INTRODUCTION TO ROMANITY, ROMANIA,
ROUMELI
Part One
Charlemagne's Lie of 794 and the Primitive Greek
Romans
© John S.
Romanides
I.) The Primitive Greek Romans
1.
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.[1]"
2. 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 2. Greek Romans
were the result of the union of the Greek speaking tribes of Italy. These Greek
tribes are the following: The Aborigines[2] who came to the area
of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the Trojan War.[3]
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.[4] 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 settled on the adjacent Quirinal Hill. The Sabines had migrated to Italy
from Lacedaemonia in Southern
Greece.[5] The Romans continued the
process of subduing and including the rest of the Greek Latins and Sabines into
their political system.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
II.) The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in
Latin. Why?
6. The first four Roman
annalists who wrote in Greek were Quintus
Fabius Pictor, Lucius Cincius
Alimentus, Gaius Acilius and Aulus Postumius Albinus.
7.
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 secret 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.
III.) The First Romans who wrote in Latin.
8.
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 Epirus.
9.
The first Roman historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius Cato (234-140 BC) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (circa 146 BC).
10.
So what language were the Romans speaking and writing before this except Greek?
11.
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)[6] 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 survived, or else may be hidden to
facilitate Charlemagne's Lie.
12.
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% of 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 making natural religion
supreme over supernatural religion. In spite of Cato's role in the French
Revolution only fragments of his work 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, [7] which were evidently made of a hard material, and then to heap ridicule
on the mixture they themselves create.
13.
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 Apart from the description which
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.
IV) Linguistic indications
of the background of the Greek Latins, Romans and Sabines.
14. 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.
15. The claim that the name Rome
e.g. is simply a place name, which may derive even from the Etruscans, is sheer
nonsense.
16. The name "Rome" in Greek means "power," "force," "fighting
army" and "speed tactics.[8]"
17. The name "Rome" derives from two the
Greek verbs: 1) roomai which
means "to move with speed or
violence, to dart, rush, rush on, esp. of warriors.[9]"
18. The name "Rome" also derives from of the Greek passive
verb: 2) ronnymi which
means "to strengthen, make strong
and mighty" and "to put
forth strength, have strength or
might.[10]
19. The closest Latin equivalent
verb is ruo, which is connected to the Greek verb reo meaning "to flow, run, to hasten."
20. Of all the uses of Latin
verbs both active and passive there is none that even comes close to meaning "rome."
21. Romans, Latins and Sabines
were agreed that the name quiris (sing.)
quiretes (pl.) would be their common
name which dictionaries translate as citizen.
But the Romans had a name for citizens, like the Greek, 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.[11] So the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves first "warriors" and later "citizens."
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. These are some of the
contexts within which the Romans thought and spoke about themselves. No
historian has the right to change this. Now whether this version of Roman
history is correct or not is entirely another matter. But it remains a fact,
however, that the Romans themselves, the Latins themselves and the Sabines
themselves believed and wanted to believe that they are Greeks. Not only this,
the united Roman nation of Romans, Latins and Sabines, spoke their own common
Greek Language.
27. 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.
28. Each Roman gens
sometimes was composed of several thousand Romans each one headed by a
Patrician member of the senate. The members of gentis memorized their laws from childhood and kept their laws a
secret among themselves.[12] 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.
29. 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 gentes 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?"[13]
30. 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
between rich and poor"?
Part Two
I. The cure of the sickness of religion and the Nine
Roman Ecumenical Councils and the General Church Councils since 1453.
1. Religion is a
neurobiological sickness with a specific cure which has been handed down by the
prophets and apostles of the Old and New Testaments and preserved by the
Fathers of Church whose tradition of cure was defended by the Nine Roman
Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were convened by the Roman Emperor,
beginning with Constantine the Great, in coordination with the Roman
Patriarchates of Elder Rome, New Rome added by 451, Alexandria, Antioch and
finally Jerusalem also by 451. These Councils are (1) Nicea 325, (2)
Constantinople 381, (3) Ephesus 431, (4) Chalcedon 451, (5) Constantinople 553,
(6) Constantinople 680, (7) Nicea 786/7, (8) Constantinople 879 and (9)
Constantinople 1341. We have here Eight Ecumenical Councils which were
promulgated as Roman Law by the signature of the Emperor after their minutes
had been signed by the Five Roman Patriarchates and their Metropolitans. and
bishops. Then we have the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341, whose minutes were
signed by only Four Roman Patriarchates
and countersigned by the Roman Emperor. Gone
was now the Patriarchate of Elder Rome which had been forcefully captured by
the Franks, Lombards, Germans and with
the help of the Normans. This struggle began in intensity in 983 and was
consummated in 1009-1046. After 1045 the Popes of Rome, except for Benedict X
(1058-9), were no longer Romans, but members of the Franco-Latin nobility who
enslaved the Roman population. At the
time of the Revolution of 1789 the Gallo-Roman slave population of France was
85 % of the total.
