The Clash between

Orthodox Patristic Theology and

Franco-Latin Tradition

By His Eminence Fr. Jeremiah Foundas
Metropolitan of Gortyna and Megalopolis,
Professor of the Athens University School of Theology

A publication of the Holy Metropolis of Gortyna and Megalopolis
Dimitsana, Megalopolis of Arcadia Province, 2007
ISBN: 978-960-89712-02



1. AS AN INTRODUCTION: WHO THE FRANCO-LATINS ARE

To start with, I feel it necessary to write a few words about the Franco-latins,
whose theology is completely opposed to ours; this is precisely our topic here
[1]
. The once united Christian Roman Empire used to be known as a whole
under the name of "Romania" [= Land of the Romans] and would be arranged
into western and eastern sectors. Rome, the capital of the Empire, belonged to
its western sector although it would have been better had it been in the East.
For this reason, Constantine the Great transferred the capital to the city of
Byzantium and named it New Rome initially; eventually, however, it
received his name and became known as "Constantinople" [= Constantine's
City].

Both Western and Eastern sectors of the United Christian Roman Empire (i.e.
of Romania) faced enemies. For the West, which is of interest to us here, the
main enemies were the Franks, barbaric and uncivilised peoples. Eventually,
the Franks managed to subjugate the Western sector of the Empire and in
order to appear as the true successors of this Roman Empire named
themselves Romans; whereas Romans, "Neoromans" [= the Hellenic word
Rhomaios (m.) or Rhomaia (f.), in Latin Roman, would also be pronounced as
"Rhomios" (m.) and Rhomia (f.) transliterated here as Neoroman; after the Fall
of the Empire, in 1453, the term Rhomios and Roman were used
interchangebly, exclusively among the populations of the Eastern sector of the fallen
Empire] are and should be called as such only we Orthodox. (For this reason
we must ensure, with great care, to avoid calling the Franks as "Romans" or,
worse, to call their confession as "the Roman Catholic Church"!)

In order for the Franks to cut off the conquered Romans of the western sector
completely from their other Orthodox brethren of the eastern sector, they
dragged out of their vocabulary an insulting name which they used to call the
eastern Romans with. They called them "Greeks" which [in this usage] means
"impostors". And later, they called them "Byzantines". Whereas the old
glorious name "Roman" or "Neoroman" (Rhomios), which used to signify the
western and eastern Orthodox of the united Empire, the Franks kept for
themselves and for those subjugated to them. But the Franks, after
subjugating the Western sector of the Empire, realised then that they will
have a complete sovereign over the West if somehow they managed to
subjugate the Church and to give their own theology to the Christians living
in the West. But did the Franks have a theology to give? By the 8th century,
the Franks had already received the existing theology of Blessed Augustine,
who, as the great Fr. John Romanides tells us, and as we shall prove in our
present study, "essentially ignored the Patristic theology and its
presuppositions". The Franks managed, in the end, to subjugate the Church of
the enslaved Orthodox Christians of the West by the 11th century (AD 1014-
1046) and to impose upon them their own Augustinian theology, which
however does not express the patristic tradition.

We shall call the heretical Franks as Franks; neither Romans nor Catholics,
since Romans and Catholics are we the Orthodox. Because the Franks
received the Latin tongue as their ecclesiastic and theological language, they
wished to be known as "Latins"; for this reason we call them "Franco-latins".
This however does not mean that we confuse the Latin-written Patristic
tradition with the Frankish one and that we reject the holy Fathers who wrote
in the Latin tongue; nor, again, do we make an erroneous distinction between
Hellenic and Latin Fathers. We accept Orthodox (Neoroman) Fathers some of
whom wrote in the Hellenic tongue and others who wrote in the Latin
tongue.
[2]


After the above necessary introductory material, we come to our main topic.





2. PROPER STUDY OF THE HOLY FATHERS

I will begin my speech with the holy Fathers first. We the Orthodox have
Fathers and our God we glorify as "God of our Fathers". Every worshipping
Gathering (Synaxis) as well as our personal prayers all end with "Through the
prayers of our Holy Fathers". Many years have passed since the slogan
"return to the Fathers" was first given; and many patristic studies and projects
have taken place since then and continue to do so. However, the deep
understanding of the Fathers is achieved only by those who follow the
method and way of life of the Holy Fathers in their lives. And this is logical
indeed: the saint understands the Saint. It is not possible to understand the
experiences and the theology of the Holy Fathers through scientific methods,
because their God-bearing lives (as well as the theopties(*) of the Holy
Fathers and the theology emanating from them) transcend the powers of logic
and science, and for this reason they cannot belong to the realm of scientific
study. Nor again, can we interpret the Holy Fathers with the aid of
psychology, for theosis, namely the situation which the Holy Fathers would
live, is neither physical nor against nature (para physin), in order for
psychology to intervene, but is a supranatural state of man. For this reason,
we repeat that the deep understanding of the Fathers is achieved only by
those who live the way the Fathers did and have experiences of that way of
life's experiences. Very beautiful are the words of the ever-memorable
Professor and great Theologian of our century Fr. John Romanides:

"Theosis (deification or glorification) or in-God theoria (divine contemplation)
is an uncreated energy of God, transcending all created categorems, to which
only the engraced Prophets, Apostles and Saints take part. Only the one
having the experience under consideration becomes perceived by the one
having the same experience and NEVER by anyone else, particularly by a
heterodox or one who does not have an INNER knowledge of the Biblical-
Patristic theology of the mystical life in Christ of the Ecclesia"
[3]
.

Nevertheless, the heterodox also conduct patristic studies and in fact believe
that they can understand the patristic tradition deeply and even better than
those initiated in it, namely by us the Orthodox. This arises from the proud
perception of the Franco-latins that the intellectual can, through his powerful
logic and learning, enter the depths of the patristic tradition and to
understand it absolutely, even if he is extraneous to it. The problem though is
that this arrogance of Western intellectuals also persists among some
Orthodox circles, with the result of not having a correct understanding of the
Fathers by us Orthodox, so long as we do not entertain the correct spiritual
presuppositions inside us for their study, namely the battle for the cleansing
of the heart from the passions and the arrival of the Grace of the Holy Spirit
inside it. In other words, we deal with theological studies without first having
carried out the patristic presupposition of cleansing our heart from our
passions.

The heterodox scholars of the Fathers have gravely erroneous presuppositions
for their studies; they have theological and philosophical presuppositions
foreign to the Biblical-Patristic theology of the Ecumenical Synods. For this
reason they are unable to provide a proper presentation of our Holy Fathers.
Let us not be impressed one bit by their patristic studies because they are, we
repeat, erroneous, for they study the Fathers in the manner of Blessed
Augustines thinking. Fr. Romanides tells us: "When the Franks acquired
finally a small familiarity with the Hellenic Patristic texts, they subdued
Patristic theology to the categorems of the Augustinian theology, exactly as
they also did in the 13th century with Aristotelian philosophy. Thus we see
the works of the Hellenic-speaking Roman Fathers translated into Latin
through the prism of Augustine"
[4]
.



3. NO, TO THE DIVISION OF THE FATHERS IN CAMPS

The most erroneous amongst the presuppositions with which the Franks
study the Holy Fathers is that they do not accept the Fathers' unity but admit
camps between them. They believe that there exist differing patristic
theologies and therefore differing types of spirituality, while we Orthodox
believe in the unity of the Holy Fathers and reject the idea that any Father can
be led to novelties. If one innovates he cannot belong to the Fathers.

The belief that there exist various Orthodox patristic traditions and different
schools of theological thought stems from the Franco-latin or Scholastic
tradition and is not met in the Fathers. Unfortunately there are also some
among our Orthodox theologians who are in agreement with the Franco-
latins accepting the presence of Holy-Patristic camps; even the view that some
among the Fathers innovate on some points
[5]
. Thus, they divide the Fathers
into social, neptic or even dogmatic and they tell us about St. Gregory
Palamas, for example, that he innovated and call his theology as "Palamism";
in other words, as his own creation. Whereas others, Franco-latins and some
of us Orthodox, who believe in the presence of camps and ability for the
Fathers to innovate, characterise the spirituality of this great among our Saints
as superior to the until-then existing patristic tradition, while conversely
others characterise it as inferior to it. At any rate, both of these types believe it
to be novel teaching and life. The truth however is that Gregory Palamas
follows the one and united patristic tradition in everything, just like all the
other Holy Fathers do.

