© John S. Romanides [2]

  1. The task before us, the Overall Key to this study and its Five specific Keys.
  2. Those who hate Romans call themselves Romans. Why?
  3. The key to the Bible is the cure of the sickness of religion.
  4. The Five keys to the Bible.
  5. Nothing of the above can be found in Augustine.

[ Return to Contents ]

1. 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 an 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. [3] 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 [4] 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. 1) Elder Rome, 2) Constantinople New Rome, 3) Alexandria, 4) Antioch and 5) 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: a) the primordial conflict between happiness and glorification and b) 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 Strugglebetween 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

Key One: The French Dark Ages up to 1789. [5]

[ Return to Contents ]

a) 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 and 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 [6]: 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[7]. The slave population of vilains and serfs numbered some 22,525,000 and were guarded from escape by the castellani (ch?telaines) of some 40,000 fortresses. [8]

The Middle Class revolted at the start of the Assembly Constituante demanding 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 [9]. 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

b) 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. [10]

This 1789 figure of 85% serfs and vilains,guarded from escape by the castellani (Ch?telaines) of 40,000castles, completelybelies 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.”
[ Return to Contents ]

c) 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. [11] 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. [12]

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. [13] 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 the gloom and the barbarism of 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. [14] 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

d) The Sealed Letters [15] of 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. [16] ” 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 r?volution fran?aise. [17]
[ Return to Contents ]

e) 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. [18] 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

f) The “Catonistes ? 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. [19] 85% of the population were Gallo-Romans. There was even a movement of the “Catonistes ? la Robespierres [20] ”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-Ch?nes) of King Louis XVI himself [21] , 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

g) Outmaneuvered by Napoleon, the New Charlemagne.

The Greco-Romanizing "Catonistes a 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 Notre 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 Dimo and his nephew back, but this time to meet with the leaders of the underground Roman revolutionary society in the port of Maratonisi. [22] 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 Trieste 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. [23] 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 Napoleon 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 Napoleon'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 (ô? ãÝíïò ôùí Ñùìáßùí). [24] 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 as 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 recorded text of said song 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 (Ñùìáéïé) was being officially translated into German as Griechen [25] 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, Adamantius 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 many 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 a la Robespierre had understood very well.
[ Return to Contents ]

Key Two: a) The Primitive Greek Romans : b) The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Why? c) The first Roman Historians who wrote in Latin.

a) 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.” [26]

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 Aborigineswho came to the area of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the Trojan War. [27] 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. [28]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. [29]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.
[ Return to Contents ]

b) 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

c) 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) and Lucius 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) [30] 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

d) 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, [31] 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

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.
[ Return to Contents ]

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. [32] 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

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 1) the capture of the Roman Papacy by the Franco-Latins between 1009-1046 and 2) 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

2. 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. [33] 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.” [34]

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.
[ Return to Contents ]

3. 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. [35] 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. [36]

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.
[ Return to Contents ]

4. 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. [37] ” 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.” [38] 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.
[ Return to Contents ]

5. 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 [39] 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. [40] 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. [41] 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. [42]

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. [43] 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. [44]

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. [45] 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.

[ Part 1 ] - [ Part 2 ] - [ Part 3 ] - [ Part 4 ]



Return [1] Copyright by John S. Romanides 1996. My analysis that "religion is a neurological sickness caused by a short circuit between the brain and the heart" was first published in Greek 1996 under the title "Religion is a Neurological Sickness, but Orthodoxy is its Cure," by Koutloumousiou Monastery of Mount Athos in its volume entitled "Orthodoxy and Hellenism On Her Way Toward the 3rd millennium," 1966, pp. 67-87.

Return [2] This study is a modified version of my lecture entitled “THE CURE OF THE NEUROBIOLOGICAL SICKNESS OF RELIGION, THE HELLENIC CIVILIZATION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, CHALREMAGE’S LIE OF 794 AND HIS LIE TODAY” delivered a) at a conference in Dalton, GA. Hosted by the Glorious Ascension Monastery, Resaca, Georgia, USA, May 25, 1997 and read for me by Father Christodoulos of the Cathedral of St. Markella, Astoria, NY. b) It was also delivered at a conference hosted by St. Demetrius Orthodox Church, Seattle, Washington, chaired by Professor of Neurology Heracles Panagiotides of Washington University and read by Patrick Bradford Barnes.

