romans had placed there all of their youth, treasures and records. The older population remained in their homes. After receiving a substantial ransom of gold the Celts withdrew. In order to better protect themselves the Romans subdued the rest of Northern Italy. The Romans also incorporated into their dominion the Greek Italians of Magna Graecia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica This was the extent of Roman territories in 218 BC.

The Punic Wars under the leadership of Hamilcar and especially of Hannibal, became the biggest threat to Rome since the Celtic occupation. Hannibal invaded Italy itself with his famous elephants and with Macedon as an ally. Macedon had conquered Rome’s traditional Greek allies. Rome went as far as Spain to uproot Punic strongholds there and finally burned Carthage itself. The Romans had crossed over into Greece to liberate her Greek allies from Macedon and ended up conquering the Macedonian Empire and incorporating it into the Roman Empire. Rome also came to the aid of her Galatian and Cappadocian allies by liberating them from King Mithridates VI of Pontus (121/120-63 BC) which resulted in the incorporation of Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia into the Roman Empire which now reached almost to the Caspian Sea. In this way the Mediterranean Sea became the central lake of the Roman Empire.

It is to be noted that it was the Greek Romans of Italy who finally united all Greek speaking tribes into one nation which had become Latin speaking also.

• The first four Roman annalists wrote in Greek. They were Quintus Fabius Pictor, Lucius Cincius Alimentus, Gaius Acilius and Aulus Postumius Albinus.

As we will see, the first text in primitive Latin was the Code of the Twelve Tables promulgated in 450 BC solely for the plebs. The Greek gentis abided by their own secrete laws which they memorized from childhood. This is why the tradition of Roman public laws in Latin resulted from the cooperation between the consuls of the gentis and the tribunes of the plebs. In time so many of the plebs had become fluent in Greek that they became part of the administration of the Greek speaking provinces.

• According to Cicero one of the first Romans who wrote in Latin prose was the Sabine Claudius, Appius Caecus who was consul in 307 and 296 BC. He delivered a speech in Latin to the Senate against making peace with Pyrrhus, the king of Macedon.

The first Roman historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius Cato (234-140 BC) andLucius Cassius Hemina (circa 146 BC).

So what language were the Romans speaking and writing before this except Greek?

All the above agree with each other on the general outline of Roman beginnings. The reason for this is that they based themselves on the official Roman “sacred tablets” (hierais deltois) which the first historians simply repeated. In other words they were themselves annalists. However, nothing is preserved from these tablets/annals except as repeated in the Roman historians. But, not much of their works has survive, or else may be hidden to facilitate Charlemagne’s Lie.

• Cato and the official pagan state religion of France based on natural revelation and the optional religion of the so-called supernatural revelation of the Franco-Latin Papacy.

During the period between July 27, 1793 to his execution on July 28, 1794 Robespierre secured the virtual rule of the country both politically and religiously. The first reason for his own fall was his part in the fall and execution of Danton. But the second main reason for his own fall was that he gave his enemies the weapon they needed to destroy him by his official institution of the religious feast day of the Supreme Being along with other minor feast days. All educated Frenchmen knew the distinction between natural revelation and supernatural revelation being taught in their schools. All Robespierre did was to make natural revelation of the ancestors of Gallo-Romans the official State Religion and supernatural revelation of the Vatican optional. Although most probably almost all the members of the Convention agreed with him theologically, they used this a pretext to bring about his fall.

From Cato the Gallo-Roman revolutionaries realized that the Romans and Greeks were the same people. Now the overwhelming majority of Gallo-Romans were re-gaining control of the land occupied for so many centuries by a tyrannical Frankish minority of only 2% the population. The enthusiasm for Greco-Roman antiquity and hatred for a Papal Christianity used by the Frankish conqueror to completely debase 85% of the population led even to establishing of natural revelation l conqueror getting control of In spite of this only fragments of Cato are publicly known. But since Dionysius of Halicarnassus used the same annals as the aforementioned Roman historians one must use Dionysius to reconstruct these lost or hidden sources. Dionysius makes a clear distinction between Greek historians who do not use Roman annals and the Roman historians (and himself) who do. The trick used by some historians, who want to efface the Greek foundations of Roman history, is to mix the hearsay Greek tradition about Rome and the 3 Roman variations on the tradition about the founding of Rome found in their own hierais deltois, i.e. sacred tablets, which were evidently made of a hard material, and then to heap ridicule on the mixture they themselves create.

Only a short, but accurate summary account of the foundation annals are reported in Livy who takes for granted that Rome was founded as a Greek city and nation. Evidently this is so because he wrote his history in Latin, whereas the annals were evidently in Greek. Those who wrote in Greek simply copied what they read in Greek. It was the annalistic history of Hemina which laid the foundations for writing Roman history in Latin. Evidently, however, he and his imitators did not make full use of all the Greek texts, like speeches, at their disposal. Whereas those who wrote their histories in Greek simply copied the Greek texts directly from the annals. Since the primitive Romans were Greeks why should the official annals be in what we now call Latin. The primitive Latins and Romans were a mixture of Greek Arcadians, Trojans, Pelasgians and Lacedaemonian Sabines.

Key Three: The Judaio-Christian Romans

Judaism began spreading itself throughout the Hellenistic world becoming the breeding ground of early Christianity within the Roman Empire. Orthodox Christianity took roots within Judaism to finally become the official religion of the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine the Great (306-333). This act of Emperor Constantine created an intense reaction among the pagan Romans because of their identity as a Greek Civilization. Thus began the controversy between Greek Romans and Christian Romans. From this time on the name Greek came to mean pagan right up to the Hellenic Revolution of 1821 which was carefully planned by the British, French and Russian Empires.

Key Four: The sickness of Religion based on the quest for happiness and its cure based on glorification

(see sections 3,4,6,29 and 32)

From the viewpoint of the cure of the sickness of religion there was an identity between

1. those Jews who followed Christ and
2. the convert Greek Roman Christians who joined the practice of the cure of the sickness of religion.

We will deal with the cure of the Neurobiological sickness of religion by comparing it with Augustine’s reintroduction of a Neo-Platonic form of this sickness of religion into all the traditions which have followed his interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, especially that of the Medieval tradition of the Franco-Latins and that of most Protestants. Then we will return to this cure again to show how it flows out of St. Paul’s epistles, especially in 1 Cor. 12-15:11.

Key Five: The Struggle between Romans and Carolingian Franks

We begin at this Key Four in order to lay the foundation of this study by beginning with this struggle between the Carolingian Franks and Romans which began in earnest during the 8th and 9th centuries. This finally resulted in

• the capture of the Roman Papacy by the Franco-Latins between 1009-1046
• in a tremendous dose of Carolingian anti-Roman propaganda in the fields of Church, political and ethnic history because these Franks used everything at their disposal to not only subdue the Roman nation but also to drive it into non existence.

Those who hate Romans call themselves Romans. Why?

The Franco-Latin Popes took over the Papacy definitively during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated in 1046. They even called themselves Roman Popes in order to fool their West Roman slaves into believing that they still have a Roman Pope. But the reality of the matter is that these Franco-Latins, who played and are still playing the part of Roman Popes and Roman Church leaders, had in reality an intense hatred for their Roman slaves in Western Europe and the free Romans and their real Roman Emperor in New Rome. This hatred is described as follows by the Lombard bishop of Cremona Luitprand (922-972) who was involved in the movement to get rid of the real Roman Popes and replace them by force with mostly Tuscano-Franks and Lombards who became the main sharers of the Franco-Latin “Papal dignity” since.

Luitprand writes, “We…Lombards, Saxons (of Germany), Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt (for Romans and their emperors) that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romani), this alone, i.e. the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed, whatever evil.”

Here Luitprand knows very well that he is not writing to “Greeks” in the East, but to Romans in the East. However, this same Luitprand, like all Franco-Latins since 794, have been telling their West Roman “serfs” and “vilains” that there are no Romans, nor Roman Emperors, in the East, but only a bunch of “Greek heretics.”

This is the background of the 19th and 20th century Russian, British and French policies of converting the whole Western part of the Ottoman Empire, called Romania or Rumeli (i.e. Land of the Romans) into such nations as Hellenes, Serbians, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Albanians and even Slavic Macedonians. Is the partition of Cyprus between Turks and Romans (who began calling themselves Hellenes in order to unite with Hellas) part of this plan or maybe part of another plan?

All the above has been done in spite of the fact that the primitive language of the ancient Romans was Greek, as we will see. The Russians, French and British paid special attention to destroying the Greek language which had been the language of unity among the Romans, not only in antiquity, but in the Balkans also, by replacing it with survivals of local dialects. The Franco-Latin nobilities of Britain and France, with the Russians tagging along with their Panslavism, had to guarantee the complete disappearance of the Roman nation according to the decision of Father Charlemagne.

The key to the Bible is the cure of the sickness of religion. In John 17 Christ prays for unity in the cure of glorification, not for divided Churches

We also begin with the key to the Bible which is the cure of the sickness of religion. This sickness from the very beginning took over the society of the Carolingian Franks. This is in sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks who were Orthodox Christians, as we shall see. The Carolingians knew only Augustine till the 12th century. So the difference between these Frankish races is that the one supported the cure of the sickness of religion and the latter group became the great supporters of the causes of the sickness of religion which their Neo-Platonic form of Christianity has been.

That religion is a sickness with a specific cure is known from the tradition of the Old and New Testaments. However, that this sickness and cure exists in the Bible is known only to those who know that it is there and know how to use the Bible as a guide to said cure. For this reason the Bible is a closed book to all others, even to most Jews and Christians today. This means that Jews who accept the Old Testament alone, or Christians who accept both the Old and the New Testament, yet are not in the process of being cured under the guidance of one already cured, i.e. “glorified” (1 Cor. 12:26), automatically and unknowingly distort these books into supports for the sickness of religion, rather than its cure. Many such students of the Bible become Fundamentalists and at times quite dangerous. On the other hand the critical Biblical scholar, who uses whatever tools he has at his disposal to understand the Bible, cannot complete his task unless he knows the existence of the sickness of religion and its cure, and indeed in a Bible which is supposed to be his specialty. This holds especially true for those Orthodox ‘scholars’ who do not know that an Old and New Testament term for theosis is glorification.

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 (basike´a) 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 any part of 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 Five Keys to the Bible

What is missing in the work of such Biblical scholars and especially of those who work within and under the weight of the Franco-Latin Augustinian tradition, are the following five keys:

1. That the very core of the Biblical tradition is that religion is a specific sickness with a specific cure. This is what the claim “there is no God except Yahweh” means. Not knowing this fundamental first key one cannot know the second key:

2. That there is a clear distinction between Biblical terms which denote that which is “uncreated” and that which is “created.” Not knowing this context one cannot know the third key to Biblical terms:

3. That “it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him.” In other words there is no similarity whatsoever “between the created and the uncreated.” Anyone who thinks that Biblical expressions convey concepts about God is sadly mistaken. When used correctly Biblical words and concepts lead one to purification and illumination of the heart which lead to glorification but are not themselves glorification. An integral and essential part of knowing these foregoing three keys is the fourth key:

4. That the cure of the sickness of religion involves at all stages “the transformation of selfish happiness seeking love” into “the selfless love of one’s own crucifixion which is glorification.” This glorification, therefore, is not only that of the Lord of Glory Incarnate, “but also that of all prophets and apostles (sent ones) before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory.” These four keys become the fifth contextual key of cure.