Another thing is that the Franco-latins do not see the unity of the Holy Bible
with the Fathers, but characterise the biblical tradition as different from the
patristic one. Also, Western Man sees a variety of biblical theologies in the
same way he sees a variety of patristic theologies. For this reason, according
to the Franco-latins, every writer of the Old and New Testaments has their
own personal theology.

The reason that we Orthodox see the unity of the Holy Fathers with the unity
of the Biblical and Patristic theology is that the God-giving Grace of which the
Prophets, the Apostles (who wrote the Holy Bible) and the Holy Fathers
partake is ONE.

I will now cite the following beautiful excerpt from Fr. John Romanides:

"Contrary to the Franco-latin, Protestant and other modern Western
perceptions on diversity in Biblical and Patristic theology, Orthodox
Romanity would always find the unity of the Biblical and Patristic theology in
the identification of the in-God theoria or theosis of the Prophets, Apostles
and Saints. The theology and spirituality of the Holy Writ and of the Fathers
is a cohesive one, for the God-giving Grace of which the God-bearing
(Theumen) Prophets, Apostles and Saints partook is such. The charisms of the
Holy Spirit are numerous and the degree to which each one communes with
these charisms varies; but the undividedly dividable and incommunally
communicable Grace and Reign ("Kingdom") of Christ is one, as this becomes
perceived by the Theumens. For this reason exactly their theology is one,
despite the linguistic variety found among the Saints.


Exactly because the correct understanding of the in-God theoria achieved by
the Theumens is absent from the theology and hermeneutics of the
Augustinian Franco-latin Tradition, its Western inheritors are unable to
comprehend the nature and character of the theological and spiritual identity
of the Holy Bible and of the Fathers of the Church, as well as of the unity of
the Fathers between them. Those who are found under the influence of
Western Orthodox have a similar fate."
[6]


So, in order for us to conclude this section we have to say:

Those who wish to make a proper study of the Holy Fathers need to clarify
their position: Do they accept the unity of the Holy Bible with the Holy
Fathers and the unity between the Holy Fathers? If yes, then they speak
orthodoxically. According to professor Fr. John Romanides, the one who
wishes to study the Fathers should "ideally, from a theological and spiritual
viewpoint, look for a genuine spiritual father in order to be initiated to the
mysteries of the Orthodox tradition through him and, after having found
himself along this initiation path, to study the Holy Bible intensively and at
the same time study its Patristic hermeneutics. Thus he will determine
empirically if there is a difference 1) between the Fathers and the Holy Bible,
2) between the Fathers and 3) between Palamas and the Fathers".
[7]


Blessed Augustine does not belong to the Holy Fathers because he innovated.
As it is generally agreed, Augustine cut himself off the patristic Tradition,
without however himself having realised this, as Fr. Romanides notes. The
problem for Blessed Augustine is that he never studied those Fathers who
wrote in Hellenic, for he did not know how to read in Hellenic. He had been
theologically isolated. He theologised based only on the Holy Writ and on his
powerful logic, based on the motto "Credo ut intelligam" (= I believe in order to
comprehend), which became a theological slogan of the Franks, as we shall
see later. He was however humble and wanted to agree with the Fathers
[8]
;
and had they admonished him for his erroneous writings and forced him to
correction, "certainly -- Fr. Romanides tells us -- he would have accepted their
corrections, since he himself declared the wish to agree in everything with the
Hellenistic-writing Fathers, whom he had never been in a position to study. It
is however clear that he had not even studied Ambrosius".
[9]
Saint
Ambrosius, who appears as a teacher of blessed Augustine, follows the
Hellenic-speaking Roman (Orthodox) Fathers of the East faithfully in
everything. He innovates in nothing. Between Ambrosius and Augustine we
find many differences. It is enough for us to note the vast difference between
their views on theophany in the Old Testament. Saint Ambrosius, following
the uniform tradition of the Holy Bible and of the Fathers absolutely, accepts
that the Angel of God who appeared to the Prophets, the Angel of Glory,
Angel of Great Counsel or Lord of Glory is the very Logos of God, Christ.
Blessed Augustine however calls all those who support that the very Logos
Himself appeared to the Prophets without an intermediary as blasphemous.
But in our present study we shall also talk about other innovations of blessed
Augustine.




4. NO, TO THE TERMINATION OF PATRISTIC THEOLOGY

But we also have another plani (delusion) of the Franco-latins about the
Fathers; similar to the aforementioned yet worse: That patristic theology
ended after Photius the Great. The worst thing is that this idea on termination
of the patristic theology found fertile ground even on Orthodox Hellenic soil.
The issue is simple and is as follows:

Early 9th century AD finds the Franks introducing the Filioque (viz. that the
Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son) to the
Symbol of our Faith (Creed). Then, all five Roman Patriarchates (of Rome,
New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) condemned formally this
Frankish teaching as heretical in the Eighth Ecumenical Synod(AD 879). Since
the Franks could not any more recognise as Fathers those who fought against
their filioque, for this reason they were forced to theorize that patristic
theological tradition ended in the 8th century. After all, the Franks had also
condemned in AD 794 the Seventh Ecumenical Synod; thus they did not even
accept John the Damascene as a Father of the Church. Later on, however,
during the 12th century, under pressure by the Italian-Lombards and by the
occupied Romans of Southern Italy, the Franks were forced to finally accept
the Seventh Ecumenical Synod. Thus they included Saint John the Damascene
among the Fathers of the Church. To this day the Westerners believe that the
last "Greek" Father of the Church is Saint John the Damascene.

This view, or rather this heresy, about a supposed termination of the patristic
period, also became accepted by the Russians
[10]
, with the difference that the
last Father was considered by them to be Photius the Great. Thus the Russians
included among the Fathers of the Church one Father who fought against the
filioque. The problem though is that this heresy on termination of the patristic
theology also became accepted by some modern Greeks
[11]
, who speak about
the old "patristic period" and that there are no more Holy Fathers in our age.

Those Franks, Russians and together with them modern Greeks who accept
that the patristic theological period has ended have been excommunicated by
our Church; since, when the Synod of Constantinople in AD 1368 proclaimed
Gregory Palamas not only as a "Saint" of our Church but also as a "Father", it
excommunicated all those who do not accept him as a Father of equal status
to the older Fathers of our Church. However, Saint Gregory Palamas lived
during the 13th century, in other words much later than Saint John the
Damascene or Saint Photius, who are considered by the above groups as the
last Fathers of the Church.

That is:

Through the synodal recognition of Saint Gregory Palamas as a Father and
the excommunication of all those who do not accept him as a Father of equal
status to the older Fathers of the Church, the Franco-latin heresy on the
termination of the patristic age was condemned as such and the Franco-latins
themselves were excommunicated.

Despite the sophist jabbers of Franks and Russians alike on supposed
termination of the Fathers until the Damascene or until Photius, we Orthodox,
even during this harsh and dark period of Turkocracy, brought living carriers
of the genuine theology and spirituality of the older Holy Fathers, such as:
Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Eugenius Bulgaris, Nicephorus Theotokes,
Athanasius of Paros, Macarius Notaras, Cosmas of Aetolia, Maximus the
Greek, Pachomius Russanus, Gennadius Scholarius, Jacob Monachus,
Maximus of Peloponnese, Agapius Lardus together with Hierarchs and
Patriarchs who participated in so many Synods from the 17th until the 19th
centuries.

The delusion (plani) that the patristic theology had been terminated was
combated specifically and eventually defeated by the profound theologian Fr.
Florovsky; and this way our own Orthodox, who had been influenced by the
Franks, were helped and accepted the patristic theology beyond Photius the
Great.

