|Part-1| — |Part-2|

6. The sickness of religion within Franco-Latin Christendom and Orthodoxy today.
7. Sociology, religion and criminality.
8. There are no Greek and Latin Fathers of the Roman Orthodox Church. They are Latin and Greek speaking Roman Fathers of the Church.
9. Roman Christians and Roman Greeks.
10. The real Latins of Roman history.
11. Why "Byzantine"?
12. The final version of Roman history.
13. More about the sickness of religion and the falsification of history.
14. The cure of the sickness of religion and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine.
15. The Final Official history of Rome.
16. Terms indicating the Greek background of the Latins, Romans and Sabines.
17. Equality based on the cure of the short circuit between the heart and the brain.

|Part-3| — |Part-4|

[ Return to Contents ]

The sickness of religion is caused by a short-circuit between the heart and the brain. This is what causes fantasies which distort the imagination and in varying degrees cuts one off from reality. The cure of this short-circuit has three stages which will occupy us in some detail later. They are: 1) the purification of the heart, 2) the illumination of the heart, which repairs this short-circuit which produces fantasies, of which both religion and criminality are by products, and 3) glorification, which makes one uncreated by grace and by which one sees the uncreated ruling power of God which is a simple energy which divides itself without division and saturates all of creation being everywhere present, though not by nature, and ruling all of creation. The Bible calls this the “glory” and “rule” of God and those who reach glorification “prophets” and “sent ones (apostles).”

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

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

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

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

What is especially interesting is the fact that both religion and criminality stem from the same short- circuit and its fantasies. When being cured one believes either that which he himself sees and which certain others see, only on the condition that they train their charges to see for themselves. The method of cure is like seeing for oneself what specialists are trained to see by means of instruments what cannot be seen by the naked eye, not only in the next life, but especially in this life. The Bible calls this glorification. “When one is glorified the rest rejoice” (1Cor. 12:26) because he has become a prophet who has seen and participated in the uncreated glory of God which has no similarity whatsoever with anything created. This is why a prophet can guide others to the cure of glorification, but cannot describe the uncreated experienced in glorification. The basis for this restoration of normalcy is that the one who sees has himself been restored to normalcy which is to see the uncreated force which creates and governs all of creation. The one cured actually sees above normal seeing from time to time seeing the glory and rule of the Creator. When not in the state of seeing the short circuit in question is kept under repair by the unceasing prayer in the heart while the brain functions normally.[46] The Old and New Testaments call this force the ‘glory’ and ‘reign’ of God which is “everywhere present dividing itself without division and saturating all creation.” Also those who have seen it and guide others to the cure of their short-circuit are the prophets both before Pentecost and after Pentecost.

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

We recall the Four Keys described above. Within their context there are two general types of terms in the Bible: 1) Those terms which apply to the uncreated and cannot be conceived by comparison with one’s experience of created reality. Such terms are “God,” “Lord (Yaweh),” “Spirit of God,” “ Father,” “Logos,” “Messenger of God Who calls Himself God,” “Messenger of Great Council,” “Son of God,” “King of Glory,” “rule or reign of God,” “Glory of God,” etc.: and 2) those which represent created reality and which are understood as such. Terms denoting the uncreated are not to be understood within the context of what one may understand by comparing these terms with what one knows from created reality. The sole purpose of terms denoting the uncreated is to play the role of leading to the purification and the illumination of the heart and then to glorification during which said words and concepts are abolished and wherein only love remains (1Cor. 13:8).

Augustine never understood these two distinctions, nor the four keys previously discussed. Franco-Latin Christianity and doctrine began its first essay into theology and doctrine with the Palatine School established by Charlemagne at the end of the 8^th century. This school knew only Augustine because its organizer the Saxon Alcuin (735-804) evidently knew only Augustine thoroughly. Augustine was not a Father of an Ecumenical Council, nor was he familiar with any Father of an Ecumenical Council. One is given the impression that he was taught by Ambrose who supposedly baptized him. However, the basic doctrinal differences between Augustine and the Fathers of the Church are exactly the differences between himself and Ambrose.[47] Nor did Augustine have the slightest idea of the keys by which Jews and the Orthodox Fathers were interpreting the Bible. He simply knew not one Father of an Ecumenical Council. This is exactly why Vaticanists and Protestants still do not understand the theology of the Ecumenical Councils. When the Franco-Latins finally became familiar with the texts of the Ecumenical Councils they simply enslaved them to Augustinian categories. They had acquired the text of Dionysius the Areopagite which was translated by John Scotus Eriugena which confused them because of the translator’s theology. It was only in the 12^th century, as we saw, that these Franks acquired a Latin translation of St. John of Damascus’ summary of the Patristic theology and doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils, but as always until today, understood him within Augustinian categories. Neither the Franco-Latin Papacy, established between 1009 and 1046, nor Augustinian Protestants, have ever been able to see these distinctions in the Bible and so remained unaware of their existence. This means that before the advent of modern Biblical criticism the Vaticanist and Protestant understanding of Biblical inspiration was not much different from the Moslem belief that the Koran is “uncreated.” That of course has changed, but the end result has remained the same.
[ Return to Contents ]