2. The leadership of the Roman
Empire had come to realize that religion is a sickness whose cure was the heart
and core of the Christian tradition they had been persecuting. These astute
Roman leaders changed their policy having realized that this cure should be
accepted by as many Roman citizens as possible. Led by Constantine the Great,
Roman leaders adopted this cure in exactly the same way that today's
governments adopt modern medicine in order to protect their citizens from quack
doctors. But in this case what was probably as important as the cure was the
possibility of enriching society with citizens who were replacing the morbid
quest for happiness with the selfless love of glorification (theosis) dedicated
to the common good.
3. The current idea among many
Orthodox that an Ecumenical Council becomes finally official when it is
recognized by a subsequent Ecumenical Council has no basis in Roman Law. Each
such Council became Roman law the moment when its minutes were signed on the
spot by the participating Patriarchal and Metropolitan Synods and countersigned
by the Emperor himself. Heretics and their heresies were condemned on the spot
and not at a subsequent Ecumenical Council. Their Creeds and Horoi became Roman
law on the spot. The Creed of 381 became the Orthodox Creed on the spot in
381and not in 431 which simply repeated the Creed of 381 as did each subsequent
Ecumenical Council.
4. The Emperor convened these
Ecumenical Councils in conjunction with the Five Roman Patriarchates of a)
Elder Rome, b) Constantinople New Rome, c) Alexandria, d) Antioch to which e)
Jerusalem was added in 451. But between 1009 and 1046 the Franco-Germans created
a serious crisis in this Roman tradition when they captured and took over the
Patriarchate of Elder Rome during a struggle which began in 983 and was
consummated in 1009. The Patriarchate of Constantinople New Rome was obliged to
take the place of Elder Rome in the order of "Seniority of Honor"
which she held legally anyway since 451 "equally with and after
Rome," having become New Rome in 330.
5. There are no primacies nor
primates according to Roman Orthodox Canon Law, but only bishops with
"Seniority of Honor" since all bishops are doctrinally equal. The
Franco-Latin and Protestant translations of "Seniority of honor" by "primacy
of honor" is theirs, not ours.
II. Charlemagne condemned the Roman Empire as
heretical and Greek in 794 and 809. His so-called Greek Empire was made over
into a Byzantine Empire by the British, French and Russian Empires as part of
their plans for Balkanization of the European part of the Ottoman Empire still
being called 'The Land of the Romans' i.e. Roumeli.
6. Charlemagne condemned the
Romans as heretics on the question of Icons and as "Greeks" (the
latter meaning pagan at the time) at his Council of Frankfurt in 794, indeed in
the presence of the legates of Pope Hadrian the staunch supporter of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council on Icons. Charlemagne repeated his condemnation of
the Romans, now being called "Greeks," and still meaning pagan since
794, at his Council of Aachen in 809. Believe or not, this illiterate barbarian
had the gall to condemn the Romans as heretics for refusing to accept his
Filioque which he had added to the Roman Creed which had been composed at the
Roman Second Ecumenical Council by some of the greatest Fathers of the Church
in 381. At the time Charlemagne's so-called specialists knew not one Father
whose writings influenced the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. They knew
only the writings of Augustine who should have known at least one Father of
either the First or Second Ecumenical Councils. However; the Filioque of
Augustine, like that of Ambrose, is in any case Orthodox. But it cannot be used
in the specific creed of 381 because there the term 'procession' means the
hypostatic individuality of the Holy Spirit, whereas in the West Roman Orthodox
Filioque 'procession' of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son means
'communion' of the uncreated common essence. In the Creed of 381 the term
'procession' means only 'hypostatic individuality.'