5. That “the expressions about God in the Bible are not intended to convey concepts about God. They act only as means to guide one to the purification and illumination of the heart and finally to glorification by the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Lord (Yaweh) of Glory which is to see Him by means of His uncreated glory or rule” and “not by means of ephemeral created symbols and concepts about Him” as is the case in the Augustinian tradition.

In John 17 Christ prays for the cure of the glorification of His disciples and their disciples, not for divided Churches. Indeed not for traditions which have not the slightest idea what the cure of glorification is.

Nothing of the above can be found in Augustine

In sharp contrast to these five keys are the 5th century writings of bishop Augustine of Hippo (354-430) which survived the capture of his city by the Vandals in 430 AD. Augustine died during the siege on August 28, 430. Augustine writes that his Archbishop of Carthage Aurelius had commanded him to present his book De Trinitate to him for examination but we have no record of the result of this action. Both Arius and Eunomius were condemned by the First (325) and Second (381) Ecumenical Councils respectively for teaching that the Messenger Logos Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush is a creature. Augustine, of course, believes that the Logos is indeed uncreated. However, he came up with his own innovation that the whole Holy Trinity appeared to Moses and the prophets by means of such an angel or angels which God brings into existence to be seen and heard and then passes back into non-existence when their mission is accomplished. Evidently Archbishop Aurelius heard about this and possibly also Augustine’s teaching about original sin and predestination and wanted to see for himself.

Augustine’s writings found their way to parts of the West Roman provinces. St. John Cassian (circa 360-433), former ascetic in the deserts of Egypt and then deacon of the Patriarch of Constantinople St. John Chrysostom, challenged Augustine’s teaching about original sin and pre-destination without mentioning him. The teachings of Augustine on these points were condemned by the Council of Orange in 529. Augustine’s writings completely captured the 8th century Carolingian tradition which knew basically only Augustine until the 12th century. At that time the Franks acquired a translation of St. John of Damascus’ “Book on the Orthodox Faith” which they simply understood within their own Augustinian categories. By the 11th century the Franks had taken over all of Western Europe, except Spain, by either conquest or diplomacy. The Spanish Romans under Arab rule were still under the direct surveillance of the Roman Emperor of Constantinople New Rome. The Umayyad Arabs of Spain and the Abbasid Arabs of Damascus and then Baghdad called their Roman Orthodox subjects Melkites, i.e. those who belong to the religion of the Roman Emperor in New Rome Constantinople.

According to this Augustinian tradition God supposedly brings into existence creatures to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non-existence after their mission of conveying messages and visions has been accomplished. Higher than this revelation by means of such ephemeral creatures [are, according to this tradition, [the concepts which God supposedly injects directly into the human intellect.

Biblical scholars who either accept this tradition or believe that this is actually what the Bible is saying, unknowingly contribute to the concealment of both the sickness of religion and its cure and so the correct reading of the terms used in the Bible to denote the difference between what is “created” and “uncreated.” What is worse, the adepts of such interpretations of the Bible think that the biblical writers themselves believe that God can be expressed with words and indeed conceived by the human intellect, not perfectly, but at least approximately.

In sharp contrast to this type of tradition is that of the Fathers of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. Only those prophets, apostles and fathers who have reached glorification, both before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory, can know what glorification means and how to lead others to this cure and thus to the correct distinction between the created and the uncreated in the Bible.

Therefore, both fundamentalist and non fundamentalist biblical scholars, who have been victims of Augustinian and Carolingian presuppositions, become prone to misunderstandings of what they read in the Bible, especially when terms and symbols denoting glorifications which produce prophets are alluded to. A classical example is 1 Cor. 12:26. Here St. Paul does not write, “If one is [honored,” but “If one is [glorified,” i.e. has become a prophet. To be glorified means that one has seen the Lord of Glory either before His incarnation or after, like Paul did on his way to Damascus to persecute the Incarnate Lord of Glory’s followers. Another example is the phrase “kingdom of God” which makes it a creation of God instead of the uncreated ruling power of God. What is amazing is that the term “kingdom of God” appears not once in the original Greek of the New Testament. Not knowing that the “rule” or “reign of God” is the correct translation of the Greek “Basileia tou Theou,” Vaticanians, Protestants and even many Orthodox today, do not see that the promise of Christ to his apostles in Mt.16:28, Lk. 9:27 and Mk. 9:1, i.e. that they will see God’s ruling power, was fulfilled during the Transfiguration which immediately follows in the above three gospels. Here Peter, James and John see Christ as the Lord of Glory i.e. as the source of God’s uncreated “glory” and “basileia” i.e. uncreated ruling power, denoted by the uncreated cloud or glory which appeared and covered the three of them during the Lord of Glory’s Transfiguration. It was by means of His power of Glory that Christ, as the pre-incarnate Lord (Yahweh) of Glory, had delivered Israel from Its Egyptian slavery and lead It to freedom and the land of promise. The Greek text does not speak about the “Basileion (kingdom) of God,” but about the “Basileia (rule or reign) of God,” by means of His uncreated glory and power. At His Transfiguration Christ clearly revealed Himself to be the source of the uncreated Glory seen by Moses and Elijah during Old Testament times and who both are now present at the Transfiguration in order to testify to the three apostles that Christ is indeed the same Yaweh of Glory, now incarnate, Whom the two had seen in the historical past and had acted on behalf of Him.

The Vaticanians have, or used to have, a tradition of identifying their Church with the earthly kingdom established by Christ with the Franco-Latin Pope as the Vicar of Christ, Emperor and Bishop of Rome.

Neither Protestants nor Vaticanians know said four keys for reading the Bible. But what is worse, many of them allow themselves to look upon others as either among God’s chosen ones (like themselves), or else not chosen and therefore destined to hell since all have supposedly inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve. Also, they continue with Augustine, that a certain number of those who have inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve are, like themselves, among the ones chosen by God for salvation without any merit of their own. God chooses them, in spite of their inherited guilt, to replace that number of angels which had fallen. Because of this paganism, Franco-Latin Christianity was destined to lose ground before the onslaught of modern science and democracy. Chosen ones can never be part of a democracy.

Augustinian Christians, both Vaticanians and Protestants, are literally unbalanced humans, and had been indeed very dangerous up to the French Revolution and are potentially still quite dangerous. They were never capable of understanding that God loves equally both those who are going to hell and those who are going to heaven. God loves even the Devil as much as He loves the saint. “God is the savior of all humans, indeed of the faithful” (1 Tim. 4:10). In other words hell is a form of salvation although the lowest form of it. God loves the Devil and his collaborators but destroys their work by allowing them to remain inoperative in their final “actus purus happiness” like the God of Thomas Aquinas.

The question at hand is not, therefore, whom God loves and saves. God loves all and God saves all. Even human doctors are morally obliged to cure all patients regardless of who and what they are. From this viewpoint hell is indeed salvation, but the lowest form of it. One either chooses or one does not choose to be cured from the short-circuit which makes one religious. The one who chooses cure exercises himself like an athlete who follows the Lord of Glory’s directions for purifying his heart. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” One cooperates with Christ in the purification of one’s heart and in acquiring the illumination of the unceasing prayer in the heart. This allows love to do away with self-centeredness and selfishness, but at the same time increases one’s dedication to destroying the work of the Devil. When God sees that one is ready to follow the cure which will make him selfless He guides him into the courtyard of glorification and takes him from being a child to manhood, i.e. prophethood (1 Cor. 13:11). One begins with sick love concerned with one’s own salvation and graduates into selfless Love which, like Saint Paul, would forego one’s own salvation for that of others. In other words one either chooses cure or refuses cure. Christ is the Doctor who cures all His patients to that degree of cure they accept, even that of hell.

The Sickness of Religion of Augustinian Christendom and within Orthodoxy today

The sickness of religion is caused by a short-circuit between the heart and the brain. This is what causes fantasies which distort the imagination and in varying degrees cuts one off from reality. The cure of this short-circuit has three stages which will occupy us in some detail later. They are:

• the purification of the heart,
• the illumination of the heart, which repairs this short-circuit which produces fantasies, of which both religion and criminality are by products, and
• glorification, which makes one uncreated by grace and by which one sees the uncreated ruling power of God which is a simple energy which divides itself without division and saturates all of creation being everywhere present, though not by nature, and ruling all of creation. The Bible calls this the “glory” and “rule” of God and those who reach glorification “prophets” and “sent ones (apostles).”

What is sick is the “spirit of man” in the heart which in the early Christian tradition came to be called the noetic faculty, not to be identified with the intellectual faculty of the Hellenic tradition whose center is in the brain. In its cured state within the heart the noetic faculty allows the brain to function without fantasies of which religion and criminality are by products. In this cured state the noetic faculty prays without ceasing while the brain goes about its normal chores. This unceasing prayer of the noetic faculty keeps the short-circuit between the brain and the heart in repair without impairing the imagination now free from fantasies which are the main tools by which what is called the “devil” makes his slaves. Thus we have “noetic prayer” in the heart and “intellectual prayer” in the brain which is the foundation of the prophetic tradition of both the Old and New Testament. This was the center of the apostolic Church which became the Orthodox Christianity of the Roman Empire.

This tradition of cure survived in Orthodox monasticism quite strongly within the Ottoman Empire. It was only during the drive of the Empires of Russia, Francia and Britain for the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire that they obliged the Orthodox States they created from its ruins to accept the reforms of Peter the Great as one of the essential conditions for gaining their support. In other words, without realizing it, these three Empires concentrated their attack on the cure of the sickness of religion, whose center had for centuries been Orthodox monasticism. This was replaced by a so-called Westernization, which had been accomplished in Russia, which simply meant that Orthodoxy was being condemned to becoming a religion like Vaticanism and Protestantism.

The clearest New Testament outline of this cure of the sickness of religion is to be found in St. Paul 1 Cor. 12-15:11. Here we have the key to his epistles which become clear only within this context. St. Paul was a Pharisee who stemmed from the same tradition as the Hasidim whereas Christ and His apostles evidently belonged to a parallel tradition with the same Old Testament foundations which makes the New Testament intelligible.

