(BEING CONTINUED FROM 25/05/14)
17. Equality derives from the cure of the short circuit between the heart and the brain.
(a) From Roman racism to Orthodox equality.
All humans suffer from this short-circuit “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23) The difference among humans is not equality or inequality of race, but whether one is being cured or not. Within this context we have a complete reversal of the above foundation of the Hellenic paganism of the Roman Empire. The great struggle between paganism and Christianity in the time of Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) is reflected in the difference between Roman Greeks (meaning Pagans) and Roman Christians. All Pagan Romans were defending their aristocratic ancient Hellenic identity and traditions which was being torn apart by the aristocratic identity of the cure of glorification which was open to all Romans, both gentis and non-gentis, and to all non-Romans.[ 66 ] The “Aristocracy” of Glorification is no respector of the aristocracy of birth.
Having conquered the West Romans the Franco-Latins called themselves the “gentis” and their Roman slaves “serfs” and “villains”. Pan-German ideology was clearly expressed to an extreme degree by the followers of Hitler who were out to enslave at least the Slavs. But a theological expression of this Germanic racism is found in Albert Schweitzer’s book, “The Quest Of The Historical Jesus.” For example, on the first page of Chapter I he claims that,
“When, at some future day, our civilization shall lie, closed and completed, before the eyes of later generations, German theology will stand out as a great, a unique phenomenon in the mental and spiritual life of our time. For nowhere save in the German temperament can there be found in the same perfection in the living complex of conditions and factors — of philosophic thought, critical acumen, historic insight, and religious feeling — without which no deep theology is possible.”
“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.”[ 67 ]
All this has been done without the slightest knowledge of what glorification in the Lord (Yahweh) of Glory is (in both Old and New Testaments). This is ignored equally by both Germans and their Protestant and or ‘Catholic’ colleagues. Because of Augustine’s Neo-Platonism, both Protestants and Latins have always imagined that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils accepted both the analogia entis between God and His creation and analogia fidei between God and the Bible. This created not only their Biblical fundamentalism, but also made Greek philosophy the foundation of their understanding of the History of Dogma which is certainly not that of the reality of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. The reason for this is that Western Biblical and doctrinal scholars are ignorant of the Four Patristic Keys to the Bible and the Dogmas of the Roman Ecumenical Councils explained earlier. But even many “Orthodox” scholars follow either the Protestant or ‘Catholic’ scholars by “sniffing.”
Albert Schweitzer and his students saw clearly where their quest for the “historical Jesus” was leading, i.e. to the dissolution of the doctrinal fabric of what passes off as Christian Tradition in the Franco-Latin West. One typical Orthodox reaction has been to become proud that the Fathers of the Church had supposedly Hellenized Christianity thereby making it acceptable to the Hellenic mind of the Roman Empire.
The Slavophil branch of Pan-Slavism also believed that the Slavs understood the Bible better than other races. But the supposed reason for this is that among the Orthodox the Greco-Roman Fathers of the Church belong to the historical manifestation of the Kouchite movement in history, whereas the Slavs belong to the Iranian movement in history.[ 68 ] In other words the Slavic Orthodox are a superior brand of Christians than the Roman Fathers of the Church, not because they may have reached glorification, but simply because they are Slavs.[ 69 ]