The then Four Keys to this study have now become Five Keys, Key One having become “The French Dark Ages in 1789.”

Return [3] For details see my “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,” Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, p.19-29.

Return [4] We follow the French spelling of this term. I t seems that the vilains were Free Romans who were forced into slavery during the upheavals caused by the Frankish efforts to take over the Roman Papacy between 983 and 1046.

Return [5] For documentation of this Key One see section 18.

Return [6] For these population figure see the edition of Germaine de Staël’s book, Considérations sur La Révolution Française, par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p. 610. Jacques Godechot who prepared the reedition of this book cites J. Dupaquier, La population français aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris (Que sais-je?) 1979. Madame de Staël (1766-1817) was the daughter of Louis XVI’s Finance Minister Jacques Necker (1732-1804). This total is also taken from DICTIONNAIRE GENERAL de la POLITIQUE par M. MAURICE BLOCK, NOUVELLE EDITION, TOME PREMIER, PARIS 1873, p. 1023

Return [7] Ibid.

Return [8] Louis Madelin, La Revolution, Deuxieme Edition, Paris 1912, p.74.

Return [9] Louis Madelin, Les Hommes de la Révolution, L’Assemblée Constituante, p. 97.

Return [10] The very term “Frank” means someone born free. Those not born free are Franchised to become free. They were called “affranchis” and usually kept in a state of humiliation.

Return [11] For details see sections 24-27.

Return [12] For details see my “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,” Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, p.19-20 and the chapter on the Filioque p. 60-96.

Return [13] It must be noted that the West Roman Filioque of Ambrose and Augustine is Orthodox, but cannot be put in the Creed where the use of the Greek term for procession is different from theirs. This Creed uses this term procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father for the manner of existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father, not therefore for His individuality. In contrast to this Ambrose and Augustine use the term procession for the communion of essence between the Persons of the Holy Trinity. This Orthodox Filioque becomes a heresy when put in the wrong place, i.e. in the Creed of 381. However, apart from this question the context itself of Augustine’s speculations about the essence of God is sheer nonsense, especially since the heretical Eunomians had been condemned by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council of. 381 for claiming that they know the essence of God. Ibid.

Return [14] Every French historian quoted in this study gives such details, but we give references to the following to save space. Alphonse De Lamartine, Histoire des Girondins, pp. 23, 29, 51, 80, 84, 85, 112, 115, 116.

Return [15] See in Dictionnaire Général de POLITIQUE, Par Maurice Block, PARIS 1874, article by Jacques de Boisjolin, LETTRE CLOSES OU DE CACHET which reads as follows: “Actes émanés du roi, fermés, et cachetés du seau. On appelait particulièrement lettres closes celles qui avaient pour objet d’assembler un corps politique ou de lui prescrire le sujet de sa délibération. C’était par lettres closes que, sous la Restauration , le roi convoquait les pairs et les députés à l’ouverture de la session, la Cour de Cassation et le conseil d’Etat aux cérémonies publiques, et invitait les évêques à chanter les Te Deum.

Les lettres de cachet contenaient, en général, ordre de faire telle ou telle chose, dans ces termes “Monsieur, je vous fais cette lettre pour vous dire que ma volonté est que vous fassiez telle chose... Si n’y faites faute. Sur ce je prie Dieu qu’il vous ait en sa sainte et digne garde.” Un exempt muni de cette prose enjoignait à un citoyen d’aller en exil, ou de le suivre à la Bastille. Voltaire demandait au lieutenant de police Hérault: “ Monsieur, que fait-on à ceux qui fabriquent de fausses lettres de cachet? - Monsieur, on les pend. - C’est toujours bien fait, en attendant qu’on traite de même ceux qui en signe de vraies.”