At any rate, in order for us to be able to confront successfully the whole issue
of the termination of the patristic theology it is needful for us to study well
what the Church (Ecclesia) is
[12]
and what the meaning of the word "Father" is.
As a simple, but powerful argument against the idea on the termination of the
Fathers, we give the following: Every era has vital spiritual problems and
crises to tackle to which the Ecclesia, through her Fathers, gives the solution;
in other words, we are always in need of Fathers. But we always find the Holy
Spirit in the Ecclesia Who designates Fathers. If they claim that the patristic
period has ended, when we always have the need of the presence of Fathers,
it is as if they are saying the blasphemy that the Holy Spirit stopped working
its presence in the Ecclesia...


5. NO, TO SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY

But, if according to the Franks the patristic age ended with Saint John the
Damascene or with Photius the Great, what shall we have in their place to
follow? The Franks offer us their Scholastic theology even claiming that this
theology went above the terminated patristic theology! ... Those among our
own Orthodox, who were accepting of a termination of the patristic tradition,
would present as a continuation of this tradition badly written catechetical-
dogmatic studies, in imitation of the Franks, as well as other scholastic
theological works. Whereas, as we already said above, the Ecclesia always
had her Fathers even during the difficult period of Turkocracy.

The belief that the Scholastic Franks exceeded the Holy Fathers has as its main
source the opinion of Blessed Augustine that: the teaching on the Filioque
constitutes a solution to a theological problem, which (allegedly) had not been
resolved by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod.

Augustine in one of his talks in AD 393 in front of the Holy Synod of Africa
about the Symbol of the Second Ecumenical Synod, told the Bishops the
following erroneous and strange thing: That the hypostatic property of the
Holy Spirit is, unlike that of the Father and of the Son, a problem for the
Ecclesia, which problem remained unsolved during the Second Ecumenical
Synod. Neither knowing how to speak in Hellenic -- as he himself informs us
elsewhere -- nor having studied the Latin works of his time on the Holy
Trinity, he did not know that the issue in question was neither a problem nor
much more so an unsolved one. Nevertheless, living in theological isolation,
without having the aid of the related patristic works on the subject, he spent
all his efforts for the next 35 years trying to find a solution. And indeed he
came up with a solution by contemplation based on Neo-Platonic philosophy
(stochasm): the Filioque!

This "solution" of blessed Augustine did the Franks discover in the 8th
century and added it to the Symbol of the Faith. And together with the
Filioque, the Franks adopted the (also erroneous) opinion of Augustine that
the Ecclesia, with the passing of time, is led through the help of "thinkers"
("stochastics") to the better understanding of the dogmas, as he had
supposedly found the solution that the Ecclesia sought as regards the
hypostatic property of the Holy Spirit, a solution that the Fathers of the
Second Ecumenical Synod had not been in a position to find.

When the Russians, like the Franks before them, adopted the Scholastic
theological method and the Latin tongue as the official theological language
(in the 18th century), they also adopted the belief that they went beyond the
theology of the Romans (Orthodox) of the Ottoman Empire. The strange thing
though is that there were some Neo-Hellene [modern Greek] theologians
who, inlfuenced by the Franks and the Russians, would apologise for a
number of years to the Franks and to the Frankicised Russia because they had
not received a Scholastic and Systematic theology of the form found in
(Western) Europe during the years of Turkocracy. They would however
promise that they would make a great effort to also create such a theology, so
that they could soon reach the supposed theological heights of (Western)
Europe. Today however, when (Western) European theology has been fully
dismantled, many European theologians return to the Patristic Tradition.
Thus many modern Greeks [Neo-Hellenes] also return to the Patristic
Tradition by imitating them. But the great father John Romanides complains:

"Unfortunately, though, instead of trying to theologise within the
hermeneutic tradition of the Fathers, they use as a hermeneutical key their
Western teachers. In other words, they interpret the Fathers based on the
presuppositions of Western theology and problem-solving and thus, neither
the theology nor the spirituality of the Fathers do they comprehend. The
reason for this is that the Patristic theology and spirituality, as this appears in
the writings of the Fathers, is perceived only to those who have the same
spiritual experience with the Fathers.
[13]
This theology is a hidden mystery,
exactly as the theology of the Holy Writ is a mystery. It is inaccessible to all
academic methods. Only those who have the Grace understand the Grace,
which they receive through fasting and prayer under the guidance of a
spiritual father who has the Grace of theoria (divine contemplation)"
[14]




6. NO, TO RUSSIAN MYSTICISM, BUT ALSO NO TO THE AVERSION
OF THE MODERN GREEKS TOWARDS HESYCHASM AND THEIR
TURN TO THE SUPPOSED "FATHERS OF ACTION"

During the middle of the 19th century, some Russian intellectuals became
greatly impressed by the Orthodox hesychasm of the Holy Mountain that had
reached Russia. However they did not apprehend its depths, for they placed it
among their theories of Slavonic superiority. That is, they said that the
hesychasm of the "gerondic" type is their own characteristic and that it is a
characteristic of the Russian tradition and mentality and does not belong to
the "Latin" and "Greek" Christianity, as they called it.
[15]
This way, the
Russians believed that they surpassed the "Greeks" and their Scholasticism;
they went above them with their Russian hesychasm. Due to the intensive
Russian propaganda in the West this idea on the superiority of Russian
scholasticism and hesychasm became a conscience to the heterodox, but also
in our land. As a result we have the ignorance and even scorn (even in
Greece) by some people against the Patristic theology and Orthodox
hesychasm; and we also have the situation where even Hellene theologians
look to the foreign ones for guidance because they, supposedly due to their
natural identity and idiosyncrasy, understood theology and hesychasm better
than we did. Exactly this was what the Slavophil proponents of Alexis
Khomiakov would propagandise loudly: That they the Slavs, due to their
natural idiosyncrasy and mentality, understood Christianity better than the
"Latins" and the "Greeks"! ...

Wrong! Because the Hagiorite [=mountain Athos] Fathers who had entered
Russia through Moldovlachia and brought hesychasm to them had been
Hellenic-speaking Romans and not Slavs. Apart from this, the Grace of God,
which sanctifies and glorifies us (theosis), has no relation to national
chauvinism but instead visits and supports every man who seeks God,
whatever nation he may come from, so that he may live the Mystery of our
faith and achieve his sanctification. The things that professor Fr. John
Romanides write are very beautiful:

"The bedrock of hesychasm is theosis (deification/glorification), which wins
over nature and makes men gods by grace. This is the source of the highest
possible in-world understanding of theology, which transcends the nature of
logos (speech, reason) and of the nous of man and has no connection to any
national chauvinism. The fact that the majority of the ones glorified (those
having attained theosis) during the historical course of the Ecclesia have been
Hellenic-speaking Roman Fathers and Saints of the Ecclesia, does not mean
that the faithful people of other tongues and nationalities cannot become
equally God-bearing; but it also does not mean that they can become higher
theologically and spiritually. We certainly meet higher and differing stages in
Theosis, such as Ellamcis (Illumination), Thea (View) and Synechis Thea
(Continual View); but these have no relation to any ethnic idiosyncrasy. The
Apostles on Mount Tabor and during Pentecost received theosis in the
highest possible degree found in this life while Moses would contemplate
(theoria) the glory of Christ on Mount Sinai for forty days and nights. These
were neither Hellenes, nor Latins; but also not Slavs".
[16]


The above also apply to Plevris [=a known Greek political nationalist who
denies the Old Testament because it is a work of the Jews], as regards the
unhistorical and blasphemous things he says and writes. But we shall deal
with these unhistorical blasphemies in a special study of ours.

Of course, modern Greek [Neo-Hellene] theologians did not accept Russian
hesychasm absolutely, the so-called "Russian mysticism", and reacted against
it. However, instead of turning to the real and true hesychasm of our Ecclesia
they turned instead with awe, as a counter-reaction to the Russian mysticism,
towards a non-hesychast, as they imagined it, and also supposedly non-
ascetical tradition of the Great Fathers who lived before Photius, who
supposedly had been men of action and of philosophical contemplation
(stochasm) and not of mysticism. And these pitiful modern Greeks believed
that by thinking and acting this way they were acting in an Orthodox manner,
since: on the one hand they were fighting against the erroneous, indeed,
Russian mysticism; and on the other hand they were turning to the Fathers;
whom though they would blaspheme since, on one hand they would
terminate the Patristic era in the times of Photius the Great and on the other
hand since these modern Greeks had not tasted hesychasm they would
present the Fathers as non-hesychasts, as social men, as men of action with
philosophical stochasm, certainly not as ... inactive monks!