We call religion a neurobiological sickness since it stems from a short-circuit between the nervous system centered in the heart within the spinal column which circulates the spinal fluid, and the blood system centered in the heart which pumps blood throughout the body, including the nervous system. The cure of this sickness of religion is accomplished by repairing said short-circuit between the two hearts which pump blood and spinal fluid which allows them to function normally. In this normal state the various fantasies, religious and otherwise, produced by said short-circuit between the brain and the heart disappear and with them one’s fantasies also disappear, including that of religion. The Bible calls this neurological energy the spirit of man which the Fathers came to call the noetic energy.

What is especially interesting is the fact that both religion and criminality stem from the same short- circuit and its fantasies. When being cured one believes either that which he himself sees and which certain others see, only on the condition that they train their charges to see for themselves. The method of cure is like seeing for oneself what specialists are trained to see by means of instruments what cannot be seen by the naked eye, not only in the next life, but especially in this life. The Bible calls this glorification. “When one is glorified the rest rejoice” (1Cor. 12:26) because he has become a prophet who has seen and participated in the uncreated glory of God which has no similarity whatsoever with anything created. This is why a prophet can guide others to the cure of glorification, but cannot describe the uncreated experienced in glorification. The basis for this restoration of normalcy is that the one who sees has himself been restored to normalcy which is to see the uncreated force which creates and governs all of creation. The one cured actually sees above normal seeing from time to time seeing the glory and rule of the Creator. When not in the state of seeing the short circuit in question is kept under repair by the unceasing prayer in the heart while the brain functions normally. The Old and New Testaments call this force the ‘glory’ and ‘reign’ of God which is “everywhere present dividing itself without division and saturating all creation.” Also those who have seen it and guide others to the cure of their short-circuit are the prophets both before Pentecost and after Pentecost.

Although not having access to today’s electronic microscopes these prophets experienced the fact that there is no similarity whatsoever between the Creator’s glory and reign and His creation. Although this is true for the natural human faculties, there is some similarity of this Glory’s manifestation, as a simple energy which divides itself without division and****is present everywhere, to the way cells divide themselves and multiply in biological beings when seen by the electronic microscope. The real difference is that God’s creating glory and reign does not change or die nor is it composed of matter. In any case the Platonic idea that material and spiritual forms are copies of immutable and immaterial forms were correctly rejected by all those who had had an experience of the Glory of God.

We recall the Four Keys described above. Within their context there are two general types of terms in the Bible:

• Those terms which apply to the uncreated and cannot be conceived by comparison with one’s experience of created reality. Such terms are “God,” “Lord (Yaweh),” “Spirit of God,” " Father,” “Logos,” “Messenger of God Who calls Himself God,” “Messenger of Great Council,” “Son of God,” “King of Glory,” “rule or reign of God,” “Glory of God,” etc.: and
• those which represent created reality and which are understood as such. Terms denoting the uncreated are not to be understood within the context of what one may understand by comparing these terms with what one knows from created reality. The sole purpose of terms denoting the uncreated is to play the role of leading to the purification and the illumination of the heart and then to glorification during which said words and concepts are abolished and wherein only love remains (1Cor. 13:8).

Augustine never understood these two distinctions, nor the four keys previously discussed. Franco-Latin Christianity and doctrine began its first essay into theology and doctrine with the Palatine School established by Charlemagne at the end of the 8th century. This school knew only Augustine because its organizer the Saxon Alcuin (735-804) evidently knew only Augustine thoroughly. Augustine was not a Father of an Ecumenical Council, nor was he familiar with any Father of an Ecumenical Council. One is given the impression that he was taught by Ambrose who supposedly baptized him. However, the basic doctrinal differences between Augustine and the Fathers of the Church are exactly the differences between himself and Ambrose. Nor did Augustine have the slightest idea of the keys by which Jews and the Orthodox Fathers were interpreting the Bible. He simply knew not one Father of an Ecumenical Council. This is exactly why Vaticanists and Protestants still do not understand the theology of the Ecumenical Councils. When the Franco-Latins finally became familiar with the texts of the Ecumenical Councils they simply enslaved them to Augustinian categories. They had acquired the text of Dionysius the Areopagite which was translated by John Scotus Eriugena which confused them because of the translator’s theology. It was only in the 12th century, as we saw, that these Franks acquired a Latin translation of St. John of Damascus’ summary of the Patristic theology and doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils, but as always until today, understood him within Augustinian categories. Neither the Franco-Latin Papacy, established between 1009 and 1046, nor Augustinian Protestants, have ever been able to see these distinctions in the Bible and so remained unaware of their existence. This means that before the advent of modern Biblical criticism the Vaticanist and Protestant understanding of Biblical inspiration was not much different from the Moslem belief that the Koran is “uncreated.” That of course has changed, but the end result has remained the same.

Sociology, Religion and Criminality

Since fantasies produced by said short-circuit are at the basis of all sociological and historical phenomena, including everything from religion to criminality, one can not make a clean cut separation between society and religion, or abnormal and so-called normal behavior within human society. All peoples and societies suffer from this same short-circuit. Many Orthodox Christians and Jews are not actively involved in their****traditional cure of the sickness of religion which is supposedly the foundation of their beliefs and practices. For this reason they are sometimes capable of outdoing others in cruelty and barbarism. In any case the idea that religion per se is good and necessary for society is absolute nonsense. There are historical cases wherein there were and still are those who believe that they will have special privileges in their heaven for killing and enslaving others and who will have wives in heaven for their gratification.

We have at least two societies which had been historically and to an important degree based on this cure of the sickness of religion. They are the prophets of the Old Testament accepted officially by the Jewish State and the apostles and prophets of the Old and New Testaments and the prophets since called Fathers of the Church as accepted officially by the Roman State. What divides them is the Incarnation of the Lord (Yaweh) of Glory. Both had accepted the OT prophets and some Jews and many Romans and other peoples accepted also Christ and the apostles within this context of the cure of this sickness of religion.

However, those Christians who followed heresies condemned by Roman Ecumenical Councils were in each case re-transforming the faith of the Bible into pagan forms of Christianity based on the sickness of religion instead of its cure. Perhaps the greatest of the pagan forms of Christianity is that of Augustine. His erroneous teachings about all of humanity being responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve and his doctrine of pre-destination based on his teaching about original sin and his psychopathic Platonic mysticism, had gone undetected in the East until the 15th century. But in Roman Gaul the Council of Orange (529) condemned his teaching about inherited sin and predestination. Finally, the Roman Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341 in Constantinople also, but unknowingly, condemned some of Augustine’s heresies. His other heresies were never known nor understood in the East. Indeed, the said Ninth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (1341) condemned the heresies of Barlaam the Calabrian about revelation and the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification not realizing that his teaching belonged to Augustine. Indeed the Fathers of this Council claimed that the Devil inspired Barlaam to invent this new heresy.

What is of interest is the fact that in each case of the appearance of a specific heresy it was simply one more product of the sickness of religion. Perhaps the same is true of Judaism. It was on such grounds that the Fathers of the Church easily defeated heresies based on this sickness of religion. However, what is even more interesting is the fact that many Orthodox who have inherited the Orthodox form of Christianity of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils are at present in a state of confusion. This confusion began especially with the reforms of Peter the Great based on the deliberate Westernization of the Russian Church which was in reality its Augustiniazation.

These Russian reforms became the key by which Emperor Alexander I of the Russian Empire and Napoleon I of the Frankish Empire, joined a bit later by the British Empire, began their policies of breaking up the unity of the Roman Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire. They attacked the common language of the Roman Orthodox, which since the time of the Ancient Romans had been Greek, by claiming that all who spoke Greek were not Romans, but “Greeks”. This is the Charlemagnian Lie of 794 which was adopted by the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility which still guides not only European policies, but also that of Americans who have been enslaved by British historiography. At the same time these three powers used the various dialects which survived from older times to build linguistic enclaves which became Hellenes, Serbians, Bulgarians and Rumanians, to which they added Albanians and now even of all things Slavic Macedonians. This process called Balkanization began to be applied in 1821 and is still being applied. The very same principles were and are being applied to the whole Arab World.

This Westernization of Orthodoxy was imposed on all the Orthodox States which arose out of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This began with the establishment of the State of Greece in 1827, followed by Bulgaria in 1878-79, Romania in 1879-1880, Serbia in 1882 and was completed in 1923 with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire itself. Each case of the establishment of a State was accompanied by the foundation of a State Church. State Theological Schools were also established to make sure that the work of Peter the Great may take root and take over. Prior to this development the monasteries had been the training ground for producing leaders specialized in curing the sickness of religion. However, said theological faculties became the basis of transforming Orthodox Church leaders and theologians into victims of the sickness of religion who have been transforming the Orthodox Church into a religion.

Quite interesting is the fact that the Turks called the European part of their Ottoman Empire Rumeli, i.e. Land of the Romans. The reason for this is not only the fact that the Ottomans conquered what was left of the Roman Empire and her capital, but also because all Orthodox Christians within the Moslem world, from Spain to the Middle East, called themselves Roman Orthodox and were and are still called Roman Orthodox by the Arabs, Turks, Persians, etc. However, during the 18th century the Russians, the British and the French actively propagandized the Lie of Charlemagne that Romans who spoke the Greek language are not Romans, but “Greeks”. In this way they finally succeeded in convincing, or conning, even the Neo-Hellenes, the Neo-Bulgarians, the Neo-Serbians, the Neo-Rumanians and then the Neo-Albanians and Neo-Macedonians, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople-New Rome is not Roman, but “Greek”. This in spite of the fact that this Ecumenical Patriarchate never called nor calls itself “Greek”, but only Roman in the Turkish and Greek languages.

In the light of this, even a casual reading of the Encyclopedia Britannica will reveal with what hatred the Russians, French and British describe the Phanariote Romans of Constantinople who helped the Ottomans to rule Rumeli, i.e. the Balkans, as the hated and corrupt “Greeks.” But even till this day the Roman Orthodox of Turkey call themselves Romans in both Turkish and Greek and are called Romans by the Turks. The magnitude of the Charlemagnian Latin versus Greek Lie has been saturating Franco-Latin history writing since 794 and must be dealt with accordingly, that is, as an outright lie. One must begin by assuming that Franco-Latins are experts at telling historical lies in order to carefully separate their telling lies from their telling the truth. Much of Roman history writing is still controlled by the Franco-Latin nobility who are still faithful to their Father Charlemagne and his lies about the Roman Empire which are still going strong in the non-existent fields of Byzantine history, civilization, theology, etc. which are Roman and not Byzantine.

There are no Greek and Latin Fathers of the Orthodox Church. They are Latin and Greek speaking Roman Fathers of the Church

We begin with the fact that there are no “Latin” or “Greek” Fathers of the Church. All Fathers of the Church within the Roman Empire are Greek speaking and Latin speaking [Roman Fathers of the Church with their localities attached to their description. The Carolingian Franks literally invented the distinction between “Greek” and “Latin” Fathers of the Church. Why? In order to cover up the fact that they had no Father of their Church until Rabanus Maurus (776-856). So they simply broke the Roman Fathers in two and began calling them “Greek” and “Latin” Fathers of the Church. In this way they simply attached Rabanus Maurus and his successors to their so-called “Latin” Fathers of the Church. But the Fathers of the Church who wrote in either Latin or Greek or in both Latin and Greek, were neither Latins nor Greeks, but were simply Roman Fathers of the Church.