Malesherbes et Turgot ne voulurent entrer au ministère qu’à condition que les lettres de cachet seraient contre-signées, et énonceraient toujours le motif de l’arrestation. Des arrêts du Parlement condamnèrent des malfaiteurs haut placés qui avaient obtenu du roi des lettres de cachet contre des innocents. “ Quand on entend de tels arrêts, disait encore Voltaire, il y a des battements de mains du fond de la grand’-chambre aux portes de Paris.” L’Assemblée constituante supprima les lettres de cachet.”

Return [16] Germaine de Stael, “Considerations sur La Revolution Francaise,” par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p.185.

Return [17] “The Lieutenant of the police went from time to time the have diner at the Bastille. This counted as a visit, surveillance by the magistrate (himself). This magistrate did not know anything, and it was for this that he alone instructed the minister. A family, a dynasty, (of Count) Château neuf and his son La Vrillière, his nephew Saint Florantin (died 1777), possessed during one century the Department of the prisons of the State and the Sealed Letters. That this dynasty may subsist, it needed prisoners. When Protestants were released, they were substituted with Jansenists. Then one would take in intellectuals, the philosophes, the Voltaires, the Frérets, the Diderots. The Minister generously, would give blank Sealed Letters to officials, bishops, the highly placed. To Saint-Florentin alone 50,000 of them were given. Never was the greatest treasure of man, his liberty, squandered like this. These Sealed Letters were the object of a profitable traffic; They were sold to fathers to imprison their sons; they were given the beutuiful women annoyed by their husbands. This last reason for confinement was one of the most common. And all of this because of goodness. The king was too good to refuse a Sealed Letter to a great lord. The official was too kind not to listen to the plea of a lady. The committed to the minister, the committed to the mistresses, the friends of these mistresses, by obligation, for the sake of, simple politeness, obtain, give, lend these terrible commands by which one is buried alive. Buried, because such was the carelessness, the frivolity, of these friendly employee, almost all nobles, the gens of society, all occupied with pleasures, so that one does not have more time, after having imprisoned the poor devil, to muse about his case. It is thus that the government of grace, descending from the king to the last employee, deals, capriciously and with inspired lightness, with liberty and life.” chapter IX, La Bastille, pp. 87-88.

Return [18] Sieyes basic work is “Qu’est-ce que le Tiers état? and Marat main works were “Offrande à la patrie and especially his “Tableau des vices de la constitution de Angleterre.”

Return [19] Louis Madelin, La Revolution, Deuxieme Edition, Paris 1912, pp.12,189,191,273,333-334,353..

Return [20] Ibid, pp. 506-507.

Return [21] “Décadence et chute de l’Empire Romain,” par Gibbon. “Ce livre l’un des plus importants ouvrages historiques qu’ait produits l’Angleterre, commence aux Antonins, ne se termine qu’au XIVe siècle avec la tentative de restauration classique de Rienzi. Il parut de 1770 à 1787. La fécondité des vues, l’abondance des faits, une foule d’études épisodiques rattachées à ce sujet déjà si vaste, expliquent et justifient son succès. Toutefois la composition ne laisse pas que d’être confuse, le style est trop oratoire; enfin, entraîné par son idéal politique, à savoir l’Empire romain, Gibbon apprécie avec vigueur l’œuvre du christianisme. Traduit en plusieurs langues, il l’a été en français d’abord par Leclercq de Sept-Chênes (prête-nom, a-t-on dit de Louis XVI, i.e. name on loan to Louis XVI), pour les quatre premiers livres, puis par Mme Guizot, avec des notes de son mari sur le christianisme (1828-1829)” (Dictionnaire Larousse du XXè siècle-édition 1928,vol. 1, page 698)

Return [22] V O Y A G E DE DIMO ET NICOLO STEPHANOPOLI E N G R E C E, pendant les années V ET VI (1797 et 1798 v. st.) D’après deux missions, dont l’une du Gouvernement français, et l’autre du général en chef Buonaparte. Rédigé par un des professeurs du prytanée. Avec figures, plans et vues levés sur les lieux. A P A R I S DE L’IMPRIMERIE DE GUILLEMINET, rue de la Harpe, au ci-devant collège d’Hercourt, n° 117 TYPOGRAFION / T. NIKOLOPOULOU- TEMISTOKLEOS 80

Return [23] Modern Greece, A Short History, Faber and Faber, London, p. 122.

