franks, romans, feudalism, and doctrine

7/23/2019 Franks, Romans, Feudalism, And Doctrine

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/franks-romans-feudalism-and-doctrine 1/55

FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE

AN INTERPLAY BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND SOCIETY

Part I

Introduction

In the background of dialogue and the Ecumenical Movement for the reunion of Christendom lies

the generally recognized fact that there is an interplay between theology and society, which may lead to

a dogmatic formulation and become the cause of doctrinal differences.

ithin the !oman Empire doctrinal conflicts took place usually among !oman citizens in a

atmosphere of religious and philosophical pluralism. ith the official recognition of "rthodo#

Christianity, we witness the beginning of the use of doctrinal differences in support of nationalistic

movements of separate identity and secession from !oman rule, both political and ecclesiastical. $oth

%estorianism and so&called Monophysitism, although initially promoted by !oman nationals, were

finally supported by separatist tendencies among such ethnic groups as 'yrians, Copts, and (rmenians.

Indeed, both Persians and (rabs took care to keep Christians separated.

$y the eighth century, we meet for the first time the beginning of a split in Christianity which, from

the start, took on ethnic names instead of names designating the heresy itself or its leader. )hus in est

European sources we find a separation between a *reek East and a +atin est. In !oman sources this

same separation constitutes a schism between ranks and !omans.

"ne detects in both terminologies an ethnic or racial basis for the schism which may be more

profound and important for descriptive analysis than the doctrinal claims of either side. -octrine here

may very well be part of a political, military, and ethnic struggle and, therefore, intelligible only when

put in proper perspective. )he interplay between doctrine and ethnic or racial struggle may be such that

the two can be distinguished, but not separated.

)he schism between Eastern and estern Christianity was not between East and est !omans. In

actuality, it was a split between East !omans and the conuerors of the est !omans.

)he !oman Empire was conuered in three stages/ 0st by *ermanic tribes who became known as

+atin Christianity, 1nd by Muslim (rabs, and finally, by Muslim )urks. In contrast to this, the

ecclesiastical administration of the !oman Empire disappeared in stages from est European !omania

2the estern part of the !oman nation3, but has survived up to modern times in the !oman "rthodo#Patriarchates of Constantinople, (le#andria, (ntioch and 4erusalem.

)he reason for this is that the conuerors of the est !omans used the Church to suppress the

!oman nation, whereas under Islam the !oman nation survived by means of the Church. In each

instance of conuest, the bishops became the ethnarchs of the conuered !omans and administered

!oman law on behalf of the emperor in Constantinople. (s long as the bishops were !oman, the unity

of the !oman Church was preserved, in spite of theological conflicts. )he same was true when



!omanized ranks became bishops during Merovingian times and shared with !oman bishops church

administration.

Roman Revolution and t!e Rie o" #ran$i! #eudalim and Doctrine

-uring the seventh century, however, the seeds of schism appear. )he 5isigoths in 'pain had

abandoned their (rian heresy and had become nominally "rthodo#. $ut they preserved their (riancustoms of church administration, which became that of the Carolingian ranks, and finally, of the

%ormans. )he 5isigoths began sub6ugating the 'panish !omans by replacing !oman bishops with

*oths and by 789, had abolished !oman law.

-uring this same century, especially after 7:;, the ranks also had appointed rankish bishops en

masse and had rid their government administration of !oman officials.

Earlier, during the si#th and early seventh century, rebellions of leaders in rancia were 6oint

conspiracies of ranks and !omans. $y 7<;, however, the rebellions had become purely rankish.

)he fact that Constantinople sent its navy twice to 'pain at the end of the seventh and beginning ofthe eighth century to reestablish the beachhead lost in 71= is testimony to the plight of !oman

Christians in 'pain. In the face of the victorious (rabs, who had completed their conuest of the

Middle East and had driven across %orthern (frica, within striking distance of Carthage,

Constantinople seemed ill&prepared for such military ventures into 'pain. >owever, 6udging from the

pattern of events, it seems that these attempted East !oman landings in 'pain were supposed to touch

off a general uprising of the Christian and 4ewish !omans in 'pain and *aul against 5isigothic and

rankish rule. )he success of such rebellions in 'pain and *aul would perhaps have helped

Constantinople in stemming the (rab tidal wave, which at times seemed to swamp the whole empire.

(t the 'eventeenth Council of )oledo in 7=9, the 4ews were condemned to slavery because they hadconfessed to a plot to overthrow the ?Christians? 2meaning *oths3 in 'pain, with the help of @those who

dwelt in lands beyond the sea,@ the !oman, and not the later (rabic province of (frica, as is commonly

believed. )he (rabs at this time had not yet reached Carthage, the capital of this province or e#archate.

Egica 27:<&<A03, the *othic king, had fought off an attempt by the East !oman navy to reinstall the

beachhead lost in 71=. )here can be no doubt that the 4ews were condemned at this 'eventeenth

Council of )oledo in 7=9 for plotting with Constantinople and 'panish !omans for the overthrow of

*othic rule in 'pain.

Bing itiza 2<A0&<A:=3, the son of Egica, also defeated an East !oman attempt to liberate some of

the cities in 'outhern 'pain. 'ince 7=: the (rabs were in firm control of Carthage and its environs and

were establishing their control in the area of Ceuta.

)hese attempts of Constantinople failed, and the !oman $erber 2%umedian3 governor of CeutaD % in

<00, and a bit later, the *allo !omans, chose what seemed the lesser evil by establishing ad hoc

alliances with the (rabs against 5isigoths and ranks. )hese !oman (rab alliances overthrew

5isigothic rule in 'pain 2<00&<0=3, but were defeated by the rank warlord Charles Martel, first at

Poitiers in <;1, and then in Provence in <;=.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm#1








)he !oman revolts reduced rancia to the northern kingdoms of (ustrasia and %eutrasia. Eudo, the

!oman duke of (uitane, who made the first mentioned alliance with the (rabs against the ranksD & ,

had temporarily occupied Paris itself in an attempt to keep the pro&!oman Merovingian ranks in

power. It fell to Charles Martel, Pippin III, and Charlemagne to restore rankish rule over $urgundy,

(uvergne, (uitane, *ascony, 'eptimania, and Provence.

Carolingian feudalism had its origin in the need to prevent the disaster which had overtaken the

5isigoths in 'pain. )he ranks were obliged to develop and e#tend the already e#isting system of

controlling slave populations. )heir goal was to keep the !omans sub6ugated and pacified, first in

(ustrasia and %eustrasia, and then elsewhere in *aul, and, finally, in %orthern Italy, as circumstances

permitted.D '

hile still consolidating their grip on *aul, the ranks conuered %orthern and Central Italian

!omania in the middle of the eighth century, in the guise of liberators of Italic of Papal !omania from

+ombard oppression. (t this time, the papacy was deeply involved in the iconoclastic controversy,

having taken a firm stand, against the !oman emperors and patriarchs of %ew !ome who supported the

iconoclastic movement.

)he ranks applied their policy of destroying the unity between the !omans under their rule and the

!omans under the rule of Constantinople and the (rabs. )hey played one !oman party against the

other, took neither side, and finally condemned both the iconoclasts and the 'eventh Ecumenical 'ynod

2<:7<3 at their own Council of rankfurt in <=9, in the presence of the legates of Pope >adrian I 2<<0&

<=83, the staunch supporter of "rthodo# practice.

In the time of Pippin of >erestal 27=<&<083 and Charles Martel 2<08&<903, many of the ranks who

replaced !oman bishops were military leaders who, according to 'aint $oniface, @shed the blood of

Christians like that of the pagans.@D (

In order to defend itself against foreign interference and protect itself from the fate of conuered

!omans elsewhere, the papacy promulgated electoral laws in <7=, according to which candidates for

the papal dignity had to be cardinal deacons or presbyters of the city of !ome, and !omans by birth.

"nly !oman nationals were allowed to participate in the elections. )hirteen rankish bishops were in

attendance when these decisions were made.D )

Meanwhile, !oman revolutionary activity in *aul had not yet been fully suppressed. Pippin III had

died the year before and Charlemagne and his brother Carloman had taken over the rule of (ustrasia

and %eustria. ithin the surprisingly short period of only twenty&two years, from <;1 to <89, the

ranks had defeated the !oman&(rab alliance, swamped all the provinces of *aul, and had swept into

%orthern Italy. )his was made possible by the new feudal order which was first established in (ustrasia

and %eustria. )he !oman administrative units of the civitates were abolished and replaced by the

military comitates. )he former free !omans were transferred en masse from the cities and were

established on the slave labor camps called villae and mansi, alongside the serfs. )hey were called

villeins (villains), a term which, for understandable reasons, came to mean enemies of law and order.






























)he 5isigoths in 'pain were overthrown by the !omans, who opened their city gates to the $erbers

and (rabs. )he ranks reacted with determination to avoid the occurrence of the same in rancia 2+and

of the ranks3 by abolishing !oman urban society.

$y the middle of the eighth century, the rankish armies of occupation were overe#tended far

beyond (ustrasia and %eustria, where the main body of their nation was established. )hey could not

yet afford to take over the church administration of Papal !omania as they had done elsewhere. It wase#pedient to play the part of liberators for the time being. )herefore, they appointed the !oman pope as

a vassal of rancia.

)he measure of freedom left to the !omans in Papal !omania depended on their right to have their

own !oman pope, bishops, and clergy. )o lose this right would have been tantamount to the same loss

of freedom suffered by their compatriots in %orthern Italy and rancia. )herefore, they had to be very

careful not to incite the ranks.

T!e Im*erial Coronation o" C!arlema+ne

(n unsuccessful attempt was made on the life of Pope +eo III 2<=8&:073, the successor of >adrian.

Pope +eo was then accused of immoral conduct. Charlemagne took a personal and active interest in the

investigations which caused +eo to be brought to him in Paderborn. +eo was sent back to !ome,

followed by Charlemagne, who continued the investigations. )he rankish king reuired finally that

+eo swear to his innocence on the $ible, which he did on -ecember 1;, :AA. )wo days later +eo

crowned Charlemagne ?Emperor of the !omans.?

Charlemagne wanted the title ?Emperor?, but not that of ?Emperor of the !omans?. >is biographer

Einhard claims that had Charlemagne known what the pope was up to, he would not have entered the

church.D ,

Charlemagne had arranged to get the title ?Emperor? in e#change for +eo?s e#oneration. +eo almost

spoiled things because Charlemagne wanted the title recognized by Constantinople&%ew !ome whose

real ?Emperor of the !omans? would never recognize this full title for a rank. )his is why

Charlemagne never used this title in his official documents, using instead the titles ?Emperor and

(ugustus, who governs? or ?administers the !oman Empire?. $y claiming that he ruled the !oman

Empire, Charlemagne thus clearly meant that he governed the whole !oman Empire. )he ranks

decided that the Eastern part of the Empire had become ?*reek?, and its leader, an emperor of ?*reeks?.

)his is why "tto III 2=:;&0AA13 is described in the year 0AAA by his chronicler as ?visiting the !oman

Empire?, meaning, simply, the Papal 'tates.D -

)he !omans called their empire !omania and respublica. )he ranks reserved these names

e#clusively for the Papal 'tates and literally condemned the Eastern part of the Empire to be Graecia.D

. )he ranks were very careful to always condemn ?*reeks? as heretics, but never !omans, although

East and est !omans were one nation. )hus at the Council of rankfurt 2<=93, the ranks condemned

the ?*reeks? and their 'eventh Ecumenical 'ynod in the presence of the legates of the !oman Pope

>adrian II, an aggressive promoter of this same 'eventh Ecumenical 'ynod.





















>adrian had already e#communicated all those who had not accepted the 'eventh Ecumenical

'ynod. )echnically the ranks were in a state of e#communication. $ut to implement this would have

brought down upon Papal !omania and her citizens the wrath of rankish feudalism, as had been the

fate of the !omans in the rest of rancia 2*allia, *ermania, and Italia3.

Charlemagne had also caused the ilioue to be added to the rankish Creed, without consulting the

pope. hen the controversy over this addition broke out in 4erusalem, Charlemagne convoked theCouncil of (achen in :A= and decreed that this addition was a dogma necessary for salvation. ith this

fait accomplit under his belt, he tried to pressure Pope +eo III into accepting it. D /

+eo re6ected the ilioue not only as an addition to the Creed, but also as dogma, claiming that the

athers left it out of the Creed neither out of ignorance, nor out of negligence, nor out of oversight, but

on purpose and by divine inspiration.

hat +eo is clearly saying, but in diplomatic terms, is that the addition of the ilioue to the Creed

is a heresy. )he ranks were a too dangerous a presence in Papal !omania, so +eo acted as >adrian had

done before him. +eo did not re6ect the ilioue outside of the Creed, since there is in the est !omantradition an "rthodo# ilioue which was, and is, accepted as such by the East !omans until today.

>owever, this est !oman "rthodo# ilioue could not be added to the Creed where the term

procession had a different meaning. In other words in a wrong conte#t.

In any event, Charlemagne cared very little about the pope?s thoughts on icons and the ilioue. >e

needed the condemnation of the East !omans as heretics in order to prove that they were no longer

!omans, but *reeks, and he succeeded in getting this in the only way the rankish mind at this time

could devise. $elieving that the ranks would eventually take over the Papacy, he knew that future

rankish popes would accept what !oman popes of his day had re6ected. Charlemagne in his youth

heard stories of his father?s and uncle?s struggles to save rancia from the !oman revolutions, whichhad destroyed 5isigothic rule in >ispanic *othia 2'pain3 and had almost destroyed the ranks in *aul.

Many historians take for granted that, by this time, the ranks and !omans in *aul had become one

nation, and that the !omans were supposedly included under the name rank or populus Francorum.

'o there is not doubt about the identity of the revolutionaries in *aul, we uote a contemporary

rankish chronicler who reports that in <91, the year of Charlemagne?s birth, the *ascons rose in revolt

under the leadership of Chunoald, the duke of (uitaine and son of Eudo, mentioned above.

Charlemagne?s father and uncle @united their forces and crossed the +oire at the city of "rleans.

"verwhelming the !omans, they made for $ourges.@D %0

'ince Chunoald is here described as a beaten!oman, this means that his father Eudo was also a !oman, and not a rank, as claimed by some.

)he resulting Carolingian hatred for !omans is reflected in Charlemagne?s Libri Carolini and in

'alic law, and is clearly e#pressed by +iutprand, $ishop of Cremona, during the following century, as

we shall have occasion to see.

Meanwhile, the est !omans and the pope continued to pray in church for their emperor in

Constantinople. Even the Irish prayed for the Imperium Romanum. >owever, when the emperor















supported a heresy like iconoclasm, est !omans stopped praying for him and prayed only for the

Imperium.

)he name !oman had come to mean "rthodo#, while the name *reek, from the time of Constantine

the *reat, meant pagan.D %% $y rankish logic this meant that if the East !omans became heretics, this

would be proof that they had given up !oman nationality and that their empire was no longer !omania.

)hus, est !oman prayers would no longer apply to a heretical emperor of ?*reeks?, but to the

"rthodo# rankish emperor of ?doctrinally true? !omans. (lso part of rankish logic was the belief that

*od grants conuests to the orthodo# and defeats to the heretics. )his supposedly e#plains the

e#plosive growth of ranacia already described, but also the shrinkage of !omania at the hands of the

*ermanic and (rabic tribes.

)hese rankish principles of reasoning are clearly spelled out in a letter of Emperor +ouis II 2:88&

:<83 to Emperor $asil I 2:7<&::73 in :<0. +ouis calls himself @Emperor (ugustus of the !omans@ and

demotes $asil to @Emperor of %ew !ome.@ $asil had poked fun at +ouis, insisting that he was not even

emperor in all of rancia, since he ruled only a small part of it, and certainly was not emperor of the

!omans, but of the ranks. +ouis argued that he was emperor in all of rancia because the other

rankish kings were his kinsmen by blood. >e makes the same claim as that found in the Annals of

Lorsch/ he who holds the city of "ld !ome is entitled to the name @Emperor of the !omans.@ +ouis

claimed that / @e received from heaven this people and city to guide and 2we received3 the mother of

all the churches of *od to defend and e#alt.@

+ouis claimed that !ome, its people, and the papacy were given to the ranks by *od because of

their orthodo# beliefs and were taken by *od away from the ?*reeks?, who used to be !omans when

they were orthodo#.

+ouis responded by saying/ @e have received the government of the !oman Empire for ourorthodo#y. )he *reeks have ceased to be emperors of the !omans for their cacodo#y. %ot only have

they deserted the city 2!ome3 and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned !oman

nationality and even the +atin language. )hey have migrated to another capital city and taken up a

completely different nationality and language.@D %&

)hese remarks e#plain the rankish use of the name !omania for territories they conuered from the

East !omans and )urks during their so&called crusades. )hese provinces, and the *reek language, now

become once again !omania because the rankish armies had restored them to the ?orthodo#y? of the

rankish Papacy and to the ?supremacy? of the +atin language.D %'

Roman Reaction to C!arlema+nian Policie

Emperor $asil I fully understood the dangers of rankish plans revealed in the letter of Emperor

+ouis II and answered by sending his army to e#pel the (rabs from 'outhern Italy in :<7. rankish

occupation of Papal !omania and (rab pressure from the 'outh had put a tremendous strain on the

papacy, and gave rise to a pro&rankish party of !omans who managed to elect %icholas I 2:8:&:7<3 as

pope.






















>owever, with the !oman army now established in the south, the papacy gained enough freedom

and independence to react doctrinally to the ranks on the uestions of icons and the ilioue. Pope

4ohn 5III 2:<1&::13 felt strong enough to participate in the Eighth Ecumenical 'ynod of :<= in

Constantinople, which condemned Charlemagne?s Councils of rankfurt 2<=93 and (achen 2:A=3.

>owever, this 'ynod of Constantinople did not mention these rankish Councils or the ranks by

name. It simply condemned and e#communicated all those who re6ected the 'eventh Ecumenical'ynodD %( and altered the Creed, either by addition or by deletion. D %)

Pope 4ohn 5III was on good terms with the rankish rulers and kept them pleased with gifts of the

title emperor. >e never ceased to appeal to them for aid against the 'aracens. )he ranks were not as

powerful then as they were in the time of Charlemagne, but they were still dangerous, and could be

useful.