18. Why Charlemagne wanted to believe that real Romans are Latins and Latin-speaking.
It is a fact that the Carolingian Franks wanted and decided to believe that the Romans were an Italo-Latin speaking race. Latin was beginning to be made the official language of the Franks. Their own language was a Teutonic Dialect. The tradition that the Romans were Latin and Latin speaking was invented within the Carolingian circles and became manifest in the year 794. In the Libri Carolini the Franks were still calling the Empire of New Rome the Imperium Romanum. But since 794 this same Empire begins to be called “Imperium Grecorum.” It must be emphasized that when this change took place the Franks were ignorant barbarians. Since Charlemagne himself was illiterate it is probable that the Saxon Alcuin, the director of his Palatine School, perhaps did some kind of research which convinced him that the Romans were a people who spoke Latin only. This would mean that the Greek language became a Roman language only because so many Greeks had become Romans in the course of Roman conquests. The Franks knew very well that the Romans in Southern Spain, Southern Gaul, Southern Italy were Greek-speaking. Even Rome itself had been a Greek-speaking city until Constantine moved the Roman Capital to Constantinople-New Rome. The void left by the so many Romans who moved to New Rome was filled mostly by Latin-speaking Romans. This obliged Pope Damasus to introduce Latin into the services of Rome. Italy had two Synods of bishops: the Northern Synod centered in Milan and the Synod of Rome whose members were all the bishops not only of the rest of Italy but the whole of the Balkans excepting Thrace which had been transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
The reason for this falsification was the Frankish need to convince their West Romans serfs and villains that their Emperor and fellow Romans in the East were nothing but a bunch of “Greeks” and “heretics.” The purpose was to cut off the West Romans from the East Romans who were still trying to help their fellow-Romans in the West enslaved to the Franco-Latins. But what about modern historians today? Why are they not better historians of Rome than their barbarian ancestors of the Dark Ages?
The last group of Latins of Roman history were created as part of the settlement between Rome and those Italians who revolted between 91-83 BC demanding Roman citizenship. A second group of Italians also revolted at the same time and fought for their complete independence from Rome. The first group was not given the Roman franchise, but the “Latin name.” The second group was simply defeated. This distinction between Roman and Latin citizens of Rome which resulted from this war was abolished by Emperor Caracala in 212 AD when he gave these Italian Latins the “Roman name.”
It is possible that the Merovingian Franks may have been given the “Latin name” as indicated by the fact that their gold coins bore the effigy of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople-New Rome from Anastasius I (491-518) through the reign of Heraclius (610-641). The latter’s rule coincided with his ally the Frankish King Dagobert I (d. 639). Together they fought the Bulgarians and Slavs.
The title of the Merovingian kings was “King of the Franks.” Dagobert’s reign was followed by the “do nothing kings,” evidently made that way by their Carolingian Mayors of the Palace who after the reign of Dagobert become the real rulers of the Roman Province of Gaul. It is significant that the name Francia is not once mentioned in Gregory of Tours’ “History of the Franks” since it remained the Roman Province named Gallia. In other words the Frankish King was the King of the Franks not the King of the Romans. The ruler of the West Romans was still the Emperor of the Romans in Constantinople-New Rome, especially after the West Roman Emperor disappeared in 476.
It is also possible that the Carolingian Franks may have been given the “Latin” name in conjunction with Pope Leo III’s (795-816) crowning Charlemagne “Emperor of the Romans” in 800. In any case we call the Teutonic Latins of the Middle Ages Franco-Latins in order to distinguish them from the Greek Latins who were Romans and the Italian Latins who became Romans in 212 AD. The Franks never became Romans, but rulers of the Romans. In sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks, who were allies of New Rome, the Carolingian Franks literally hated the Romans. This is clear from the Libri Carolini, the Carolingian preface to Salic Law and Otto I’s Ambassador to New Rome Luitbrand of Cremona who revealed this same reality in his tirade against the very name “Roman,” which, according to him, all Franco-Latins use to insult their enemies.[ 70 ]Frankish hatred for Romans, and not dogma, was the basis of Charlemagne’s condemnation of Romans as “heretics” and “Greeks” at his Councils of Frankfurt in 794 and Aachen in 809. The main purpose of these titles, “heretic” and “Greek” was to teach the enslaved West Romans that the only Romania left was Papal Romania and their prayers for Romania and its Emperor should stop there.[ 71 ] The Franks began brainwashing their now subjected Roman revolutionaries into believing that this Romania of their Pope is all that exists since the rest of the Empire was a “heretical Grecia” somewhere in the East.
The second reason we use the term Franco-Latins is because the mostly Teutons in question looked upon Charlemagne as the founder of their Latin Empire and Civilization which its leaders believed was destined to rule the world. They call Charlemagne’s Empire the First Reich, Emperor Otto I’s (912-973) “Roman” Empire the Second Reich, while some of the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility considered Hitler’s (1889-1945) candidate Empire the “Third Reich.” In any case Charlemagne is considered the primary Father of today’s United Europe whose real purpose is to compete with the United States dollar for control of the world’s wealth.