Return [24] Voyage, Chapter 42,

Return [25] John S. Romanides, “Romiosyne, Romania, Roumeli,” Thessaloniki 1975, pp. 213-217.

Return [26] John S. Romanides, “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,” Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, p. 18.

Return [27] “But the most learned of Roman historians, among who is Porcius Cato, who compiled with the greatest care the genealogies of the Italian cities, Gaius Semporonis and many others, say they are Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia, and migrated many generations before the Trojan war.” as quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, I, XI. It is in the light of this that we read Livy’s remarks about the Aborigines in his “From the Founding of the City,” I, 5-II, 6.

Return [28] Dionysius, Ibid I, xvii-xxx, 5.

Return [29] Plutarch’s Lives, Romulus, XVI “Now the Sabines were a numerous and war like people, and dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behooved them, since they were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless.”

Return [30] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, RA I.LXXIII, 1. These “hierais deltois”(sacred tablets) are usually understood to be the annales maximi kept each year by the Pontifex Maximus. The foundation narratives about Rome’s beginnings do not vary substantially from the final tradition. The names involved in the final Roman foundation tradition are basically the same as in the earliest 3 traditions quoted by Dionysius as follows: 1) “Some of these say that Romulus and Romos, the founders of Rome, were the sons of Aeneas, 2) others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was the father; they were delivered as hostages to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty as made between the inhabitants and the new comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them many other offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. 3) Others say that after the death of Aeneas, Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Romos. He himself, they say, built Alba Longa; Romos built cities which he named Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of an other colony, which the Albans sent out under leadership Romulus and Romos, it received again its ancient name.”

Return [31] Just quoted.

Return [32] During a dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Jews in Bucharest, Rumania in 1979 the Jewish scholars revealed the fact that the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification is still the practice of the Hasidim Jews.

Return [33] John S. Romanides, Franks Romans and Feudalism, pp. 25-31.

Return [34] Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana 12, Migne, P.L. 136, 815.

Return [35] Including perhaps the majority of the Orthodox still under the influence of Peter the Great’s so-called reforms and all the theological schools established to Westernize, i.e. Augustinianize, the Orthodox.

Return [36] An example of this is the book of Professor George Mantzarides, “Theosis According to St. Gregory Palamas (in Greek and English).” Mislead by this Book American Orthodox in dialogue with American Lutherans agreed that the teaching about theosis is mainly Patristic and not clearly a Biblical teaching. ”

Return [37] St. Gregory the Theologian, Theological Orations, 2.4.

Return [38] John S. Romanides, “Ancestral Sin,” (in Greek) Athens 1957, p. 82, note 7 wherein St. Gregory Palamas explains how one cannot become reconciled to God without participating in the mystery of the Cross which operates in all who reach Glorification in both the Old and New Testaments till today.

Return [39] Augustine’s letter CLXXIV

Return [40] See his De Trinitate, Books II and III.

Return [41] To which we will return to at section 30.

Return [42] Being a Neo-Platonist Augustine believed and also practiced the tradition whereby one becomes united to the uncreated universals in the essence of God when one's soul transcends his body and becomes united with these uncreated realities.

Return [43] For a typical Augustinian misunderstanding of Mk 9:1ff see “Promise and Fulfillment, The Eschatological Message of Jesus,” by W. G. Kummel, p 25-28, 44, 60 f., 66f., 88, 133, 142, 149. This so-called kingdom promised by Christ does not yet exist when He pronounces this promise, but will come into existence sometime in the future.

Return [44] Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, De Deo Uno, q. 26.

Return [45] Rom. 9.3. According to Thomas Aquinas Paul had believed this before his baptism. Summa Theologica,

[ Part 1 ] - [ Part 2] - [ Part 3 ] - [ Part 4 ]