In a private letter to Patriarch Photios 2:8:&:7<, :<<&::73, Pope 4ohn 5III assured his colleague that

the ilioue was never added to the Creed in !ome 2as had been done by the ranks when they

feudalized %orthern Italy3, that it was a heresy, but that the uestion should be handled with great

caution...@so that we will not be forced to allow the addition...@ D %, )his papal letter was added at the

end of the minutes of the 'ynod and e#plains why the 'ynod did not name the heretics who were

condemned.D %-

Pope 4ohn also proposed to this same 'ynod of Constantinople the adoption of two of the provisions

of the <7= decree on papal elections by a college of cardinal clergy already mentioned. >owever, they

were to be applied to the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople. "ne proposed canon forbids the

candidacy of laymen. )he second restricts candidacy to the cardinal clergy of the city of

Constantinople.D %. $oth papal proposals were re6ected as inapplicable to %ew !ome, but accepted as

applicable to "ld !ome.D %/ )hus in this indirect manner, the <7= decree on papal elections became

part of !oman law when the acts of this 'ynod were signed by the emperor.

Pope 4ohn could not directly petition that the <7= papal election law be incorporated into !oman

law, since this would be tantamount to an admission that for more than a hundred years popes were

being elected illegally. It appears that ranks and pro&rankish !omans had been promoting the

argument that papal election practice was neither that of the East !oman Patriarchates, nor legal, since

not a part of !oman law. %ow it was at least part of !oman law.

It was very important for the !omanism and "rthodo#y of the papacy that it remain self&

perpetuating, without the possibility of infiltration by pro&ranks such as %icholas I, or even of arankish takeover, if clergy from outside of the papacy could become candidates, as had happened in

the East where it was permissible for a presbyter of one Patriarchate to become patriarch of another.

In addition, the canons which forbid the transference of bishops became e#tremely important. )he

successor of 4ohn 5III was not recognized as pope by Emperor $asil I because he had been bishop and

had become pope by transference.









































T!e Peudo1Iidorean Decretal

)he si#th and seventh centuries witnessed a continuing controversy in rancia over the place of the

rankish king in the election of bishops. "ne party insisted that the king had no part in the elections. (

second group would allow that the king simply approve the elections. ( third group would give the

king veto power over elections. ( fourth group supported the right of the kings to appoint the bishops.

*regory of )ours and most members of the senatorial class belonged to this fourth group. >owever,while supporting the king?s right to appoint bishops, *regory of )ours protested against the royal

practice of selling bishoprics to the highest bidder.

rom the time of 't. *regory the *reat, the popes of "ld !ome tried to convince the rankish kings

to allow the election of bishops according to canon law by the clergy and people. "f course, the

rankish kings knew very well that what the popes wanted was the election of bishops by the

overwhelming !oman ma6ority. >owever, once the ranks replaced the !oman bishops and reduced

the populus Romanorum to serfdom as villeins, there was no longer any reason why the canons should

not apply. )hus Charlemagne issued his capitulary of :A;, which restored the free election of bishops

by the clergy and people secunda statuta canonum. Charlemagne restored the letter of the law, but both

its purpose and that of the popes were frustrated. )he church in rancia remained in the grip of a

tyrannical )eutonic minority.

It is within such a conte#t that one can appreciate the appearance of the Pseudo&Isidorian -ecretals,

a large collection of forged documents, mi#ed with and fused into authentic ones compiled and in use

by :8A.

Incorporated into this collection was the forgery known as the -onation of Constantine whose

purpose was to prevent the ranks from establishing their capital in !ome. )his is strongly indicated by

the fact that "tto III 2=:;&0AA13, whose mother was an East !oman, declared this document a forgeryas part of his reason for establishing "ld !ome as his capital. Constantine the *reat allegedly gave his

imperial throne to the pope and his successors because @it is not right that an earthly emperor would

have power in a place where the government of priests and the head of the Christian religion has been

established by the heavenly Emperor.@ or this reason he moved his @empire and power@ to

Constantinople. (nd it was hoped that the ranks would fall for the ruse and leave !ome to the

!omans.

)ranslated into feudal conte#t, the -ecretals supported the idea that bishops, metropolitans or

archbishops, patriarchs and popes are related to each other as vassals and lords in a series of pyramidal

relations, similar to rankish feudalism, e#cept that the pope is not bound by the hierarchical stages andprocedures and can intervene directly at any point in the pyramid. >e is at the same time the pinnacle,

and directly involved by special 6uridical procedure in all levels. Clergy are sub6ect only to the church

tribunals. (ll bishops have the right of appeal directly to the pope who alone is the final 6udge. (ll

appeals to lower level church courts are to be reported to the pope. Even when no appeal is made, the

pope has the right to bring cases before his tribunal.

)he throne of 'aint Peter was transferred to !ome from (ntioch. Constantine the *reat gave his



throne to Pope 'ilvester I and his successors in !ome. )hus the pope sat simultaneously on the thrones

of 'aints Peter and Constantine. hat more powerful rallying point could there be fore that part of the

!oman nation sub6ugated to )eutonic oppressionF

)he -ecretals were strongly resisted by powerful members of the rankish hierarchy. >owever, they

very uickly had wide distribution and became popular with the oppressed. (t times the rankish kings

supported the -ecretals against their own bishops as their interests dictated. )hey were also supportedby pious rankish clergy and laymen, and even by rankish bishops who appealed to the pope in order

to nullify decisions taken against them by their metropolitans.

)he forged parts of these -ecretals were written in rankish +atin, an indication that the actual work

was done in rancia by local !omans. )he fact that the ranks accepted the -ecretals as authentic,

although not in the interests of their feudal establishment, means clearly that they were not a party to

the forgery. )he ranks never suspected the forgery until centuries later.

$oth "ld and %ew !ome knew that these -ecretals were forgeries.D &0 !oman procedure for

verification of official te#ts can leave no doubt about this. )herefore, it is very possible that agents ofConstantinople, and certainly, agents of "ld !ome, had a hand in the compilation.

)he strongest argument that >incmar, archbishop of !heims 2:98&::13 could con6ure up against the

application of these -ecretals in rancia was that they applied only to Papal !omania. >e made a sharp

distinction between canons of Ecumenical 'ynods, which are immutable and applicable to the whole

Church because they were inspired by the >oly 'pirit, and laws which are limited in their application to

a certain era and to only a part of the Church. D &% "ne can see why >incmar?s contemporary, Pope

4ohn 5III 2:<1&::13, e#pressed to Patriarch Photios his hope, that he, 4ohn, might be able to persuade

the ranks to omit the ilioue from the Creed. hat Pope 4ohn did not fully grasp was the

determination with which the ranks decided that the East !omans be only ?*reeks? and heretics, as is

clear from the rankish tradition now inaugurated to write works against the errors of the ?*reeks?.D &&

)he -ecretals were an attack on the very heart of the rankish feudal system, since they uprooted its

most important administrative officials, i.e., the bishops, and put them directly under the control, of all

things, of a Roman head of state.

)he astute ranks understood the danger very well. $ehind their arguments against the application

of the -ecretals in rancia, one finds lurking two rankish concerns. "n the one hand, they contended

with a !oman pope, but on the other hand, they had to take this pope very seriously because the

villeins could become dangerous to the feudal establishment if incited by their ethnarch in !ome.

Pope >adrian II 2:7<&:<13, 4ohn 5III?s predecessor, threatened personally to restore Emperor +ouis

II 2:88&:<83 to his rightful possession in +otharingia, taken by Charles the $ald 2:9A&:<83, who had

been crowned by >incmar of !heims 2:98&::13.D &' >incmar answered this threat in a letter to the

pope. >e warned >adrian not to try @to make slaves of us ranks@, since the pope?s @predecessors laid

no such yoke on our predecessors, and we could not bear it...so we must fight to the death for our

freedom and birthright.@D &(

































>incmar was not so much concerned with bishops becoming slaves of the pope, but that a !oman

should @make slaves of us ranks.@D &)

In ==A, Bing >ugh Capet 2=:<&==73 of est rancia 2*aul or *allia3 and his bishops applied to

Pope 4ohn G5 2=:8&==73 for the suspension of (rchbishop (rnulf of !heims as reuired by the

-ecretals. (rnulf had been appointed by >ugh Capet, but subseuently betrayed his benefactor, in

favor of the Carolingian -uke Charles of +otharingia who was his uncle.

Impatient with the pope?s eighteen month delay in making a decision, >ugh Capet convened a

council at 5erzy near !heims in ==A. (rnulf pleaded guilty and begged for mercy. %onetheless, a group

of abbots challenged the proceedings as illegal because they were not consistent with the -ecretals.D &,

)he Council deposed (rnulf. >ugh Capet caused *erbert de (urillac, the future Pope 'ilvester II, to be

appointed in his place.D &-

Pope 4ohn, however, re6ected this council as illegal and unauthorized. >e sent a !oman abbot

named +eo to depose *erbert, restore (rnulf, and pronounce suspension on all the bishops who had

taken part in the council. )he pope?s legate announced the pope?s decision at the Council of Mouson in

==8.D &.

*erbert vigorously defended himself.D &/ >e re6ected the papal decision in the presence of the papal

legate +eo and refused the advice of colleagues to desist from his duties until the matter could be

brought before the ne#t Council of !heims. )he bishop of )riers finally persuaded him not to celebrate

mass until the final decision on his case was reached. D '0

)hus *erbert was completely abandoned by both the ecclesiastical and lay rankish nobles who felt

obliged to display, at least publicly, their support for the pope?s decision. )hey even avoided every kind

of contact with *erbert. $ut (bbot +eo had aroused the faithful in support of the pope who sat on the

thrones of 'aints Peter and Constantine the *reat. "ut of prudence, *erbert went into seclusion.

(t the ne#t Council of !heims in ==7, *erbert was deposed and (rnulf was restored. D '% )he

rankish ecclesiastical nobility could not afford to oppose popular support for the pope.

It seems that it was not popular superstition and piety alone that was the foundation of the people?s

fervor for the pope, but also the common !omanism the ma6ority shared with the pope. It is this

!omanism which constituted the power basis for the papal thrones of 'aints Peter and Constantine the

*reat.

)hat the underlying problem was a clash between !omans and ranks is clearly stated by *erbert in

a letter to ilderod, bishop of 'trassburg. >e writes/ @)he whole Church of the est ranks lies under

the oppression of tyranny. Het remedy is not sought from the est ranks, but from these 2!omans3.@D

'& It is easy to understand the enthusiasm with which the sub6ect populus Romanorum welcomed the

!oman pope?s interventions, punishing and humiliating rankish nobles guilty of in6ustice. )hat the

legate +eo could reverse the decisions of >ugh Capet and his bishops, and drive the nobility into

conformity and *erbert into seclusion by means of the faithful indicates that the makings of a



















































revolution were present.

T!e #ran$i! Counterattac$

)he rankish establishment, however, had the power to react, and it did so on two fronts. It stepped

up its propaganda against alleged papal @corruption@ and, of all things, @illiteracy,@ and made the

decisive move to replace !oman popes with alleged @pious@ and @literate@ *ermanic popes.

)he alleged corrupt !oman popes could have been replaced by pious !oman popes. (t the time

there were at least some 1AA monasteries and 8A,AAA !oman monks south of !ome.D '' $ut this was

e#actly the danger that had to be avoided. )he -ecretals in the hands of the pious !oman popes were

even more dangerous than when in the hands of corrupt ones. )he purpose of this smear campaign was

to shatter the people?s confidence in the !oman Papacy and 6ustify the need to cleanse it with

@virtuous@ and @literate@ +ombards, and East and est ranks.

"tto II 2=<;&=:;3 had appointed a +ombard, Peter of Pavia to the papacy in =:;. >e became the first

non&!oman pope as 4ohn GI5 2=:;&=:93, and thus provoked a revolution of the !oman populace aided

by Constantinople. >owever, it took another forty years for the noble vassals of Bing !obert the Pious

2==7&0A;03 to get up enough Christian courage to take an oath that they would no longer violate @noble

women.@ )hey were careful not to include villeins and serf women in the oath.

)he concern of the rankish bishops for the morality of !oman popes is uite interesting, as they

did not seem concerned with their own morality when passing the death sentence in their episcopal

courts. Charlemagne?s many wives and fifteen illegitimate children were taken in stride, together with

the fact that he forbade the marriage of his daughters. $ut Charlemagne did not mind their having

children, although he castigated such practices in his capitularies.

(t the Council of !heims in ==0, already mentioned, (rnuld, the bishop of "rleans, lists and

violently attacks the alleged @corrupt@ popes and, of course, praises Peter of Pavia, i.e., Pope 4ohn GI5,

the +ombard already mentioned. It is, perhaps, not by accident that the allegedly corrupt popes were

attached to Constantinople and the pious one was a +ombard.

In this same speech, (rnulf remarks/ @$ut as at this time in !ome 2as is publicly known3 there is

hardly anyone acuainted with letters!without 2as it is written3 one may hardly be a doorkeeper in the

house of *od&with what face may he who has himself learnt nothing set himself up as a teacher of

othersF "f course, in comparison with the !oman pontiff, ignorance is tolerable in other priests, but in

the !oman 2pope3, in him to whom it is given to pass in review the faith, the morals, the discipline of

the priesthood, indeed, of the universal church, i"norance is in no way to be tolerated.# D '(

)his deliberate fabrication should raise the uestion of the veracity of such rankish sources

concerning the corruption and illiteracy of !oman popes. Certainly many of them were neither saints

nor scholars, but it is likely that rankish propaganda e#aggerates their weaknesses and it is certain that

it does not stop short of fabrication.

In this same speech (rnulf lists among the papal @monsters@ Pope 4ohn GII 2=88&=793, who was put















on trial in =7; by "tto I 2=;7&=<;3 and condemned in absentia. )he report of +iutprand, the +ombard

bishop of Cremona, that no proof was necessary at the trial because the pope?s alleged crimes were

publicly known may be indicative of the need to ree#amine such cases.

Perhaps the most important incentive for replacing !oman popes with ranks and +ombards is that

revealed by this same +iutprand, a chief adviser to "tto I. >e writes/ @e...+ombards, 'a#ons, ranks,

+otharingians, $a6oarians, 'ueni, $urgundians, have so much contempt Dfor !omans and theiremperors that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult e#cept

!oman 2nisi Romane3, this alone, i.e., the name of the !omans 2hoc solo$ id est Romanorum nomine3

meaning/ whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed whatever is evil.@D ')

Perhaps the real reason that Pope 4ohn GII became the monster of rankish propaganda was that he

dared restore the older tradition of dating papal documents by the years of the reign of the !oman

emperor in Constantinople. In any case, +iutprand?s tirade against the !omans, 6ust uoted, reveals the

fact that he knew very well that East and est !omans were one nation, and that the emperor in

Constantinople was the real emperor of the !omans.

)his tirade also reveals the fact that +iutprand was not aware of the prevailing theory among

modern European historians that the *ermanic nations became one nation with the !omans in estern

Europe. (s is clear from +iutprand, the *ermanic peoples of his time would have been insulted by such

claims.

"tto III 2=:;&0AA13 solved the main problem of rankdom in ==7 by appointing to the papacy $runo

of Carinthia, an East rank, who, as *regory 5 2==7&===3, demanded the reinstatement of (rnulf as

archbishop of !heims. )hus *erbert de (urillac gave up trying to be restored to !heims. >e was

compensated, however, by his fellow rank, now on the papal throne, with confirmation of his

appointment as archbishop of !avenna 2==:&===3.

pon the death of $runo, *erbert was appointed to the papacy by "tto III and ruled Papal !omania

as 'ilvester II 2==;&0AA;3. or European and (merican historians, this 'ilvester II is one of the great

popes in the history of the papacy. $ut for !omans, he was the head of the rankish army of

occupation, and the pope who introduced the feudal system of suppression into Papal !omania and

enslaved the !omans to the rankish nobility. )here was no other way the people of "ld !ome would

accept *ermanic popes.

In defending himself against the decision of the !oman pope, 4ohn G5, the future rankish Pope

*erbert d?(urillac, staunchly and elouently supported the positions of >incmar against the universalapplication of the -ecretals. hen d?(urillic became Pope 'ilvester II, he found their universal

application useful. )he -ecretals in the hands of the rankish Papacy, sealed the tomb of the est

!omans very firmly for many centuries.

$etween the years =<;&0AA;, and especially between 0AA;&0AA=, the !omans of Papal !omania

made valiant efforts to preserve their freedom and independence from rankish feudalism by having or

attempting to have their own popesJ once, at least, with the assistance of the East !oman army which

had reached !ome and entered the city. )he *erman emperors, however, devised an interim method of










keeping the !omans somewhat pacified, by confirming the election of !oman popes from the !oman

)usculan family, which secured the papacy for itself, in e#change for the betrayal of Constantinople

and her "rthodo#y represented by the Crescenti family. >owever, this temporary facade was abolished

at the Council of 'utri in 0A97. )henceforth, *ermanic popes were once again appointed by the

*erman emperors, until the %ormans became the deciding factor in allowing the reformer ranks to

wrest the papacy from the imperial *ermans. Even Italian popes like *regory 5II are descended fromthe rankish army of occupation, established in Italy since the time of Charlemagne. It is no wonder

that $eatrice and Matilda, wife and daughter of $oniface II, maruess of )uscany, should become the

great supporters of the reformed Papacy, since this is also a rankish family established there since the

ninth century.

Concluion

)he conclusions, I believe, seem clear. )he underlying forces which clashed on the battlefield were

not the -ecretals, canon law, and the ilioue, but !omans and ranks. )he ranks used church

structure and dogma in order to maintain their birthright, to hold the !oman nation in @6ust sub6ection.@

)he !omans also used church structure and dogma to fight back for their own freedom from oppression

and for their independence.

$oth sides used the most convenient weapons at hand. )hus, the same canonical and decretal

arguments are to be found now on one side, now on the other, according to the current offensive and

defensive needs of each nation. )he ilioue, however, became a permanent feature of conflict between

East !omans and ranks with the est !omans attempting to side with the East !omans.

rom all that has been pointed out, it should be evident that there are strong indication that !oman

historical terms are much closer to the reality of the schism than is rankish terminology. )he first is

consistent with its own past, whereas the second is a deliberate provocation of a break with the past.

)o speak of the schism as a conflict between ranks and !omans, to which theology was sub6ected

as an offensive weapon on the rankish side, and as a defensive and counter&offensive weapon on the

!oman side, would seem close to taking a picture of history with a movie camera. "n the other hand, to

speak of a conflict between so&called @+atin@ and @*reek@ Christianities is tantamount to

commissioning Charlemagne and his descendants to prophesy the future, and see to it that the prophecy

is fulfilled.

)here is strong evidence that the higher and lower nobility of European feudalism were mostly

descendants of *ermanic and %orman conuerors, and that the serfs were mostly descendants of theconuered !omans and !omanized Celts and 'a#ons. )his e#plains why the name rank meant both

noble and free in contrast to the serfs. )his usage was strong enough to get into the English language by

way of the %ormans. )hus, even the (frican&(merican was described as receiving his franchise when

set free.