Greek Romans and Christian Roman

What is absolutely amazing is the fact that in the Roman tradition since Constantine the Great the real Romans had made a clear distinction between Greek Romans and Christian Romans. The name Greek Roman simply meant Pagan Roman. St. Athanasius the Great, the Roman Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote a book called “Against Greeks” which simply means “Against Pagans.” So the Frankish title “Greek Fathers of the Church” means in the Roman language simply “Pagan Fathers of the Church.” In his Libri Carolini Charlemagne calls the Empire of Constantinople New Rome “Imperium Romanum” and “pagan.” Then in 794 he dropped this Frankish custom and called this Empire “Greek.” One reason why he did so was that the Christian Romans themselves were calling each other “Greeks” meaning “pagans.” It is this Roman usage of the name “Greek” which Charlemagne transformed into both a non existent “nation” and a “heresy.” Since 794 this has become a Frankish dogma of history which is not a simple and harmless habit, but a very well organized conspiracy promoted by the nobilities attached to the Vatican and to the King of England as the head of Free Masonry.

We use the term Franco-Latins for the mostly Teutonic members of the medieval royalty and nobility of Western Europe who called themselves “Latins.” We call them by this term “Franco-Latins” in order to distinguish them from the two groups of real Latins of Roman history, the primitive Greek Latins who became Romans and the Italian Latins who became Romans in 212AD.

Not having the sources of Roman history available and wishing to cut off their conquered West Romans from the East Romans, the Franco-Latins, since the time of Charlemagne, were misled into believing and promoting the position that the early Latins or Romans were Latin speaking, a basic historical fallacy which everyone today accepts. All my writings have been taking for granted that the Romans had fallen so much in love with Hellenic Civilization that Rome itself saw the light of History speaking Greek. Therefore, I had placed the historical appearance of Rome as a Greek speaking city within this Carolingian Frankish understanding of Roman history, as a supposedly Latin speaking people who began speaking Greek also.

We repeat what we already said. The entourage of Charlemagne either invented, or came to believe the tale that Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Old Rome in Italy to New Rome-Constantinople and thus supposedly and deliberately abandoned the Latin language and nationality in favor of the Greek language and nationality.

The real Latins of Roman history

Constantine the Great was not Latin, he was Roman. As we saw the first Latins in history were a Greek speaking people who were conquered by the Romans, whose language was also Greek. These Latins were absorbed into the Roman nation and eventually had become a name held in honor by their descendants, i.e. the family of Julius Caesar. But the Latin name was revived as a result of the Italian Wars during 91-83 BC. One group of Italians fought for complete independence from Rome while a second group revolted demanding Roman citizenship. The first group were simply defeated, while the second group had to be satisfied with the “Latin” name instead of the “Roman” name. These Latins finally received the Roman name and became Romans in 212 AD This happened 95 years before Constantine began to rule in 306. Not only was Constantine not a Latin, but those born Latins in 211 were probably all dead in 306.

Roman sources of history eventually began to become available to these Franco-Latin barbarians. Instead of correcting their misunderstandings of Roman history, they became specialists at manipulating the Roman sources in order to force them into obeying Charlemagne’s Lie of 794. As we saw, Constantine the Great and his successors had supposedly abandoned the Latin language and nationality in order to speak Greek and become Greeks. According to the Cambridge Medieval History vol. IV, Part I, 1967, p. 776, Constantine the Great was a Roman Emperor between 306 and 324 and a “Byzantine Emperor” between 324 and 337. True to ’noble’ British tradition Part I and II of Vol. IV are now called the “Byzantine Empire.” Both these volumes publish J. B. Bury’s Introduction to the original volume IV published in 1923. Bury there writes that “We have, however, tampered with the correct name, which is simply ‘Roman Empire,’ by adding ‘Eastern,’ etc….The historian Finlay put the question in a rather akward way by asking, “When did the Roman Empire change into the Byzantine? The answer is that it did not change into any other Empire than itself…”. In spite of these words of J. B. Bury the new two volumes IV, which replaced his single volume ‘The East Roman Empire’, are called the “Byzantine Empire” anyway. WHY?

Why Byzantine?

Why is the “Byzantine Empire,” which never existed, now so essential to the British, French and Russian policies of divide and conquer? One can see the key clearly in the London Protocol of August, 31, 1836 which was signed by the representatives of these three Empires upon the occasion of the completion of the maps delineating the frontiers between Hellas and the Ottoman empire. Many of the Romans who fought in the War of Independence, which began in 1821, ended up outside of the liberated areas now called “Hellas.” This Protocol lists two groups of “Greeks” who now have the legal right to migrate to Hellas, because they are now legally “Hellenes.” However, historically the terms Greeks and Hellenes mean the same ancient people. The one is the Latin term for Greeks and Hellenes is the Greek word for Greeks. In sharp contrast is the fact that in the Turkish and Greek languages of the time these “Greeks” are called “Romans”. However, these Romans were being called Greeks by the Franco-Latins since 794. Charlemagne and his advisors decided to call the Free Romans “Greeks” in order that the West Romans may come to believe the Romans of the Roman Empire are not Romans but “heretical Greeks.”

So the French text of the Protocol in question reads as follows: “It is well understood that the following are now understood to be ‘Hellenes:’

• The ‘Greeks’….and
• The ‘Greeks’…

Here are the two terms which reflect the problem which had to be solved. The Turkish translation of the two terms are clear. The Greeks are in Turkish called Romans-Rumlar and the Hellenes are in Turkish called Hellenes-Younanlar. However, this is not the essence of the problem. In order to secure the support from these three Empires, who simply wanted to divide and conquer, the Romans had to not only call themselves Hellenes, but they had to pass a law that the Hellenic Revolution was not only a liberation from the Ottoman Empire, but also a liberation from the now fallen Roman Empire which the British, French and Russians began calling the Byzantine Empire. This is why the Carolingian Greek Empire which came into the existence in the Frankish imagination in 794, had to become now the Byzantine Empire. **Why? Because to say that “Hellenes” were liberated from “Greeks” would have caused even jackasses to burst out laughing!

During the celebration of Greek Independence Day on March 25 the BBC tried to pass off the position that the Turks had liberated the Hellenes from the Byzantines. But it backfired. I reported this in one of my books.

Even Arab sources are being contaminated by an invasion of the term “Byzantine” as the translation of the Arab name for Roman which is Rum. Charles Issawi, Professor of Political Science in the American University of Beirut, translated and published in his book “An Arab Philosophy of History,” Selections from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun of Tunis (1332-1406). Here he translates the Arab term for “Roman” which is “Rum” into English by the term “Roman” up to the death of Roman Emperor Heraclius in 641. He then translates the same name “Rum” with the term “Byzantine” for the rest of Khaldun’s Book.

The Final Version of Roman history

The reader is encouraged to see volume VII of The Cambridge Ancient History which is entitled “The Hellenistic Monarchies and The Rise of Rome,” 1954, (pp.312-864) to see for himself that the word “Aborigines,” which is one of the two backbones of Roman history, is no where to be found. Nor is the role of the Pelasgian Greeks in Roman history mentioned. Both historians, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (dates not known exactly ) who wrote in Greek and Livy (59BC-17AD) who wrote in Latin, begin their histories of Roman reality with the Aborigines. Dionysius gives us much more information than Livy. But Dionysius also gives us a lot of information about the Pelasgian Greeks in Italy and how they were decimated by sickness and how their reduced numbers joined the Aborigines to become one people. Dionysius quotes Porcius Cato as the authority on the Pelasgians in Italy which means Dionysius is not inventing facts about Pelasgians in Italy. This means that these Pelasgian Greeks were also part of the racial background of the Romans and therefore are part of Roman history. But they, like the Aborigines, are not mentioned in the above “The Rise of Rome,” nor in Roman histories and encyclopedias known to this writer. To have found something about Pelasgians in Italy and their relations to the Aborigines would have been at least some indication that the Lie of Charlemagne may be loosening its grip on historical writing.

The following are reported by the Roman historian Livy in his Ab Urbe Condita, i.e. “From the Founding of the City” and by the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his “Roman Antiquities.” Both report the ancient Roman tradition that the first Latins resulted from a union between the Greek speaking tribe of Italy called Aborigines and the Greek speaking Trojan refugees from the Trojan War. These Aborigines lived in Western Italy in the area South of the mouth of the Tiber river and were early dwellers on the site of Rome. They had been there many generations before the Trojan War. At the time of the arrival of the Trojans under Aeneas the king of the Aborigines was Latinus. The Trojans had landed on the shores of the land of the Aborigines in search for a homeland. These two Greek tribes decided to become one people by consummating a marriage between King Latinus’s daughter Lavinia and Aeneas. The two tribes decided to call themselves Latins. The Aborigines had originated from Achaia, Southern Greece, and the Trojans of Aeneas had come from Illium, Asia Minor. The Trojans of Aeneas and Antenor had gotten permission from the Achaian conquerors of Troy to find a homeland elsewhere. The lives of Aeneas and Antenor and their peoples had been spared because they were against the war with the Greeks. Thus the Trojans headed by Aeneas and Antenor left Asia Minor in search of a new home. The Trojans under Aeneas ended up in Western Italy South of the Tiber and the Trojans under Antenor ended up in Eastern Italy at the mouth of the Po river. When leaving Asia Minor Antenor’s Trojans were accompanied by the Eneti who settled with some of Antenor’s Trojans in the area they called Enetia in Greek and Latin and which the Italians call Venetia.

These two keys to Roman history, that of the Aborigines and that of the Trojans, are contested by all historians whose orientation to history was and still is shaped by Great Father Charlegmane (768-814). He was not only an ignorant barbarian himself, but his entourage and his successors for many centuries were no better. The reader may study their successors to see for himself if they are today any better.

First we must describe the Carolingian Frankish misunderstanding of Roman history and then the motives why the errors of this misunderstanding are still perpetuated. The only way that Orthodox Christians may realize the background and context of their situation is to understand the falsification of their past history by the Franco-Latins. Before 794 the Franks called our Empire Imperium Romanum. In 794 this very same Empire became “Imperium Grecorum.” Then in the 19th and 20th century this very same Empire became a so-called “Byzantine Empire.” Why? In 1453 it was the Roman Empire which fell to the Ottoman Turks and not a Greek or Byzantine Empire, as pointed out clearly by Edward Gibbon and J. G. Bury.