And the great theologian of our century Fr. John Romanides laments as he
writes:

"A result of the above entirely destructive events for Orthodoxy, was that the
modern theology of the Russians and modern Greeks not only did it not
contribute to the incorporation of the young people to traditional hesychast
monasticism, but instead contributed to some modern Greeks following the
Russians in their scorn of traditional monasticism and to the admiration of the
Frankish monastic orders. This way the religious brotherhoods came into
existence [in Greece] with strong feelings of inferiority opposite Western
Christianity, whose works they would translate and scatter among the
Hellenic Orthodox population. The strange thing is that the religious
brotherhoods would react by instinct against the Academic theology of the
modern Greeks, would love the Fathers, but at the same time would stay
victims of the modernist perception of the Fathers as presented above, and
would imitate an imaginary picture they had created in their minds about
them, which picture would differ from the dominant hesychastic monasticism
during Turkocracy in an essential manner. And this is because they would
accept the distinction in question between the Great Fathers and the ascetic
Saints beyond Photius the Great who were supposedly not Fathers".
[17]



7. NO, TO THE THEORY ABOUT HELLENIC-SPEAKING FATHERS
INFLUENCED BY HELLENIC PHILOSOPHERS


The Protestants knew well that the Augustinian theology and the Frankish
Scholastic theology that had been influenced by it, ruled under the strong
influence of Plato and Aristotle. However, a proud feeling of superiority
developed eventually opposite to any older type of theology, mainly among
German circles of theology and philosophy, because the Germans believed
that they had cultivated a higher theology based on modern European
philosophies and not based on Plato and Aristotle, from whose philosophy
the theology of Augustine had been influenced and from it the scholasticism
of the Franks. The Germans, like their Frankish ancestors, being unaware of
the Roman Patristic tradition, believed that the Hellenic, the "Greek" as they
would call them, Fathers had also been influenced, like the Franks had had,
from the Hellene philosophers and thus had adulterated Christianity through
their influence from Hellenic philosophy.

The sad thing though is that some modern Greeks also believed in the science
of (Western) Europe and admitted that the Patristic theology is based on
Hellenic philosophy. As Hellenes, though, they accepted this erroneous and
heretical theory with patriotic enthusiasm, without of course accepting the
adulteration of Christianity by the Fathers due to their supposed influence by
Hellenic philosophy. So: the encouragement of many Hellene theologians,
older and modern (particularly of Plevris) to study the Hellenic philosophy
with admiration because supposedly that is the one the Fathers had studied
and through it wrote all the wise things they did, is based on the
aforementioned theory of the Protestants; which theory had been presented
by them in a negative sense, however, in order to claim that Christianity had
been adulterated by the Fathers due to their influence by the Hellenic
philosophers. Nevertheless, it became accepted by the Modern Greeks due
to their nationalism.

Of course, the Russians, and in general the Slavs, as Orthodox that they were,
could not accept such theories, namely that the "Greek" Fathers, the Fathers of
the Ecumenical Synods, had adulterated Christianity; they supported
however the theory that the "Greeks" and the "Latins", as Cussites that they
were, had not comprehended Christianity in depth, in a manner similar to the
one that they, the Iranian Slavs, had done. And this was because the natural
ethnic philosophy and ideology of the Slavs had supposedly contributed
better than any other theology to the comprehension of Christianity.

A strong and effective blow to the above theories, namely of the supposed
adulteration of Christianity by the "Greek" Fathers due to a supposed
influence of theirs by Hellenic philosophy and their inability to fully
comprehend it, because, again, they were "Greeks", was brought by the
greatest Russian theologian of the 20th century, Professor and protopresbyter
Fr. George Florovsky. For more than half a century, the great Fr. Florovsky
would strongly check the Russians who supported the view that the Fathers
had not comprehended Christianity in a sufficient manner because they were
"Greeks" whereas they, as Iranian Slavs that they were, with their ideology
supposedly understood it fully; and he would also check the Protestants
strongly who would claim that the Fathers had supposedly adulterated
Christianity due to their supposed influence by Hellenic philosophy, whereas
they, thanks to their modern European philosophy, had understood
Christianity in a better way.

Fr. Florovsky stressed the permanent importance of the Hellenism of the
Fathers for Christianity. Working together with other Roman theologians
from Hellas and Constantinople, he contributed to the return to the Fathers
and their hesychasm as the bedrock of Orthodox theology and spirituality.
Thus the necessary presuppositions were created for the correct
understanding of the Fathers beyond Photius the Great and particularly of
Saint Gregory Palamas. For, as we said in the beginning, Fr. Florovsky
contributed more than anyone else to the vitiation of the idea on the
termination of the patristic theology and proved that the patristic theology
continues safely even after Photius.

8. NO, TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "BIBLICISING" AND
"HELLENISING" FATHERS

However, some of the late modern Russian theologians, even though they
became convinced by the theological struggle of Fr. Florovsky that it is an
absolute priority that they return to the Fathers, rejected the Fathers'
Hellenism or the "Hellenising" Fathers, as they called them. They supported
that we must return to the "Biblicising" Fathers, to whom they supposedly
belong to as well. It is clear at this point that the Russians did not manage to
cut themselves off their Slavophil feelings and divided the Fathers to
Biblicising and Hellenising or "Graecising", as they would call them.

This heresy was established on one hand by the Russians, and especially by
John Meyerdorff
[18]
; however its source can once again be traced to the
Protestants: in the 19th century the Protestants started to realise that the
theology of the Holy Writ was not in everything the same with the theology
that was only known to them, namely their Augustinian patristic theology,
which is based on the Hellene philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Thus, a myth
was created very easily and an unheard-of plani was propagated by the
Russians on the existence of Hellenising Fathers who adulterated Christianity,
and on the existence of Biblicising Fathers. However, the Russians would
believe in addition that the "Graecising", as they would call them, i.e.
Hellenising Fathers, also represent a tradition, the Hellenising Patristic
tradition, to which Great Fathers belong to
[19]
; but these Fathers had
adulterated Christianity with their Hellenic philosophy.

During the times of Saint Gregory Palamas head of this Tradition of the
Hellenising Fathers supposedly was Barlaam. And head of the Biblicising
tradition supposedly was Saint Gregory Palamas
[20]
.

This heresy is dreadful; that is: the Patristic Tradition is dichotomised into
Biblical and Hellenistic and this way Patristic "camps" are created, while the
heretic Barlaam appears to belong also to the Fathers, supposedly to the
"Hellenising" ones. But with the condemnation of Barlaam in AD 1368 during
the Synod of Constantinople Great Fathers were also condemned according
to this heresy of patristic dichotomy into Biblicising and Hellenising Fathers
such as Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor
etc. all of whom they would place in the same camp as Barlaam's. But the
theology of these Fathers constituted the basis for the decisions of Ecumenical
Synods as well as the bedrock of the education of so many Fathers including
Saint Gregory Palamas'. Therefore, how come these Fathers appear as
belonging to the same camp as Barlaam and hence are also condemned with
him? And how come Saint Gregory Palamas is shown as disagreeing with
these Fathers since he is placed in a different camp from whom he
received his education and became similar in everything to them since he also
(like them) did not innovate? The comic element with this blasphemous
theory on supposed Hellenising and Biblicising Fathers is that bishops are
presented as condemning the ... Fathers, since the bishops had condemned the
camp of the Hellenising (supposedly) Fathers (since they had condemned one
of its members, namely Barlaam [the Calabrian], during the proceedings of
the Synod of Constantinople in AD 1368).