)he implications are uite tantalizing when applied to the task of understanding the framework of

rankish or +atin Christianity and theology in relation to !oman Christianity and theology. eudalism,



the Inuisition, and 'cholastic theology were clearly the work of the ranks, *ermans, +ombards,

%ormans, and *oths, who took over the Church and her property, and used the religion of the !omans

to keep the conuered !omans in a servile state. In contrast to this, the !omans who were conuered

by (rab and )urkish Muslims, had their own !oman bishops. )hus in the one case, the institutional

aspects of Christianity became a tool of suppression, and in the other, the means of national survival.

$ecause it is impossible to believe that four !oman Patriarchates broke away from a rankishPapacy, the ranks were forced to forge the somewhat more believable myth that four @*reek@

Patriarchates broke away from a so&called !oman but, in reality, rankish Papacy. European and

(merican historians continue to teach and support this.

)he schism began when Charlemagne ignored both Popes >adrian I and +eo III on doctrinal

uestions and decided that the East !omans were neither "rthodo# nor !oman. "fficially, this

rankish challenge was answered at the Eighth Ecumenical 'ynod in :<= by all five !oman

Patriarchates, including that of "ld !ome.

)here was no schism between the !omans of "ld and %ew !ome during the two and a halfcenturies of rankish and *erman control over Papal !omania.D ',

)he so&called split between East and est was, in reality, the importation into "ld !ome of the

schism provoked by Charlemagne and carried there by the ranks and *ermans who took over the

papacy.

)he atmosphere for dialogue between "ld and %ew !ome may be cleared by the realization that the

so&called @rench@ !evolution was essentially not much different from the so&called @*reek?

!evolution. "ne was a revolt of !omans against their rankish conuerors, and the other, a revolt of

!omans against their )urkish conuerors.

It would seem that there is a much stronger unity among the !omans e#tending from the (tlantic to

the Middle East than there can ever e#ist among those working for a union based on only a

Charlemagnian Europe.

Perhaps the best path to the political reunion of Europe is to first realize that the already e#isting

!oman !epublics should, and can, unite into a ederation of !oman !epublics. In other words, the so&

called @rench@ and @*reek@ !evolutions must be completed by becoming a !oman !evolution.

>owever, the path to the reunion of Christianity is not at all political or ethnic in nature. )he

Church?s involvement in politics, and state structures for the preservation or the suppression of !oman

society produced an interplay between church and society, but not necessarily between dogma and

society.

)he Medieval papacy incorporated the feudal structure into her fabric of administration and elevated

it to the level of do"ma.

)he "rthodo# Churches have also been adapting themselves to changing circumstances which affect

their administrative fabric also, but have left this at the level of canon law.









)he Protestant churches have re6ected not only the dogmatic aspects of the Medieval papal

administrative structure, but, on the whole, they have re6ected the "rthodo# development also, and

have attempted to go back to what they understand to be $iblical or (postolic Christianity.

)hus, !oman "rthodo# and so&called @!oman Catholics@ find themselves heirs to differences due to

historical circumstances, and Protestants see themselves as a series of third alternatives.

#OOTNOTES

D % )here are two factors which may shed further light on the events surrounding the role

played by the governor of Ceuta in the overthrow of *othic rule in >ispanic !omania. )he firstis mentioned by Ibn Bhaldoun who claims that the $erber tribes 2the %umidians of !omanhistory3 were converted to Islam twelve times. )his means that the $erber tribesmen whoparticipated in the liberation of 'pain were either still outright !oman Christians, or still!oman Christians in sentiment and no different from their leader, the governor of Ceuta whowas a $erber, a !oman 2!um3, and an "rthodo# Christian. )he second factor, testified to by 't.

4ohn of -amascus 2circa 7<8&<9=3 is that the !omans at this time still considered Islam to be aChristian heresy. )he Boran 2'.;A3 itself considers the !omans as coreligionists. )his meansthat the >ispanic !omans accepted the %umidians as fellow !omans and the (rabs as hereticalChristians. )hese factors e#plain the otherwise mysterious rapidity and total effectiveness ofthe overthrow of *othic power. )he tradition that the 4ews alone aided the $erbers and (rabsin @conuering@ *othia 2*oth occupied 'pain3 is clearly a fabrication. $oth 4ewish andChristian !omans assisted in the liberation which, in reality, was the implementation ofrevolutionary plans several decades old, with two known attempts to incite rebellions vialandings of the free !oman army, already mentioned.

[ 2 ] "When Duke Eudo saw that he was beaten and an object of scorn, he summoned

to his assistance against Prince Charles and his Franks the unbelieing !araceneole# !o the$ rose u###and crossed the %aronne###From thence the$ adanced onPoitiers###" Fredegarii, Chronica Continuationes &', trans# (#)# Wallace*+adril-ondon, &./01, # .0

[ 3 ] 2n the origins of Euroean feudalism, see m$ books Romanism, Romania,

Roumeli in %reek1 3hessaloniki, &.451#

[ 4 ] )igne, PL 6.7 488#

[ 5 ] F# )ourret, A History of the Catholic Church, ' -ondon, &.'/1, # '5&*55# 3hemain conditions of this decree were restated in 6&4 in an agreement between -ouisthe Pious 6&8*6801 and Poe Paschal 9 6&4*6:81, but reersed in 6:8 b$ Emeror-othar 6:'*6551 who added the roision that the oe was to be elected with hisconsent and consecrated after swearing an oath of fealt$# ;rian Pullan, Sources forthe History of Medieval Europe 2<ford, &.4&1, # 84*5:#

[ 6 ] 9t is within such a conte<t that the seeming contradiction between Einhard and the

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm#k1






































Annals of Lorsch ma$ be resoled#

[ 7 ] 3hietmar of )ersebourg, Chronicon, 8#84= ;rian Pullan, Sources for the History of

Medieval Europe 2<ford, &.4&1, # &:0*&:&#

[ 8 ] (ohn !# >omanides, Romanism, #'', 50*5&, :05*:8.#

[ 9 ] For a reiew of the historical and doctrinal asects of this ?uestion, see (#!#

>omanides, he Filio!ue, Anglican"#rthodo$ %oint &octrinal &iscussions, St' Al(ans)*+"Mosco- )*+. @thens, &.461#

[ 10 ] Fredegarii, Chronica Continuationes :5#

[ 11 ] 3hus !aint @thanasios the %reatAs work entitled &iscourse against the /ree0s,

)igne, P% :57 '*./#

[ 12 ] Pullan, Sources, # &/*&4#

[ 13 ] >omanides, Romanism, # ::8* :8.#

[ 14 ] )ansi, &4# 8.'*8./#

[ 15 ] 9bid#, &4#5&/*5&4#

[ 16 ] 9bid#, &4#5:5# >omanides, Romanism, # /:ff#

[ 17 ] 9t has been argued that the suriing ersion of this letter is a roduct of the

fourteenth centur$# +oweer, the letter fits in ?uite snugl$ with the conditions of Paal>omania at this time and could not hae been known b$ either the Franks or East>omans in the fourteenth centur$#

[ 18 ] )ansi &4#86.#

[ 19 ] 9bid#, >omanides, Romanism, # &8.*50,, ':5*:4#

[ 20 ] 9t is no accident that 2tto 999 declared the Donation of Constantine to be a forger$,

as alread$ mentioned, a fact he robabl$ learned from his East >oman mother andtutors# +oweer, he eidentl$ neer susected that the rest of the decretals had beentamered with#

[ 21 ] +incmarAs coious arguments are contained in his writings about his nehewAs

illegal aeal to the oe, #puscula et Epistolae !uae spectant ad causam Hincmari





























































































Laudunensis, )igne, PL &:/7:4.*/86#

[ 22 ] 2f these, the following three surie7 &1 Responsio &e Fide S' rinitatis Contra

/raecorum Haeresim, )igne, P- &&07&&&*&&:= :1 Ratramnus of Cor(ie, Contra/raecorum #pposita, )igne, P- &:&7::5*'8/= '1 @eneas of Paris, Li(er Adversus/raecos, )igne, P- &:&7/65*4/:#

[ 23 ] )ansi &/#555*/0#

[ 24 ] "###nos Francos non jubeat serire, ?uia istud jugam sui antecessores nostris

antecessoribus non imosuerunt, et nos illud ortare non ossumus, ?ui scritum essein sanctis libris audimus, ut ro libertate et haereditate nostra us?ue ad mortemcertare debeamus#" )igne, P- &:/7&6&#

[ 25 ] )ansi &.#.4*&00#

[ 26 ] 9t is interesting to carefull$ note that >icherus +istoriae /61, a student of %erbert,

reorts that the abbotts were answered b$ the claim that it was imossible to notif$ the>oman ontiff about the matter because of obstacles caused b$ enemies and the badconditions of the roads#

[ 27 ] )ansi &.#&0'*06# For %erbertAs own sontaneous ersion of the roceedings,

see his reort to Wilderod, bisho of !trassbourg# )ansi &.#&04*/6# 9t is clear that>icherus s attemting to cast the factual material in such a wa$ as to coer u theclash that was in rocess between the West Frankish establishment and the >omanaac$# 3his is nowhere so much in eidence as in the fact that he carefull$ aoids

mentioning that %erbert and the bishos who ordained him were deosed b$ Poe(ohn B, a fact which %erbert himself comlains about in his letter to Emress@delaide# )ansi &.#&4/*46#

[ 28 ] )ansi &.#&.'*./# 3his eidence should be used in the light of %erbertAs letter to

Emress @delaide, alread$ mentioned in the reious footnote# >icherus makes afeeble attemt to resent oe (ohn as haing sent -eo to siml$ inestigate thematter at the Council of )ouon +istoriae 8#.51 and for this reason the te<t of thePaal decision had to (e omitted from his acts of the Council# 2ne can understand

wh$ this te<t has also disaeared from the Paal archies most robabl$ when ;runoof Carinthia or %erbert himself took oer the Paac$#

[ 29 ] >icherus, Historiae 8#&0&*05# )ansi &.#&.'*./#

[ 30 ] )ansi &.#&./# >icherus gies us an imortant ke$ to these deliberations# %erbert

finall$ romised to abstain from the celebration of mass in order to aoid theaearance of an oen reolt against the oe# Historiae 8#&0/# 9n other words, there

was a general agreement among the la$ and church nobles i#e#, the Franks1 that theoe and the %allo*>oman Walloon1 multitude are to be out*flanked, and for this

























































reason, a final decision was at all costs aoided# 3hat a Frankish candidate for thePaac$ was being reared for the succession of (ohn B was erhas alread$decided uon and known b$ ke$ Frankish leaders# 9n order to goern theredominantl$ >oman multitude effectiel$, the Franks had to alwa$s gie theimression that the$ were faithful and obedient to the >oman oe#

[ 31 ] )ansi &.#&.4*:00# >icherus mentions this council, but is silent about itsdecisions# Historiae 8#&06# @s alread$ mentioned, he carefull$ aoids giing out theinformation that %erbert was susended b$ (ohn B# ;$ not mentioning the death ofthis oe, >icherus gies us the imression that %erbert twice isited the sameaac$, which also recognied his aointment to the @rchbishoric of >aenna#

[ 32 ] "Pressa jacet t$rannide omnis Ecclesia %allorum= at?ui non a %allis, sed ab his

serabatur salus," )ansi &.#&//# %allia, %ermania, and 9talia were arts of theFrankish Emire ruled in the ast b$ members of the Carolingian families# Within thisconte<t, Ecclesia /allorum signifies the Church of the West Franks and certainl$ notthe French, who at this time were redominantl$ the %allo*>oman serfs and illeinsunder Frankish rule# 3his is clear from the use of the title Re$ Francorum b$ theCaetian ings# !ee, e#g#, )ansi, &.#.'*.8, .4, &05, &04*06, &&', &:., &4&*4:, &4'*48#

[ 33 ] F# )ourret, A History of the Catholic Church, ' -ondon, &.'/1, # 8'.= (# %a$,

L12talie Meridionale et L1Empire 3y4antine 6/4*&04&1 Paris, &.081, # :65#

[ 34 ] )ansi &.#&':*''#

[ 35 ] Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana &:# )igne, P- &'/# 6&5

[ 36 ] 9n his letter to Emeror )ichael 9 6&&*6&'1, Charlemagne refers to the

restoration of the unit$ of the Churches within the conte<t of the establishment ofeace between the Western and Eastern Emires, Monumenta /ermaniae Historica, Epistolae 8, # 55/ff# Charlemagne is here thinking in terms of the Frankish West andthe >oman or %reek East and not of 2ld and ew >ome# Poe -eo 999 had neeracceted CharlemagneAs doctrinal adentures about icons and the Filio?ue, and theEast >oman Patriarchs desisted from reacting against them, eidentl$ in suort of thedelicate and dangerous osition of the West >omans under Frankish occuation# 9nan$ eent, CharlemagneAs remarks are his own admission that he himself had

rooked a schism which e<isted onl$ in his own mind, since all fie >oman Patriarchsaoided being rooked, and seemed not to take the Franks doctrinall$ serious at thattime# For an English translation of this letter, see >obert Fol, he Coronation ofCharlemagne -ondon, &.481, # :8:*8'#









































Part II

In part I we presented a summary of evidence which testifies that feudalism in estern Europe did not

result from the commingling of the !oman and *ermanic races and customs, as commonly believed,

but rather from the sub6ugation of the est !omans to their conuerors. )he ranks then turned their

attention to the ecclesiastical and doctrinal enslavement of Papal !omania, attempting to cause a split

between Papal and East !omania. )his effort failed so long as the !oman nation remained in control of

the Papal throne.

European and (merican histories treat the alienation between East and est as though it were

inevitable, because of an alleged separation of the !oman Empire itself into East and est, because of

alleged linguistic and cultural differences, and because of an alleged difference between the legal est

and the speculative East.D % Evidence strongly suggests that such attempts to e#plain the separationbetween East and est are conditioned by pre6udices inherited from the cultural tradition of the ranks,

and from the he centuries&old propaganda of the rankish Papacy.

)he evidence points clearly to the national, cultural, and even linguistic unity between East and

est !omans 2which at times almost brought rancia to her knees3, and which survived to the time

when the !oman popes were replaced by ranks. )hat the pre&)usculan !oman popes never accepted

the rankish condemnation of the East !omans for alleged heresy, but, on the contrary, participated in

the condemnation of the ranks, 2albeit without naming them3 are facts to be seriously considered.

)he -ecretal principles of 6uridical procedure had been a part of the Papacy for at least a hundred

years before the East ranks took over. >owever, it is certain that !oman popes would never have

thought of applying these principles to administration so that the local synods would be replaced by

direct monarchical rule of the popes, as happened later. )he ranks resisted the !oman popes?s 6uridical

surveillance. )hey would never have accepted a !oman pope?s direct rule, 6ust as the East !omans

would never accept the direct rule of a rankish pope.

>ad the ranks not taken over the Papacy, it is very probably that the local synod of the Church of

!ome 2with the pope as president3, elected according to the <7= election decree approved by the Eighth

Ecumenical 'ynod in :<=, would have survived, and that there would not have been any significant

differences between the papacy and the other four !oman Patriarchates.

>owever, things did not turn out that way. )he Papacy was alienated from the East by the ranks, so

we now are faced with the history of that alienation when we contemplate the reunion of divided

Christians. In any case, the administrative structure of the church cannot be 6udged and evaluated

simply by whether or not it complies with ancient canon law and custom, as is usually done on the

"rthodo# side. %or can one simply appeal to an alleged need of the Church to adapt itself to changing

times and circumstances, in order to allegedly improve what is good by making it more efficient.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm




http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm






Many of today?s Protestants would accept such an approach, but would not agree that the adaptation

could not be elevated to dogma, as has been done by the Papacy itself. "rthodo#, +atin, and Protestant

theologians would agree that authentic Christianity has to have a continuity with its apostolic past, but

at the same time must adapt to current situations and needs. )his means that the interplay between

theology and society is accepted as a normal necessity in the history of Christianity. %evertheless,

Christians are divided because each group sees the adaptation of the other as a serious break incontinuity and, therefore, in authenticity.

Em*irical T!eolo+2

Perhaps the key to unwinding the mass of uestions awaiting e#amination by the specialists in

dialogue would be to adopt methods used in the positive sciences, and to relegate the methods already

in use from the social sciences to a dependent level. "f course, one could not readily apply such

methods to an e#amination of *od and the life after death, but one could certainly do so for this life,

with regard to spiritual e#periences in the various religions.

In the "rthodo# partisan tradition, genuine spiritual e#perience is the foundation of dogmaticformulations which, in turn, are necessary guides for leading to glorification. )ranslated into the

language of science, this would mean that verification by observation is e#pressed in descriptive

symbols which, in turn, act as guides for others to repeat this same verification by observation. )hus,

the observations of prior astronomers, biologists, chemists, physicists, and doctors become the

observations of their successors.

In e#actly the same manner, the e#perience of glorification of the prophets, apostles, and saints are

e#pressed in linguistic forms, whose purpose is to act as a guide to the same e#perience of glorification

by their successors.

)he tradition of empirical observation and verification is the cornerstone of sifting factual reality

from hypotheses in all of the positive sciences. )he very same is true of the "rthodo# patristic

theological method also.

( basic characteristic of the rankish scholastic method, mislead by (ugustinian Platonism and

)homistic (ristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the ob6ective e#istence of things rationally

speculated about. $y following (ugustine, the ranks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual

observation, 2which they had found firmly established in *aul when they first conuered the area3 with

a fascination for metaphysics. )hey did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in

created nor in spiritual reality.

%o one would today accept as true what is not empirically observable, or at least verifiable by

inference, from an attested effect. so it is with patristic theology. -ialectical speculation about *od and

the Incarnation as such are re6ected. "nly those things which can be tested by the e#perience of the

grace of *od in the heart are to be accepted. @$e not carried about by divers and strange teachings. or

it is good that the heart by confirmed by grace,@ a passage from >ebrews 0;.=, uoted by the athers to

this effect.



T!e Bi3le and Tradition

)he athers did not understand theology as a theoretical or speculative science, but as a positive

science in all respects. )his is why the patristic understanding of $iblical inspiration is similar to the

inspiration of writings in the field of the positive sciences.D &

'cientific manuals are inspired by the observations of specialists. or e#ample, the astronomer

records what he observes by means of the instruments at his disposal. $ecause of his training in the use

of his instruments, he is inspired by the heavenly bodies, and sees things invisible to the naked eye. )he

same is true of all the positive sciences. >owever, books about science can never replace scientific

observations. )hese writings are not the observations themselves, but about these observations.