At the time of Charlemagne’s rule all free West Roman Orthodox, including even the Irish, were still praying for their Imperium Romanum whose capital was Constantinople-New Rome. In 794, in order to stop these prayers, Charlemagne initiated the practice within his own territories of restricting the name Imperium Romanum only to the recently established Papal States by calling the free part of the Imperium Romanum in Southern Italy to the borders of Persia the heretical “Imperium Grecorum” whose real Emperor of the Romans became in the Frankish fiction the “Imperator Grecorum.” Evidently his barbarian mind believed that these prayers for the Imperium Romanum became efficacious only for the Papal States still called Romaniaand now incorporated into his Francia. This became especially so when he coerced Pope Leo III (785-816) to crown him “Emperor” in exchange for exonerating him from certain accusations. However, Pope Leo crowned him “Emperor of the Romans.” But Charlemagne never used the “of the Romans” part of this title since his Roman subjects were not Franks, i.e. Free (Franchised), and also because he wanted his title to be accepted by the real Roman Emperor in the East.

In spite of the availability of more than enough ancient Roman sources to correct the above series of inaccuracies, there is still a well organized conspiracy against the restoration of historical truth in these matters. One would think that the sources themselves would be allowed to speak for themselves to let the students of history decide for themselves. But instead, these sources are carefully manipulated by those who fear what? a reunion of all those who have a Roman background into using their overwhelming numbers politically?

It is obvious that the overwhelming numbers of those who are neither members of Franco-Latin****royalties and nobilities [nor Moslems living within the former territories of the Roman Empire are mostly descendants of former Roman citizens who were enslaved by Teutonic, Arab, Slavic and Turkish conquerors. Those Romans who became Moslems became either Arabs or Turks and were integrated into the Arab and Turkish tribes and nations. The Romans who remained Orthodox Christians in Islamic territories were not only protected by Islamic Law, but were officially called Melkites Rum (Romans), i.e. Romans who belong to the religion of the Roman Emperor in New Rome. The Moslems never considered the Roman Orthodox among them as members of the Franco-Latin Pope’s religion which Moslems still call Francji.

However, those Romans who were conquered by the Teutonic nations were reduced to slavery and became the “serfs” and “vilains” of Franco-Latin Feudalism. Within this system of slavery the serfs and vilains did not have a king or emperor. What they had were Franco-Latin owners who were members of Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities under the religious jurisdiction of Franco-Latin Popes. This system was perfected after the process of expelling the real Roman Popes (begun in 983) was completed in 1046. If the reader wishes to see a perfect example of Franco-Latin forgery of history he should turn to the very large chapter on the history of the Papacy in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1957, to the three sections entitled “The Franks, the ‘Donation’ and Coronation,” (pp. 203-204), “The 9th Century” (pp. 204-205) and “The Popes and the Emperors”, 918-1073” (pp. 205-206) and compare them with this writer’s “Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine” pp. 14-29. In the Brittanica article there is not one word about the fact that the Germans were getting rid of Roman Popes by “smearing” them and replacing them with Franco-Latin “saints,” nor the reason why.

The reason for this continuing distortion of Roman history is the fact that ancient and medieval histories of Europe had become the special domain of the Franco-Latin Universities which still continue to distort the sources of Roman history through implementing the lies of Charlemagne and Emperor Ludovicus II (855-875) in 871. As these Franco-Latin centers of research, like Oxford and Cambridge, became aware of the sources of Roman history they simply resorted to ridiculing them as products of a “Greek” desire for making everything Greek. But there is a big difference between the sources themselves which are simply there because inherited from the past and the deliberate falsification of these sources in order to force them to repeat the historical dogmas-lies of Emperors Charlemagne and Ludovicus II.

More about the sickness of religion and the falsification of history

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 vilains 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.

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.

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) 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 pre-suppositions. 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 cure of the sickness of religion and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine

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 pecific 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. 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 lens 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.

The Final Official History of Rome

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. 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.”

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 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 and some Sabines, 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. 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, as we just saw. 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 gensbecame 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.”

Linguistic indications of the background of the Greek Latins, Romans and Sabines

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.”

The name “Rome” derives from two the Greek verbs: - ro-omai which means “to move with speed or violence, to dart, rush, rush on, esp. of warriors.”

The name**“Rome”also derives from of the Greek passive verb:

• ronnymi which means “to strengthen, make strong and mighty” and “to put forth strength, have strength or might. 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 namequiris (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-kouretes which means young men of fighting age and therefore warriors, “young men, esp. young warriors,” Iliad 19. 193, 248. So the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves first “warriors” and later “**citizens.”

It is from the original military structure of the Roman army of quiretes that the first government was fashioned into **thirty curiae of 1000 men each grouped into three tribes.

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. N**ow 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 genssometimes 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. 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 patricians…What 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?”

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”?

Equality derives from the cure of the short circuit between the heart and the brain

• 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, bothgentis and non-gentis, and to all non-Romans. The “Aristocracy” of Glorification is no respector of the aristocracy of birth.

• Examples of racism even in the theology of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism.

Having conquered the West Romans the Franco-Latins called themselves the “gentis” and their Roman slaves “serfs” and “vilains”. 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.”

“And the greatest achievement of German theology is the critical investigation of the life of Jesus. What it has accomplished here has laid down the conditions and determined the course of the religious thinking of the future..”

“In the history of doctrine its work has been negative; it so to speak, cleared the site for the new edifice of religious thought. In describing how the ideas of Jesus were taken possession of by the Greek spirit, it was tracing the growth of what must necessarily become strange to us, and, as a matter of fact, has become strange to us.”

All this has been done without the slightest knowledge of what glorification in the Lord (Yaweh) 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. 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.

Charlemagne’s strategy required that real Romans be Latin speaking

• Frankish defensive needs

It is a fact that the Carolingian Franks wanted and decided to believe that the Romans were only an Italo-Latin speaking race. They had inherited Latin as their official language which they continued from Gregory of Tours. 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 his Libri Carolini composed just before 794 Charlemagne continued the Frankish tradition of calling the Empire of New Rome the Imperium Romanum. But since 794 this same Charlemagne began calling the Eastern part of this Empire the “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 or mainly. 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 vilains that their Emperor and fellow Romans in the East were nothing but a bunch of “Greeks” and “heretics.” His purpose was to cut off the West Romans from the East Romans who were still trying to help their fellow-Romans in the West now enslaved to the Franco-Latins. The West Romans hoped for, and the Franco-Latins feared, a repetition of the liberation of West Romans from the Vandals and Goths by the East Roman armies of Emperor Justinian (527-565). But what about modern historians today? Why are they not better historians of Rome than their barbarian ancestors of the Dark Ages? Because some of them have the ability of trying to present such East Romans liberators as non-existing Byzantine conquerors of West Roman provinces. The reason for this is that they either belong to a group who have serious defensive reasons for distorting historical facts or else they are not real historians. In the first case history becomes part of either an offensive or defensive strategy. From such a point of view one may sympathize with the Franco-Latins and their problems. One may thus understand their need for hiding the real identity of the East Romans from enslaved West Romans as part of those measures being taken for controlling such an immense Roman population which even as late as 1789 totaled 85% of the population of France.

• Real Latins and Franco-Latins.

As we have seen the First Latins of official Roman history resulted from a union of Greek speaking Pelasgians, Aborigines and Trojans, having adopted their name from King Latinus. They were joined by the Greek speaking Sabines who began joining this group at the time of the founding of Rome.

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 won the right to become semi-citizens with the “Latin name,” but without the complete Roman franchise. The second group was simply defeated. This distinction between Roman and Latin citizens of Rome, which resulted from this revolt, was abolished by Emperor Caracala in 212 AD when he gave these Italian Latins the “Roman name.” Legally there were no Latins after this.

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 simply “King of the Franks” because the Emperor of the Romans was in New Rome ruling the Romans in Gaul by means of the Frankish Kings, especially after the West Roman Emperor disappeared in 476. 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, but their governor. Evidently it was this precedent was followed by Charlemagne who never called himself Emperor of the Romans, but Augustus who administers or governs the Roman Empire.

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. 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. 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.

We use the term Franco-Latin in order to clearly distinguish these Teutonic Latins from the real Latins of Roman History. These Germanic peoples 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 seems to be survival against the United States dollar and compete for control of the world’s wealth.

• More about the Frankish need to falsify history.

We already touched upon 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 vilains guarded from escape by 40,000 castles. 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.

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.”

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 vilains 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 vilains. However, they are still called “peasants” (paysan) which had been the collective name for the “serfs” and “vilains” 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 vilains 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.”

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. 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.

Because of their complete slavery to Augustine the Franks and their descendants never understood the Roman Fathers and still do not understand them

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, dianoia and 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.

Augustine (354-430) and Ambrose (340-397)

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.” 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. 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, would now be praying only for the “Papal Roman Empire” and no longer for the now supposedly heretical and pagan “Greek Empire.”

The Rise of the Lie of Byzantine History and Balkanization

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 the “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 that 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) “On 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 is 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 vilains 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 Itself. 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 Robespierian 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 (land of the Romans) 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 Hellenic 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. 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.

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 vilains. By about the 11th-12th century some Roman serfs and vilains 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.

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 vilains, 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 vilains 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 vilains. The position of historians 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 vilains in 1789 had descended from ancestors who had volunteered to become the serfs and vilains 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 vilains 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.”

Roman and Franco-Latin Popes of Rome

The key to the transition of the Orthodox Catholic Tradition from an illegal to legal religion and then to an established Church lies in the fact that the Roman Nation realized that it was not confronted simply by another form of religion, but by a well organized system of neurobiological clinics which cured the noetic energy in one’s heart and its happiness seeking sickness. It is this cure which produced normal citizens with selfless love dedicated to the radical cure of personal and social ills.

In sharp contrast the Carolingian Franco-Latin tradition incorporated Augustine’s Neo-Platonic search for happiness as the core of its civilization. The incorporation of the military into the episcopate of Carolingian Francia, 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.

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 Civilization which continues today under modified “Byzantine” guise. Following a weak Gothic lead Charlemagne was the first to generally impose the names “Greek” and “heretical” on the free parts of the Roman Empire.

Local and Ecumenical Councils

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 extraordinary 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 practiced in common.

Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches were first condemned by local Councils 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 Sabbelius. 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 reason for this is that the only thing which is at stake is the cure of a neurobiological sickness and not metaphysical concepts about God. The Fathers used the metaphysical terms of heretics in order to make clear the teaching of the prophetic tradition as opposed to them, not as part of an effort to understand intellectually or philosophically the uncreated. We repeat that for the Fathers who condemned heretics at Roman Ecumenical and local Councils, as opposed to Augustinian Franco-Latin Councils, there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated and therefore “it is not possible to express God and even more impossible to conceive God.”

The method underlying this part of the paper

The difference between the cure of the neurobiological sickness of religion and the resulting Neo-Hellenic civilization of the Roman Empire, and the return to this sickness of religion by Augustine of Hippo and [all his followers, is the underlying outline of this study. The difference is between the cure of a neurobiological sickness residing in a short-circuit between the heart and the brain and no cure. Since this sickness and its cure is an historical reality and not part of the histories of philosophy and religion, this study, in intention at least, is part of history and in this sense part of tradition. For this reason nominal “Orthodox” belong to the history of [religion.

