(BEING CONTINUED FROM 8/05/12)
7. 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.1The 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.”2But 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.
8. 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.
9. 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”3in 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.4
10. 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.5According 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 337.6True 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?
11. 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:’ 1) The ‘Greeks’….and 2) 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.7
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.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
by ©John S. Romanides
1 According to Father Florovsky, Father Alexander Schmeman’s book “The Historical Road of Orthodoxy,” is an example of history written of the view point of Panslavism, which father Florovsky attacked along with its daughter Slavophilism.
2 4-316b; 10-781a, 846c; 19-638c, 653d.
3 Perhaps the term Teutonic Latins would be an equivalent term. In this case the Anglo-Saxons were not Latins, but Romans when they were still praying for the Imperium Romanum and fighting in the Roman army of Constantinople-New Rome. Nor did the Anglo-Saxons who continued to fight the Norman invaders identify themselves with the Franco-Latin Papacy. This is why most of them today are neither Anglicans nor members of the Franco-Latin Papacy.
4 John S. Romanides, “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,” Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, pp.14-18.
5 John S. Romanides, “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,”
6 Vol. IV, Part I p. 776.
7 “Romanity, Romania, Roumeli,” p. 28. One may find this position supported by Adamatius Koraes, the Father of Neo-Hellenism. See his “Salpisma Polemisterion.”