)his holds true even when photographic and acoustical euipment is used. )his euipment does not

replace observations, but simply aids in the observations and their recordings. 'cientists cannot be

replaced by the books they write, nor by the instruments they invent and use.

)he same is true of the "rthodo# understanding of the $ible and the writings of the athers. %either

the $ible nor the writings of the athers are revelation or the word of *od. )hey are about the

revelation and about the word of *od.

!evelation is the appearance of *od to the prophets, apostles, and saints. )he $ible and the writings

of the athers are about these appearances, but not the appearances themselves. )his is why it is the

prophet, apostle, and saint who sees *od, and not those who simply read about their e#periences of

glorification. It is obvious that neither a book about glorification nor one who reads such a book can

never replace the prophet, apostle, or saint who has the e#perience of glorification.

)he writings of scientists are accompanied by a tradition of interpretation, headed by successor

scientists, who, by training and e#perience, know w what their colleagues mean by the language used,and how to repeat the observations described. 'o it is in the $ible and the writings of the athers. "nly

those who have the same e#perience of glorification as their prophetic, apostolic, and patristic

predecessors can understand what the $iblical and Patristic writings are saying about glorification and

the spiritual stages leading to it. )hose who have reached glorification know how they were guided

there, as well as how to guide others, and they are the guarantors of the transmission of this same

tradition.

)his is the heart of the "rthodo# understanding of tradition and apostolic succession which sets it

apart from the +atin and Protestant traditions, both of which stem from the theology of the ranks.

ollowing (ugustine, the ranks identified revelation with the $ible and believed that Christ gave

the Church the >oly 'pirit as a guide to its correct understanding. )his would be similar to claiming

that the books about biology were revealed by microbes and cells without the biologists having seen

them with the microscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire future teachers to correctly

understand these books without the use of the microscope.

(nd, indeed, the ranks believed that the prophets and apostles did not see *od himself, e#cept

possibly with the e#ception of Moses and Paul. hat the prophets and apostles allegedly did see and









hear were phantasmic symbols of *od, whose purpose was to pass on concepts about *od to human

reason. hereas these symbols passed into and out of e#istence, the human nature of Christ is a

permanent reality and the best conveyor of concepts about *od.

"ne does not, therefore, need telescopes, microscopes, or a vision of *od, but rather, concepts about

invisible reality, which human reason is by nature allegedly capable of understanding.

>istorians have noted the naivet% of the rankish religious mind which was shocked by the first

claims for the primacy of observation over rational analysis. Even *alileo?s telescopes could not shake

this confidence. >owever, several centuries before *alileo, the ranks had been shocked by the East

!oman claim, hurled by 'aint *regory Palamas 201=7&0;8=3, of the primacy of e#perience and

observation over reason in theology.

)oday?s +atin theologians, who still use their predecessor?s metaphysical approach to theology,

continue to present East !oman theologians, such as the hesychasts, as preferring ignorance to

education in their ascent to union with *od. )his is euivalent to claiming that a scientist is against

education because he insists on the use of telescopes and microscopes instead of philosophy in hissearch for descriptive analysis of natural phenomena.

)he so&called humanist movement in Eastern !omania was an attempt to revive ancient *reek

philosophy, whose tenets had already been re6ected, long before modern science led to their

replacement in the modern est. )o present this so&called humanist movement as a revival of culture is

to overlook the fact that the real issue was between the primacy of reason and that of observation and

e#perience.

Intrument4 O3ervation4 Conce*t4 and Lan+ua+e

Modern science has arisen by the accumulated techniues of testing with the aid of instruments theimaginative theories proposed by the intellect. "bservation by means of these man&made instruments

has opened up vast areas of knowledge which would have been absolutely impossible for the intellect

to even begin to imagine.

)he universe has turned out to be a much greater mystery to man than anyone was ever able to

imagine, and indications are strong that it will yet prove to be an even greater mystery than man today

can yet imagine. In the light of this, one thinks humorously of the bishops who could not grasp the

reality, let alone the magnitude, of what they saw through *alileo?s telescope. $ut the magnitude of

rankish naivetK becomes even greater when one realizes that these same church leaders who could not

understand the meaning of a simple observation were claiming knowledge of *od?s essence and nature.

)he +atin tradition could not understand the significance of an instrument by which the prophets,

apostles, and saints had reached glorification.

'imilar to today?s sciences, "rthodo# theology also depends on an instrument which is not identified

with reason or the intellect. )he $iblical name for this is the heart. Christ says, @$lessed are the pure in

heart for they shall see *od.@D '









)he heart is not normally clean, i.e., it does not normally function properly. +ike the lens of a

telescope or microscope, it must be polished so that light may pass through and allow man to focus his

spiritual vision on things not visible to the naked eye.

In time, some athers gave the name nous (νους) to the faculty of the soul which operates within

the heart when restored to normal capacity, and reserved the names logos _(λογος) and dianoia

2διανοια3 for the intellect and reason, or for what we today would call the brain. In order to avoid

confusion, we use the terms noetic faculty and noetic prayer to designate the activity of the nous in the

heart called (νοερα ευχη).

)he heart, and not the brain, is the area in which the theologian is formed. )heology includes the

intellect as all sciences do, but it is in the heart that the intellect and all of man observes and

e#periences the rule of *od.

"ne of the basic differences between science and "rthodo# theology is that man has his heart or

noetic faculty by nature, whereas he himself has created his instruments of scientific observation.

( second basic difference is the following/ $y means if his instruments, and the energy radiated by

andor upon what he observes, the scientist sees things which he can describe with words, even though

at times inadeuately. )hese words are symbols of accumulated human e#perience.

In contrast to this, the e#perience of glorification is to see *od who has no similarity whatsoever to

anything created, not even to the intellect or to the angels. *od is literally uniue and can in no way be

described by comparison with anything that any creature may be, know or imagine. %o aspect about

*od can be e#pressed in a concept or collection of concepts.

"ne can readily see why Plato?s theory of ideas, even in (ugustinian form 2whereby creatures are

literally copies of real archetypal prototypes in the divine mind3, are consistently re6ected by the

athers of the Church.

)hus, the e#perience of glorification has no room either for (ugustine?s speculation about *od by

the use of psychological analogies, nor for the claim of some !ussian theologians that the athers of

the Church allegedly theologize about *od on the basis of some kind of ?personalism.? %either the term,

nor the concept, is ever applied to *od by the athers. )he reason is clear. (ll the athers emphasize,

and mean what they say, that there is absolutely no similarity between *od and any of >is creatures.

)his means that the names of *od or language about *od are not intended to be the means by which

the human intellect can attain to concepts which reveal the essence of *od to the intellect. !ather, the

purpose of language about *od is to be a guide in the hand of a spiritual father who leads his student

through various stages of perfection and knowledge to glorification where one sees for himself what

the saints before him insisted upon&that *od is completely different from concepts used about >im.

It is for this reason that positive statements about *od are counterbalanced by negative statements,

not in order to purify the positive ones of their imperfections, but in order to make clear that *od is in

no way similar to the concepts conveyed by words, since *od is above every name and concept

ascribed to >im.



)he athers insisted against the Eunomian heresy that language is a human development and not

created by *od. (rguing from the "ld )estament itself, 'aint *regory of %yssa claimed that >ebrew is

one of the newer languages in the Middle East, a position considered today correct. Compare this with

-ante?s claim that *od created >ebrew for (dam and Eve to speak, and preserved it so that Christ

would speak this language of *od also. "f course, Christ did not speak >ebrew, but (ramaic.

%yssa?s analysis of $iblical language has always been dominant among East !oman writers. I havefound -ante&type theories so far only among the Eunomians and %estorians. *iven such

presuppositions, one can see why the athers insist that to study the universe, or to engage in

philosophical speculation adds nothing to the stages of perfection leading to glorification.

)he doctrines of the >oly )rinity and of the incarnation, when taken out of their empirical or

revelatory conte#t, become and have become ridiculous. )he same is true of the distinction between the

essence and uncreated energy of *od. e know this distinction from the e#perience of glorification

since the time of the prophets. It was not invented by 'aint *regory Palamas. Even modern 4ewish

theologians continue to see this clearly in the "ld )estament.

(lthough *od created the universe, which continues to depend on >im, *od and the universe do not

belong to one category of truth. )ruths concerning creation cannot apply to *od, nor can the truth of

*od be applied to creation.

Dia+noi and T!era*2

>aving reached this point, we will turn our attention to those aspects of differences between !oman

and rankish theologies which have had a strong impact on the development of difference is the

doctrine of the Church. )he basic difference may be listed under diagnosis of spiritual ills and their

therapy.*lorification is the vision of *od in which the euality of all mean and the absolute value of each

man is e#perienced. *od loves all men eually and indiscriminately, regardless of even their moral

statues. *od loves with the same love, both the saint and the devil. )o teach otherwise, as (ugustine

and the ranks did, would be adeuate proof that they did not have the slightest idea of what

glorification was.

*od multiplies and divides himself in >is uncreated energies undividedly among divided things, so

that >e is both present by act and absent by nature to each individual creature and everywhere present

and absent at the same time. )his is the fundamental mystery of the presence of *od to >is creatures

and shows that universals do not e#ist in *od and are, therefore, not part of the state of illumination as

in the (ugustinian tradition.

*od himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment. (ll men have been created to see *od

unceasingly in >is uncreated glory. hether *od will be for each man heaven or hell, reward or

punishment, depends on man?s response to *od?s love and on man?s transformation from the state of

selfish and self&centered love, to *odlike love which does not seek its own ends.

"ne can see how the rankish understanding of heaven and hell, poetically described by -ante,



4ohn Milton, and 4ames 4oyce, are so foreign to the "rthodo# tradition. )his is another of the reasons

why the so&called humanism of some East !omans 2those who united with the rankish papacy3 was a

serious regression and not an advance in culture.

'ince all men will see *od, no religion can claim for itself the power to send people either to heaven

or to hell. )his means that true spiritual fathers prepare their spiritual charges so that vision of *od?s

glory will be heaven, and not hell, reward and not punishment. )he primary purpose of "rthodo#Christianity then, is to prepare its members for an e#perience which every human being will sooner or

later have.

hile the brain is the center of human adaptation to the environment, the noetic faculty in the heart

is the primary organ for communion with *od. )he fall of man or the state of inherited sin is/ a.3 the

failure of the noetic faculty to function properly, or to function at allJ b.3 its confusion with the

functions of the brain and the body in generalJ and c.3 its resulting enslavement to the environment.

Each individual e#periences the fall of his own noetic faculty. "ne can see why the (ugustinian

understanding of the fall of man as an inherited guilt for the sin of (dam and Eve is not, and cannot, beaccepted by the "rthodo# tradition.

)here are two known memory systems built into living beings, 0.3 cell memory which determines

the function and development of the individual in relation to itself, and 1.3 brain cell memory which

determines the function of the individual in relation to its environment. In addition to this, the patristic

tradition is aware of the e#istence in human beings of a now normally non&functioning or sub&

functioning memory in the heart, which when put into action via noetic prayer, includes unceasing

memory of *od, and therefore, the normalization of all other relations.

hen the noetic faculty is not functioning properly, man is enslaved to fear an an#iety and his

relations to others are essentially utilitarian. )hus, the root cause of all abnormal relations between *od

and man and among me is that fallen man, i.e., man with a malfunctioning noetic faculty, uses *od, his

fellow man, and nature for his own understanding of security and happiness. Man outside of

glorification imagines the e#istence of god or gods which are psychological pro6ections of his need for

security and happiness.

)hat all men have this noetic faculty in the heart also means that all are in direct relation to *od at

various levels, depending on how much the individual personality resists enslavement to his physical

and social surroundings and allows himself to be directed by *od. Every individual is sustained by the

uncreated glory of *od and is the dwelling place of this uncreated glory of *od and is the dwelling

place of this uncreated creative and sustaining light, which is called the rule, power, grace, etc. of *od.

>uman reaction to this direct relation or communion with *od can range from the hardening of the

heart 2i.e., the snuffing out of the spark of grace3 to the e#perience of glorification attained to by the

prophets, apostles, and saints.

)his means that all men are eual in possession of the noetic faculty, but not in uality or degree of

function.



It is important to not the clear distinction between spirituality, which is rooted primarily in the

heart?s noetic faculty, and intellectuality, which is rooted in the brain. )hus/

0.3 ( person with little intellectual attainments can raise to the highest level of noetic perfection.

1..3 "n the other hand, a man of the highest intellectual attainments can fall to the lowest level of

noetic imperfection.

;.3 "ne may also reach both the highest intellectual attainments and noetic perfection.

"r 9.3 "ne may be of meager intellectual accomplishment with the hardening of the heart.

)he role of Christianity was originally more like that of the medical profession, especially that of

today?s psychologists and psychiatrists.

Man has a malfunctioning or non&functioning noetic faculty in the heart, and it is the task especially

of the clergy to apply the cure of unceasing memory of *od, otherwise called unceasing prayer or

illumination.

Proper preparation for vision of *od takes place in two stages/ purification, and illumination of the

noetic faculty. ithout this, it is impossible for man?s selfish love to be transformed into selfless love.

)his transformation takes place during the higher level of the stage of illumination called theoria,

literally meaning vision&in this case vision by means of unceasing and uninterrupted memory of *od.

)hose who remain selfish and self&centered with a hardened hear, closed to *od?s love, w ill not see

the glory of *od in this life. >owever, they will *od?s glory eventually, but as an eternal and

consuming fire and outer darkness.

In the state of theoria the noetic faculty is liberated from its enslavement to the intellect, passions,

and environments, and prays unceasingly. It is influenced solely by this memory of *od. )huscontinual noetic prayer functions simultaneously with the normal activities of everyday life. It is when

the noetic faculty is in such a state that man has become a temple of *od.

'aint $asil the *reat writes that @the indwelling of *od is this&to have *od established within

ourself by means of memory. e thus become temples of *od, when the continuity of memory is not

interrupted by earthly cares, nor the noetic faculty shaken by une#pected sufferings, but escaping form

all things this 2noetic faculty 3 friend of *od retires to *od, riving out the passions which tempt it to

incontinence and abides in the practices which lead to virtues.@D (

'aint *regory the )heologian points out that @we ought to remember *od even more often than wedraw out breathJ and if it suffice to say this, we ought to do nothing else... or, to use Moses? words,

whether a man lie asleep, or rise up, or walk by the way, or whatever else he is doing, he should also

have this impressed in his memory for purity.@D )

'aint *regory insists that to theologize @is permitted only to those who have passed e#aminations

and have reached theoria, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at least are being

purified.@D ,





















)his state of theoria is twofold of has two stages/ a.3 unceasing memory of *od and b.3

glorification, the latter being a gift which *od gives to >is friends according to their needs and the

needs of others. -uring this latter sate of glorification, unceasing noetic prayer is interrupted since it is

replaced by a vision of the glory of *od in Christ. )he normal functions of the body, such as sleeping,

eating, drinking, and digestion are suspended. In other respects, the intellect and the body function

normally. "ne does not lose consciousness, as happens in the ecstatic mystical e#periences of non&"rthodo# Christian and pagan religions. "ne is fully aware and conversant with his environment and

those around him, e#cept that he sees everything and everyone saturated by the uncreated glory of *od,

which is neither light nor darkness, and nowhere and everywhere at the same time. )his state may be of

short, medium, or long duration. In the case of Moses it lasted for forty days and forty nights. )he faces

of those in this state of glorification give off an imposing radiance, like that of the face of Moses, and

after they die, their bodies become holy relics. )hese relics give off a strange sweet smell, which at

times can become strong. In many cases, these relics remain intact in a good state of preservation,

without having been embalmed. )hey are completely stiff from head to toes, light, dry, and with no

signs of putrefaction.

)here is no metaphysical criterion for distinguishing between "ood and bad people. It is much more

correct to distinguish between ill and more healthy persons. )he sick ones are those whose noetic

faculty is being cleansed and illumined.

)hese levels are incorporated into the very structure of the four *ospels and the liturgical life of the

Church. *ospels of Mark, Matthew, and +uke reflect the pre&baptismal catechism for cleansing the

heart, and the *ospel of 4ohn reflects the post&baptismal catechism which leas to theoria by way of the

stage of illumination. Christ himself is the spiritual ather who led the apostles, as >e had done with

Moses and the prophets, to glorification by means of purification and illumination.D -

"ne can summarize these three stages of perfection as a.3 that of the slave who performs the

commandments because of fear of seeing *od as a consuming fireJ b.3 that of the hireling whose

motive is the reward of seeing *od as glory, and c.3 that of the friends of *od whose noetic faculty is

completely free, whose love has become selfless and, because of this, are willing to be damned for the

salvation of their fellow man, and in the cases of Moses and Paul.

T!e Rie o" 5onaticim4 It Contri3ution4 and Decline

)heoretically, the clergy is supposed to be elected from among the faithful who have reached

illumination or glorification. )he historical outline of the process, whereby it became customary to

elect bishops who had not reached the spiritual e#perience of which dogmas are a verbal e#pression, is

described by 'aint 'ymeon the %ew )heologian 2d. 0A913, recognized as one of the greatest athers of

the Church. )his means that his historical analysis is part of the "rthodo# Church?s self&understanding.

)he three stages of perfection are three stages of spiritual understanding and, at one time, e#isted in

each community. )his is comparable to having in each community university students, graduate

students, and professors. )his would be the case when religious leaders are at the higher levels of

illumination. >owever, it is possible that the religious leaders may not be spiritually at the level of the










students.

)he outcome of the collapse among the clergy in the spiritual life and understanding thus far

described, was the rise of an ascetic movement parallel to the Episcopal communities. )his became the

monastic movement, which preserved the prophetic and apostolic tradition of spirituality and theology.

hen he custom prevailed that bishops were recruited mostly from monasticism, the ancient tradition

of bishops as masters in spirituality and theology was greatly restored, due to the very powerfulinfluence of 'aint 'ymeon the %ew )heologian. )his restoration was so strong that it gave the East

!oman Churches the strength to not only survive the dissolution and disappearance of the Empire, but

also to keep spirituality and theology at a surprisingly high level during the "ttoman occupation of the

four East !oman Patriarchates, right down to the so&called @*reek@ revolution.

nder the influence of the rench citizen and agent (damantios Boraes, officially recognized by the

0:1< >ellenic )hird %ational (ssembly as the Father of &eo!'ellenism, the new *reek state decided

the Church of *reece should follow the e#ample of !ussian "rthodo#, because it was in an advanced

state of esternization, especially since the time of Peter the *reat 207<1&0<183. )he *reek state

founded a *reek Church, and literally forced it to separate from the Ecumenical patriarchate of

Constantinople&%ew !ome, and at the same time declared war on monasticism. )he unbelievable

ignorance of (damantios Boraes became the ideology upon which the Church of *reece?s new

spirituality and new theology was founded.