9. NO TO THE DISAGREEMENTS OF AUGUSTINE WITH THE
FATHERS AND NO TO HIS AGREEMENTS WITH THE HERETICS

Let us write it again for it is a very serious problem:

The first horrible element in the above theory is the division of the Fathers in
two opposing camps, the Biblicising and the Hellenising. The second, even
more horrible thing is that they placed the heretic Barlaam among the Fathers
(the Hellenising ones) among whom were also placed, as we said, Great
Fathers such as Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the
Confessor etc. And yet NONE, NOT EVEN ONE, of the condemned heresies
of Barlaam is included in the teachings of the (wrongly described as) so-called
Hellenising Fathers of the Church. On the contrary, all the heresies of Barlaam
are placed at the centre of the Frankish Augustinian Tradition. And the clash
between Barlaam and Saint Gregory Palamas is not a clash supposedly
between Biblicising and Hellenising Fathers, but at its depth hides the clash
between Patristic and Franco-latin Augustinian Tradition and to this very
point can the great importance of this clash be found. And if we wish to
examine the matter in more detail, we will find that this clash between
Patristic and Franco-latin Augustinian Tradition has its source in the dispute
between the Orthodox and the heretic Arians and Eunomians of the times of
the First and Second Ecumenical Synods.

Let us analyze this point, for it is essential to our topic and brings important
differences between our Tradition and the opposing Franco-latin Augustinian
Tradition.

As the great modern theologian Fr. John Romanides lies down and
establishes; blessed Augustine, in particular, would:

a) Disagree on some essential points, with which the Orthodox and heretics
were in agreement;

b) Agree with the Arians and Eunomians on one point against the Orthodox;

c) Agree with the Eunomians on another point against the Arians and
Orthodox;

d) Would agree with the dogma of the First and Second Ecumenical Synod
superficially but, as we shall see, in essence agreed with the presuppositions
of the Arian and Eunomian teachings.

We shall explain these four points:

a) All Holy Fathers agree on this point, namely that the Angel of God (as the
Holy Writ calls Him) who appeared to the Prophets of the OT, a.k.a. Angel of
Glory or Angel of Great Counsel or Lord of Glory, is the Logos of God, Christ.
Christ would appear in the OT too, although non-incarnately. This truth is not
even denied by the heretic Arians and Eunomians. They would teach though
that the Angel of the Lord, who would appear to the Prophets, namely Christ,
was a creature; because they supported that God would reveal or show
Himself through creatures. And they believed the divine Logos, the Son of
God, to be created.

Blessed Augustine would characterise this teaching about the appearance of
the Logos of God to the Prophets as blasphemy; he supported the view that
not only the Logos but all three Persons of the Holy Trinity would be revealed
through made and then unmade created symbols of the divinity, in order for
the Holy Trinity to be seen through these with the human senses. Augustine
believed this revelation to be inferior; higher revelation was considered by
him to be the one that God would gift to man's nous.

This theory of blessed Augustine on theophanies and divine revelation had
not been heard before; and it this that the Franks received to develop further.
This Frankish teaching on theophanies was brought to the East by the heretic
Barlaam. Barlaam would support exactly the same thing: That the revelation
that took place through the Taborian Light was " "
[=inferior to noesis]; it was, that is, inferior to the one given directly to the
nous; inferior even to simple noesis (=use of the nous' intellect).
[21]


"Can one imagine", Fr. Romanides wonders, "the dolorous impression that
these claims of Barlaam provoked in the Orthodox East, where the Taborian
Light would be considered by the Fathers as the very Uncreated Divinity and
Reign ("Kingdom") of the Holy Trinity?
[22]


b) From the above we see that blessed Augustine would disagree with both
the Orthodox and the heretic Arians and Eunomians in that he would not
accept the theophanies of the Logos of God to the Prophets of the OT as
actual. He would agree with the heretics against the Orthodox in his belief
that the Prophets and the Apostles would see a creature and not the very
same divinity.

According to our holy Fathers, contrary to Augustine's views, the Prophets
and the Saints who have reached theosis, see invisibly and listen in the Holy
Spirit suprarationally to the Father via the UNCREATED LOGOS AND NOT
THROUGH THE MEDIATION OF SOME CREATURE.

c) The Holy Fathers teach that the Theumens (= God-bearers, bearers of
Divine Grace), seeing and listening to God through the Logos in the Holy
Spirit would partake of the Uncreated Energies of God and not of the divine
hypostases of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity and of the Divine Essence.

In other words, the Holy Fathers make a distinction in God between His
Divine Essence, which is AMETHEKTI (Greek: , pron. ah-
meth-ek-tee), incommunicable (viz. no one can communicate with/take part
in it, man or angel, except for the Three Persons/Hypostasies of the Holy
Trinity) and the Divine Energy, which is METHEKTI (Greek: ,
pron. meth-ek-tee), communicable. This distinction would also be done by the
heretic Arians and they too taught that the creations know not the essence but
the energy of God. However, they would include the divine Logos Himself
among the creatures and that was their great difference with the Orthodox.
Arius, as proof that the Logos of God is a creation and not God, as we the
Orthodox believe, would say that the Logos does not know the essence of the
Father but partakes, by grace, in some of His energies. Therefore, the Arians
would also make a distinction between essence and energy as regards God.

And yet blessed Augustine would not make this distinction. Augustine is the
only person in the ancient era who attempted to theologise on the Holy
Trinity without having studied the patristic works, but based only on the
Holy Writ and on the Neo-Platonic philosopher Plotinus. Not knowing
therefore the patristic theology, blessed Augustine identified the Divine
Essence with the divine energy. This plani (deluded teaching) had been made
before by the heretic Eunomians and without realising it Augustine followed
them, while the Franco-latins followed him
[23]
.

If though the divine Essence is identified with the divine energy then how is
man deified (how does he reach theosis)? By participating in the divine
essence of God? How do we come to know God? By getting to know His
essence? Blessed Augustine, without realising it, accepted the teaching of the
Eunomians that the faithful can, through the Holy Writ and philosophy, come
to learn the essence of God even from this life; whereas in the next life the
ones saved, he would claim, will come to know the Divine Essence directly
[24]
;
"It won't be long", Augustine would say, "before I research the essence of God,
either through the Holy Writ or through creation".
[25]


Because blessed Augustine would identify the Divine Essence with the divine
energies, for this reason he would claim that during their theoptiae (visions of
God) the Prophets, Apostles and Saints would see created symbols of the
divinity and not the divinity itself, as for him this would mean that they see
the very Divine Essence, since he would not make a distinction between
Divine Essence and divine energies of God. It seems that he had heard from
somewhere that the Fathers had rejected the idea that in the Holy Writ the
ones engraced would see the Divine Essence and for this reason Augustine
would also reject this possibility
[26]
. For this reason, all the natural iconic
symbols of divinity that we meet in the Holy Writ (such as: gnophus, light,
glory, cloud, lightning, smoke, fire, column of fire, column of cloud, fiery
tongues, the likening to a dove) would be taken by blessed Augustine as
made and unmade creations which symbolised the divine presence on those
who would see them, in order for God to be heard among men through these
creations. Blessed Augustine would also say (and through him so do the
Franks) that the revelation of God done upon the nous of man is higher than
the above revelations which are supposedly performed through these
creations (made and then unmade).
[27]


Since Franco-latins believe that the Prophets saw and heard creatures, who
represent or reflect God, for this reason of course, as Fr. Romanides also says,
they took the divine inspiration of the Holy Writ to the letter, since the things
seen and heard were written down in order to become accessible to the
natural powers of man, sense and logic. According to this theory, the thing
revealed becomes revealed in order to become perceived by the logic of man.
According to blessed Augustine, man accepts the dogmas of the Holy Writ
through faith and then he tries through his mental abilities, with his logic, to
understand them (also aided by philosophy, esp. Neo-Platonic philosophy).
This method became the bedrock of the Franco-latin tradition and can be
summarised in Augustine's motto "Credo Ut Intelligam" viz. "I believe in
order to comprehend". Thus, as we already said, Augustine reached the point
of saying:

"It won't be long before I research the essence of God, either through His Holy
Writ or through the created".