III. Roman Orthodoxy after 1453
7. After the Roman Emperor and
Empire fell in 1453 the Four Roman Patriarchates of Constantinople New Rome,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem continued to convene Church Councils which
continued the tradition of the Ecumenical Councils. The only reason why these
Councils are not called "Ecumenical" is simply that this title means
"Imperial" since the decisions of these Ecumenical Councils became
part of Roman Law. In other words the decisions of the Roman Councils after
1453 are part of Church Law, but no longer part of Imperial law. There was no
longer a Roman Empire and Roman Emperor to enact Roman law. So these Nine
Ecumenical Councils are at the same time both Church Law and Roman Law. The
Councils convened after 1453 are part of Church Law and with no less authority
than Ecumenical Councils, except in the imagination of modern Orthodox misled
by the Russian Orthodoxy of Peter the Great.
8. So there are now Orthodox
who even called themselves the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Most
Orthodox are in a state of limbo about the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical
Councils. The Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879 simply condemned those who
either "add to" or "subtract from" the Creed of 381 and
also those who have not yet accepted the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
about Icons. The Franks condemned were not mentioned at the time in order to
allow them to reconsider.
9. The Ninth Ecumenical Council
of 1341 condemned the Platonic mysticism of Barlaam the Calabrian who had come
from the West as a convert to Orthodoxy. Of course the rejection of Platonic
type of mysticism was traditional practice for the Fathers. But what the
Fathers of this Council were completely shocked at was Barlaam's claim that God
reveals His will by bringing into existence creatures to be seen and heard and
which He passes back into non existence after His revelation has been received.
One of these supposed creatures was the Angel of The Lord Himself Who appeared
to Moses in the burning bush. For the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils this
Angel is the uncreated Logos Himself. This unbelievable nonsense of Barlaam
turned out to be that of Augustine himself. (see e.g. his De Tinitate, Books A
and B) and of the whole Franco-Latin tradition till today.
10. The legal acts of Ecumenical
Councils were taken within the context that religion is a sickness with a
specific cure. The political aspect of the decisions of Church Councils can be
compared to what modern states are doing with medical science and related
fields. Within such a context heretics are to be compared with quack doctors
who promise cure but do not produce. From this perspective heretics are simply
quack doctors. The reason that Catholics and Protestants do not understand this
Roman tradition is that they are quack doctors themselves like most Orthodox
today. For these three groups heresies are supposedly teachings which are not
biblical simply because they do not agree with their prevailing Augustinian
understanding of Scripture and Tradition. Unfortunately this is true about
many, if not most, Orthodox so-called Biblical scholars today.
IV. Patristic and Biblical Theology
10. In sharp contrast to this
Augustinian tradition is that of the Old and the New Testament as understood by
the Fathers of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. The "spirit" of man in
the Old and New Testaments is that which is sick and which in the patristic
tradition became also known as "the noetic energy" or
"faculty." By this adjustment in terminology this tradition of cure
became more intelligible to the Hellenic mind. Now a further adjustment may be
made by calling this sick human "spirit" or "noetic
faculty" a "neurobiological faculty or energy" grounded in the
heart, but which has been short circuited by its attachment to the nervous
system centered in the brain thus
creating fantasies about things which either do not exist or else do exist but not as one imagines. This very cure of
fantasies the very core of the Orthodox ascetic tradition These fantasies arise
from a short circuit between the nervous system centered in the brain and the
blood system centered in the heart. The cure of this short circuit is noetic
prayer (noera proseuche) which functions in tandem with rational or
intellectual prayer of the brain which frees one from fantasies which the devil
uses to enslave his victims.
Note:
We are still searching the Fathers for the term 'Jesus prayer.' We would very
much appreciate it if someone could come up with a patristic quote in Greek.
11. In sharp contrast to this
tradition is that of Augustinian Platonism which searches for mystical
experiences of supposed transcendental realities by liberating the mind from
the confines of the body and material realities for imaginary flights into a
so-called metaphysical dimension of so-called divine ideas.
12. After the Fall of New Rome
to the Ottoman Turks this tradition of the cure of the sickness of religion was
continued by the Roman Patriarchates of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem. Missing now from the original Five Roman Patriarchates
was that of the Patriarchate of Elder Rome which had become a Teutonic and
unrecognizable institution. The last ethnically Roman Pope was Benedict X
(1058-9) who had given the pallium to the last Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury
Stigand (1052-1070). But he and all his fellow native bishops of England were
condemned by the foreign bishops of William the Conqueror to prison as
schismatics and heretics where they all died. In any case it would seem highly
unlikely that one receives apostolic succession by murdering Orthodox
predecessors.