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

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

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

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

These Russian reforms became the key by which Emperor Alexander I of the Russian Empire and Napoleon I of the Frankish Empire, joined a bit later by the British Empire, began their policies of breaking up the unity of the Roman Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire. They attacked the common language of the Roman Orthodox, which since the time of the Ancient Romans had been Greek, by claiming that all who spoke Greek were not Romans, but “Greeks”. This is the Charlemagnian Lie of 794 which was adopted by the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility which still guides not only European policies, but also that of Americans who have been enslaved by British historiography. At the same time these three powers used the various dialects which survived from older times to build linguistic enclaves which became Hellenes, Serbians, Bulgarians and Rumanians, to which they added Albanians and now even of all things Slavic Macedonians. This process called Balkanization began to be applied in 1821 and is still being applied.[48] The very same principles were and are being applied to the whole Arab World.

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

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

In the light of this, even a casual reading of the Encyclopedia Britannica will reveal with what hatred the Russians, French and British describe the Phanariote Romans of Constantinople who helped the Ottomans to rule Rumeli, i.e. the Balkans, as the hated and corrupt “Greeks.”[49] But even till this day the Roman Orthodox of Turkey call themselves Romans in both Turkish and Greek and are called Romans by the Turks. The magnitude of the Charlemagnian Latin versus Greek Lie has been saturating Franco-Latin history writing since 794 and must be dealt with accordingly, that is, as an outright lie. One must begin by assuming that Franco-Latins are experts at telling historical lies in order to carefully separate their telling lies from their telling the truth. Much of Roman history writing is still controlled by the Franco-Latin nobility who are still faithful to their Father Charlemagne and his lies about the Roman Empire which are still going strong in the non-existent fields of Byzantine history, civilization, theology, etc. which are Roman and not Byzantine.
[ Return to Contents ]

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

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

We use the term Franco-Latins for the mostly Teutonic members of the medieval royalty and nobility of Western Europe who called themselves “Latins.” We call them by this term “Franco-Latins”[50] in order to distinguish them from the two groups of real Latins of Roman history, the primitive Greek Latins who became Romans and the Italian Latins who became Romans in 212AD.

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

We repeat what we already said. The entourage of Charlemagne either invented, or came to believe the tale that Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Old Rome in Italy to New Rome-Constantinople and thus supposedly and deliberately abandoned the Latin language and nationality in favor of the Greek language and nationality.[51]
[ Return to Contents ]

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

Roman sources of history eventually began to become available to these Franco-Latin barbarians. Instead of correcting their misunderstandings of Roman history, they became specialists at manipulating the Roman sources in order to force them into obeying Charlemagne’s Lie of 794. As we saw, Constantine the Great and his successors had supposedly abandoned the Latin language and nationality in order to speak Greek and become Greeks.[52] According to the Cambridge Medieval History vol. IV, Part I, 1967, p. 776, Constantine the Great was a Roman Emperor between 306 and 324 and a “Byzantine Emperor” between 324 and 337.[53] True to ‘noble’ British tradition Part I and II of Vol. IV are now called the “Byzantine Empire.” Both these volumes publish J. B. Bury’s Introduction to the original volume IV published in 1923. Bury there writes that “We have, however, tampered with the correct name, which is simply ‘Roman Empire,’ by adding ‘Eastern,’ etc.…The historian Finlay put the question in a rather akward way by asking, “When did the Roman Empire change into the Byzantine? The answer is that it did not change into any other Empire than itself…”. In spite of these words of J. B. Bury the new two volumes IV, which replaced his single volume ‘The East Roman Empire’, are called the “Byzantine Empire” anyway. WHY?
[ Return to Contents ]

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

So the French text of the Protocol in question reads as follows: “It is well understood that the following are now understood to be ‘Hellenes:’ 1) The ‘Greeks’….and 2) The ‘Greeks’… Here are the two terms which reflect the problem which had to be solved. The Turkish translation of the two terms are clear. The Greeks are in Turkish called Romans-Rumlar and the Hellenes are in Turkish called Hellenes-Younanlar. However, this is not the essence of the problem. In order to secure the support from these three Empires, who simply wanted to divide and conquer, the Romans had to not only call themselves Hellenes, but they had to pass a law that the Hellenic Revolution was not only a liberation from the Ottoman Empire, but also a liberation from the now fallen Roman Empire which the British, French and Russians began calling the Byzantine Empire. This is why the Carolingian Greek Empire which came into the existence in the Frankish imagination in 794, had to become now the Byzantine Empire. Why? Because to say that “Hellenes” were liberated from “Greeks” would have caused even jackasses to burst out laughing!