)he !ussian Church had dealt a blow to "rthodo# spirituality and theology by condemning

Ma#imos of Mount (thos and )rans&5olga elders in the si#teenth century. In other words, the !ussian

Church became like a keeper of books about astronomy, biology, and medicine, but had gotten rid of

the telescopes, microscopes, and the scientist who used them. )his made the Church ripe for

esternization under Peter the *reat.

"ne of the amazing uirks in history is that while the *reek state was getting rid of theology and

spirituality based on noetic prayer, this same tradition was being reintroduced into !ussia by means of

the spiritual children of Paisios 5elitchkovsky of Moldavia who passed away in 0:0<.

It was e#tremely fortunate for "rthodo#y at the same time when Boraes? followers were in power

that the *reek state did not e#tend to Mount (thos and the many monasteries within what was left of

the "ttoman Empire. "therwise, the imbecilities of (damantios Boraes would have had an even more

destructive effect on !oman "rthodo#y, now called $yzantine "rthodo#y, because of this same

(damantios Boraes who undertook to convince the inhabitants of "ld *reece that they were not also

!omans, but e#clusively *reeks, who had allegedly forgotten their real national identity. )he vision of(damantios Boraes was to replace patristic spirituality, theology, and !oman nationality with *reek

philosophy and nationalism as the basis of theology and political philosophy. It is perhaps not an

accident that %apoleonic rance revived such policies pertaining to East !omans which are similar to

the Charlemagnian ones described in +ecture 0. %apoleon was, after all, a descendant from the

rankish nobility of )uscany, established there since the time of Charlemagne.

%ow this vision is dead, put into the grave by the further advances in modern science and the very



strong revival of patristic theology and spirituality along with !oman or so&called $yzantine national

identity.

Ort!odo6 S*iritualit24 t!e Same in Eat and Wet

In order to have a clear picture of what this means in terms of today?s dialogues, we have only to be

reminded that the theology and spirituality of !oman Christians was the same in both East and est,whether written in *reek or +atin, with, however, the e#ception of (ugustine.

)he later differences between Carolingian rankish and !oman "rthodo# theology are clearly

visible in the differences between (ugustine and 'aint (mbrose, who is usually presented as

(ugustine?s teacher. >owever, not only is there no evidence that there were intimate relations between

the two, but their theologies point in different directions. e have pointed this out in some detail

elsewhere.

>owever, we shall turn our attention to *regory of )ours, who gives us clear testimony that during

Merovingian rankish rule, "rthodo# spirituality and theology were flourishing in rancia. (t the same

time, they were not very well understood by the new class of aristocratic administrator bishops created

by the rankish kings. 2e skip 'aint 4ohn Cassian, since he is pre&rankish and his identification with

Eastern spirituality and theology is unuestioned.3

*regory of )ours was a great admirer of the spirituality and theology described in this lecture. >e

recognizes and e#presses his high regard for 'aint $asil the *reat and 'aint 4ohn Cassian of Marseilles

2one time deacon of 'aint 4ohn Chrysostom3 as the guides of monasticism in *aul. I% his many

writings, *regory of )ours never mentions (ugustine. Het *regory?s understanding of the spirituality

and theology of 'aint $asil and 'aint 4ohn Cassian is very limited and is colored by some basic and, at

times, humorous errors.*regory reports that in the treasury of 'aint Martin?s Church, he found the relics of the (gaune

Martyrs, members of the )heban +egion sent to *aul in 1:< to crush a revolt. *regory writes that @the

relics themselves were in a terrible state of putrefaction.@D . It is clear that *regory did not know how

to recognize holy relics. Corpses in even a slight, let alone terrible, state of putrefaction are not holy

relics.

*regory terminates his 'istory of the Frans with the miracles and death of 'aint (redius (bbot of

+imoges. >e writes that, @"ne day when the clergy were chanting psalms in the cathedral, a dove flew

down from the ceiling, fluttered gently around (redius and then alighted on his head. )his was, in my

opinion, a clear sign that he was filled with the grace of the >oly 'pirit. >e was embarrassed at what

had happened and tried to drive the dove away. It flew around for a while and then settled down again,

first on his head and then on his shoulder. %ot only did this happen in the cathedral, but when (redius

went off to the bishop?s cell, the dove accompanied him. )his was repeated day after day...@ D /

(redius clearly had reached the state of glorification of long duration. >owever, *regory?s

ignorance of this tradition led him to confuse and substitute the linguistic symbol of the dove used to

describe this e#perience, with a real bird. )he attempt to drive the dove off is *regory?s understanding
















of (redius? testing of the vision, to make sure it is not demonic or hallucinatory. )hat the dove left, and

returned, and then remained on him day after day means that he was in a state of glory, first of short

duration and then of long duration. )hat he went about his business as usual during this state, and that

the state was in perceptible to those around him who themselves were in a state of illumination, was

also evidence of his being in a state of glory.

*regor?s misunderstanding can also be seen in his description of the life of Patroklos the !ecluse.*regory writes that his @diet was bread soaked in water and sprinkled with salt. >is eyes were never

closed in sleep. >e prayed unceasingly, or if he stopped praying for a moment, he spent his time

reading or writing.@D %0

*regory believes that to pray unceasingly, one would have to somehow stay awake unceasingly.

(lso since Patroklos was known to spend time reading and writing, this means for *regory that he had

to stop praying to do so. *regory was unaware that unceasing prayer continues without intermission,

while asleep or while awake, and while reading, writing, walking, talking, toiling, etc.

In addition, *regory?s claim that Patroklos? @eyes were never closed in sleep@ would be an unheardof miracle. hen Patroklos was in a state of glorification, he not only did not sleep, but he did not eat

bread or drink water either. $ut he was not unceasingly in such a state in this life. -uring this state he

stopped praying. hen he was not in this state of glory, he both slept his three or so hours per day, and

prayed without any interruption whatsoever. >owever, at the time these misunderstandings were being

recorder, there were many bishops in rancia who understanding was less that that of *regory.

)his can be seen in the case where certain bishops ordered the +ombard ascetic 5ulfolaic to come

down from his column, claiming that @It is not right what you are trying to do. 'uch an obscure person

as you can never be compared with 'ymeon the 'tylite of (ntioch. )he climate of the region makes it

impossible for you to keep tormenting yourself in this way.@D %% Evidently the life of 'aint -aniel the

'tylite of Constantinople was still unknown in rancia.

hile in the state of noetic prayer or glory, wherein one passes back and forth between these two

stages, one attains to such physical resources that one resists the normal effects of the environment.

)his has nothing to do with self torment or an attempt to appease *od. %oetic prayer is also the key to

understanding the spiritual power by which "rthodo# Christians persevered in martyrdom, and also

why those who renounced Christ under torture were considered to have fallen from the state of grace,

i.e., illumination, or noetic prayer.

hat is important for *regory is that he presents 5ulfolaic as saying @%ow, it is considered a sin notto obey bishops, so of course, I came down...I have never dared to set up again the column...for that

would be to disobey the commands of the bishops.@ D %&

>ere we have an important distortion of the meaning of obedience. It is clear that neither *regory

nor his colleagues knew what 5ulfolaic had been doing. >owever, what they did know is that they had

to secure the obedience of the faithful in order to preserve, as much as possible, law and order for their

master, the rankish king, who appointed them. )herefore, disobedience to a bishop is a sin that has a





















special importance.

)he effectiveness of the bishops as officers of the law was also enhanced by the pagan distinction

between heaven and hell which we find in (ugustine and *regory of )ours. $oth are unaware that the

clergy are supposed to prepare people for the vision of *od, which everyone will have either as heaven

or as consuming fire. )his unawareness is coupled with the peculiar shift of the need to change from

man to *od. or *regory, *od must be satisfied by obedience to the clergy and participation in theirsacraments as the condition for man?s entry into paradise.

(ugustine?s position had been even more consistent in that *od had allegedly decided in advance

who is going to heaven and who is to remain in hell. $ecause of the alleged inherited guilt of (dam and

Eve, all are worthy of hell, so that those chosen for heaven have no merit of their own to warrant *od?s

choice, which is therefore allegedly unconditioned and free. )hese ideas of (ugustine would be uite

humorous if it were not for the fact that so many millions of Europeans and (mericans used to believe

in them, and many still do.

Criteria "or Reunion

)he criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannot be different from those used for the

union of associations of scientists. (stronomers would be shocked at the idea that they would unite

with astrologers. Members of a modern medial association would be shocked at the suggestion that

they should become one with an association of uack doctors and tribal medicine men. In the same

way, the athers would be shocked at the idea of a union between "rthodo#y and religious

superstitions which has not the slightest idea about the production of authentic holy relics. (voiding

this issue by claiming that such a theology is for monks only, is like claiming that the cure of cancer is

for doctors only.

)he correct interplay between theology and society is not much different from a correct interplay

between science and society. )hus, the uestion of organizational and administrative structure, as in the

sciences, is resolved into the uestion of the success of theology in producing the results for which it

e#ists.

@$lessed are the pure in heart for they shall see *od.@

#OOTNOTES[ 1 ] 3he Euroean and )iddle Eastern arts of the >oman Emire were cared out of

areas which, among other linguistic elements, contained two bands, the Celtic and the%reek, which ran arallel to each other from the @tlantic to the )iddle East# 3he Celticband was north of the %reek band, e<cet in @sia )inor, where %alatia had the %reekband to the east, the north, and the south# orthern 9tal$ itself was art of the Celticband and !outhern 9tal$ a art of the %reek band here called Magna /raecia1 whichin the West coered !outhern !ain, %aul, and their )editerranean islands# Due









consideration should be gien to the fact that both the Celtic and %reek bands wereeast and west of >oman 9tal$# 3he >omans first took oer the %reek and Celtic artsof 9tal$ and then the %reek and Celtic seaking eoles of the two bands# 3he Celticband was almost comletel$ -atinied, whereas, the %reek band, not onl$ remainedintact, but was een e<anded b$ the >oman olic$ of comleting the +elleniation ofthe Eastern roinces initiated b$ the )acedonians# 3he reason wh$ the Celtic band,

but not the %reek band, was -atinied was that the >omans were themseles bilingualin fact and in sentiment, since in the time of their e<losie e<ansion the$ soke both-atin and %reek, with a strong reference for the latter# 3hus, one is obliged to seakof both the Western and Eastern arts of Euroean >omania in terms of a -atin orthand a %reek !outh, but certainl$ not of a -atin West and a %reek East, which is aFrankish m$th, fabricated for the roagandistic reasons described in -ecture 9, whichsuries in te<t books until toda$# 9ndeed, the %alatians of @sia )inor were in thefourth centur$ still seaking the same dialect as the 3reeri of the roince of ;elgicain the >oman diocese of %aul# @lbert %renier, Les /alois [Paris, &.40], # &&5#1 3hatthe -atin WestG%reek East diision of Euroe is a Frankish m$th is still witnessed totoda$ b$ some :5 million >omans in the ;alkans, who seak >omance dialects, and

b$ the %reek seaking inhabitants of the ;alkans and the )iddle East, who callthemseles Romans' 9t should be noted that it is er$ ossible that the %alatians of@sia )inor still soke the same language as the ancestors of the Walloons in the areaof the @rdennes when the legate of Poe (ohn B, @bbot -eo, was at )ouonronouncing the condemnation of %erbert dA@urillac in ..5#

[ 2 ] For further details on this subject one ma$ consult m$ studies7 "Critical

E$amination of the Applications of heology,5 Proces " 6er(au$ du &eu$ieme Congresde heologie #rthodo$e' @thens, &.461, # 8&'*8&, and the arious works ?uotedtherein#

[ 3 ] )atthew 5#6#

[ 4 ] Eistle :#

[ 5 ] heological #ration &#5#

[ 6 ] 9bid# &#'

[ 7 ] 2n the relations between the (ohanine and !$notic gosel traditions see m$

stud$, 5%ustin Martyr and the Fourth /ospel,5 3he %reek 2rthodo< 3heological >eiew,8 &.56*5.1, # &&5*'.#

[ 8 ] he History of the Fran0s &0#'&, trans# -ewis 3hore -ondon, &.441, # /0&#

[ 9 ] 9bid# &0#:0, # 56.#



















































[ 10 ] 9bid# 5#&0, # :/5

[ 11 ] 9bid#6#&5, # 884#

[ 12 ] 9bid#























Part III

Hitorical Bac$+round

"ne must take note from the very beginning that there never was a ilioue controversy between the

est and East !omans. )here were domestic uarrels over details concerning the Christological

doctrine and the Ecumenical 'ynods dealing with the person of Christ. )he est !omans championed

the cause of Icons defined by the 'eventh Ecumenical 'ynod, but they never supported the rankish

ilioue, either as doctrine or as an addition to the Creed. )he ilioue controversy was not a conflict

between the Patriarchates of "ld !ome and %ew !ome, but between the ranks and all !omans in the

East and in the est.

(s we saw in Part 0, there is strong evidence that the cause of the ilioue controversy is to be

found in the rankish decision to provoke the condemnation of the East !omans as heretics so that the

latter might become e#clusively @*reeks@ and, therefore, a different nation from the est !omans

under rankish rule. )he prete#t of the ilioue controversy was the rankish acceptance of (ugustine

as the key to understanding the theology of the irst and 'econd Ecumenical 'ynods. )hat this

distinction between cause and prete#t is correct seems adeuately clear in the policy manifested at the

'ynod of rankfurt in <=9 which condemned both sides of the iconoclastic controversy so that the East

!omans would end up as heretics no matter who prevailed.

)he ranks deliberately provoked doctrinal differences in order to break the national and

ecclesiastical unity of the !oman nation, and thus separate, once and for all, the revolutionary est!omans under their rule from the East !omans. )he free !omans supposedly have Lchanged? their

nationality by becoming heretics, by moving their capital from "ld !ome to %ew !ome, and preferring

*reek over +atin. 'o goes the argument of Emperor +ouis II in his letter to Emperor $asil I in :<0, as

we saw.

$ecause of this deliberate policy, the ilioue uestion was about to take on irreparable dimensions.

p to this time, the ilioue was a rankish political weapon which had not yet become a theological

controversy because the !omans hopefully believed that the Papacy could dissuade the ranks from

their doctrinal dead&end approach. hen it became clear that the ranks were not going to retreat from

these politico&doctrinal policies, the !omans accepted the challenge and condemned both the ilioueand the rankish double position on icons at the Eighth Ecumenical 'ynod of :<= in Constantinople&

%ew !ome.

-uring the ensuing centuries long course of the controversy, the ranks not only forced the Patristic

tradition into an (ugustinian mold, but they confused (ugustine?s )rinitarian terminology with that of

the ather?s of the irst and 'econd Ecumenical 'ynods. )his is nowhere so evident as in the +atin

handling of Ma#imos the Confessor?s description, composed in 78A, of the est !oman "rthodo#



ilioue at the Council of lorence 209;:&913. )he East !omans hesitated to present Ma#imos? letter to

Marinos about this est !oman "rthodo# ilioue because the letter did not survive in its complete

form. )hey were pleasantly surprised, however, when (ndrew, the +atin bishop of !hodes, uoted the

letter in *reek in order to prove that in the time of Ma#imos there was no ob6ection to the ilioue

being in the Creed. "f course, the ilioue was not yet in the Creed. )hen (ndrew proceeded to

translate Ma#imos into +atin for the benefit of the pope. >owever, the official translator intervened andchallenged the rendition. "nce the correct translation was established, the ranks then uestioned the

authenticity of the te#t. )hey assumed that their own ilioue was the only one in the est, and so they

re6ected on this ground Ma#imos? te#t as a basis of union.

hen Ma#imos spoke about the "rthodo# ilioue, as supported with passages from !oman

athers, he did not mean those who came to be known as +atin athers, and so included among them

'aint Cyril of (le#andria.

)he fanaticism with which the !omans clung to the Papacy, the struggle of the !omans to preserved

this institution, and the hierarchy within the confines of the !oman nation are very well&known

historical facts described in great detail in Medieval histories.

>owever, the identity of the est !omans and of the East !omans as one indivisible nation, faithful

to the !oman faith promulgated at the !oman Ecumenical 'ynods held in the Eastern part of the

Empire, is completely lost to the historians of *ermanic background, since the East !omans are

consistently called @*reeks@ and @$yzantines.@

)hus, instead of dealing with church history in terms of a united and indivisible !oman nation, and

presenting the Church a being carved up in the est by *ermanic conuerors, European historians

have been sucked into the rankish perspective, and thereby deal with church history as though there

were a *reek Christendom as distinguished from a +atin Christendom. *reek Christendom consists ofsupposedly, the East !omans, and +atin Christendom, of the ranks and other *ermanic peoples using

+atin plus, supposedly, the est !omans, especially Papal !omania, i.e. the Papal 'tates.

)hus, the historical myth has been created that the est !oman athers of the Church, the ranks,

+ombards, $urgundians, %ormans, etc., are one continuous and historically unbroken +atin

Christendom, clearly distinguished and different from a mythical *reek Christendom. )he frame of

reference accepted without reservation by estern historians for so many centuries has been @the *reek

East and the +atin est.@

( much more accurate understanding of history presenting the ilioue controversy in its true

historical perspective is based on the !oman viewpoint of church history, to be found in 2both +atin

and *reek3 !oman sources, as well as in 'yriac, Ethiopian, (rabic, and )urkish sources. (ll these point

to a distinction between rankish and !oman Christendom, and not between a mythical +atin and

*reek Christendom. (mong the !omans, +atin and *reek are national languages, not nations. )he

athers are neither +atins nor *reeks but !omans.

>aving this historical background in mind, one can then appreciate the significance of certain

historical and theological factors underlying the so&called ilioue controversy. )his controversy was



essentially a continuation of the *ermanic of rankish effort to control not only the !oman nation, but

also the rest of the !oman nation and Empire.

In order to e#pand on this historical approach, we would point out the following/

0.3 )he doctrinal differences which e#ist between 'aint (mbrose and 'aint (ugustine are a

summary of the differences between rankish and !oman theological method and doctrine. )his is

indeed a strange discovery, since one is given the impression that (ugustine was a student and friend of

(mbrose, and that the latter instructed and baptized the former. (fter comparing the two, I have come

to the conclusion that (ugustine did not pay much attention to the sermons of (mbrose and evidently

read little of (mbrose?s works.