One Orthodox nation, Greece, is part of today’s United Europe and a second one, Cyprus, is a candidate. Others want to follow. This means that United Europe is indeed becoming not only the real “Third Reich,” but also a Third Imperium Romanum, both combined into one. In such a case this State should be named “Franco-Romania” and its citizens Franco-Romans. This is a historical reality since almost all Europeans are descendants of either Franco-Latins or Romans. But this can become a reality only by the recognition of religion as a neurobiological sickness which divides people, according to the figments of their religious imaginations, into fanatic enclaves. This sickness is exactly what divides Europeans in the sphere of religion and to a certain degree in culture also.
It is also a reality that the prophets of the Old Testament and their students had been one of the sources of this tradition whereby religion was considered a sickness of man’s spirit in the heart and which is cured by the purification and illumination of the heart, as we shall see. This prophetic tradition was preserved by the Hasidim through the Hellenistic and Roman periods of Jewish history and preserved, as it seems, by them even up to our time.[ 72 ]
The very cure of the sickness of religion is what had been incorporated into the foundation of Constantine the Great’s New Rome in 330 AD However, this sickness and its cure has been forgotten by many Orthodox because of Peter the Great’s (1672-1725) Westernization of his Russian Orthodox Church. This was imposed as policy by Britain, France and Russian upon those nations which were created by Balkanization of the European part of the Ottoman Empire. This is why both the Vatican and most Protestants continue to believe dogmatically indeed, that the only key to relations with the Orthodox is the “way” of Tsar Peter. Both the Anglican and the Vatican Churches have specialists who follow Orthodox theological developments and carefully pick out those Orthodox “specialists” who follow such lines of convergence with the Augustinian tradition in order to promote them to key dialogue positions.[ 73 ]
In sharp contrast to Peter the Great’s policies, the Merovingian Franks, who ruled Gallo-Roman Christians were part of this tradition of the cure of the sickness of religion. Even the few Christian Lombards at the time belonged to this tradition.[ 74 ] However, this was never understood by the Carolingian Franks who made Augustine’s Neo-Platonism their religion (and sickness) in sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks who witnessed and supported the condemnation of Augustine’s teaching about grace and original sin at the Council of Orange (529). The Carolingian doctrinal tradition began with this Platonism of Augustine which they never abandoned and which still dominates both Vaticanism and Protestantism. In other words both Western and Eastern Europeans must return to the unity they had in this cure of the sickness of religion under New Rome and the Merovingians in order to complete the current effort for European union. What is of interest is that many Jews still belong to this tradition of the cure. To speak of a separation between East and West is nonsense. In reality the separation is one between those who do not know that religion is a sickness and those who know that religion is a sickness and know its cure. Since one is speaking about a common disease of all humans one can not confine its cure only to a United Europe.
There are two keys to this study which may be distinguished but in reality are two faces of the same coin. For this reason we will deal with them together.
One key to this study is that religion is a neurobiological sickness. It stems from a short-circuit between the heart and the brain. The “spirit of man in the heart” should be spinning in a circle praying when in its normal state of communion with the uncreated glory (shekina), i.e. the uncreated “reign (basilea) of God.” This uncreated glory or reigning power of God is everywhere present saturating all of creation. Like the rest of creation all humans are already in communion with this glory’s creating, providential, ruling and even purifying energy at various levels. However, few go on to participating in the “illuminating” and “glorifying” energy of the “glory” of God. The reason for this is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23)” The reason for this is that the “spirit” or the noetic faculty of each one usually begins to unfold itself out of its natural circular state during infancy into a straight line and sticks itself to the brain causing a short-circuit. In this way this “spirit” in infants, while always anchored in the heart, becomes enslaved by means of the brain to the shortcomings of its parents and its general environment since all thoughts in the brain originate thence.
It seems that the reason why neurologists have not yet found a center for religion in the brain, as far as I know, is that it resides in this short-circuit between the heart and the brain and not in the brain itself. It is this short-circuit which creates the fantasies of religious convictions, as well as other signs of a disorded mind, from mild to serious, including acute criminality and barbarism.