During the celebration of Greek Independence Day on March 25 the BBC tried to pass off the position that the Turks had liberated the Hellenes from the Byzantines. But it backfired. I reported this in one of my books.[54]

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

The reader is encouraged to see volume VII of The Cambridge Ancient History which is entitled “The Hellenistic Monarchies and The Rise of Rome,” 1954, (pp.312-864) to see for himself that the word “Aborigines,” which is one of the two backbones of Roman history, is no where to be found. Nor is the role of the Pelasgian Greeks in Roman history mentioned. Both historians, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (dates not known exactly [55]) who wrote in Greek and Livy (59BC-17AD) who wrote in Latin, begin their histories of Roman reality with the Aborigines. Dionysius gives us much more information than Livy. But Dionysius also gives us a lot of information about the Pelasgian Greeks in Italy and how they were decimated by sickness and how their reduced numbers joined the Aborigines to become one people.[56] Dionysius quotes Porcius Cato as the authority on the Pelasgians in Italy[57] which means Dionysius is not inventing facts about Pelasgians in Italy. This means that these Pelasgian Greeks were also part of the racial background of the Romans and therefore are part of Roman history. But they, like the Aborigines, are not mentioned in the above “The Rise of Rome,” nor in Roman histories and encyclopedias[58] known to this writer. To have found something about Pelasgians in Italy and their relations to the Aborigines would have been at least some indication that the Lie of Charlemagne may be loosening its grip on historical writing.

The following are reported by the Roman historian Livy in his Ab Urbe Condita,[59] i.e. “From the Founding of the City” and by the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his “Roman Antiquities.”[60] Both report the ancient Roman tradition that the first Latins resulted from a union between the Greek speaking tribe of Italy called Aborigines[61] and the Greek speaking Trojan refugees from the Trojan War. These Aborigines lived in Western Italy in the area South of the mouth of the Tiber river and were early dwellers on the site of Rome. They had been there many generations before the Trojan War. At the time of the arrival of the Trojans under Aeneas the king of the Aborigines was Latinus. The Trojans had landed on the shores of the land of the Aborigines in search for a homeland. These two Greek tribes decided to become one people by consummating a marriage between King Latinus’s daughter Lavinia and Aeneas. The two tribes decided to call themselves Latins. The Aborigines had originated from Achaia,[62] Southern Greece, and the Trojans of Aeneas had come from Illium, Asia Minor. The Trojans of Aeneas and Antenor had gotten permission from the Achaian conquerors of Troy to find a homeland elsewhere. The lives of Aeneas and Antenor and their peoples had been spared because they were against the war with the Greeks. Thus the Trojans headed by Aeneas and Antenor left Asia Minor in search of a new home. The Trojans under Aeneas ended up in Western Italy South of the Tiber and the Trojans under Antenor ended up in Eastern Italy at the mouth of the Po river. When leaving Asia Minor Antenor’s Trojans were accompanied by the Eneti who settled with some of Antenor’s Trojans in the area they called Enetia in Greek and Latin[63] and which the Italians call Venetia.

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

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

At the time of Charlemagne’s rule all free West Roman Orthodox, including even the Irish, were still praying for their Imperium Romanum whose capital was Constantinople-New Rome.[64] In 794, in order to stop these prayers, Charlemagne initiated the practice within his own territories of restricting the name Imperium Romanum only to the recently established Papal States by calling the free part of the Imperium Romanum in Southern Italy to the borders of Persia the heretical “Imperium Grecorum” whose real Emperor of the Romans became in the Frankish fiction the “Imperator Grecorum.” Evidently his barbarian mind believed that these prayers for the Imperium Romanum became efficacious only for the Papal States still called Romania and now incorporated into his Francia. This became especially so when he coerced Pope Leo III (785-816) to crown him “Emperor” in exchange for exonerating him from certain accusations. However, Pope Leo crowned him “Emperor of the Romans.” But Charlemagne never used the “of the Romans” part of this title since his Roman subjects were not Franks, i.e. Free (Franchised), and also because he wanted his title to be accepted by the real Roman Emperor in the East.[65]

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

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

However, those Romans who were conquered by the Teutonic nations were reduced to slavery and became the “serfs” and “vilains” of Franco-Latin Feudalism. Within this system of slavery the serfs and vilains did not have a king or emperor. What they had were Franco-Latin owners who were members of Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities under the religious jurisdiction of Franco-Latin Popes. This system was perfected after the process of expelling the real Roman Popes (begun in 983) was completed in 1046.[66] If the reader wishes to see a perfect example of Franco-Latin forgery of history he should turn to the very large chapter on the history of the Papacy in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1957, to the three sections entitled “The Franks, the ‘Donation’ and Coronation,” (pp. 203-204), “The 9^th Century” (pp. 204-205) and “The Popes and the Emperors”, 918-1073” (pp. 205-206) and compare them with this writer’s “Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine” pp. 14-29. In the Brittanica article there is not one word about the fact that the Germans were getting rid of Roman Popes by “smearing” them and replacing them with Franco-Latin “saints,” nor the reason why.[67]

The reason for this continuing distortion of Roman history is the fact that ancient and medieval histories of Europe had become the special domain of the Franco-Latin Universities[68] which still continue to distort the sources of Roman history through implementing the lies of Charlemagne[69] and Emperor Ludovicus II (855-875) in 871.[70] As these Franco-Latin centers of research, like Oxford and Cambridge, became aware of the sources of Roman history they simply resorted to ridiculing them as products of a “Greek” desire for making everything Greek.[71] But there is a big difference between the sources themselves which are simply there because inherited from the past and the deliberate falsification of these sources in order to force them to repeat the historical dogmas-lies of Emperors Charlemagne and Ludovicus II.
[ Return to Contents ]