Fr. John Romanides says clearly and with emphasis: The whole basis of the
theology of Augustine is summarised in the motto that became the theological
slogan of the Franks, namely Credo Ut Intelligam, I believe in order to
comprehend. According to this deluded method, the faithful one first accepts
the dogmas through faith and then, if he has the necessary philosophical
proficiency, he makes every possible effort to transform the simple faith into
knowledge
[28]
.

d) Contrary to the above Augustinian Franco-latin plani (delusion) on
theophanies, the Holy Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods had
used as a common axis around which they developed their conversations
with the heretic Arians and Eunomians, the following unshakeable teaching
of the Holy Writ and of the Holy Tradition, that says: "The Prophets, the
Apostles and the Saints, seeing invisibly and listening suprarationally and
understanding supranoetically would see the Glory, Reign ("Kingdom") and
Divinity of the Logos, would listen to and know Him, the very Logos in the
Spirit, and through Him God the Father" (Fr. Romanides).
[29]
And precisely
because of this were the Orthodox in a position to have a discussion with the
heretics as to whether the appearing Logos is homoousios (consubstantial),
homoiousios or anomoios to the Father. For, if both the Fathers and the heretics
had interpreted the theophanies in the way blessed Augustine had, and thus
identified every Divine Person with the common Divine Essence, as he did,
then there would have been no problem of a homoousios or homoiousios or
anomoios Logos or Holy Spirit towards (relative to) the Father. This way we
can say that Saint Augustine would accept the decisions of the First and
Second Ecumenical Synods only superficially because in actuality he would
disagree with the presuppositions of the Holy Fathers in their polemics
against the heretics.

The view of blessed Augustine on revelation, namely that the Prophets of the
OT did not have a theophany of God the Logos but only saw creatures, made
and unmade, as well as his other view on Original Sin, namely that Adam's
descendants supposedly inherited his guilt, led the Franco-latin tradition to
depreciate extremely the people of God who had lived before the Incarnation
of the divine Logos, namely the people of the OT, the Patriarchs and the
Prophets
[30]
. According to the Fathers, however, the just people in the OT
were friends of God even before the offering of the Crucificial Sacrifice of
Christ on Golgotha, because the mystery of the Cross would be effected
(energised) on them
[31]
. For this reason the Holy Fathers use the life of Moses
as an example of perfection in this life.



10. THE FIRE OF HELL IS NOT CREATED

The other deluded teachings (plani) of the Franco-latins on hell and purgatory
stem from Augustines views on the issues pertaining to revelation. As we
said, blessed Augustine would take all natural iconic symbols of the divinity
that we meet in the Holy Writ such as e.g. cloud, light, column of fire and
cloud, fiery tongues etc. as creatures; thus, in the same way, the Franks, who
followed Augustine's teaching, imagined the eternal fire as well as the outer
darkness of hell to be created things. Through this misinterpretation,
therefore, we have the paradoxal and superstitious beliefs of the Franks on
hell and purgatory, which are described poetically by Dante, who is
considered father of Western Enlightenment
[32]
. The truth is that the eternal
fire and the outer darkness are the SAME as the Glory and Gnophus of God.
Everyone will see God; His uncreated, of course, energy. However those who
have a clean heart will see Him as Glory and Gnophus (this is Paradise), while
those who have an unclean heart will see Him as Scathing Fire (this is Hell
with the eternal fire and the outer darkness).

Because the Franco-latins believed that the damned will not see something
uncreated, they took the eternal fire of the Holy Writ to be something created,
as we said. At least, using common sense they should have realised that the
eternal fire and the outer darkness will not be perceptible by the fact that "it
has been prepared for the devil and his angels"
[33]
. These beings certainly do not
have senses in order to see perceptibly a darkness or fire perceived by the
senses. Anyway, since the Franco-latins took the eternal fire to be something
created, they also imagined, like the ancient idolaters had also imagined
before them, that the world of salvation and perdition is like a "three-storey
building" consisting of: an unchangeable heaven for the blessed, a changeable
earth for the trial of the people and changeable infernal areas for the damned
and those being purged! ...

"Contrary to this Frankish Tradition, Romanity never interpreted the issues
on hell and divine inspiration in such a way as to adopt the cosmology of the
ancient idolatric world's three-storey universe, with a paradise above the
heavens, hell and purgatory fire under the earth and the earth as a place of
trial for men. And Romanity never even imagined that God somehow
dictated words to the Prophets and Apostles in ways other than the human
nature of the Logos" (Fr. John Romanides)
[34]
.



11. NO, TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THROUGH LOGIC AND
THROUGH THE PLATONIC ARCHETYPES

Finally, we wish to talk about the most fundamental difference between
blessed Augustine and the Fathers of the Church. Augustine believes,
together with the Platonics, that man can know God with his logic, whereas
on the contrary the Fathers of our Church teach that logic can only know of
the created things. And since there is no similarity between the created
universe and the Uncreated God and since logic can only know the created
things, it is not possible, therefore, for man to know God through his logic.
Then how do we get to know God? By becoming Saints, Theumens! This is
the only way of knowing God: the experience of Theosis; not mans apt logic.
But even if we are not Saints, in order to have a personal experience of
Theosis yet, by living inside the Church, we turn to our Saints and through
them we obtain knowledge of God. By reading the Holy Writ and the life and
teaching of the Saints of our Church, we receive knowledge of God through
them. The Prophets, the Apostles and the Saints of our Church; these are our
own authenticity on God. The Franco-latins, however, by following
Augustine, introduced a supposedly different way of knowing God, which is
achieved via logic. According to this theory, mans logic can know God
directly, without the experience of Theosis
[35]
. It is the well-known adage that
formed the basis for the theology of Augustine, namely Credo ut intelligam; "I
believe in order to comprehend". According to this erroneous principle, man
accepts whatever the Holy Writ writes in faith and then attempts, using his
logic and helped along the way by Philosophy, to comprehend the revealed
things; in fact the more clever he is, the better he gets to know God! ...

The matter is very serious because through this erroneous principle another
way of knowing the Uncreated God enters; through logic. But how (according
to blessed Augustine and the Franco-latins) can man come to know the
Uncreated God with his logic? Answer: (supposedly) via the "archetypes"!
The Franco-latins accept the Platonic teaching that the created things in our
world are icons of the transcended archetypes. This deluded teaching (plani)
that supposedly these uncreated archetypal articles (ideas or words) are met
in God's nous and that the created objects in the world are icons of these
archetypal ideas, this I say teaching, constitutes the gnosiological basis of the
so-called Scholastic theological and philosophical tradition of the Franco-
latins. According to this principle, there is an analogy (analogia) between the
created objects in this world and the uncreated archetypal (supposedly)
species, which according to the Franco-latins are identified with the Divine
Essence. This way, according to them, if we study the created objects with our
logic we can then trace the Divine Essence through them and come to know
(or so they tell us) God!

Fr. John Romanides writes in his book "Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology of
the Orthodox Catholic Church" Tome I p. 382: "By accepting the teachings of
Plato on unchangeable species and identifying these with the Divine Essence,
Augustine established the analogy between created and Uncreated, based on
which he and the Franco-latins would research the Divine Essence through
the in-world created icons of the uncreated archetypal species in God". Since,
according to this deluded idea, there is a semblance (an analogia) between
created objects and archetypes, each created thing has its archetype. The
archetype is the unchangeable idea (or species or word) and every created
object resembles its archetype with its essence, which lives in the noetic
world. Man's soul has an analogy with the archetypes, for it is spiritual and
immaterial, like they are too; so the like recognises the like. Therefore through
study of the copies of the archetypes in the present world, the soul comes to
remember the archetypes.
36.
When the soul is freed from the body after death,
it will not only remember but will also have a direct knowledge of these
archetypes. According to the Franco-latins, enlightenment is for the soul to
deal with these archetypes! From the Orthodox perspective, we see how
terrible this plani is! For us, Plato's archetypes do not exist. On Sunday of
Orthodoxy we also read an excommunication for anyone who accepts that
Plato's archetypes exist in reality.