)he two differ radically over the uestions of the "ld )estament appearances of the +ogos, the

e#istence of the universals, the general framework of the doctrine of the )rinity, the nature of

communion between *od and man, the manner in which Christ reveals >is divinity to the apostles, and

in general, over the relation between doctrine and speculation, or revelation and reason. ( reason.

(mbrose clearly follows the East !oman athers, and (ugustine follows the $ible interpreted withinthe framework of Plotinus, and under the pressure of his Manichaean past.

1.3 )he province of *aul was the battleground between the followers of (ugustine and of 'aint 4ohn

Cassian, when the ranks were taking over the province and transforming it into their rancia. )hrough

his monastic movement and his writings in this field and on Christology, 'aint 4ohn Cassian had a

strong influence on the Church in "ld !ome also. In his person, as in other persons such as (mbrose,

4erome, !ufinus, +eo the *reat, and *regory the *reat, we have an identity in doctrine, theology, and

spirituality between the East and est !oman Christians. ithin this framework, (ugustine in the est

!oman area was sub6ected to general !oman theology. In the East !oman area, (ugustine was simply

ignored.

;.3 In contrast to East and est !oman theology, the rankish theological tradition makes its

appearance in history reading and knowing in full only (ugustine. (s the ranks became acuainted

with other +atin&speaking or *reek&speaking !oman athers, they subordinated them all to the

authority of (ugustinian categories. Even the dogmas promulgated at Ecumenical 'ynods were

replaced by (ugustine?s understanding of these dogmas.

9.3 )his theological frame of reference within the framework of feudalism gives the ranks

confidence that they have the best theology, not only because they have what +atin 2i.e. rankish3

Christendom ever since has considered the greatest ather of the Patristic period, but also because the

ranks and the other *ermanic peoples are, by the very nature of their birth, a noble race superior to

the !omans, @*reeks@ 2East !omans3, and 'lavs. )he natural result of this superiority is that the

*ermanic races, especially the anks, %ormans, +ombards, and, finally, the *ermans, should produce a

theology better than that of the !omans. )hus, the scholastic tradition of the *ermanic Europe

surpasses the Patristic period of the !omans. I personally can find no other 6ustification of the claim, so

popular until a few years ago in the est, that scholastic theology succeeded and surpassed patristic

theology.



8.3 )his distinction has its derivation in a second factor which has gone unnoticed in European,

!ussian, and modern @*reek@ manuals because of the identification of *ermanic or rankish theology

with +atin&language !oman theology under the heading @+atin Christendom@.

)he historical appearance of rankish theology coincides with the beginnings of the ilioue

controversy. 'ince the !oman athers of the Church took a strong position on this issue, as they did on

the uestion of Icons 2also condemned initially by the ranks3, the ranks automatically terminated thepatristic period of theology with 'aint 4ohn of -amascus in the East 2after they accepted the 'eventh

Ecumenical 'ynod3 and Isidore of 'eville in the est. (fter this, the !oman Empire no longer can

produce athers of the Church because the !omans re6ected the rankish ilioue. In doing so, the

!omans withdrew themselves from the central trunk of Christianity 2as the ranks understood things3

which now becomes identical with rankish Christianity, especially after the East ranks e#pelled the

!omans from the Papacy and took it over themselves.

7.3 rom the !oman viewpoint, however, the !oman tradition of the athers was not only not

terminated in the eighth century, but continued a vigorous e#istence in free !omania in the East, as

well as within (rab&occupied areas. Present research is now leading to the conclusion that the !oman

Patristic period e#tended right in tot he period of "ttoman rule, after the fall of Constantinople %ew

!ome. )his means that the Eighth Ecumenical 'ynod 2:<=3, under Photios, the so&called Palamite

'ynods of the fourteenth century, and the 'ynods of the !oman Patriarchate during the "ttoman period,

are all a continuation and an integral part of the history of Patristic theology. It is also a continuation of

the !oman Christian tradition, minus the Patriarchate of "ld !ome, which, since 0AA= after having

been captured, ceased to be !oman and became a rankish institution.

<.3 ithout ever mentioning the ranks, the Eighth Ecumenical 'ynod of :<= condemned those who

either added or subtracted from the %icene&Constantinopolitan Creed, and also those who had not yet

accepted the 'eventh Ecumenical 'ynod.

It must first be emphasized that this is the first instance in history wherein and Ecumenical 'ynod

condemned heretics without naming them. In this case, the heretics are clearly the ranks.

It is also significant that Pope 4ohn 5III?s Commonitorium to the 'ynod does not mention the need

to condemn those who either add or subtract from the Creed.

)here is, however, a letter of 4ohn to Photios, which is usually published at the end of the acts of the

'ynod, in which the ilioue is vigorously condemned, and is described as something added not long

ago, but never in the Church of !ome. )he letter also reuested that admonition from the pope be used

for its removal, since a harsher approach may lead to its addition by force.

It has been argued that the surviving version for the letter is a product of the fourteenth century.

>owever, the e#isting version fits in perfectly with the conditions of Papal !omania under rankish

domination at the time of 4ohn 5III, which could not have been known by either a rank or an East

!oman in the fourteenth century.

)he power of the ranks over the Papacy, although not completely broken after the death of



Charlemagne in :09, was in any case weakened with the dissolution of his Empire, and, in turn,

neutralized by the reconuest of 'outh Italian !omania from the 'aracens by the !oman army

beginning in :<7. >owever, !oman power had not been so strongly established that the Papacy in :<=

could afford an open doctrinal war with the ranks. 'uch an open conflict would have led to the

transformation of papal !omania into a rankish duchy, and of the !oman population into the

condition of the !omans conuered in other parts of estern !omania by the ranks and other*ermanic nations and, of course, also would have meant the addition of the ilioue to the Creed by

force, as pointed out by 4ohn.

(t the same time, the !oman popes, after the death of Charlemagne, seem to have gained a real

influence over the rankish kingdoms which recognized the magical powers of the popes to anoint an

emperor in the est, thus making him eual to the emperor in the East. 4ohn 5III seems to have been

e#traordinarily successful in this regard, and there is not doubt that his reuest to Photios to be allowed

to use persuasion for the removal of the ilioue was based on a real possibility of success.

:.3 It is always claimed by Protestant, (nglican, and +atin scholars that since the time of >adrian I

or +eo III, through the period of 4ohn 5III, the Papacy opposed the ilioue only as an addition to the

Creed, but never as doctrine or theological opinion. )hus, it is claimed that 4ohn 5III accepted the

Eight Ecumenical 'ynod?s condemnation of the addition to the Creed and not of the ilioue as a

teaching.

>owever, both Photios and 4ohn 5III?s letter to Photios mentioned above testify to this pope?s

condemnation of the ilioue as doctrine also. Het the ilioue could not be publicly condemned as

heresy by the Church of "ld !ome. hyF 'imply because the ranks were militarily in control of

papal !omania, and as illiterate barbarians were capable of any kind of criminal act against !oman

clergy and populace. )he ranks were a dangerous presence in papal !omania and had to be handled

with great care and tact.

*allic !omania and Italic !omania 2including papal !omania3 are for the !omans one continuous

country, identical with East !omania. )he conuering movements of the ranks, +ombards, and

%ormans into the free sections of !omania are seen from the !oman viewpoint as a united whole, and

not from the viewpoint of the *ermanic European conuerors, who see the !omans as happy to be

conuered and liberated from the so&called @*reeks@, or now, @$yzantines@, so that once conuered,

they are of no concern to the !omans of free !omania.

=.3 )hat the above is the correct framework for understanding the historical conte#t of the ilioue

controversy and the place of the roman popes with this conflict, from the time of Pepin till the descentof the descent of the )eutonic or East ranks into the papal scene in =71&=7;, and their removal of the

!omans from their papal ethnarchy finalized in 0AA=, can be seen in a.3the doctrinal positions of

(nastasios the +ibrarian, the chief advisor of the pro&rank %icholas I and also of 4ohn 5III, in

preparation for the Eighth Ecumenical 'ynod of :<=, representing the newly restored !oman power

over the Papacy, and b.3 in the attitudes toward the ilioue of anti&Pope (nastasios the +ibrarian 2:88&

:8:3 and Pope +eo III.



It is obvious that (nastasios the +ibrarian did not at first understand the rankish ilioue, since on

this uestion he reprimands the @*reeks@ for their ob6ections and accuses them of not accepting

Ma#imos the Confessor?s e#planation that there are two usages of the termJ the one whereby procession

means essential mission, wherein the >oly 'pirit proceeds from the ather and 'on 2in which case the

>oly 'pirit participated in the act of sending, so that this is a common act of the whole )rinity3, and thesecond, whereby precession means casual relation wherein the e#istence of the >oly 'pirit is derived.

In this last sense, Ma#imos assures Marinos 2to whom he is writing3, that the est !omans accept that

the >oly 'pirit proceeds casually only from the ather and that the 'on is not cause.

)here is every reason to believe that this reflects the position of %icholas I on the uestion.

>owever, this was not the position of the ranks who followed, not the est !omans on the

uestion, but (ugustine, who can easily be interpreted as teaching that the >oly 'pirit receives not only

>is essence, but >is e#istence from the ather and the 'on.

$ut this also means that the !omans in the est could never support the introduction of the ilioueinto the Creed, not because they did not want to displease the @*reeks,@ but because this would be

heresy. )he est !omans knew very well that the term procession in the Creed was introduced as a

parallel to generation, and that both meant causal relation to the ather, and not energy or mission.

It was perhaps as a result of the realization that the ranks were confused on the issue and were

saying dangerous things that led (nastasios to a serious reappraisal of the rankish threat, and to the

support of the East !oman position, as clearly represented by Photios the *reat and 4ohn 5III at the

Eighth Ecumenical 'ynod of :<=.

)his interpretation of the ilioue, given by Ma#imos the Confessor and (nastasios the +ibrarian isthe consistent position of the !oman popes, and clearly so in the case of +eo III. )he minutes of the

conversation held in :0A between the three apocrisari of Charlemagne and Pope +eo III, kept by the

rankish monk 'maragdus, bear out this consistency in papal policy. +eo accepts the teaching of the

athers, uoted by the ranks, that the >oly 'pirit proceeds from the ather and the 'on, as taught by

(ugustine and (mbrose. >owever, the ilioue must not be added to the Creed as was done by the

ranks, who got permission to sing the Creed from +eo but not to add to the Creed.

hen one reads these minutes, remembering the ranks were a dangerous presence in Papal

!omania capable of acting in a most cruel and barbarous manner if provoked, then one comes to the

clear realization that Pope +eo III is actually telling the ranks in clear and diplomatic terms that theilioue in the Creed is a heresy.

hat else can +eo?s claim mean but that the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod, and the other synods, left

the ilioue out of the Creed neither by oversight nor out of ignorance, but on purpose by divine

inspirationF

)his theological position is that of Pope >adrian I 2<<1&<=83 also and of the )oledo 'ynods where

the ilioue is not in the Creed but is in another conte#t.



0A.3 "nce the ranks secured their hold on Papal !omania, the Papacy became like a @mouse caught

in the paws@ of its traditional enemy&the cat. )he ranks knew very well what they had captured. )hey

began developing theories and church policy which would put this !oman institution to good use for

the fostering of rankish control over territories formerly under the control of the !omans, and of

aiding in new conuests. )he est ranks continued in the steps of Charlemagne, but in a weak

manner. )he !omans regained full control of the papacy after :7<, but then the East ranks entered thepapal scene beginning in =71, with the known results.

)he attitudes of the est and East ranks toward the Papacy and the ilioue were different, the

first being mild, and the second fanatically hard. "ne of the important reasons for this is that, after =1A,

the new reform movements gained enough momentum to shape the policies of the East *erman ranks

who took over the Papacy. hen the !omans lost the Papacy, the ilioue was introduced into !ome

for the first time in either 0AA=, or at latest by 0A09.

In the light of the above, we do not have the situation usually presented by European, (merican, and

!ussian historians in which the ilioue is an integral part of so&called @+atin@ Christendom with a

@*reek@ Christendom in opposition on the prete#t of its introduction into the Creed. 2)he addition to

the Creed was supposedly opposed by the popes not doctrinally, but only as addition in order not to

offend the @*reeks.@3 hat we do have is a united est and East !oman nation in opposition to an

upstart group of *ermanic races who began teaching the !omans before they really learned anything

themselves. "f course, *erman teachers could be very convincing on uestion of dogma, only by

holding a knife to the throat. "therwise, especially in the time of imposing the ilioue, the theologians

of the new *ermanic theology were better than their noble peers, only because they could read and

write and had, perhaps, memorized (ugustine.

00.3 )he cleavage between the !oman and rankish Papacy is nowhere so clearly apparent as in the

fact that, when at the Pseudo&nion Council of lorence 209;=3, the !omans presented to the ranks

'aint Ma#imos the Confessor?s interpretation of the ilioue as a basis of union. )he ranks not only

re6ected this interpretation as false and not in keeping with ranco&+atin doctrine, but also they were

not aware of its correct reading.

D Return

T!e T!eolo+ical Bac$+round

(t the foundation of the ilioue controversy between ranks and !omans lie essential differences

in theological method, theological sub6ect matter, spirituality, and therefore, also in the understandingof the very nature of doctrine and of the development of the language or of terms in which doctrine is

e#pressed. "f all the aspects dealt with in my published works, I will single out the following as

necessary to an elemental understanding of the !oman attitudes to rankish pretensions on the

ilioue. (lthough we have named the second part of this paper @)he )heological $ackground,@ we are

still speaking about theology within historical perspective, and not abstractly with e#tra conte#tual

references to the $ible.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm#con








hen reading through 'maragdus? minutes of the meeting between Charlemagne?s emissaries and

Pope +eo III, one is struck not only by the fact that the ranks had so audaciously added the ilioue to

the Creed and made it into a dogma, but also by the haughty manner in which they so authoritatively

announced that the ilioue was necessary for salvation, and that it was an improvement of an already

good, but not complete, doctrine concerning the >oly 'pirit. )his was in answer to +eo?s strong hint at

rankish audacity. +eo, in turn, warned that when one attempts to improve what is good he should firstbe sure that in trying to improve he is not corrupting. >e emphasizes that he cannot put himself in a

position higher than the athers of the 'ynods, who did not omit the ilioue out of oversight or

ignorance, but by divine inspiration.

)he uestion arises, @here in the world did the newly born rankish theological tradition get the

idea that the ilioue is an improvement of the Creed, and that it was omitted from creedal e#pression

because of oversight or ignorance on the part of the athers of the 'ynodF@ 'ince (ugustine is the only

representative of !oman theology that the ranks were more or less fully acuainted with, one must

turn to the $ishop of >ippo for a possible answer.

I think I have found the answer in 'aint (ugustine?s lecture delivered to the assembly of (frican

bishops in ;=;. (ugustine had been asked to deliver a lecture on the Creed, which he did. +ater he

reworked the lecture and published it. I do not see why the Creed e#pounded is not that of %icaea&

Constantinople, since the outline of (ugustine?s discourse, and the Creed are the same. )welve years

had passed since its acceptance by the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod and, if ever, this was the opportune

time for assembled bishops to learn of the new, official, imperially approved creed. )he bishops

certainly knew their own local Creed and did not reuire lessons on that.

In any case, (ugustine makes three basic blunders in this discourse and died many years later

without ever realizing his mistakes, which were to lead the ranks and the whole of their *ermanic

+atin Christendom into a repetition of those same mistakes.

In his e Fide et *ymbolo, (ugustine makes an unbelievable naive and inaccurate statement/ @ith

respect to the >oly 'pirit, however, there has not been, on the part or learned and distinguished

investigators of the 'criptures, a fuller careful enough discussion of the sub6ect to make it possible for

us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes >is special individuality 2proprium3.@

Everyone at the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod knew well that this uestion was settled once and for all

by the use in the Creed of the word @procession@ as meaning the manner of e#istence of the >oly 'pirit

from the ather which constitutes >is special individuality. )hus, the ather is unbegotten, i.e. derives

>is e#istence from no one. )he 'on is from the ather by generation. )he >oly 'pirit is from theather, not by generation, but by procession. )he ather is cause, the son and the 'pirit are caused. )he

difference between the ones caused is the one is caused by generation, and the other by procession, and

not by generation.

In any case, (ugustine spent many years trying to solve this non&e#istent problem concerning the

individuality of the >oly 'pirit and, because of another set of mistakes in his understanding of

revelation and theological method, came up with the ilioue.



It is no wonder that the ranks, believing that (ugustine had solved a theological problem which the

other !oman athers had supposedly failed to grapple with and solve came to the conclusion that they

uncovered a theologian far superior to all other athers. In him the ranks had a theologian far superior

to all other athers. In him the ranks had a theologian who improved upon the teaching of the 'econd

Ecumenical 'ynod.

( second set of blunders made by (ugustine in this same discourse is that he identified the >oly

'pirit with the divinity @which the *reeks designate θεοτης, and e#plained that this is the @love

between the ather and the 'on.@

(ugustine is aware of the fact that @those parties oppose this opinion who think that the said

communion, which we call either *odhead, or +ove, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they

reuire the >oly 'pirit to be set forth to them according to substanceJ neither do they take forth to them

according to substanceJ neither do they take it to have been otherwise impossible for the e#pression

L*od is +ove? to have been used, unless love were a substance.@

It is obvious that (ugustine did not at all understand what the East !oman athers, such as 'aint*regory %yssa, 'aint *regory the )heologian, and 'aint $asil the *reat, were talking about. "n the

one hand, they re6ect the idea that the >oly 'pirit can be the common energies of the ather and 'on

known as θεοτης and love since these are not an essence or an hypostasis, whereas the >oly 'pirit is

an hypostasis. Indeed, the athers of the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod reuired that the >oly 'pirit not be

identified with any common energy of the ather and 'on, but they did not identify the >oly 'pirit with

the common essence of the ather and 'on either.

)he >oly 'pirit is an individual hypostasis with individual characteristics or properties not shared

by other hypostases, but >e does share fully everything the ather and 'on have in common, to wit, the

divine essence and all uncreated energies and powers. )he >oly 'pirit is an individuality who is not

what is common between the ather and 'on, but has in common everything the ather and 'on have

in common.

(ll his life, (ugustine re6ected the distinction between what the persons are and what they have

2even though this is a $iblical distinction3 and identified what *od is with what >e has. >e not only

never understood the distinction between 0.3 the common essence and energies of the >oly )rinity and

1.3 the incommunicable individualities of the diving hypostasesJ but completely failed to grasp the very

e#istence of the difference between a.3 the common divine essence and b.3 the common divine love and

divinity. >e himself admits that he does not understand why a distinction is made in the *reek

language between ουσια and υποστασεις in *od. %evertheless, he insisted that his distinctions must

be accepted as a matter of faith and rendered in +atin as una essentia and tes substantiae. 2-e )rinitate,

8.:.0AJ<.9&73

It is clear that 't. (ugustine accepted the most important aspect of the )rinitarian terminology of the

cappadocian athers and the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod.