After the disappearance of the Roman Empire in 1453 the Four Roman Patriarchs of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem continued to oversee this work of the cure within the Ottoman Empire using the monasteries as the training ground for those specializing in this method of cure. Now missing from this foursome was the Roman Papacy of Elder Rome which had been taken over forcefully by the Franco-Latins who transformed it into a Franco-Latin Papacy. These new Franco-Latin proprietors continued to call their Papacy “Roman” in order to trick the West Roman serfs and vilains into thinking that the Pope of Rome was still a Roman like themselves. The Franco-Latin struggle to capture the Roman Papacy began in earnest in 983 and reached its climax between 1009 and 1046.[72]

The Carolingian Franks began their doctrinal career knowing fully only Augustine. But Augustine was a Neo-Platonist before his baptism and remained so the rest of his life. Because of this Franco-Latin Christianity remained Neo-Platonic until Occam and Luther lead sizable portions of Western Europe away from Neo-Platonic metaphysics and mysticism and their monastic supports. What Luther and Occam had done was to liberate whole sections of Franco-Latin Christianity from the metaphysical part of Augustinian paganism. However, Augustine’s pagan understanding of original sin, predestination and revelation were still adhered to.

Charlemagne began his attack on the Roman Papacy by contradicting Pope Hadrian’s I (771-795) support of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 786/8. This illiterate king condemned this Ecumenical Council at his own Council of Frankfurt in 794 in the very presence of Pope Hadrian’s legates. When the Franks captured the Papacy during 1009-1046, they had rejected not only the Seventh, but also the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80 which had been supported conjointly by Pope John VIII (872-882) of Elder Rome and Patriarch Photius (877-886) of New Rome, as well as the remaining Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Council was convened to get the Franks to accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council and to convince them to remove their Filioque which they had added to the Roman Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council. Instead the Franks continued to accept as their Eighth Ecumenical that of 869. This Council had been annulled by the common consent of the Roman Emperor and by all Five Roman Patriarchates, i.e. Elder Rome, New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at their Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80[73] already mentioned. The Council of 869 had removed Patriarch Photius as one who had illegally replaced the former Patriarch Ignatius (846-858). In the mean time Photius had been writing humorous attacks on the Frankish addition of the Filioque to the Creed which infuriated the Franks. So it served their interests to create the impression that Photius had been condemned for doctrinal errors in 869 and that he had never been recognized by the Roman Papacy. Of course Pope John VIII fully cooperated with Patriarch Photius during the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80.

In other words a bunch of illiterate and barbarian Franks began their career in dogma during the reign of Charlemagne (768-814) by being against whatsoever is produced by Roman Emperors, Popes, and Patriarchs. This same Charlemagne even added his Frankish Filioque (which has nothing to do with the West Roman Orthodox Filioque[74]) to the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council in order to improve it. In addition he condemned all who disagree as heretics at his Council of Aachen in 809. All this has been approved ever since 1009 by all infallible Franco-Latin Popes.

To the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils the Franco-Latins added the annulled Council of 869 and their own 12 “Ecumenical” Councils. However, their acceptance of the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils has been only formal since they continue to distort them within the context of Augustine’s pre-suppositions. In other words the Franks transformed these Councils from the cure of the sickness of religion into support of the cause of the sickness of religion. They simply transformed them into Augustine’s own Neo-Platonic sickness of religion and therefore into a pagan form of Christian teaching and practice based on metaphysics and mysticism.
[ Return to Contents ]

The Roman Emperors from Constantine the Great (306-337) to the last Roman Emperor Constantine XII (1449-1453) accepted Christianity as the official cure of the sickness of religion and not as one more form of religion. It was because the prophets of the Old and the New Testament knew by means of their glorification in and by Yahweh the cure of this specific disease in the heart that Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. This cure had nothing to do with either religious or philosophical speculation. The pinpointing of this sickness and its cure in the heart is also the only key to the union of Christians among themselves and the reason why members of the society practicing this cure accept the Nine Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Empire. These Nine Ecumenical Councils are part of Roman Law. What unites them into one whole is the cure of the sickness of religion by means of the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification of the whole person. Each of the Nine Ecumenical Councils condemned specific heresies of their time exactly because they deviated from this cure by attempting to transform the medical practice of the Church into systems of philosophical and mystical speculations and practices.