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 both the Old and New Testament prophets beginning at least with Abraham. One with the current sickness of religion steming from the short-circuit between the heart and the brain and its cure. Then one reads its cure back into the past as the key to understanding the Old and New Testament prophets and the Fathers and into the future. This is parallel to repetition of the cure of sickness in medical science passed on from doctors to doctors. In this case Christ, the Lord (Yahweh) of Glory Himself is the doctor who personally cures and perfects his doctors in both the Old and New Testaments by the unceasing prayer in the hearts which repairs the short-circuit between the heart and the brain. 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 the remainder of this study into

• Historical Context,
• the sickness of religion,
• Synods as Associations of Neurological Clinics,
• Synods and Civilizations and 5) Conclusions.

Historical Context

Biblical Faith is one’s cooperation/operation with the Holy Spirit Who initiates the cure of the sickness of possessive love caused by the short-circuit 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 Civilization of the Roman Empire.

Noble Architects, whose historians report history within the context of their plans for the future, claim that the world is being Westernized by means of technology and economics. Orthodox Civilization is listed among those which are supposed to be in a state of arrested development.

Their claim that the Hellenic Civilization of the Roman Empire disappeared in the 8th century and was replaced in the East by a “Byzantine Civilization and Empire” and in the West by a “European Civilization” is a Franco-Latin, i.e. noble modification of Charlemagne’s theory of history. Charlemagne (768-814) fabricated this disappearance of the Roman Empire and its Civilization 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 Constantinople’s governor of Mauritania in Ceuta. Another Gallo-Roman Revolution was suppressed by Charlemagne’s father and uncle the year he was born in 742.

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. Led by their great father the Franks decided at their Council of Frankfurt (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 replaced “Greek” with “Byzantine,” and “heresy” with “change of Civilization.” 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.” They used this fabrication as the core for Balkanizing the “Roman Milet” 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 center 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 Civilization is described in a letter of St. Boniface to Pope Zacharias (Natione Graecus) in 741. The Franks had rid the Church in Francia of all Roman bishops by 661 AD 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.” 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 the cure of illumination and glorification which were the presuppositions of these Councils. Between the end of the 8th and the 12th centuries the Franks were familiar only with Augustine who was not 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 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 the 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’s II 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 and sentenced to prison to die premature deaths by torture and starvation. The new noblemen bishops from the Frankish Empire were in turn killed by the people whenever opportunity presented itself. Indeed the Saxons and Celts celebrated the death of Lanfranc in 1089 by launching a third and most severe revolt against the foreign intruders. These revolts continued until the 13th century.

Robin Hood - Orthodox Martyr?

The most famous of the Saxon revolutionary leaders against the Normans was Robin Hood. He had become ill and was taken by Little John to a nunnery where someone recognized him. The Norman nun who was curing him by bloodletting converted this cure into an assassination by letting him bleed to death. Little John and his men escaped to Ireland to continue their war against the Normans.

So many Saxons made their way to Constantinople New Rome after the Norman conquest to join the Roman Emperor’s Varangian army that they displaced the Scandinavians as the majority. One of the great generals of this Varangian army had been King Harald III Hadrada of Norway (1015-1066). This means that Norway was still Orthodox. He had become the head of the Varangian army under Emperor Zoe (1042-1056). General Harald led his Varangians “to frequent victory in Italy, Sicily and North Africa, also penetrating to Jerusalem. In Italy and Sicily he was fighting Franks and Normans at the time they were getting ready to rid themselves of the facade of Tusculan Roman Popes (1014-1056) in favor of real Franco-Latin Popes. It is very probable that his attention had been turned for some time to the beginnings of the penetration of the Carolingian heresy into Scandinavia which may explain his frequent attempts to subjugate Denmark. In 1064 he gave up this attempt and made peace with Denmark. His invasion of England in 1066 at Eburacum was evidently an attempt to defeat the Pro-Franco-Norman party which was trying to get the upper hand among the Saxons. Evidently it was not only at the instigation of the Pro-Roman Orthodox Saxon Earl of Tostig that he undertook the invasion of England since he also had Orthodox Scots, Irish and Ebor (Yorkshire in Norman) allies who supported his invasion of England.

There can be no doubt that the Orthodox Christians of England knew very well that their Roman Papacy had been struggling against a Frankish takeover in 983-984, in 996-999, in 999-1003 and finally in 1009-1046 when turncoat Tusculanum Romans were forced upon the Papacy by the German Emperors until it became finally Franco-Latin by 1046. It is within this context that the Norman invasion of England took place with the blessings of the Lombard Pope Alexander II (1061-1073). In any case the Saxon King Harold of West Essex met the Norwegian army at Eburacum (the Norman York) and in the ensuing battle the King of Norway was killed. However, while celebrating his victory Saxon King Harold learned that an Norman army had just landed. Without waiting for his observers to get a good look at this Norman foe, King Harold rushed with his army, fresh from his victory over the Norwegians, to meet the Normans only to be confronted with the new type of heavily armored horse and men. A phenomenon which they had yet not heard of nor could imagine.

William landed on the shores of Britain carrying the papal banner at the head of what was essentially the army of the first Crusade. Francophile Harold was quite stunned when he learned that the Lombard Pope Alexander II had given his papal blessing to William’s invasion. He took very little and very poor defensive action in the field at Hastings that day and he and his men were completely crushed.

Surely Norwegian Harald was never aware that he was fighting for a so-called “Greek” or “Byzantine” emperor. He had been living and working for the Roman Empire and its Roman Emperor Zoe knowing that she and her people were Romans. With the battle of Hastings it was the turn of the Saxon, Welsh, Irish and Scot Romans to become the slaves of the Franco-Latin noblemen who were now plundering their land. All these real “Roman Catholic” Christians of England had still been praying in their Churches for the Imperium Romanum whose Roman Emperor and capital were in Constantinople-New Rome which was also the headquarters of the Varangian Army in which their boys were serving.

The name “Greek” for the Eastern part of the Roman empire was inaugurated by Charlemagne in 794, as already noted. But the term “Byzantine” was established by Great Britain, France and Russia as part of their plans to break up and divide up the Ottoman Empire among them. The first plan was evidently drawn up during the meeting between Emperors Napoleon I and Alexander I floating on a raft in the river at Tilsit, Germany in 1806. The core of Napoleon’s plan was the liberation of the **ancient Hellenes, now called Romans, from both their Roman conquerors and from their Turkish conquerors with one cannon shot. In other words the Neo-Hellenes will end up being slaves from the time they were conquered by the Romans and liberated by the Turks. The very same plan would be multiplied to convert all Balkan peoples who called themselves Romans.

Part of this same plan was to convince Orthodox peasants that the ancient Romans did not speak Greek, like the Romans of Patriarchate of Constantinople, but Latin. Therefore the Church of New Rome cannot be Roman. So it is in reality a Greek Church and nation just like Great Father Charlemagne always said.

In this way the agents of Russia, Britain and France swarmed over the European part of the Ottoman Empire, called the “Land of the Romans” (the Balkans), telling all who for centuries have been calling themselves Romans and getting their education in Greek, that their ethnic enemies are those from the Phanar who also call themselves Romans, but are in reality a bunch of Greeks.

Roman Christians and Roman Greeks

Many or most of the people now occupying the area of ancient Greece were Roman citizens since before the time of Christ. With the arrival of Christianity Roman citizens began to be divided into Roman [Christians and Roman [Greeks. The term “Greek” here simply meant pagan. Charlemagne’s so-called “Greek Empire” continued to call itself the Roman Empire right down to 1453 when New Rome fell to the Ottoman Turks in spite of the so-called “Greek Empire” of the illiterate Franco-Latin barbarians. So the inhabitants of Greece, as well as most Orthodox Christians of the Balkans, still were calling themselves Romans.

What is especially interesting is the fact that the Ottoman Empire continued to call the whole [European part of itself Romania/Roumeli, i.e. the land of the Romans. Between 1821-36 the British, French and Russian Empires caused a small Southern tip of this Ottoman Romania to revolt and become the State of Hellas. The most basic condition for helping these Romans to revolt against the Turks was that they must also legally revolt against the Romans, i.e. against themselves and become only ancient Greeks still enslaved to Romans. In this way these Neo-Hellenes legally liberated themselves not only from the Turks but also from their Roman selves. The same was caused to happen to the rest of the Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire during the process of their Balkanization. British, French and Russian propaganda caused Charlemagne’s imaginary “Greek Empire” to replace the “Roman Empire” in each linguistic identity which was obliged to accept that it had been enslaved to a “Greek Empire.” This worked fine in the case of Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians, but not in the case of the “Neo-Hellenes.” How could one explain how “Hellenes” could be enslaved to “Greeks” when these names historically mean the same thing since they are Latin and Greek terms for the same Greek speaking people. So the problem was solved by inventing a “Byzantine Empire” and a “Byzantine people” which never existed and to which “Neo-Hellenes” had been enslaved “until liberated by the Turks.”

The West Romans in bondage to the Franco-Latins. What happened to apostolic succession?

• Killer Bishops

We have already seen the tradition of Killer bishops which had made its appearance with the rise of the Carolingian Franks as described in the letter of St. Boniface to Pope Zacharias written in 741 AD. Evidently this tradition seems to have remained dormant, as far as this writer knows, until it was awakened again in the aftermath of the results which the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals produced.

At about 850 AD the so-called Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared. These forged documents very quickly became popular, not only among the Romans, but also among the Franks. These Decretals gave the Roman Pope the power to intervene at any point of the Feudal pyramidal system to place Frankish society under the rule of law and order. They were used by the Franks even to sabotage each other. We have described the situation elsewhere. This Roman attempt to put Frankish society under the rule of law and order by giving the Roman Pope the power of accepting appeals from all levels of Frankish society and even to intervene by bringing cases before his court for Judgment backfired. It created a reaction from Frankish leaders which obliged them to take over the Papacy in order to save their feudal social structures. Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims (845-882) warned Pope Hadrian II (867-872) not to try “to make slaves of us Franks,” since the pope’s “predecessors laid no such yoke on our predecessors, and we could not bear it …so we must fight to the death for our freedom and birthright.”