13. Orthodox Fathers of the
Church are all those who practice the specific Old and New Testament cure of
this sickness of religion. Those who do not practice this cure, but on the contrary have introduced
such practices as pagan mysticism, are not Fathers within this tradition.
Orthodox Theology is not "mystical," but "secret"
(mystike). The reason for this name "Secrete" is that the glory of
God in the experience of glorification (theosis) has no similarity whatsoever
with anything created. On the contrary the Augustinians imagine that they are
supposedly being united with the uncreated original ideas of God of which
creatures are supposedly copies.
14. In this regard Augustine's
teaching on original sin, i.e. his understanding of Rom. 12;5, and therefore
related questions like mysticism, were first condemned by the Council of Orange
in 529 and also by the Ninth Roman Ecumenical Council of 1341 in the person of
Barlaam the Calabrian. The Fathers of this latter Council were not aware that
the heresies of Barlaam they were condemning stemmed from Augustine. Also in
1957 the faculty of the University
of Athens approved the doctoral
thesis on "Ancestral Sin" of John S. Romanides which had proven that
the very presuppositions of Augustine's theology based on analogia entis and
analogia fidei has nothing in common with the Fathers of the Roman Ecumenical
Councils. Augustine had not been in the Calendar of the Church of Greece. He
was added during the period of the dictatorship of the colonels who
uncanonicaly appointed Father Jerome Kotsonis as Archbishop of Athens
(1968-1974) who was known for his non patristic orientation. It was he who
added Augustine to the Church Calendar of the Church of Greece.
15. Up until the 14th
century only the last three chapters of Augustine's De Trinitate had been
translated into Greek. These chapters are completely orthodox. He tells us
himself that he wanted to rewrite his De Trinitate which the Archbishop of
Carthage Aurlean wanted to examine. But finally corrected what he could. Having
in mind these three Orthodox chapters of Augustine the Roman Emperor and his
bishops at the Council of Ferrara and Florence (1438-1442) became completely
confused by the theological method being used there by the Frankish theologians
and concluded that the Franks had tampered with the works of Augustine.
16. Gennadius Scholarius, the
first Patriarch of Constantinople New Rome after the Turkish takeover in 1453,
had been at the Council of Ferrara/Florence (1438-1442) as a layman. He had
brought back to Constantinople manuscripts of Augustine and concluded the
following about his positions on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which are
clearly not due to tampering. He takes Augustine to task as follows: "To
say that the Hypostasis of the Spirit comes or proceeds from the Son, that is
to say that It holds its existence from him, not only as cause of the love for
us, or of love in itself, but also as the love of the Father and the Son for
each other, emerging from one to go to the other, the Father being the first
giver and receiving in turn the Son, all this is insupportable grossness. Where
does one find clearly exposed, in the sacred books, that the Holy Spirit is the
reciprocal love of the Father and the Son, Who love each other, and Who derives
his existence from the Two. In which sacred treasure has this sacred dogma been
hidden? And how did it escape the notice of the other Fathers who, nevertheless
have examined all with great care?"
17. Indeed some centuries
earlier the Lombard Archbishop of Canterbury Anselm (1093-1109) was not happy
with Augustine's use of procession in his De Trinitate XV, 47, i.e. that the
Holy Spirit proceeds principaliter
from the Father or from the Father per
Filium. (See Anselm's own De fide
Trinitate chapters 15, 16 and 24.) This West Roman Orthodox Filioque, which
upset Anselm so much, could not be added to the creed of 381 where
"procession" there means
hypostatic individuality and not the communion of divine essence as in
Augustine's Filioque just quoted. Augustine is indeed Orthodox by intention by
his willingness to be corrected. The real problem is that he does not
theologize from the vantage point of personal theosis or glorification, but as one who speculates philosophically
on the Bible with no real basis in
the Patristic tradition. Furthermore, his whole theological method is based on
happiness as the destiny of man instead of biblical glorification. His
resulting method of analogia entis and analogia fidei is not accepted by any
Orthodox Father of the Church. In any case no Orthodox can accept positions of
Augustine on which the Father's of Ecumenical Councils are in agreement
"against" him. This website is not concerned with whether Augustine
is a saint or a Father of the Church. There is no doubt that he was Orthodox by
intention and asked for correction. However, he can not be used in such a way
that his opinions may be put on an equal footing with the Fathers of Ecumenical
Councils.