However, Peter the Great lead the Russians into believing that there are only seven officially approved Ecumenical Councils. These Roman Councils happen to be the ones that the Franco-Latin Papacy continued to accept in common with the four East Roman Orthodox Patriarchates after the Franks captured the Patriarchate of Rome.[75] This reduction of the Ecumenical Councils from Nine to Seven had become a first step in the attempted union between the Franco-Latin Papacy and the Roman Emperors of New Rome during the latter part of the 13th to the middle of 15th centuries. Submission to the Franco-Latin Papacy was the price that the Roman Emperor of New Rome was required to pay for Franco-Latin help against the Turks. This union was supposed to have been consummated at the union Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1442. This Council was condemned by the three Roman Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at their Council of Jerusalem (1443). These three Roman Patriarchates were within Moslem held territories. Then in 1453 New Rome fell to the Ottoman Turks putting all four Roman Patriarchates within the Moslem world, putting an end to the need for asking for help from the Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities of Western Europe and their Pope. The reality of the matter was that the three Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had opted to continue their tradition of the cure of the sickness of religion of the Old and New Testaments and of the Nine Ecumenical Councils and were re-joined in this work by the Patriarchate of New Rome in 1453 after the Ottoman takeover of the capital of the Roman Empire.

Perhaps the most serious among these deviations from the cure in question was that of Augustine. Indeed the Ninth Ecumenical Council condemned the philosophical and mystical speculations of Barlaam the Calabrian not knowing that he was simply repeating the philosophical and mystical speculations of Augustine. Since the rule of Charlemagne (768-814) Augustine had become the heart and core of Frankish theology and spirituality. As the Franks were becoming acquainted with Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils they simply understood them within the context of Augustine’s writings. From the time of Charlemagne’s rule until the beginning of Peter Lombard’s doctrinal career (d. 1160) these Franks knew not one Father of an Ecumenical Council. Peter Lombard introduced St. John of Damascus’ (c. 675-749) summary of the doctrines of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which he and his fellow Franks have been reading through Augustinian lens since.

Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, and by extension his nonsense about predestination, was condemned at the Council of Orange (529). This means that the Merovingian Franks belonged to the Orthodox Patristic tradition. Augustine’s teaching about revelation by means of creatures which God brings into existence to be seen and heard and then pass back into non-existence when their mission is accomplished was condemned by the Ninth Ecumenical Council of New Rome in 1341. The Fathers of the Council did not know at the time that the source of this nonsense was Augustine.
[ Return to Contents ]

An essential part of Franco-Latin distortions has been their falsification of Roman History itself. This was inaugurated by Charlemagne in 794 at the Council of Frankfurt. He then began the centuries old Franco-Latin propaganda that the Romans attached to the Emperor of New Rome Constantinople and his Roman Patriarchies of New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are a bunch of “Greek heretics.” Up until this time the Franks had always called the Empire of Constantinople the Imperial Romanum and its citizens Romani. The very last time that these Franks used these correct titles is witnessed to in Charlemagne’s Libri Carolini where he calls the Empire of New Rome the pagan Imperium Romanum. But this position evidently backfired against him because both enslaved and free West Romans were still praying in their Church services for the Imperium Romanum.[76] So he kept the names Romania and Imperium Romanum for the Papal States only. He evidently believed that in this way these prayers would become efficacious for the Papal States only and baptized the rest of the Roman Empire the “Imperium Grecorum”. Now the Franco-Latin nobility has managed to lead naive historians into the use of terms like “Byzantines” and “Byzantine Empire.” There was never a “Greek” or “Byzantine Empire” nor a “nation of Byzantines.” Only those who dwelt in the new capital of the Roman Empire called themselves “Byzantines” which was the name of the small town which became Constantinople-New Rome in 331 AD.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to Rome, learned Latin, and studied Roman sources in order to write his history of Rome. There is a tendency to make him look like one who is looking for proofs that the Romans are Greeks. But Dionysius, however, reports what the Romans themselves say about their origins. It was the Roman Senator and leader Porcius Cato who wrote the classical work on the origins of the Roman people in his book De Origines which is also a history of the Italian cities besides Rome. This book inspired the leaders of the French Revolution into realizing that they are descendants of both the ancient Greeks and Romans. This book is now lost?

The keepers of the Lie of Charlemagne have, of course, serious problems with Dionysius. An example of how they cope with this historian is the introduction to the Loeb Classical Library edition of Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities. Earnest Cary claims that Dionysius “…promises…to prove that Rome’s founders were in reality Greeks, and Greeks from no mean tribes…” But what E. Cary omits to say here is that Dionysius allows the Roman writers themselves to do the proving for him as follows: “But the most learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato, who compiled with the greatest care the genealogies of the Italian cities, Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say they (the Aborigines) were Greeks who used to live in Achaia (in Southern Greece) and migrated many generations before the Trojan war.” After at least a thousand years in Italy these “Aborigines no longer knew where exactly in Achaia they came from, to which tribe they belonged and who the leaders of their colonies were.”[77]