“The Decretals were an attack on the very heart of the Frankish feudal system, since they uprooted its most important administrative officials, i.e., the bishops responsible for the “piety” of the Roman population, and put them under the direct control, of all things, of a [Roman head of State, the Pope of Rome. The Frankish counterattack was decisive and reached its climax between 1009 and 1046 with the complete takeover of the Papacy by the Franco-Latins. It is no accident that the rise of the power of the castellani coincided with the fall of the Roman Papacy. The castellani were the heads of fighting men who lived in castles with their families. Usually in the tradition of walled towns and cities the military families lived in homes within the city walls while the soldiers were quartered on the walls while on duty. In sharp contrast the castellani who appear in the 10th century lived in their castles with their families. The obvious reason for this was the fact that the castellani were now supervising an immense Roman population of slaves. So their families could not live among these Roman slaves. At the time of the French Revolution in 1789 there were 40,000 castles guarding 85% of the population of France organized into slave camps isolated from each other. After so many centuries of isolation each group’s language, called patois, developed differently so that they could no longer understand each other. There are 32 patois recorded. At this time 13% of France’s population were the bourgeois living within walled towns since about the 12th century. The nobility constituted only 2% of the population and lived mostly in castles. These Francois were almost all descendants of the****Frankish conquerors of the Gallo-Romans.

Francis I, King of France (1494-1547), caused Latin to be replaced by the French language in government administration. Rex Francorum became Roy des Francois and Francos/Francibecame Francois. The Legislative Assembly of 1789 dropped these titles together with Roy de France. All citizens whatever their origin became Francais and the King became Roi des Francais. All this happened over the vigorous protest of Louis XVI who became citizen king Mr. Capet. In modern French dictionaries Francois is now simply a name of a boy or girl. Also the name Francos/Franci in Frankish sources are translated interchangeably one time Francthen next time Francais. This is all part of an effort to change the real history of France. This is evidently part of a frantic effort to create the impression that all Frenchmen were always equal.

In any case these Franco-Latin reforms by military might became crusades in both East and West. They ultimately provoked the Protestant Reformation and met with little successamong theEast 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 milites Templi” 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”. Its final form was given by the Episcopal courts and the Inquisition wherein the bishops passed death sentences executed by their soldiers. The fear of the bishops ’ confessor priests and the machines of torture of the Episcopal castle indeed provoked piety among the serfs and vilains. But most reacted violently against the king’s clergy and nobility who did not have the sense to emigrate in time during the French revolution.

• What happened to Apostolic Succession?

In no way can apostolic succession mean that one receives this gift by participating in the murder of one’s Orthodox predecessors. The usual biblical way to receive apostolic succession is to arrive at the cure of illumination after having passed through purification and on the way to or having tasted the state of glorification. That the charisma of the presbyterate presupposed the state of prophecy, i.e. glorification, is stated clearly by St. Paul: " …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).”

One can see current examples of how Orthodox scholars deal with Anglican apostolic succession. Orthodox scholars are generally in the dark about Western Medieval history and even more so about this writer’s publications about said killer bishops since 1992. In a book first published 1982 with several reprints since because a university text book, the Orthodox scholar in question takes a positive position on the question of whether or not Archbishop of Canterbury Matthew Parker (1559-1575) has apostolic succession which the Vatican had been denying and which has been resulting in its rejection of Anglican Orders. The position of this professor in question has been quite correct had Anglican ordinations derived from the Synod of St. Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury (597-604), appointed by Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) and if the Anglicans accept ordination as one of the traditional seven sacraments. Then they would have apostolic succession. If not, then no!

But this otherwise very correct position would presuppose that the Norman bishops of 1070 and the Vatican itself would have had apostolic succession in spite of the fact that they sentenced all Saxon, Welsh, Irish and Scottish Orthodox bishops of England in 1070 to life in prison for schism and heresy where they died by torture and starvation. Hardly the usual way that one receives apostolic succession.

What is Western Civilization?

Is the Franco-Latin tradition of the enslavement of the West and East Romans part of what is now being called Western Civilization? If one is not a member of Franco-Latin royalty and nobility then one is descended from Roman ancestors. This means that the United States of Europe, as well as North and South America, Australia and New Zealand are parts of this overwhelming ancestral Roman reality.

Orthodox Civilization may indeed become arrested, not, however, because of Westernization, 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-Romanization, but not in its [apostolic form. Its embryo appeared in the 12th 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 all 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 Civilizations for their own survival.

It is exactly this identity which parts of the Reformation and the American and French Revolutions rejected.

The Cure of the Sickness of Religion in the Bible

The patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testaments, the apostles and prophets of the New Testaments and their successors know well this sickness of religion and the Doctor Who cures it, that is the Lord (Yahweh) of Glory. He is the Doctor of our souls and bodies. He cured this sickness in His friends and faithful before His incarnation and continues to cure it as the God-man.

The sickness in question consists of a short-circuit between the spirit of man in the heart (the patristic noetic faculty) and the brain. In its natural state this noetic faculty spins in a circle within the heart praying. In its sick state it does not spin in a circle, but still anchored in the heart it unfolds itself and it sticks itself to the brain causing a short-circuit between the brain and the heart. In this way the thoughts in the brain, which are all from the environment, become thoughts of the noetic faculty anchored always in the heart. It is in this way that the patient becomes a slave to his environment. One of the results of this is that he confuses certain thoughts from his environment with his god or gods.
By the term religion we mean each identification of the uncreated with the created and indeed each identification of representations of the uncreated with thoughts and words of human thought, which is the basis of idol worship. These thoughts and words may simply be thoughts and words or else also representations with statues and icons taken from a supposedly inspired text. In other words the identification of even Biblical thoughts and words about God with the uncreated also belongs to the world of idolatry and is the basis of all heresies to date. Biblical thoughts and words when properly used lead to glorification but are not themselves glorification.

In the curative tradition of the Old and New Testament proper thoughts and words are used as means during the period of purification and illumination of the heart and which are abolished during the time of one’s glorification when the indescribable, incomprehensible and uncreated glory of God which saturates all things is revealed to have as its natural source the body of Christ. Upon the termination of glorification the thoughts and words of noetic prayer in the heart return. He who has thus suffered glorification has now seen for himself that there is no similarity whatsoever between the uncreated and the created and that “It is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him.”

The foundation stone of the fallacies of the Vaticanists and the Protestants is the fact that they followed Augustine who construed the glory of God revealed in both the Old and New Testament to be indeed a creature, being indeed brought into existence and passed out of existence with each revelation. Not only this, and what is worse, he construed the Angel of Great Counsel and His glory, Who appeared to the prophets and to Moses in the burning bush, as creatures, which God brings into existence from non-being to be seen and heard and returned back into non-existence after their mission is accomplished. He expounds these imbecilities is his De Trinitate.

But in order to have correct guidance in the cure of one’s noetic faculty one must have as guide the experience of those who know by their own glorification (OT patriarchs and prophets and NT apostles and prophets and fathers) three basic axioms: 1) Between the uncreated God and his uncreated glory and His creation there is no similarity whatsoever. 2) “It is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive God” (St. Gregory the Theologian). 3) Everything in the Holy Trinity is either common to the Three Persons (the common essence and energies) or else belongs to only One Person alone, called the “incommunicable” characteristics. It is only by using these three axioms that one may avoid the plight of acquiring the devil as a guide by means of so-called theologians who speculate about God and things divine.

In its natural state the noetic faculty spins in the heart praying regulated by its communion with the glory of God so that the passions (hunger, thirst, sleep, bearing children, the instinct to self-preservation, fear of death) are blameless. These same passions, detached from a spinning noetic faculty in the heart and attached to the brain, cause the brain to create imaginary magical religions for controlling nature and destiny or to achieve the salvation of the soul from matter in a state of happiness or else of the happiness of the soul and the body.

We are obliged to have a clear picture of the context within which the Church and the State viewed the contribution of the glorified to the cure of the sickness of religion which warps the human personality by means of its search for happiness both in this life and after the death of the body. It is within this context that the Roman Empire legally incorporated the Orthodox Church into its administrative structure. Neither the State nor the Church saw the mission of the Church as the simple forgiveness of sins of the faithful for their entrance into heaven in the next life. This would be equivalent to a doctor’s forgiveness of his patients for being sick for their cure in the next life. Both the Church and the State knew well that the forgiveness of sins was only the beginning of the cure of the happiness seeking sickness of humanity. This cure begins by the purification of the heart, it arrives at the restoration of the heart to its natural state of illumination and the whole person begins to be perfected beyond one’s natural capacities by the glorification of body and soul by God’s uncreated glory (shekina). The result of this cure and perfection was not only the proper preparation for life after the death of one’s body, but also the transformation of society here and now from a collection of selfish and self-centered individuals to a society of persons with selfless love “which does not seek its own.”

Modification of the usual understanding of human nature

Those not engaged in the cure of the short-circuit between the brain and the heart are not aware that according to the OT the spirit of man has the ability to pray. So the Fathers of the Church took three Greek words related to intellectual functions, i.e. nous, logos and dianoia, and used nous to designate the faculty which prays in the heart when the short circuit is repaired, and kept logos and dianoia for activities of the brain or intellect. By identifying the Old and New Testament “spirit of man” with the Greek term “nous-intellect” the Fathers gave this human spirit praying in the heart, when restored to normal, a reality and importance equivalent and parallel to the brain in the development of the human personality.

It is only within this context that we may understand the worship and theological terminology of the Orthodox tradition. It is thus that one may appreciate the distinction between “logical worship” (logike latria Rom. 12:1) conducted by the “royal priesthood” (the illumined and the glorified) in which the private individuals (idiotes) participate with their “amen”, and worship by tongues with the human spirit (1 Cor. 14:1ff.) called noetic worship (noera latria) conducted in the heart wherein infants of illumination who see in a mirror dimly pass on to glorification wherein they see the “perfect face to face” and come back as men (1 Cor. 13:10-12), i.e. prophets. Paul writes that “now (in illumination) I know in part, then I will be known as I was known” (1 Cor. 13:12). By this phrase “as I was known” Paul is referring to his glorification(s) by which he realized that he was persecuting Yaweh Himself. To be glorified is to be known by the Lord (Yaweh) of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8) both before and in His incarnation.

It is to be noticed that during unceasing prayer in the heart the brain continues to function normally within one’s environment. The same happens also during one’s inward glorification by Christ. This can be of momentary, short, or long duration. Having been a child of illumination one returns from glorification a man (1 Cor. 13:11),i.e. a prophet or an apostle as in the case of Paul. During illumination one sees Christ in a mirror dimly, during glorification one sees “face to face (1 Cor. 13:12).” “Now” during illumination writes Paul “I know in part, then (when I will be glorified again) I will be known as I was known (1 Cor. 13:12).” In glorification one does not know, but is known by Christ the Lord (Yaweh) of Glory. To see or know the Lord of Glory in glorification is to see or know above one ’ s power of seeing or knowing. Therefore, one does not see or know, but is seen or known by the Lord of Glory. This is why the Fathers call the experience of glorification the becoming God by grace.

Within the above context the victims of Neo-Platonic mysticism of Augustine, i.e. the Carolingian Franks, their theological descendants and allies and certain so-called “Orthodox”, seek ecstasies of their intellect from the confines of matter and their bodies in order to have contact or union with immaterial reality or archetypes. Summarizing the Patristic tradition on such endeavors St. Gregory Palamas calls this an “invention of demons.”

It was this heresy of Barlaam the Calabrian which the Ninth Ecumenical Council (1341) condemned together with his so-called divine ideas. Unfortunately the Fathers of this Council never dreamed that this was the teaching and practice of Augustine which began capturing what became the Franco-Latin world in the latter part of the 8th century.

The Council Of Orange 529 rejected Augustine’s Interpretation of Rom. 5:12

The [Merovingian Franks abided by the Orthodoxy of their Roman Church which supported St. John Cassian against Augustine on grace and original sin. That the Council of Orange (529) was supposed to be a compromise between Cassian and Augustine is simply a figment of the Franco-Latin and Protestant imagination. Canon 2 of this Council completely [contradicts Augustine’s interpretation of Rom. 5:12. Augustine claims that all humans have sinned in Adam. The Council, however, interprets Rom. 5:12 as saying that, “By one man sin entered the world, and by sin death, and thus to all men [death ] passed, in which all have sinned.” In other words all sin because of the spiritual death which each one suffers by not being in communion with the glory of God. “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).” One can see the correct approach to the Council of Orange from Gregory of Tours who mentioned that the monasticism within Merovingian Gaul is that of St. Basil the Great and St. John Cassian. Not one word about Augustine either in his history or in his lives (miracles) of saints. Up to the 12th century the Carolingian Franks had a thorough knowledge of only the works of Augustine. In the 9th century they acquired the works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite which were translated by John Scotus Eriugena. This translator wrote books of his own which should be investigated by the Orthodox. In any case the Franks enslaved Dionysius to Augustine’s Neo-Platonic mysticism. In the 12th century the Franks acquired the “The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” of St. John of Damascus and enslaved it to Augustine. In the mean time the Franks had been collecting sentences of the Fathers quoted in various collections of canons and scholia on the Bible. Under the leadership of Peter Lombard the Franks began the peculiar tradition of writing “patristic” theology quoting these sentences out of context. They assumed that all these sentences from the Fathers came from the same contextual tradition as that of Augustine. These Franks and their theological descendants, both the Franco-Latins, who captured the papacy between 1012-1246 and hold it since, and the Protestants still do not know that Augustine never became aware of even the context of the theology of St. Ambrose of Milan who had baptized him.

St. Gregory Palamas (1296-14 ) summarizes the patristic tradition against mysticism as follows: “The practice of making the nous abandon, not the physical thoughts, but the body itself in order to come upon rational spectacles, is the strongest of the Greek delusions and the root and source of every erroneous opinion, the invention of demons and the punishment which gives birth to despair and is the offspring of madness.”

An inseparable part of the cure in question is that the glorified have become specialists on the thoughts of Satan since “we are not ignorant of this thoughts.” The invincible weapon against the devil is the repair of the short-circuit between the noetic faculty in the heart and the brain. This cure consists of confining all thoughts, good and bad, to the brain which is brought about only when the noetic faculty in the heart returns to its natural circular motion by means of unceasing prayer. Naive are those who think it is possible to keep only good thoughts in the brain by getting rid of bad thoughts. Not only is this impossible but one is obliged to know exactly how the devil manipulates human thoughts from the environment in order to defeat him at his own game.

Success in this contest against the devil is guaranteed by means of the circular motion of the noetic faculty in the heart. St. Gregory Palamas summarizes the patristic tradition as follows: “For indeed it did not escape their attention that the act of vision sees other things visible, but it does not see itself. So it is with the noetic faculty. It acts on the one hand upon other things, surveying what it needs, which the Great Dionysius calls motion in a straight line. When it returns to itself and acts upon itself the noetic faculty sees itself. This again the same one (Dionysius) calls circular motion. This again is the best and special motion of the noetic faculty by which it transcends itself and finds itself with God. “For the noetic faculty,” he says, “not scattered outside of itself”, -you see that it is outside? since outside, it needs to return, so therefore he continues saying -“it returns to itself, therefore by means of itself it finds itself with God” i.e. it ascends by means of the way without error. For also it is impossible for such a motion of the noetic faculty to fall into error.” During this state of either illumination or glorification the brain is functioning normally in communion with the environment and adding no kind of metaphysics or ontology to this experience of “seeing (Christ) in a mirror dimly” or “or face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). The only ecstasy involved in one’s first glorification is a loss of orientation until one gets used to seeing everything saturated by Christ’s uncreated glory of the Father which has no similarity whatsoever to anything created.

The uncreated glory of God is everywhere present saturating creation and therefore in each person and his heart. This uncreated glory’s ruling, creative, providential and even purifying energy is already at work in each individual and in one’s heart. However, not all respond in the same way to the uncreated purifying energy of God because of the short-circuit in the heart and one’s environment. That one searches like Augustine for God outside of oneself in some kind of mystical experience by sending a supposedly immaterial soul into a world of immaterial archetypes is of course nonsense and according to the Fathers [demonic.

Dionysius the Areopagite was never understood by Orthodox Fathers as a mystic. He did not write a book on Mystical Theology, but on Secret Theology, so called because there is no similarity between the created and the uncreated and therefore it is “impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive God.” In other words Dionysius has nothing to do with Neo-Platonism and nothing to do with the Franco-Latins and pseudo-Orthodox who imagine that they are his disciples.

The reason why there is no speculative theology in the Orthodox Church is the fact that the sickness of religion is neurobiological and its cure is a tested fact. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

Synods as Associations of Neurological Clinics

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-centered individuals to that of individuals with selfless love which does not seek its own.

• Heaven and Hell

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 judgment. 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 enough 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.

• Paul’s window on the Church

1 Cor. 12-15:11 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.

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).

• Neurobiological Clinic

This Pauline Church is like a neurobiological 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 Church 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 all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12) by becoming enslaved to the instinct to self-preservation which deforms love by its bondage to the self-centered 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. 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 energizes 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 repeated 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. 4:26). 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 selfishness. 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 tongues other 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? …This 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 quite 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 neutralizes 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. 13:1013; 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. In 1 Cor. 15: 1-11 are the glorifications which complete Paul’s treatment of spiritual gifts began 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 neutralized 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 and cells 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.

Not of the world but in the world

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.

Theology and dogma

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 the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils as well as that of the Eighth (879) and especially of the Ninth (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 philosophize 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 any metaphysical 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 Mysteries

The most important result of the 18th and 19th 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).”

Prophets and Intellectuals

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.

Prophets and Franco-Latin Popes

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 our 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 Franco-Latin Pope.

Prophets and Fathers

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 (speculation versus experience). 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. 2:15). 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 (Yaweh) 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 center 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.

The Lord of glory and the Ecumenical Councils

By Scriptures both Christ and the apostles meant the Old Testament to which the New Testament was added. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, 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 Old Testament prophets became manifest at His baptism and transfiguration wherein He showed the glory and rule (basilia) 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.”

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 first death of the inner person (1 Tim. 5:6; Rev. 20:14) and 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, 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 (basilia) 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 (basilia) 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 Councils play no role in the Vaticanist and Protestant histories of doctrine is the fact that Augustine deviated sharply from Ambrose and the Fathers in his understanding of the appearances of the Logos to the Old Testament prophets. His misunderstandings became the core of the Franco-Latin tradition. The Protestant and Vaticanist 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 baptized 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 is 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 at Pentecost, the glory/light/rule (basilia) of God revealed at the transfiguration, the cloud/glory on which Christ went to heaven, the voice of the Father by which He announced His pleasure in His Son, the fire of hell, etc. These verbal symbols by which the Old and New Testament writers expressed experiences of illumination and glorification were thus reduced to temporary objects and unbelievable miracles. This became the Franco-Latin tradition to which both Vaticanists 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 of the New Testament and which never once appears in the original Greek. The Greek term basileia of God designates the [uncreated rule of God and not the [created Kingdom ruled by God.

" …do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thes. 5:19)

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 coheirs of Christ, that since we co-suffer that we may also be coglorified” (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 Chrysostomos says, “Let us not think that we have become members of the Body once and for all”.

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.

The charisma of translation

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 lay persons (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 bought to the West by St. John Cassian). 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. The Carolingian Franks continued this confusion but also confounded illumination and glorification with Augustine’s Neo-Platonic mysticism.

Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity held by Vaticanians and Protestants is not that of the Bible and the Ecumenical Councils

This means that those who are indeed baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity are those who believe and confess that the Second Person thereof is the Yaweh (Lord) of Glory Himself, Who appeared to Abraham, to Moses, Elijah and to all the prophets of the Old Testament and Who was born as man from the Virgin Mary, Who was baptized by John the Baptist, Whose disciples where the Twelve, Who was betrayed by one of them and replaced by another, Who was crucified, buried and resurrected and Who made the Church of both the Old and the New Testament His Body on the Day of Pentecost.

Those Who do not believe that Christ is this Old and New Testament Lord (Yaweh) of Glory Incarnate have not been baptized in the Holy Trinity of the Fathers of the Old and New Testaments. The addition of the Frankish Filioque to the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council is only part of this same problem.

Synods and Civilizations

1. The origins of Synods

• The origin of the Synodical system are
• the group of prophets within each congregation
• 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 19th 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. **b) Hellenic Civilization of the Romans

The power of illumination and glorification not only withstood persecutions, but captured the Roman Empire and became the heart of its Hellenic Civilization. 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 Civilization 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 Civilization was replaced by a “Byzantine” Empire and Civilization 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.

Franco-Latin Civilization

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.

Western Civilization

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 Civilization.

Conclusions

Franco-Latin and Western Civilizations and Islam have been consistently dominated by the quest for happiness. It is this very sickness which has been at the center 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 honor 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 specter of either atomic or ecological destruction. Ascetical 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. Otherwise, this planet Earth will end up like planet Mars in a state of Actus Purus happiness like that of the god of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and their like.

This also happens to be the key to the unity in glorification Christ prays for in John 17 that the world may believe. END

Selection of studies on some of the topics herein dealt with.

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.

“The Way of a Pilgrim,” translated from Russian by R. M. French APCK London 1942. Translated into Greek by the Metropolitan of Corinth, Panteleimon Karanikolas. The Philokalia in popular practice. So far at least in 15 editions.

John S. Romanides: · “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.
• “Debate over Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Christology”, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. VII, 2 (1959-60), pp. 140-185. · “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,” Athens 1976.
• “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.
• “Church, Synods and Civilization”, printed in Theologia, Athens, vol. LXIII issue 3, July-September 1992.
• “Leo of Rome’s support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria’s support of Eutyches and the lifting of the anathemas”, printed in Theologia, Athens, 1994, vol. LXV, issue 3, pp. 479-493.

Saint Augustine, Les Dossiers H-L’ Age d’Homme, editor Patric Ranson, 1988. Of interest on points herein touched upon see Studies by Patric Ranson, Emile Zum Brunn, John S. Romanides, Laurant Motte, Anne Pannier and Alain de Libera