>owever, not aware of the teaching of such athers, like $asil and the two *regories mentioned,



who do not identify the common θεοτης and the αγαπη of the )rinity with the common divine essence

of the )rinity, (ugustine has the following peculiar remarks/

@$ut men like these should make their heart pure, so far as they can, in order that they may have

power to see that in the substance of *od there is not anything of such a nature as would imply that

therein substance is one thing, and that which is accident to substance 2aliud uod accidat substantia3

another thing, and not substanceJ whereas whatsoever can be taen to be taen therein is substance.#

"nce these foundations are laid, then the >oly 'pirit as that which is common to the ather and 'on

e#ists by reason of the ather and 'on. )hus, there can be no distinction between the ather and 'on

sending the >oly 'pirit, and the ather causing the e#istence of the >oly 'pirit. hat *od is by nature,

how the three hypostases e#ist by nature, and what *od does by will, become confused. )hus, it is a

fact that for (ugustine both generation and procession end up being confused with the divine powers

and energies and, thereby, also end up meaning the same thing. )he ilioue thus is an absolute

necessity in order to salvage something of the individuality of the >oly 'pirit. *od, then, is from no

one. )he 'on is from one. )he >oly 'pirit must be from two. "therwise, since generation and

procession are the same, there would be no difference between the 'pirit and the 'on since they would

both be from one.

)he third and most disturbing blunder in (ugustine?s approach to the uestion before us is that his

theological method is not only pure speculation on what one accepts by faith 2for the purpose of

intellectually understanding as much as one?s reason allows by either illumination or ecstatic intuition3,

but it is a speculation which is transferred from the individual speculating believer to a speculating

church, which, like an individual, understands the dogmas better with the passage of time.

)hus, the Church awaits a discussion about the >oly 'pirit @ull enough or careful enough to make

it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes >is special individuality2proprium3...@

)he most amazing thing is the fact that (ugustine begins with seeking out the individual properties

of the >oly 'pirit and immediately reduces >im to what is common to the ather and 'on. >owever, in

his later additions to his e +rinitate, he insists that the >oly 'pirit is an individual substance of the

>oly )rinity completely eual to the other two substances and possessing the same essence as we saw.

In any case, the (ugustinian idea that the Church herself goes through a process of attaining a

deeper and better understanding of her dogmas or teachings was made the very basis of the rankish

propaganda that the ilioue is a deeper and better understanding of the doctrine of the )rinity.

)herefore, adding it to the Creed is an improvement upon the faith of the !omans who had allowed

themselves to become lazy and slothful on such an important matter. )his, of course, raises the whole

uestion concerning the relationship between revelation and verbal and iconic or symbolic e#pressions

of revelation.

or (ugustine, there is no distinction between revelation and conceptual intuition of revelation.

hether revelation is given directly to human reason, or to human reason by means of creatures, or

created symbols, it is always the human intellect itself which is being illumined or given vision to. the



vision of god itself is an intellectual e#perience, even though above the powers of reason without

appropriate grace.

ithin such a conte#t, every revelation is a revelation of concepts which can be searched out by

reason for a fuller and better understanding. 'uffice it that faith and the acceptance of dogmas by virtue

of the authority of the Church always forms the starting point. hat cannot now be fully understood by

reason based on faith will be fully understood in the ne#t life. @(nd inasmuch as, being reconciled andcalled back into friendship through love, we shall be able to become acuainted with all the secret

things of *od, for this reason it is said of the >oly 'pirit that @>e shall lead you into all truth.@ hat

(ugustine means by such language is made very clear by what he says elsewhere, @I will not be slow to

search out the substance of *od, whether through >is scripture or through the creature.@

'uch material in the hands of the ranks transformed the purpose of theology into a study or

searching out of the divine substance and, in this respect, the scholastic tradition far surpassed the

tradition of the !oman athers who consistently taught that not only man, but even the angels, neither

know, nor will ever know, the divine essence which is known only to the >oly )rinity.

$oth "rthodo# and (rians fully agreed with the inherited tradition that only *od knows >is own

essence. )his means that >e who knows the divine nature is himself *od by nature, )hus, in order to

prove that the +ogos is a creature, the (rians argued that the +ogos does not know the essence of the

ather. )he "rthodo# argued that the +ogos does know the essence of the ather and, therefore, is

uncreated. )he Eunomians threw a monkey wrench into the agreed rules for proving points with their

shocking claim that, not only does the +ogos know the essence of *od, but man also can know this

essence. )herefore, the +ogos does not have to be uncreated because >e knows this essence.

(gainst the (rian and "rthodo# position that creatures cannot know the divine uncreated essence,

but may know the uncreated energy of *od in its multiple manifestations, the Eunomians argued thatthe diving essence and uncreated energy are identical, so that to know the one is to know the other.

'trangely, (ugustine adopted the Eunomian positions on these uestions. )herefore, when the

ranks appeared in the East with these positions they were accused of being Eunomians.

In contrast to this (ugustinian approach to language and concepts concerning *od, we have the

Patristic position e#pressed by 'aint *regory the )heologian against the Eunomians. Plato had claimed

that it is difficult to conceive of *od but, to define >im in words is an impossibility. 'aint *regory

disagrees with this and emphasizes that @it is impossible to e#press >im, and yet, more impossible to

conceive >im. or that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly

well, at any rate imperfectly...@

)he most important element in Patristic epistemology is that the partial knowability of the divine

actions or energies, and the absolute and radical unknowability and incommunicability of the divine

essence is not a result of the philosophical or theological speculation, as it is in Paul of 'amosata,

(rianism, and %estorianism, but of the personal e#perience of revelation or participation in the

uncreated glory of *od by means of vision or theoria. 'aint *regory defines a theologian as one who

has reached this theoria by means of purification and illumination, and not by means of dialectical



speculation. )hus, the authority for Christian truth is not the written words of the $ible, which cannot

in themselves either e#press *od, but rather the individual apostle, prophet, or saint who is glorified in

*od.

)hus, the $ible, the writings of the athers, and the decisions of 'ynods are not revelation, but about

revelation. !evelation itself transcends words and concepts, although it inspires those participating in

divine glory to accurately e#press what is ine#pressible in words and concepts. 'uffice it that under theguidance of the saints, who know by e#perience, the faithful should know that *od is not to be

identified with $iblical words and concepts which point to >im, albeit infallibly.

)hus, we find that 'aint *regory the )heologian does not only point to the revelatory e#perience of

the prophets, apostles, and saints in order to set out the theological foundations for confuting the

(rians, Eunomians, and Macedonians, but also to his own e#perience of this same revelation of divine

glory.

@hat is this that has happened to me, " friends, and initiates, and fellow lovers of the truthF I was

running to lay hold of *od, and thus I went up into the Mount, drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, andentered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. (nd then

when I looked up, I scarcely saw the back parts of *odJ although I was sheltered by the !ock, the ord

that was made flesh for us. (nd when I looked a little closer, I saw, not the first and unmingled %ature

known to itself, to the )rinity I meanJ not that which abideth within the first veil, and is hidden by the

CherubimJ but only that 2%ature3, which at last even reaches to us. (nd that is, as far as I can learn, the

Ma6esty, or as holy -avid calls it, the *lory which is manifested among the creatures, which It has

produced and governs. or these are the $ack Parts of *od, which are after >im, as tokens of

>imself...@

)his distinction between the first %ature and the uncreated glory of *od, the first known only to*od and the other to those to whom *od reveals himself is to be found not only in the "rthodo#

athers but also in Paul of 'amosata, the (rians, and the %estorians all of whom claimed that *od is

related to creatures only by will, and not by nature, since natural relations mean necessary relations

which would reduce *od to a system of emanations like that of 5alentinus. Paul of 'amosata and the

%estorians argued that in Christ, *od is united to humanity not by nature, but by will, and the (rians

argued that *od is related to the hypostatic +ogos not by nature, but by will.

(gainst these positions, the "rthodo# athers argues that in Christ, the +ogos is united to >is

humanity by nature or hypostatically, and the ather generates >is 'on not by will only, but by nature

primarily, the will not being in contradiction to what belongs to *od by nature. )hus, *od generates the+ogos by nature and by will. )he >oly )rinity creates and is related to creatures with the e#ception of

the +ogos who by nature unites himself >is own humanity.

In any case, the Eunomians and (ugustine obliterated this distinction between what *od is by

nature and what *od does by will. In (ugustine this led to a failure to distinguish between generation

and procession 2which are not energies of the ather3 and such acts as knowing sending, loving, and

giving, which are common energies of the father, 'on and >oly 'pirit, but not he radically



incommunicable manners of e#istence and hypostatic properties of generation and procession.

$ecause the ranks, following (ugustine, neither understood the Patristic position on this sub6ect,

nor were they willing from the heights of their ma6estic feudal nobility to listen to @*reek@ e#plain

these distinctions, they went about raiding the Patristic te#ts. )hey took passages out of conte#t in order

to prove that for all the athers, as supposedly in the case of (ugustine, the fact that the ather and the

'on send the >oly 'pirit means that the >oly 'pirit derives >is e#istence from the ather and 'on.

In concluding this section, we note that the athers always claimed that generation and procession

are what distinguish the 'on from the >oly 'pirit. 'ince the 'on is the only generation begotten 'on of

*od, procession is different from generation. "therwise, we would have two 'on, in which case there

is no only begotten 'on. or the athers this was both a biblical fact and a mystery to be treated with

due respect. )o ask what generation and procession are is as ridiculous as asking what the divine

essence is. "nly energies of *od may be know, and then only in so far as the creature can receive.

In contrast to this, (ugustine set out to e#plain what generation is. >e identified generation with

what the other !oman athers called actions or energies of *od which are common tot he >oly )rinity.)hus, procession ended up being these same energies. )he difference between the 'on and the 'pirit

was that the 'on is from one and he >oly 'pirit from two.

hen he began his e +rinitate, (ugustine promised that he would e#plain why the 'on and the

>oly 'pirit are not brothers. (fter completing his twelfth book, his friends stole and published this

work in an unfinished and uncorrected form. In $ook 08, 98, (ugustine admits that he cannot e#plain

why the >oly 'pirit is not a son of the ather and brother of the +ogos, and proposes that we will learn

this in the ne#t life.

In his Rectractationun, (ugustine e#plains how he intended to e#plain what had happened in

another writing and not publish his e +rinitate himself. >owever, his friends prevailed upon him, and

he simply corrected the books as much as he could and finished the work with which he was not really

satisfied.

hat is most remarkable is that the spiritual and cultural descendants of the ranks, who pricked

and swelled !oman livers for so many centuries, are still claiming that (ugustine is the authority par

e#cellence on the Patristic doctrine of the >oly )rinity.

hereas no *reek&speaking !oman ather ever used the e#pression that the >oly 'pirit proceeds

2εκπορευεται3 from the ather and 'on, both (mbrose and (ugustine use this e#pression. 'ince

(mbrose was so dependent on such *reek&speaking e#perts as $asil the *reat and -idymos the $lind,particularly his work on the >oly 'pirit, one would e#pect that he would follow Eastern usage.

It seems, however, that at the time of the death of (mbrose, before the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod,

the term procession had been adopted by -idymos as the hypostatic individuality of the >oly 'pirit. It

had not been used by 'aint $asil 2only in his letter ;: he seems to be using procession as *regory the

)heologian3 or by 'aint *regory of %yssa before the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod. "f the Cappadocian

athers, only 'aint *regory the )heologian uses very clearly in his +heolo"ical ,rations what became



the final formulation of the Church on the matter at the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod.

)he first fully developed use of procession as the manner of e#istence and the hypostatic property of

the >oly 'pirit is to be found in the Pseudo&4ustin collection of works, which probably came out of the

(ntiochene tradition. It reached Cappadocia via 'aint *regory the )heologian and (le#andria via

-idymos the $lind. 'aint (mbrose however, did not pick up this tradition. (ugustine picked it up in a

confused manner.

It is clear that, in the third or fourth century, the term generation, used with regard to the +ogos and

*od, changed from signifying the >oly )rinity?s relation to creation and the incarnation whereby the

already e#isting *od became ather, having generated the already e#isting +ogos, who thus became the

'on, so that >e may be seen and heard by the prophets and become man3 to signifying the manner of

e#istence of the +ogos from the ather. )he uestion of the >oly 'pirit?s manner of e#istence and

hypostatic attribute arose as a result of this change.

ith the e#ception of (ntioch, the prevailing tradition and, perhaps, the only tradition, was that the

ather is from no other being, that the +ogos is from the ather my means of generation, and the >oly'pirit is from the ather also, but not by generation. 'aint *regory of %yssa initially seems to have put

forth the idea that the >oly 'pirit differs from the 'on in so far as the 'on receives e#istence from the

ather, and the 'pirit received e#istence from the ather also, but through the 'on. )he ather is >is

only principle and cause of e#istence, since these pertain to what is common, belonging to all three

persons. 'aint *regory?s usual usage is the @not by generation.@ )o this @not by generation@ was added

@by procession@ in (ntioch. )his gained enough support to be put into the Creed of the 'econd

Ecumenical 'ynod. >owever, this term @procession@ neither adds nor subtracts anything from the

patristic understanding of the >oly )rinity, since the athers always insisted that we don not know what

generation and procession mean. )he athers evidently accepted the term in the Creed because it was

better than inserting such cumbersome and negative e#pressions as @from the ather not by

generation.@ In combining 'aint *regory %yssa?s through the 'on with the final settlement, we get

'aint Ma#imos the confessor?s and 'aint 4ohn of -amascus? @procession of the >oly 'pirit from the

ather through the 'on.@

It is obvious that the *reek&speaking athers before this development used procession as the $ible

does, and so spoke of the >oly 'pirit as proceeding from the ather, and never from the ather and the

'on. It seems, however, that in the +atin&speaking tradition procedure is used for _εκπορευοµαι, but

sometimes also for _εξερχοµαι, and even for _πεµψις. In any case, when 'aint (mbrose used

procedure, he does not mean either manner of e#istence or hypostatic property. )his is clear from hisinsistence that whatsoever the ather and the 'on have in common, the >oly 'pirit also has. hen the

ather and the 'on send the 'pirit, the 'pirit sends himself. hat is individual belongs to only one

person. hat is common is common to all three persons.

Evidently, because (ugustine transformed the doctrine of the >oly )rinity into a speculative

e#ercise of philosophical acumen, the simple, schematic and biblical nature of the doctrine in the

!oman tradition had been lost sight of by those stemming from the scholastic tradition.



)hus, the history of the doctrine of the )rinity has been reduced to searching out the development of

such concepts and terminology as three persons or hypostases, one essence, homoousios, personal or

hypostatic properties, one divinity, etc.

or the athers, the (rians and the Eunomians, however, the doctrine of the )rinity was identical to

the appearances of the +ogos in >is *lory to the prophets, apostles, and saints. )he +ogos was always

identified with the (ngel of *od, the +ord of *lory, the (ngel of *reat Council, the +ord 'abbaoth andthe isdom of *od who appeared to the prophets of the "ld )estament and became Christ by >is birth

as man from the 5irgin )heotokos. %o one ever doubted this identification of the +ogos with this very

concrete individual, who revealed in himself the invisible *od of the "ld )estament to the prophets,

with the peculiar e#ception of (ugustine, who in this regard follows the *nostic and Manichaean

traditions.

)he controversy between the "rthodo# and (rians was not about who the +ogos is in the "ld and

%ew )estament, but about what the +ogos is and what >is relationship is so the ather. )he "rthodo#

insisted that the +ogos is uncreated and unchangeable, having always e#isted from the ather, who by

nature generates the +ogos before the ages. )he (rians insisted that this same +ogos is a changeable

creature, deriving >is e#istence from non&being before the ages by the will of the will of the ather.

)hus the basic uestion was, did the prophets see in *od?s uncreated glory a created +ogos, or an

uncreated +ogos, a +ogos who is *od by nature and, therefore, has all the energies and powers of *od

by nature, or a *od by grace who has some, but not all, the energies of the ather and then only by

grace and not by nature.

$oth "rthodo# and (rians agreed in principle that, if the +ogos has every power and energy of the

ather by nature, then >e is uncreated. If not, >e is a creature.

'ince the $ible is a witness of whom and what the prophets and apostles saw in the glory of the

ather, the $ible itself will reveal whether or not the +ogos has all the energies and powers of the

ather by nature. )hus, we will know whether the prophets and apostles saw a created or an uncreated

+ogos _οµοουσιος with the ather.

"nce can see clearly how, for the athers, the con&substantiality of the +ogos with the ather is not

only the e#perience of the apostles and saints, but also of the prophets.

"ne of the most amazing things in doctrinal history is the fact that both (rians and "rthodo# use

both the "ld and %ew )estaments indiscriminately. )he argument is very simple. )hey make a list of

all the powers and energies of the ather. )hey do the same for the 'on. )hen they compare them to seeif they are identical or not. )he important thing is for them to be not similar, but identical.

Parallel to this, both (rians and "rthodo# agree against the 'abellians and 'amosatenes that the

ather and 'on have individual hypostatic properties which are not common, although they do not

completely agree on what these are. hen the controversy is e#tended into the uestion of the >oly

'pirit, the e#act same method of theologizing is used. hatever powers and energies the ather and

'on have in common, the >oly 'pirit must also have both in common and by nature, in order to be *od



by nature.

>owever, parallel to this argumentative process is the personal e#perience of those living spiritual

masters who themselves reach theoria, as we saw e#pounded by 'aint *regory above. )his e#perience

verifies or certifies the patristic interpretation of the $ible, which witnesses to the uncreatedness of the

+ogos and the >oly 'pirit and their oneness nature with the ather and the identity of their uncreated

glory, rule, grace, will, etc. )his personal e#perience of the glory of *od also certifies the biblicalteaching that there is absolutely no similarity between the created and the uncreated. )his means also

that there can be no uncreated universals of which creatures are supposedly copies. Each individual

creature is dependent upon the uncreated glory of *od, which is, one the one hand, absolutely simple,

yet indivisibly divided among individual creatures. (ll of *od is present in each and every energy

simultaneously. )his the athers know by e#perience, not by speculation.

)his summary of the Patristic theological method is perhaps sufficient to indicate the nonspeculative

method by which the ather theologize and interpret the $ible. )he method is simple and the result is

schematic. 'tated simply and arithmetically, the whole doctrine of the )rinity may be broken down into

two simple statements as far as the ilioue is concerned. 203hat is common in the >oly )rinity is

common to and identical in all three persons or hypostases. 213hat is hypostatic, or hypostatic

property, or manner of e#istence is individual, and belongs only to one person or hypostasis of he >oly

)rinity.