Having in mind the older Roman historians, like P. Cato and G. Sempronius, both Livy and not only Dionysius agree with the tradition handed down to them that the Greek speaking nation of Latins came into existence when the indigenous Greek speaking Aborigines[78] and the Greek speaking Trojans of Aeneas became one nation. The Aborigines occupied an area of the West Italian coastline South of the Tiber river and the Greek speaking Trojans had landed on the coast of the land of the Aborigines where they finally settled. The Aborigines and the Trojans became one nation. This took place when King Latinus of the “Aborigines” gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas, the leader of the Trojans who migrated to Italy as refugees from the Trojan War. Because of this marriage they called themselves Latins (after Lavinas’ Father Latinus had passed away) and their land Latium. The capital of this united Latin nation was Alba Longa. Some time later the twin Greek speaking Latin brothers, Romulus and Romus, left Alba Longa and founded Rome. These Latins[79] and some Sabines,[80] also a Greek speaking people, founded Rome and the Roman nation. This is why the kings of Rome were mostly of Latin or Sabine origin except for the Tarquins whose ancestors originated from Corinth.[81] In time the Romans tried to convince the Latins of Alba Longa to unite with them into one nation to better protect themselves, especially against the Etruscans. The Latins of Alba Longa refused. One of the basic reasons for their refusal was that the Sabines, whose ancestors were Greeks from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece, were, according to the Latins, no longer pure Greeks, as we just saw. A bit latter King Ancus Marcius of Rome (640-616 BC), defeated the Latins and razed their capital in order to “force” the Latins of Alba Longa to become Romans. The Latins of Alba Longa were settled on the Aventine and were incorporated into the Roman system of the gentis. One of these Latin gens or families of Alba Longa were the ancestors of Julius Caesar. The term gens-gentis comes from the Greek word genos meaning the family or tribe one belongs to. This term gens became the difference between those of Greek origin and the tribes of those not of Greek origin. The gentes were those who belonged to the Patrician families who made up the Roman Senate. Eventually all Romans became members of Tribes, but only those of Greek origin remained members of tribes or families called gens and gentes. This is the origin of our word “gentleman.”

We return to the author of the above introduction to Dionysius’ “Roman Antiquities”. He literally accuses Dionysius of adding material to his history from his imagination. According to him Dionysius invents many speeches where no speech is called for. In comparison Livy, who reports many of the same historical events has no speeches for the same occasions. Not taking seriously the claim of the Romans themselves that they are Greeks the author does not take Dionysius seriously when he writes that he worked with the Roman chronicles annalists. So therefore all Dionysius had to do is to copy the Greek texts of speeches from the chronicles and annalists and put them directly into his history. Livy wrote his history in Latin. He would have had to translate all these many Greek speeches into Latin.

At the time that Dionysius went to Rome in about 8 BC he of course had to study the spoken Roman dialect of what was still a Greek language, although more mixed than usual with non Greek words and with a pronounced Roman accent. This also means that the chronicles and annalists were still in a more archaic form more easily readable to Dionysius than to Livy. About this still Greek language Dionysius writes, “The language pronounced by the Romans is neither utterly foreign, nor perfectly Greek, but a mixture, as it were, of which the greater part is Aeolic (Greek) and the only pleasure they (the Romans) enjoy, when they intermingle with various nations, is that they do not always pronounce their sounds properly. But among all colonists they preserve all indications of their Greek origin.”[82]
[ Return to Contents ]

Apart from the description which the Romans make about themselves, there are also linguistic indications which clearly point to the Greek reality of the ancient Latins, Romans and Sabines.

The claim that the name Rome e.g. is simply a place name, which may derive even from the Etruscans, is sheer nonsense.

The name “Rome” in Greek means “power,” “force,” “fighting army” and “speed tactics.”[83]

The name “Rome” derives from two the Greek verbs: 1) roomai which means “to move with speed or violence, to dart, rush, rush on, esp. of warriors.”

The name “Rome” also derives from of the Greek passive verb: 2) ronnymi which means “to strengthen, make strong and mighty” and “to put forth strength, have strength or might.[85]

The closest Latin equivalent verb is ruo, which is connected to the Greek verb reo meaning “to flow, run, to hasten.” Of all the uses of this verb both active and passive there is none that even comes close to meaning “rome” in Greek.

Romans, Latins and Sabines were agreed that the name quiris (sing.) quiretes (pl.) would be their common name which dictionaries translate as citizen. But the Romans had a name for citizens, like the Greeks, polites, i.e. civitas. But the names quiris-quiretes derive from the Greek name kouros-kouretes which means young men of fighting age and therefore warriors, “young men, esp. young warriors,” Iliad 19. 193, 248.[86] So the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves first “warriors” and later “citizens.”

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

Because all three groups of Romans, Latins and Sabines came to Italy by sea from Greece and Asia minor they were warrior sailors and sea faring peoples. It is obviously for this reason that at their weddings they shouted the Greek word Thalassios, sailor, at the groom and not the Latin name marinos.

Of the seven hills of Rome the Quirinal, the hill of Mars, was originally that of the Sabines. It was from here that the Roman warriors of Romulus stole their wives from. Quiris was not only the Sabine name for a spear, but also for their god of war. They called their god of war “The Warrior” in their Greek language and later Mars.

In the Roman tradition Romulus did not die, but ascended deified to heaven without leaving behind his body since he was or became the Quirinus, a or one of the god(s) of war.