The second key to this study is the phenomenon of deliberate falsification of history as part of the enslavement of others. It is generally agreed, even by the Franco-Latin nobility, that the civilization of the Roman Empire was Hellenic in its inception. But this same nobility claims that this Romano-Hellenic Civilization changed into a Western Civilization in the 8-9th centuries in Western Europe and into a Byzantine Civilization in the East at about the same time. But what had really happened was that the Franco-Latins had reverted to a period of sheer barbarity under the leadership of the Carolingian Franks which up until recently was still being called the “Dark Ages.” How else can one describe France, for example, in 1789 when 85% of her population were still serfs and villains guarded from escape by 40,000 castles.[ 75 ] How can such a France be better described than part of the Dark Ages. It can, of course, be made to look like a civilized society only when history is controlled by the aristocracy and the middle class of 13% which still keep this so-called “free” 85% in abject slavery to history as written by themselves.[ 76 ]
So that we may not be accused of exaggerations we quote a description of the condition of the serfs of France before the French Revolution written by Germaine de Stael, the daughter of Jacques Necker (1732-1804) the finance minister of Louis XVI. She writes, “Young people and strangers who had not known France before the revolution, and today see the people enriched by the division of properties and the suppression of the tithe and the feudal regime, can have no idea of the condition of this country, when the nation was carrying the weight of all the privileges. The supporters of slavery in the colonies have often said that a peasant in France was more unfortunate than an Negro. This was an argument to comfort the whites, but not to harden them against the blacks.”[ 77 ]
From this viewpoint the real beginning of Western Civilization is the American Revolution of 1775-81 which was completed by the abolition of slavery in 1865. The French Revolution of 1789 was also a beginning of Western Civilization since it immediately liberated the serfs and villains from their captivity to the 40,000 castles which the peasants enjoyed burning together with their castellani inhabitants. But democracy itself was squelched by Napoleon in 1800. After he fell from power the rest of the nobility returned from mostly self-imposed exile. Both the Napoleonists and the other royalists got down to work and re-enslaved the 85% of Gallo-Romans. Of course they were no longer called serfs and villains. However, they are still called “peasants” (paysan) which had been the collective name for the “serfs” and “villains” before the revolution. Now all Gallo-Roman children are being brainwashed by the comic figure “Asterix” into believing that they are the “Celts” who were enslaved to the Romans as though they were not Gallo-Roman citizens during Imperial and Merovingian times. It was the ancestors of these children now being brainwashed by “Asterix” who are the descendants of the 85% of Gallo-Roman serfs and villains liberated in 1789.
The leaders of the falsification of history today are the nobilities of France, England and Russia. What these nobilities had been losing in battle and politics has been gradually recouped by their progressive re-writing of history. One of their greatest successes has been creating a partnership between the Encyclopaedia Britannica and naïve Chicago University in order to put it into every American home. It has been transforming the way Americans think about so many aspects of historical reality into conformity with the interests of European nobility. The basic reason for their success is that it is easier for Americans doing historical research to copy English scholars rather than learn the sources themselves which are in a wide range of languages. Americans in general could never suspect that scholars of such prestigious Universities as Oxford and Cambridge and British professors teaching in American Universities are capable of deliberately shading or even falsifying historical reality in support of their class interests. After all isn’t Charlemagne still their Great Father?
Being misled, as it seems, by their first teacher, the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin, the Carolingians came to believe that the ancient Romans spoke Latin and were therefore Latins. As we already saw it was the Latins who were absorbed into the Roman nation. Also the first language of the Romans was Greek because they were simply Greeks who came to Italy as a result of the War between Trojan Greeks and the Achaean Greeks. What is even more interesting is that the basic reason the Latins refused to become Romans before they were conquered by King Ancus Marcius is that the Latins considered the Romans impure Greeks because they had intermarried with the Sabines who were also Greeks, but not pure Greeks. The Latin General Mettius Fufetius argues with the Roman King Tullus Hostius that “…if we should yield the command to you, the base born will rule over the true born, the barbarians over Greeks, and immigrants over the native born.”[ 78 ]
In sharp contrast to this historical reality the Franks believed that the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) had abandoned the Latin language and tradition in favor of the Greek language and tradition when he moved his capital from Rome to New Rome officially in 330. This nonsense was clearly argued by Emperor Louis II (855-875) against Emperor Basil I (867-886) in 871.[ 79 ] The falsification of Roman history in question has become the power base of the Franco-Latin nobility’s ability of ruling so many millions of Romans by means of their ignorance of their true identity and why they are not really members of the ruling class.
Since religion had been one of the determining factors in this change we shall concentrate a bit here. Under the weight of Augustine Franco-Latin Christianity became one of the barbaric forms of religion and one of the clearest manifestations of the sickness of religion. At the very same time the Roman Empire in the East had continued to promote this cure of the sickness of religion. The very foundation of the Dark Ages was the cultivation of the short-circuit between the brain and the heart which is the basis of the sickness of religion. At this very same time the Roman Empire in the East was still concentrating on the cure of this short circuit between the brain and the heart among its citizens, being guided by monasticism which had become the center of this cure. In sharp contrast Franco-Latin monasticism was mere Augustinian Neo-Platonic mysticism in Christian dress. This is exactly what much of Protestantism rejected during the Reformation. A basic reason why many Orthodox do not see this any more is that they follow the Franco-Latin translation of the Patristic term Secret Theology by Mystical Theology. Secret Theology simply means that the uncreated glory of God seen in glorification has no similarity whatsoever to anything created and therefore cannot be described or expressed in words or concepts. Mystical Theology means union with the so-called archetypes of creation in God which is an “invention of demons” according to the Orthodox Fathers, as we shall see. Words and concepts may lead to glorification in which one sees in not seeing since it is the uncreated glory which sees itself by means of the glorified. There is here no liberation of a soul from a body since the individual, body and soul, and everything in sight is saturated by uncreated glory of God dividing itself without division and is everywhere present.
In order to make the function of this short-circuited “spirit” in the heart more intelligible to the Hellenic mind the Fathers of the early Church called it also by the Greek termnoera energeia which we translate noetic energy or noetic faculty. Of the three Greek terms for rational activity, i.e. nous, dianoiaand logos, the Fathers used nous to designate the “spirit” of man which prays in the heart without ceasing when restored to normal. In this way they accorded this spirit in the heart a reality equal to the brain. The original use of this praying spirit is to be found in St. Paul. “I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the intellect. I will recite psalms with the spirit, but I will also recite psalms with the intellect (nous)” 1 Cor. 14:14. These are the Old Testament psalms being recited quietly in the heart and not the strange sounds being passed off today as “speaking in tongues” by the aid of a translator.
The cure of this short-circuit which causes the sickness of religion is the key to both the Old and New Testaments. Within this context such titles as Christian, Jew, Moslem, heretic, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, infallible Pope, etc., are in reality meaningless when this sickness of religion and its cure is ignored and sometimes accompanied with phenomenal pretensions and even with barbaric conduct. The center stage in the cure of this sickness is held by the prophets of both the Old and the New Testaments and their successors, who having been cured themselves guide others in this same process of cure. If one does not know this cure, yet fancies himself, or is fancied by others, to be inspired by God, he is indeed inspired, but only by his own short-circuit.
That quite a few religions have been historically dangerous to the liberty of the individual and to the proper functioning of society is obvious enough and must be handled accordingly. More recently the communists had handled religion as a psychological and social problem and tried to uproot it by means not very democratic. In contrast to such approaches the prophets of the Old and New Testaments practiced a concrete cure of the sickness of religion which the Roman Empire espoused in order to produce normal citizens who would put the common good and neighbor over self at the center of individual efforts. Most Jews and Christians are no longer aware of this short-circuit let alone its cure. In contrast the leaders of the Roman Empire had become very much aware of this sickness and cure and incorporated it into its administration, exactly as modern medicine is being supported by governments today.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
by ©John S. Romanides
[ 66 ] See my “Romanity, Romania, Rumeli.” (in Greek), Thessaloniki 1975.
[ 73 ] This is how the first General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, a Dutch Calvinist, dumped Father G. Florovsky as the natural leader of the Orthodox in dialogue in favor of Prof. N. Nissiotis. The latter had promised “to perform a marriage between John Calvin and the Orthodox Fathers” as the key to the union of the Churches.
[ 76 ] For these population figures see the edition of Germaine de Stael’s book, Considerations Sur La Revolution Fancaise, par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p. 610. Jacques Godechot who prepared the reedition of this book cites J. Dupaquiers, La population francais aux XVII et XVIII siecles, Paris (Que sais-Je?) 1979.