)hus, we have τα κοινα and τα ακοινωνητα , what is common and what is incommunicably

individual.

>aving this in mind, one realizes why the !omans did not take the rankish ilioue very seriously

as a theological position, especially as one which was supposed to improve upon the Creed of the

'econd Ecumenical 'ynod.

>owever, the !omans had to take the ranks themselves seriously, because they backed up their

fantastic theological claims with an unbelievable self&confidence and with a sharp sword, hat they

lacked in historical insight, they made up with @nobility@ of descent, and a strong will to back up their

arguments with muscle and steel.

In any case, it may be useful in terminating this section to emphasize the simplicity of the !oman

position and the humor with which the ilioue was confronted. e may recapture this !oman humor

about the +atin ilioue with two syllogistic 6okes from the *reat Photios which may e#plain some of

the fury of rankish reaction against him.

@Everything, therefore, which is seen and spoken of in the all&holy and consubstantial and

coessential )rinity, is either common to all, or belongs to one only of the three/ but the pro6ection

2προβολη3 of the 'pirit, is neither common, but nor, as they say, does it belong to anyone of them

alone 2may propitiation be upon us, and the blasphemy turned upon their heads3. )herefore, the

pro6ection of the 'pirit is not at all in the life&giving and all&perfect )rinity.@

In other words, the >oly 'pirit must then derive >is e#istence outside of the >oly )rinity since



everything in the )rinity is common to all or belongs to one only.

@or otherwise, if all things common to the ather and the 'on, are in any case common to the

'pirit,...and the procession from them is common to the ather and the 'on, the 'pirit therefore will

then proceed from himself/ and >e will be principle 2αρχη3 of himself, and both cause and caused/ a

thing which even the myths of the *reeks never fabricated.@

Beeping in mind the fact that the athers always began their thoughts about the >oly )rinity from

their personal e#perience of the (ngel of the lord and *reat Counselor made man and Christ, one only

then understands the problematic underlying the (rianEunomian crisis, i.e., whether this concrete

person derives >is e#istence from the essence of hypostasis of the ather or from non&being by the will

of the ather. >ad the tradition understood the method of theologizing about *od as (ugustine did,

there would never have been and (rian or Eunomian heresy. )hose who reach glorification 2theosis3

know by this e#perience that whatever has its e#istence from non&being by the will of *od is a

creature, and whoever and whatever is not from non&being, but from the ather is uncreated. $etween

the created and the uncreated, there is no similarity whatsoever.

$efore the Cappadocian athers gave their weight to the distinction between the three divine

hypostases 2υποστασεις3 and the one divine essence, many "rthodo# Church leaders avoided

speaking either about one essence or one hypostasis since this smacked of 'abellian and 'amosatene

Monarchianism. Many preferred to speak about the 'on as deriving >is e#istence from the ather?s

essence and as being like the ather in essence 2οµοουσιος3 . 'aint (thanasios e#plains that this is

e#actly what is meant by 2οµοιουσιος3&&coessential. It is clear that the "rthodo# were not searching

for a common faith but rather for common terminology and common concepts to e#press their common

e#perience in the $ody of Christ.

Eually important is the fact that the Cappadocians lent their weight to the distinction between the

ather as cause 2αιτιος3 and the 'on and the >oly 'pirit as caused 2αιτιατα3. Coupled with the

manners of e#istence 2τροποι υπαρξεως3 of generation and procession, these terms mean that the

ather causes the e#istence of the 'on by generation and of the >oly 'pirit by procession or not by

generation. "f course, the ather being from no one 2εξ ουδενος3 derives >is e#istence neither from

himself nor from another. (ctually, 'aint $asil pokes fun at Eunomios for being the first to say such an

obvious thing and thereby manifest his frivolousness and wordiness. urthermore, neither the essence

nor the natural energy of the ather have a cause of manner of e#istence. )he ather possesses them by

>is very nature and communicates them to the 'on in order that they possess them by nature likewise.

)hus, the manner by which the uncaused ather e#ists, and by which the 'on and the >oly 'pirit

receive their e#istence from the ather, are not be confused with the ather?s communicating >is

essence and energy to the 'on and the >oly 'pirit. It would, indeed, be strange to speak about the

ather as causing the e#istence of >is own essence and energy along with the hypostases of the 'on

and the >oly 'pirit.

It also must be emphasized that for the athers who composed the creeds of %icaea and

Constantinople neither generation nor procession mean energy or action. )his was the position of the



heretics condemned. )he (rians claimed that the 'on is the product of the will of *od. )he Eunomians

supported a more original but bizarre position that the uncreated energy of the ather is identical with

>is essence, that the 'on is the product of a single energy of the 'on, and that each created species is

the product of a special energy of the >oly 'pirit, there being as many crated energies as there are

species. "therwise, if the >oly 'pirit has only one created energy, then there would be only one species

of things in creation. It is in the light of these heresies also that one must appreciate that generation andprocession in the Creed in no way mean energy or action.

(ugustine did not understand generation and procession in this manner since he clearly identifies

them with energies. It is this which allowed him to speculate psychologically about the >oly )rinity, a

lu#ury which was methodologically impossible for the athers. )hus, (ugustine did not use and neither

was he aware of the conciliar and especially East !oman understanding of generation and procession.

>e identified these terms with the ather?s communication of being, i.e., essence and action to the 'on

and the >oly 'pirit, an aspect which e#ists in all the athers, but not to be identified with generation

and procession, at least after the irst and 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod. It is within such a conte#t that

(ugustine should be understood when he speaks about the >oly 'pirit as receiving >is being 2essence3and as proceeding principally from the ather, but also from the 'on. )his is e#actly what the East

!oman athers mean by the >oly 'pirit receiving >is essence and energy from the ather through or

even and 2't. *regory Palamas3 the 'on simultaneously with >is procession or reception of >is proper

or individual e#istence of hypostasis from the ather. %either the essence nor the essential energy of the

ather are caused, nor are they the cause of the e#istence of the 'on and the >oly 'pirit. )he ather?s

essence and energy are communicated and common 2κοινα3 to the >oly )rinity which is thus one

cause of creation. >owever, neither the ather?s nor the 'on?s, nor the >oly 'pirit?s hypostasis is

communicated. )he hypostases are incommunicable 2ακοινωνητα3 . )hus, the persons of the >oly

)rinity are one, not by union or identity of persons, but by the unity and identity of essence and energy,and by the ather being the sole cause of the e#istence of the 'on and the >oly 'pirit.

In the e#perience of illumination and glorification in Christ, one is aware that *od is three

absolutely similar realities, two derived from one and con&inhering in each other, and at the same time

one identical reality of uncreated communicated glory, rule 2βασιλεια3 and grace in which *od

indivisibly divides himself in divisible things, >is one mansion 2 µονη3 thus becoming many while

remaining one. )he divine essence, however, is not communicated to creatures and, therefore, can

never be known.

(ugustine did not approach the doctrine of the >oly )rinity in the manner of the other athers.>owever, the other est !oman athers each have their parallels in the developing East !oman

tradition. (ugustine also accepted the settlement of the 'econd Ecumenical 'ynod and the athers who

forged it as we saw. )hus, the East !oman athers became est !oman athers. )o speak about a

estern doctrine of the >oly )rinity is, therefore, a falsification of how the est !omans themselves

understood things. It is within such a conte#t that procession in the est came to have the two

meanings as e#plained by Ma#imos the Confessor and (nastasios the +ibrarian.



>owever, when the ranks began raiding the athers for arguments to support their addition to the

Creed, they picked up the categories of manner of e#istence, cause and cause, and identified these with

(ugustine?s generation and procession, thus transforming the old estern "rthodo# ilioue into their

heretical one. )his confusion is nowhere so clear than during the debates at the Council of lorence

where the ranks used the terms @cause@ and @caused@ as identical with their generation and procession,

and supported their claim that the ather and the 'on are one cause of the procession of the >oly 'pirit.)hus, they became completely confused over Ma#imos who e#plains that for the est of his time, the

'on is not the cause of the e#istence of the >oly 'pirit, so that in this sense the 'oly *pirit does not

proceed from the Father. )hat (nastasios the +ibrarian repeats this is ample evidence of the confusion

of both the ranks and their spiritual and theological descendants.

e end this section with the reminder that for the athers, no name or concept gives any

understanding of the mystery of the >oly )rinity. 'aint *regory the )heologian, e.g., is clear on this as

we saw. >e ridicules his opponents with a characteristic taunt/ @-o tell me what is the unbegotteness of

the ather, and I will e#plain to you the physiology of the generation of the 'on and the procession of

the 'pirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy&stricken for prying into the mystery of *od@ %ames andconcepts about *od give to those who reach theoria understanding not of the mystery, but of the dogma

and its purpose. In the e#perience of glorification, knowledge about *od, along with prayer, prophecy

and faith are abolished. "nly love remains 20 Cor. 0;, :&0;J 09,03. )he mystery remains, and will

always remain, even when one sees *od in Christ face to face and is known by *od as Paul was 20 Cor.

0;.013.

T!e Si+ni"icance o" t!e #ilio7ue 8uetion

'maragdus record how the emissaries of Charlemagne complained the Pope +eo III was making an

issue of only four syllables. "f course, four syllables are not many. %evertheless, their implications aresuch that +atin of rankish Christendom embarked on a history of theology and ecclesiastical practice

which may have been uite different had the ranks paid attention to the @*reek.@

I will indicate some of the implication of the presuppositions of the ilioue issue which present

problems today.

0.3 Even a superficial study of today?s histories of dogma and biblical scholarship reveals the

peculiar fact that Protestant, (nglican, Papal, and some "rthodo# theologians accept the irst and

'econd Ecumenical 'ynods only formally. )his is so because there is at least an identity of teaching

between "rthodo# and (rians, which does not e#ist between "rthodo# and +atins, about the real

appearances of the +ogos to the "ld )estament prophets and the identity of this +ogos made flesh in

the %ew )estament. )his, as we saw, was the agreed foundation of debate for the determination of

whether the +ogos seen by the prophets is created or uncreated. )his identification of the +ogos in the

"ld )estament is the very basis of the teachings of all the !oman Ecumenical 'ynods.

e emphasize that the East !oman athers never abandoned this reading of the "ld )estament

theophanies. )his is the teaching of all the est !oman athers, with the single e#ception of

(ugustine, who, confused as usual over what the athers teach, re6ects as blasphemous the idea what



the prophets could have seen the +ogos with their bodily eyes and, indeed, in fire, darkness, cloud, etc.

)he (rians and Eunomians had used, as the *nostics before them, the visibility of the +ogos to the

prophets to prove that >e was a lower being than *od and a creature. (ugustine agrees with the (rians

and Eunomians that the prophets saw a created (ngel, created fire, cloud, light, darkness, etc., but he

argues against them that none of these was the +ogos himself, but symbols by means of which *od or

the whole )rinity is seen and heard.

(ugustine did not have patience with the teaching that the (ngel of the +ord, the fire, the glory, the

cloud, and the Pentecostal tongues of fire, were verbal symbols of the uncreated realities immediately

communicated with by the prophets and apostles, since for him this would mean that all this language

pointed to a vision of the divine substance. or the bishop of >ippo this vision is identical to the whole

of what is uncreated, and could be seen only by a %eoplatonic type ecstasy of the soul, out of the body,

within the sphere of timeless and motionless eternity, transcending all discursive reasoning. 'ince this

is not what he found in the $ible, the visions therein described are not verbal symbols of real visions of

*od, but of creatures symbolizing eternal realities. )he created verbal symbols of the $ible became

created ob6ective symbols. In other words, words which symbolized uncreated energies like fire, etc,.

became ob6ectively real created fires, clouds, tongues, etc.

1.3 )his failure of (ugustine to distinguish between the divine essence and its natural energies 2of

which some are communicated to the friends of *od3. led to a very peculiar reading of the $ible,

wherein creatures or symbols come into e#istence in order to convey a divine message, and them pass

out of e#istence. )hus, the $ible becomes full of unbelievable miracles and a te#t dictated by *od.

;.3 $esides this, the biblical concept of heaven and hell also becomes distorted, since the eternal

fires of hell and the outer darkness become creatures also whereas, they are the uncreated glory of *od

as seen by those who refuse to love. thus, one ends up with the three&story universe problem, with *odin a place, etc., necessitating a demythologizing of the $ible in order to salvage whatever one can of a

uaint Christian tradition for modern man. >owever, it is not the $ible itself which need

demythologizing, but the (ugustinian ranco&+atin tradition and the caricature which it passed off in

the est as @*reek@ Patristic theology.

9.3 $y not taking the above&mentioned foundations of !oman Patristic theology of the Ecumenical

'ynods seriously as the key to interpreting the $ible, modern biblical scholars have applied

presuppositions latent in (ugustine with such methodical consistency that they have destroyed the

unity and identity of the "ld and %ew )estaments, and have allowed themselves to be swayed by

4udaic interpretations of the "ld )estament re6ected by Christ himself.

)hus, instead of dealing with the concrete person of the (ngel of *od, +ord of *lory, (ngel of *reat

Council, isdom of *od and identifying >im with the logos made flesh and Christ, and accepting this

as the doctrine of the )rinity, most, if not all, estern scholars have ended up identifying Christ only

with "ld )estament Messiahship, and euating the doctrine of the )rinity with the development of e#tra

$iblical )rinitarian terminology within what is really not a Patristic framework, but an (ugustinian

one. )hus, the so&called @*reek@ athers are still read in the light of (ugustine, with the !ussians after



Peter Mogila 6oining in.

8.3 (nother most devastating result of the (ugustinian presuppositions of the ilioue is the

destruction of the prophetic and apostolic understanding of grace and its replacement with the whole

system of created graces distributed in +atin Christendom by the hocus pocus of the clergy.

or the $ible and the ather, grace is the uncreated glory and rule 2 βασιλεια3 of *od seen by the

prophets, apostles, and saints and participated in by the faithful followers of the prophets and the

apostles. )he source of this glory and rule is the ather who, in begetting the +ogos, and pro6ecting the

'pirit, communicates this glory and rule so that he 'on and the 'pirit are also by nature one source of

grace with the ather. )his uncreated grace and rule 2βασιλεια3 is participated in by the faithful

according to their preparedness for reception, and is seen by the friends of *od who have become gods

by grace.

$ecause the rankish ilioue presupposes the identity of uncreated divine essence and energy, and

because participation in the divine essence is impossible, the +atin tradition was led automatically into

accepting communicated grace as created, leading to its ob6ectification and magical priestlymanipulation.

"n the other hand, the reduction by (ugustine of this revealed glory and rule 2βασιλεια3 to the

status of a creature has misled modern biblical scholars into the endless discussion concerning the

coming of the @Bingdom@ 2βασιλεια should rather be rule3 without realizing its identity with the

uncreated glory and grace of *od.

7.3 In order not to e#tend ourselves into more detail, we end this section and this paper by pointing

out what the presupposition of the ilioue have done to the matter of authority on uestions of biblical

interpretation and dogma.

In this patristic tradition, all dogma or truth is e#perienced in glorification. )he final form of

glorification is that of Pentecost, in which the apostles were led by the 'pirit into all the truth, as

promised by Christ at the +ast 'upper. 'ince Pentecost, every incident of the glorification of a saint, 2in

other words, of a saint having a vision of *od?s uncreated glory in Christ as its source3, is an e#tension

of Pentecost at various levels of intensity.

)his e#perience includes all of man, but at the same time transcend all of man, including man?s

intellect. )hus, the e#perience remains a mystery to the intellect. )hus, the e#perience remains a

mystery to the intellect, and cannot be conveyed intellectually to another. )hus, language can point to,

but cannot convey, this e#perience. )he spiritual father can guide a person to, but cannot produce, the

e#perience which is a gift of the >oly 'pirit.

hen, therefore, the athers add terms to the biblical language concerning *od and >is relations to

the world, like hypostasis, ousia, physis, homoousios, etc., they are not doing this because they are

improving current understanding as over against a former age. Pentecost cannot be improved upon. (ll

they are doing is defending the Pentecostal e#perience which transcends words, in the language of their

time, because a particular heresy leads away from, and not to, this e#perience, which means spiritual



death to those led astray.

or the athers, authority is not only the $ible, but the $ible plus those glorified or divinized as the

prophets and apostles. )he $ible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and

infallible within the communion of saints because they have the e#perience of divine glory described in

the $ible.

)he presuppositions of the rankish ilioue are not founded on this e#perience of glory. (nyone

can claim to speak with authority and understanding. >owever, we follow the athers and accept only

those as authority who, like the apostles, have reached a degree of Pentecostal glorification.

ithin this frame of reference, there can be no institutionalized or guaranteed form of infallibility,

outside of the tradition of spirituality which leads to theoria, mentioned above, by 't. *regory the

)heologian.

(s a heresy, the ilioue is as bad as (rianism, and this is borne out by the fact that the holders of

this heresy reduce the Pentecostal tongues of fire to the status of creature as (rius had done with the

(ngel of *lory. >ad (rius and the 'cholastics been gifted with the Pentecostal glorification of theathers, they would have known by their e#perience that the +ogos who appeared to the prophets and

the apostles in glory, and the tongues of fire are uncreatedJ the one an uncreated hypostasis, and the

other the common and identical energies of the >oly )rinity emanating from the new presence of the

humanity of Christ by the >oly 'pirit.

hat is true of the $ible is true of the 'ynods, which, like the $ible, e#press in symbols that which

transcends symbols and is known by means of those who have reached theoria. It is for this reason that

the 'ynods appeal to the authority, not only of the athers in the $ible, but also to the athers of all

ages, since the athers of all ages participate in the same truth which is *od?s glory in Christ.

or this reason, Pope +eo III told the ranks in no uncertain terms that the athers left the ilioue

out of the Creed neither because of ignorance nor by omission, but by divine inspiration. >owever, the

implications of the rankish ilioue were not accepted by all !oman Christians in the estern !oman

provinces conuered by ranco&+atin Christendom and its scholastic theology. !emnants of !oman

biblical orthodo#y and piety have survived all parts may one day be reassembled, as the full

implications of the Patristic tradition make themselves known, and spirituality, as the basis of doctrine,

becomes the center of our studies.

$ecause the uestion of the Filioue played such an important role in the centuries long conflict

between the rankish and !oman worlds, the author?s study originally prepared as the "rthodo#

position paper for the discussions on the Filioue between "rthodo# and (nglicans at the

franks, romans, feudalism, and doctrine

Documents