These are some of the contexts within which the Romans thought and spoke about themselves. No historian has the right to change this. Now whether this version of Roman history is correct or not is entirely another matter. But it remains a fact, however, that the Romans themselves, the Latins themselves and the Sabines themselves believed and wanted to believe that they are Greeks. Not only this, the united Roman nation of Romans, Latins and Sabines, spoke their own common Greek Language.

Now some scholars may search for sources which may prove otherwise, i.e. for some reason the Romans who were not really Greeks came to believe that they are Greeks. So what? That would be like proving that a black American is not an American because he is black.

Each Roman gens sometimes was composed of several thousand Romans each one headed by a Patrician member of the senate. The members of gentis memorized their laws from childhood and kept their laws a secret among themselves.[87] A form of an Italian language was that of their slaves and dependents which also evolved into the Latin dialect mixed with Greek. It was these non Greek speaking dependents of Rome who finally forced the Romans to reduce the laws to written form. It was because of the violent protests of their Italian dependents that the Romans produced a text of laws in primitive Latin in about 450 BC. The problem was serious because these dependents did not know the laws by which they were being punished by Roman magistrates. Faced with the revolt of these dependents the senate sent a delegation to Athens to search for a solution to the problem. The result was a set of 10 texts on bronze tables which finally became the “The Code of Twelve Tables.” Table 11 forbade the marriage between members of the gentes and the rest of the population of Rome, in other words between those of Greek origin and those of non-Greek origin.

The origin of this problem was that for centuries the members of Greek colonies were being assimilated by the barbarians among whom they lived. This was solved by the position that the gentes had to remain a pure race so that the offerings of their priests to their gods may be heard and that the auspices be taken correctly and correct answers received from the gods when making decisions on legal, social and especially military matters. “The tribune of the Plebs, Gaius Canuleis, proposed a bill regarding the intermarriage of patricians and plebians which the patricians looked upon as involving the debasement of their blood and the subversion of the principles inhering in the gentes, or families and a suggestion, cautiously put forward at first by the tribunes, that it should be lawful for one of the consuls to be chosen from the plebs, was afterwards carried so far that nine tribunes proposed a bill giving the people power to choose consuls as they might see fit from either the plebs or the patricians…What tremendous schemes had Gaius Canuleis set on foot! He was aiming to contaminate the gentis and throw the auspices, both public and private into confusion, that nothing might be pure, nothing unpolluted; so that, when all distinctions had been obliterated, no man might recognize either himself or his kindred. For what else, they asked, was the object of promiscuous marriages, if not that plebeians and patricians might mingle together almost like the beasts?”[88]

That the debate was not about the rights between rich and poor is shown by the following joke told by Gaius Canuleis in the same speech, “Why, pray, do you not introduce a law that there shall be no intermarrying of rich and poor”?
[ Return to Contents ]

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.[89] 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 “vilains”. Pan-German ideology was clearly expressed to an extreme degree by the followers of Hitler who were out to enslave at least the Slavs. But a theological expression of this Germanic racism is found in Albert Schweitzer’s book, “The Quest Of The Historical Jesus.” For example, on the first page of Chapter I he claims that,

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.[91] 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.[92]

Return [47] John S. Romanides, "Franks, Roman, Feudalism and Doctrine," pp. 63-64.

Return [48] According to Father Florovsky, Father Alexander Schmeman's book "The Historical Road of Orthodoxy," is an example of history written of the view point of Panslavism, which father Florovsky attacked along with its daughter Slavophilism.

Return [49] 4-316b; 10-781a, 846c; 19-638c, 653d.

Return [50] Perhaps the term Teutonic Latins would be an equivalent term. In this case the Anglo-Saxons were not Latins, but Romans when they were still praying for the Imperium Romanum and fighting in the Roman army of Constantinople-New Rome. Nor did the Anglo-Saxons who continued to fight the Norman invaders identify themselves with the Franco-Latin Papacy. This is why most of them today are neither Anglicans nor members of the Franco-Latin Papacy.

Return [51] John S. Romanides, "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine," Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, pp.14-18.

Return [52] John S. Romanides, "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,"

Return [53] Vol. IV, Part I p. 776.

Return [54] "Romanity, Romania, Roumeli," p. 28. One may find this position supported by Adamatius Koraes, the Father of Neo-Hellenism. See his "Salpisma Polemisterion."

Return [55] We find him in Rome at the time Caesar had quelled the revolution and flourishing during the reign of Augustus.

Return [56] Loeb Classical Library, RA, early history, 1 55-59, 91 f.; in Italy, 29, 43, 55, 59-69, 73-84, 91-99, 109, 143, 201, 307, 315 f., 373, 451, 2 217.

Return [57] RA, II. 49, 2.

Return [58] Of course The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959, vol. 17, 448-449.

Return [59] AUC, 1, 9-13.

Return [60] RA, Aborigines, origin of 1, 31-43, 307, 415; cities of, 43-49, 51-55, 61, 65 f., 515, 449, 451, 457; unite with Pelasians, 55, 61-67, 69, 75, 83, 315, 451; early dwellers on site of Rome, 29, 99, 109. 125, 129, 305, 313 f.; under rule of Faunus, 101, 139, 141, 143; under Latinus, 143, 189f., 195-201, 209, 239-241; called Latins, 31, 143, 201.