V. The Byzantine Empire Lie.
18. Between 330 and 1453
Constantinople New Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire. She was not the capital of any Byzantine Empire
which never existed. Those who say and write such nonsense are either
intentional liars with a hidden agenda or else brainwashed by the creators of
this Byzantine Empire which never existed. Those who hide the Roman reality of
this Empire are either agents of the Frankish propaganda of Charlemagne who
decided in 794 that the Roman Empire is a "Greek" Empire in order to
hide it from West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins. Then this so-called
"Greek" Empire had to become a "Byzantine" Empire in order
not to confuse the Modern Greek State with the Greek Empire invented by
Charlemagne in 794.
VI. So-called Neo-Chalcedonianism.
19. Theologians of the Vatican
have been supporting their position that Leo of Rome and his Tome became the
basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of 451 which, according
to them, supposedly corrected the monophysitic and theopassian tendencies of
the Cyril of Alexandria. But the reality of the matter was that some 50 bishops
refused to sign Leo's Tome claiming that it did not agree with the Synodical
Letters of Cyril against Nestorius which were the basis of the decision of the
Third Ecumenical Council in 381. They were given five day to examine the Tome
of Leo with the said letters of Cyril. They all agreed that Leo indeed agrees
with Cyrill. Their statements to this effect are individually recorded in the
minutes. So Cyril and not Leo was the key to the Council of Chalcedon.
Evidently the Vatican has been keeping this fact quiet since it makes a mockery
of so-called Papal infallibility. Contrary to these minutes of Chalcedon are
the scholars who claim that the Council of Chalcedon modified the Monophysitic
tendencies of Cyrill and supposedly de-emphasized the theopassianism of his
Twelve Chapters. But Cyril's Two Synodical Letters to Nestorius and his 383
letter to John of Antioch are included the Horos of Chalcedon "to which
have been adapted the Tome of Leo..."
In spite of these facts scholars of the Vatican propose that Leo, and not Cyril,
is "the" Great Father of the Council of Chalcedon. As
these scholars see things strict Cyrilians refused to accept the Council of
Chalcedon because of Leo's victory. So in order bring these Cyrilians back to
the Imperial Church Emperor Justinian convened the Fifth Ecumenical Council in
order to supposedly "reinterpret" Chalcedon within strict Cyrilian
categories. This imperial Justinian reinterpretation is called
Neo-Chalcedonianism. That no such thing ever happened is supported by studies
on this website. What is especially strange is that the Latin positions on
Neo-Chalcedonianism are text book taught at the theological faculty of the
University of Athens as historical reality. Sometimes part of this myth is the
idea that Cyril became fully Orthodox when he accepted John of Antioch
confession of Christ's two natures. It was not Cyrill of Alexandria who
adjusted his terminology to John, but John to Cyril.
VII. The Czarist Imperial Russian betrayal of Romanity
20.
This website is not at all pleased by the Czarist Imperial Russian betrayal of
the Romanity represented on this website and have no qualms about underlining
this betrayal. These Imperial Russians fully cooperated with the French and the
British Empires in their attempt to efface Romanity from historical
reality. All this was being done in
spite of the fact that this Roman reality fully survived even legally within
the Ottoman Empire. The whole European Part of the Ottoman Empire was called
"Rumeli" in Turkish, which means "Land of the Romans" and
"Romania." Peter the Great's policy of Westernization his own Russian
Church was forced on the modern Greek State which was divided up by Russia,
France and Great Britain into spheres of influence. Then the Church of Greece
was bought into existence and recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate 1850.
This resulted in the transformation of this Church into centers of the sickness
of religion rather than its cure. This produced a revolt which guided the
Church of Greece back to her traditional role of curing the sickness of
religion.
21. Czar Alexander I's fully
cooperated with Napoleon's plan to transform us Romans into leftovers of
ancient Greece without a Roman history to 1453, nor during the Turkish
occupation which began to collapse in 1821. This liberation was completed at
the end of the Second World War. After the fall of Napoleon, Great Britain
joined the club. We repeat that the name of the European part of the Ottoman
Empire was called "the land of the Romans."
The
British, French and Russian Empires had become accustomed to rewriting
historical reality by weaving international treaties into past historical
realities and shoving the results down the throats of their victims. Then these
victims end up spending much energy and hatred at getting revenge. It would
seem that that a bit more respect for such victims would help make the world a
better place to live in and more peacefully.
END