We repeat: Through the above deluded teaching of the Franco-latins, as they
received it by blessed Augustine, the idea is introduced into Christianity that
man can come to know the Uncreated God through his logic alone; even the
Essence of God! ... How? By studying the creatures, penetrating the essence
and the concept of the created through human reason (logos); which created
objects are (supposedly) copies of the eternal archetypes. They claim that
these eternal archetypes coincide with the essence of God. This way, i.e.
through the study of the objects of this world, we come to learn of God, of His
very essence! We repeat, this is a terrible plani, opposed to the teachings of the
Fathers of our Church, who teach that God is known through prayer and
purity of the heart, in other words by our becoming Saints. Of course,
guidance is required in the ascesis of prayer, in this battle for catharsis (inner
cleansing) of the soul from the passions; for this reason for him who wishes to
know God, the knowledge of the Holy Writ is necessary, as well as the study
of the life and teaching of the Holy Fathers of our Church also are.

"Ideally of course, from a theological and spiritual viewpoint, [the one wishing to
rise up spiritually towards theosis] should look for a genuine spiritual father in
order to be initiated to the mysteries of the Orthodox tradition through him and, after
having found himself along this initiation path, to study the Holy Bible intensively
and at the same time study its Patristic hermeneutics"(Fr. John Romanides)!!!
37.



************************************************************************

NOTES

1. For this topic cf. the book by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and St. Vlasius Fr. Hierotheus,
"Born and raised Romans"; the book by professor Fr. John Romanides "Romanity and Romans
or Roman Fathers of the Church" p. 57 ff., as well as the related important works by Professor
Fr. George Metallinos. See also our article on the expression "Roman Catholic Church" found
in our periodical "Orthodox Catechesis" issue 1.

2. Also "the correct historical distinction of Christianity is not between Latins and Hellenes,
but between Franks and Romans or between Frankocy and Romanity. All Hellenic-speaking
and Latin-speaking Roman Fathers (with the exception of Augustine) belong to Romanity, to
the Roman theological tradition, which is clearly distinguished from the Augustinian
Frankish theological tradition" (Fr. John Romanides in his book "Romans or Roman Fathers of
the Church" p. 58. See also p. 67)

3. Ibid. p. 52

4. Ibid. p. 55-56. p. 104

5. This idea first made its appearance to us after Turkocracy.

6. Ibid. p. 55-56

7. Ibid. p. 54-55

8. We Orthodox claim that this wish of Augustine to agree with the Fathers, despite the fact
that due to his ignorance of their teaching and due to his Manichean past he would not agree
with them, this humility of his, shown with his willingness to correct his errors in the
occasional suggestions to do so, and most of all this repentance of his for his former sinful
life, elevate him to a Saint of our Church. He has however, we repeat, erroneous theology,
which has become accepted in everything by the Franks. The clash of the patristic theology
with the Frankish one or the clash of Saint Gregory Palamas with Barlaam are in their essence
a clash between the patristic and Augustinian teachings.

9. Ibid. p. 59

10. Through Peter Moghila (AD 1633-1646), it seems.

11. Fr. John Romanides says: "With the establishment of the First Hellenic State after the
revolution of AD 1821, the powerful influence of Russia and Frankocy invaded it, mainly
through the University of Athens, with disastrous results for Romanity, since the Hierarchy
of Hellas and the spiritual leadership of the modern Greeks became educated under the spirit
of Frankocy (Western Europe) and of Russia" (ibid. p. 75). The theologian father says however
in another section of his book the pleasant news for "today": "Today, when Western theology
is found in a confused and declining state, Patristic theology has returned to the Hellenic
Universities and thus its spirit reigns in Hellas to the advantage of Romanity" (ibid. p. 80)

12. Cf. our periodical "Incense" issue 13

13. Cf. the great study by Professor Stylianos Papadopoulos "Concept, Importance and
Authority of the Father and Teacher in his Patrology" tome I, p. 17-19.

14. Ibid. p. 81

15. For the importance of the distinction made by Europeans and Russians between "Latin"
and "Greek" Christianity, see the study by Fr. John Romanides "Romanity, Romania, Rumeli"
Thessalonica 1975, chapter I.

16. Ibid. p. 83

17. Ibid. p. 87, 88.

18. Unfortunately, many of our own theologians learn about the Great Father Saint Gregory
Palamas through the related work on him by Meyerdorff (Greek translation).

19. To these "Graecising" Fathers, as they would call them, they would place: Dionysius the
Areopagite, Evagrius Ponticus, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor and others.

20. To the support of his theory on distinction of the Fathers to Biblicising and Hellenising,
the Russian Meyerdorff went astray due to another fact also, namely the fact that Barlaam,
even before his clash with Palamas, had announced himself in favour of the superiority of the
Ecumenical Synods against the Pope and against the insistence of the Latins on the dogmatic
character of the filioque and had therefore proved in favour of the Orthodox and not the
Latin tradition. But Barlaam's position on the relationship of the Ecumenical Synods with the
Pope, as can be seen clearly, is a first shape of the later theories of the West, the so-called
Conciliaristes, which supported the superiority of the Ecumenical Synods. That Barlaam
follows this line does not prove his Orthodoxy. Since the 14
th
century, we meet a colossal
movement in the West that supported these views vigorously, which movement aided the
Protestant revolution against the Pope in the 16th century. Also, as regards the issue of the
Filioque, Barlaam had placed himself not only against the positions of the Latins, as we said
before, but also against the insistence of the Fathers on the Filioque's heretic nature, since he
claimed that the Filioque is not part of the (given) revelation and for this reason the
syllogisms for or against it are only dialectic. Saint Gregory Palamas, however, would
respond that we have hagiographic and patristic dogmatic axioms which constitute the proof
base against the heretic nature of the Filioque and for this reason syllogisms, as regards the
Filioque, are not of a dialectic nature but constitute dogma: In God there are the common and
the incommunicable, which belong exclusively to only one Person of the Holy Trinity. Thus,
the procession of the Holy Spirit needs to be either from the Father alone (in which case it is
an incommunicable idiom) or from the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit. It is not
possible for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and from the Son (Filioque) without
the common idiom of the two persons to also be an idiom of the third Person; in which case
the Holy Spirit would partake of the cause of the existence of His self! ... On the other hand,
the patristic teaching that the Father is the only source of Divinity clearly implies that the
Spirit has His existence solely from the Father, as is the case with the Son. Again, the fact
that Barlaam accuses the "doyen" among Franco-latin theologians Thomas Aquinas, because
he would identify all things of God with the Divine Essence, made others also (apart from
Meyerdorff) believe that this is yet more proof that Barlaam represents an Orthodox and not a
Latin tradition; and this fact also contributed in the separation of the Fathers into Biblicising
and Hellenising. However, the fact that Barlaam accuses Aquinas does not mean that he is
Orthodox, but rather that he belongs to the other, equally heretical, side, the side of the so-
called Scottists. For this reason Vissarion (formerly of Nicaea and later Cardinal of the Papist
Church) wrote that Barlaam introduced the Scottist (from Duns Scotus) anti-Thomistic
arguments in the East (cf. Fr. John Romanides, ibid. p. 124-130).

21. Cf. Ioannis Carmiris' "Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments", tome 1341.8, p. 357

22. Ibid. p. 108-109

23. Because it was the Eunomians who first identified the divine essence with the divine
energy, for this reason Palamas characterises those who do not accept the distinction between
Divine Essence and Uncreated energy in God as Eunomians. Saint Gregory Palamas
complains to Barlaam that not even the Arians had ever reached the point of identifying the
divine energy with the Divine Essence. The Arians used to say that the divine Logos is of the
will of God and not of His essence. What they would claim about the Son and Logos of God
was heretical; however it appears from this that they were making a distinction between
Divine Essence and Divine Energy in God. For this reason, Palamas observes: "Those who
called the Logos of God as the Son of God's will did not dare call the essence of God as will"
(In favour of those resting divinely, 3, 2, 6). The matter of the distinction between Divine
Essence and Divine Energy is found at the centre of the clash between Saint Gregory Palamas
and Barlaam. This issue had been expressed since the beginning; it is already found in the
first stage of their dispute. The distinction between Divine Essence and Divine Energy
corresponds precisely to the distinction, again, in God, between the way of existence and the
energies of the Holy Spirit. The manner of existence is of the essence of God; the energy
differs and is differentiated from the manner, in the same way it does from the essence. The
manners of existence of each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity are hypostatic; in other words,
each manner of existence belongs to only one divine hypostasis; however, the divine energy
is natural of the essence and for this reason it is common. For this precise reason the
procession of the Holy Spirit, as a manner of existence, cannot become identified with the
sending of the Holy Spirit.

24. Blessed Augustine would claim however that those being in divine ecstasy can also see
from this life the essence of God, such as Moses and Paul did. However, generally speaking,
Augustine, like all the Franco-latin Scholastics after him also do, accepts that the ones saved
view the Divine Essence after death. "Nevertheless, according to the Orthodox Fathers, the
Theumens do not see or will not see the Divine Essence either in this life or beyond the grave;
but now and beyond the grave and during the common resurrection they see and will see the
natural and Uncreated glory and reign ("kingdom") of Christ, in the same way that the
Apostles had seen Him on Mount Tabor and during the Pentecost. The same holds for the
angels who only know the divine glory and divinity and in no way do they know the Divine
Essence, which is known only to the Holy Trinity" (Fr. John Romanides, ibid. p. 112).

25. De Trinitate cf. Prologue II

26. He would include, however (as it appears from the aforementioned (cf. note 22) this
position of the Eunomians, namely that the faithful can already know the essence of God
from this life through the Holy Writ and through philosophy.

27. Fr. Romanides writes in his monumental book (p. 118): "Contrary to this Patristic teaching,
the above (higher?) revelations of a bright gnophus, glory, light, luminous cloud, column of
fire, column of cloud, fiery tongues, all are -- according to Augustine -- theophanies of made
and unmade creatures, perceptible by the senses of the Prophets and the Apostles and, as
such, inferior to those revelations done to the nous directly, since to these the nous does not
have to remove notions/signs (noemata) from the senses. For Barlaam's Augustinian Franco-
latin tradition, the truth revealed through philosophy and the Holy Writ is approachable by
faith in the logic of the able faithful (ability depending on the amount of his secular learning);
thus only the things that have not been revealed transcend logic".

28. Ibid. p. 109-114. 129

29. Ibid. p. 114. The same theologian Father adds elsewhere: "According to the Holy Writ and
the Fathers, the entry of Moses, of the Prophets and of the Apostles on Tabor to the luminous
cloud, to the glory, to the reign ("kingdom"), to the Bright gnophus, to the luminous darkness,
to the place where God resides, to the column of fire, to the column of cloud, as well as the
communion (metheksis) of the fiery tongues of Pentecost, all signify the appearance
(phanerosis) and communion (metheksis) in the divinity of Christ, of the Father and of the
Holy Spirit, and constitute the highest form of revelation and the entire basis of Patristic
theology, while these constitute/comprise/establish the very theosis (deification or
glorification) or theoptia (divine vision) or theoria (divine contemplation) of the Uncreated
energy and presence of God".

30. This, according to Fr. Romanides, is due to the strong Platonic and Manichean influence
on Augustine on the matters on Man, Fall, God and the Old Testament.

31. Contrary to the Franco-latins, saint Gregory Palamas says: "The Cross of Christ would be
pre-proclaimed and pre-typed (pre-shadowed) mystically since [the times of] ancient
generations and no one ever KATHLLAGH TW UEW without the power of the Cross ...
There were many friends of God, before and after the Law, without the Cross having been
seen/revealed yet [by/to them], who were declared as such by God Himself; and the king and
prophet David, being the greatest friend of God of his era, "to me", he says, "your friends
were well-honoured in God". How come the friends of God who lived in the times before the
Cross EXRHMATISAN? I will show you ... Just as the man of sin, the Son of unlawfulness,
the Antichrist I say, has not come yet, [and yet] the beloved-in-Christ Theologian says "and
now, beloved, the Antichrist is"; in the same way also the Cross was [being energised] in
former [generations] and [will continue to do so] until the end" (Homily 11 on the Honoured
and Life-giving Cross (Hellenic Patrology (EPE) 9, 282 ff). We recommend that the entire
homily is studied as it proves that the just people of the OT were friends of God even before
the offering with the Crucificial sacrifice of Christ).

32. Professor Mr. N. Matsoukas writes in his book "Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology" II, p.
548, 549, note 204: In his "The City of God" Augustine describes the created fire of hell with
terrifying expressions. In fact, in his desire to prove that the fire of hell exists in all eternity
without ever becoming quenched and that those tormented in it are not eventually
annihilated, he musters examples from the physical world. He tells us that there exist worms
that live in very high temperatures (indeed there exist such micro-organisms, as there are also
others that live in very low temperatures). Among these we find the salamander. (Only that
according to the mythical beliefs of his era, the salamander would quench the fire when it is
found inside it). The volcanoes of Sicily blaze and yet they never burn themselves. After all,
the flesh of a dead peacock does not dissolve under any way. (Augustine himself tells us that
once he took a piece of peacock flesh off the dinner table and experimented). Calcium is an
eternally living fire that can never be quenched except inside water. Cf. De Civitate Dei 21,2
and PL 41, 700-712. Thus Augustine -- already Tertullian had risen to claim these views
before him -- managed with these descriptions to give a basis for the scholastics to support
their theory that the fire of hell is created. After all, the inability to distinguish between
essence and energy in God leads one there in a natural way. (A created reality must out of
necessity come in contact with the damned and not with the uncreated essence of God).
Orthodox theology of course does not accept this view. God, through His uncreated energies,
engulfs everything. The damned feel anguish (blind as they are) since they do not have the
vision (thea) of God (Theos). The influence stems from the uncreated illuminating energy
which is dolorous to the damned. Cf. Nicephorus Gregoras' "Roman History" 24,9 PG 148,
1424C: "We hear in the holy gospels of a fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. Thus, if
that fire is uncreated, as Palamas claims, KAI UEOS AN PROS TE KAI ANARXOS EIH AN
AUTO". Here we see that the scholastics are being sarcastic with Palamas; they believe that
the fire of hell cannot be uncreated. According to their presuppositions they are certainly
right. The same (correct in its deduction, erroneous in its starting hypothesis) syllogism can
also be made by some Orthodox theologians, provided they declare that they do not interpret
the Orthodox tradition. I had underlined this on another occasion and I will do so here as
well: theology and dogmatics in particular (in other words epistemological theology) follows
the method of de lege lata: it describes what it sees. However, patrologist P. Christou, by
disagreeing with me, has, without perhaps having realised it, also disagreed with the
Orthodox fathers; and supports the view that the fire of hell is created. Cf. P. K. Christou
"Maximus the Confessor and Nikolaos Matsoukas", Inheritance, 12, 1, Thessaloniki 1980 p.
206-207. See also the reply of N. A. Matsoukas "A reply to Mr. Panagiotis Christou",
Thessaloniki 1981, p. 25-26.

33. Matthew 25:41. We refer the reader to section 1,3,10 taken from the Homily On those
resting divinely by Saint Gregory Palamas which, as Fr. John Romanides adds aptly,
"summarises in a wonderful manner the essence of the Orthodox teaching on revelation,
Theosis, hell, knowledge (gnosis) of God, basis of apophatic theology, authenticity and
infallibility".

34. Ibid. par. p. 135.

35. There are books written by us too which have been based on this principle; e.g. "The wise
speak about God"! ... And in order for one to realise how heinous their content is, they need
to know that these "wise" men who give their opinions on God are either Protestants or
Franco-latins!...

36. And I say "remembers" the archetypes because, according to this deluded Platonic idea,
the soul would know these archetypes before becoming imprisoned in the body. In
Christianity, this Platonic perception took the form of inborn knowledge of God inside man.

37. Roman or Neoroman Fathers of the Church, Tome I, p. 54.


(*) Meanings of "theopty" :
(a) the unerring and mystical theology of those who have attained theopty (the
"viewing" of God), who speak from personal experience and communion with God,
(b) the wisdom-loving theology of those who have no personal experience per se of
theopty, but who humbly accept the experiences and the theopties of those who have
attained theopty, and they theologize according to them and
(c) the modern (newly-found, innovative) theology of insolent theologians of those
who theologize dialectically, on the basis of their own personal philosophical
principles, and who reject the experiences of the Saints.