Return [61] Since this is not a Greek term it was evidently given to them by latter arrivals in the area.

Return [62] Dionysius is not satisfied that the Aborigines came from Achaia. He tries to pinpoint that part of Southern Greece they must have come from. He concludes that they must have come from Arcadia.

Return [63] The Eneti, according to Livy, AUC, I, 1, 2-3, "had been expelled from Paphlagonia in a revolution and were looking for a home and a leader-for they had lost their king, Pylaemenes, at Troy (Iliad, v. 576) -came to the inmost bay of the Adriatic. There, driving out the Euganei, who dwelt between the sea and the Alps, the Eneti and Trojans took possession of those lands. And in fact the place where they first landed is called Troy, and the district is therefore called Troia, while the people are called the Veneti."

Return [64] George Every, "The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204," London 1947, p. 114.

Return [65] John S. Romanides, Ibid pp. 14-18.

Return [66] John S. Romanides, Ibid pp. 25-32.

Return [67] Ibid

Return [68] Paris circa 1200 followed by Bologna, by Padua in 1222, Naples in 1224, Toulouse 1229, Oxford 1240 followed by Cambridge at the end of the same century and Salamanca and Seville in the following century.

Return [69] John S. Romanides, Ibid, pp. 14ff.

Return [70] Ibid p. 18.

Return [71] See e.g. The British historian M. Cary, "A History of Rome down to the reign of Constantine" London 1962, pp. 34-36. Being a Roman whose parents are Romans from the fortress town Arabissus in Cappadocia where Emperor Maurice (582-602) was born and having a family name which speaks for itself, "Son of Roman," and from the Ottoman Empire where all Orthodox Christians are called "Roman Orthodox," I was puzzled and quite curious by such an attitude. This was the basic book plus sources used by my professor of Roman history at Harvard, Mason Hammond, the author of "The Augustan Principate" (Harvard University Press, 1933). He was also a member of the three man committee which handled my oral exams. One may have a detailed general view of this negative approach to Greek language Roman sources in "The Cambridge Ancient History," volumes VIII, Chapter X, "The Sources for the Tradition of Early Roman History," by Prof. H. Stuart Jones of Oxford and Wales, pp. 312-331 and Chapter XI, "The Founding of Rome," by Hugh Last of Oxford, pp. 333-368.

Return [72] John S. Romanides, "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and Society," Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, pp. 25 ff.

Return [73] For an example of the original position of the Franks on this subject see F. Cayre, Manual of Patrology and History of Theology, Translated by H. Howitt, Paris, Tournai, Rome 1940, vol 2, pp. 378-380. For a much fairer but not exactly correct position see Francis Dvornik, "The Photian Schism," Cambridge University Press 1948.

Return [74] See the chapter "The Filioque" in my "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine," pp. 60-98.

Return [75] John S. Romanides, Ibid, pp.25-29.

Return [76] George Every, "The Byzantine Patriarchate," p. 114.

Return [77] RA, I, XI, 1

Return [78] Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, I,1,2.

Return [79] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, III, 1-6. Mettius Fufetius, the chief of the Latins, who were resisting the pressure of King Tullus Hostilius of Rome (672-640) to become one Greek nation with the Romans argued as follows, "As for us, Tullus, we deserve to rule over even all the rest of Italy, inasmuch as we are a Greek and the largest of all that inhabit this country….Another argument: …one cannot point to any race of mankind, except Greeks and Latins, to whom we have granted citizenship; whereas you have corrupted the purity of your body politic by admitting Tyrrhenians, Sabines, and some others…and that in great numbers too, so that the true born element among you that went out from our midst become small, or a tiny fraction, in comparison with those who have been brought in and are of an alien race. And if we should yield the command to you, the base-born will rule over the true-born, barbarians over Greeks, and immigrants over the native-born."

Return [80] 'Plutarch's Lives" XVI, 1. "The Sabines were a numerous and warlike people, and dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behooved them since they were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless."

Return [81] Livy l, xlvii, 1ff. Dionysius, RA lll, xlvi1-5, xlvii ff.

Return [82] RA, I, 90, 1.

Return [83] H. G. Liddell and R. Scot, "Greek-English Lexicon," at name "rome."

Return [84] Ibid, at verb "roomai."

Return [85] Ibid, at verb "ronnyni."

Return [86] Ibid, at name "kouretes."

Return [87] Diosysius, RA X, 2ff.

Return [88] Livy, Ibid, IV, 1f.

Return [89] See my "Romanity, Romania, Rumeli." (in Greek), Thessaloniki 1975.

Return [90] Albert Schweitzer, "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", New York; A. and C. Black, 1910. Pg.1.

Return [91] John S. Romanides, "Orthodox Ecclesiology According to Alexis Khomiakov (1804-1860), The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol.11, no. 1, 1956, pp. 58 ff.

Return [92] This is why Father Georges Florovsky attacked the theology of the Slavophiles whose modern supporters finally retaliated by getting him fired as dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary