Movatterモバイル変換

|Part 1| — |Part 2|

|Part 3|

Inpart I we presented a summary of evidence which testifiesthat feudalism in Western Europe did not result from thecommingling of the Roman and Germanic races and customs, ascommonly believed, but rather from the subjugation of the WestRomans to their conquerors. The Franks then turned theirattention to the ecclesiastical and doctrinal enslavement ofPapal Romania, attempting to cause a split between Papal and EastRomania. This effort failed so long as the Roman nation remainedin control of the Papal throne.

European and American histories treat the alienation betweenEast and West as though it were inevitable, because of an allegedseparation of the Roman Empire itself into East and West, becauseof alleged linguistic and cultural differences, and because of analleged difference between the legal West and the speculativeEast.^{[1 ]} Evidence strongly suggests that suchattempts to explain the separation between East and West areconditioned by prejudices inherited from the cultural traditionof the Franks, and from the he centuries-old propaganda of theFrankish Papacy.

The evidence points clearly to the national, cultural, andeven linguistic unity between East and West Romans (which attimes almost brought Francia to her knees), and which survived tothe time when the Roman popes were replaced by Franks. That thepre-Tusculan Roman popes never accepted the Frankish condemnationof the East Romans for alleged heresy, but, on the contrary,participated in the condemnation of the Franks, (albeit withoutnaming them) are facts to be seriously considered.

The Decretal principles of juridical procedure had been a partof the Papacy for at least a hundred years before the East Frankstook over. However, it is certain that Roman popes would neverhave thought of applying these principles to administration sothat the local synods would be replaced by direct monarchicalrule of the popes, as happened later. The Franks resisted theRoman popes's juridical surveillance. They would never haveaccepted a Roman pope's direct rule, just as the East Romanswould never accept the direct rule of a Frankish pope.

Had the Franks not taken over the Papacy, it is very probablythat the local synod of the Church of Rome (with the pope aspresident), elected according to the 769 election decree approvedby the Eighth Ecumenical Synod in 879, would have survived, andthat there would not have been any significant differencesbetween the papacy and the other four Roman Patriarchates.

However, things did not turn out that way. The Papacy wasalienated from the East by the Franks, so we now are faced withthe history of that alienation when we contemplate the reunion ofdivided Christians. In any case, the administrative structure ofthe church cannot be judged and evaluated simply by whether ornot it complies with ancient canon law and custom, as is usuallydone on the Orthodox side. Nor can one simply appeal to analleged need of the Church to adapt itself to changing times andcircumstances, in order to allegedly improve what is good bymaking it more efficient.

Many of today's Protestants would accept such an approach, butwould not agree that the adaptation could not be elevated todogma, as has been done by the Papacy itself. Orthodox, Latin,and Protestant theologians would agree that authenticChristianity has to have a continuity with its apostolic past,but at the same time must adapt to current situations and needs.This means that the interplay between theology and society isaccepted as a normal necessity in the history of Christianity.Nevertheless, Christians are divided because each group sees theadaptation of the other as a serious break in continuity and,therefore, in authenticity.

Perhaps the key to unwinding the mass of questions awaitingexamination by the specialists in dialogue would be to adoptmethods used in the positive sciences, and to relegate themethods already in use from the social sciences to a dependentlevel. Of course, one could not readily apply such methods to anexamination of God and the life after death, but one couldcertainly do so for this life, with regard to spiritualexperiences in the various religions.

In the Orthodox partisan tradition, genuine spiritualexperience is the foundation of dogmatic formulations which, inturn, are necessary guides for leading to glorification.Translated into the language of science, this would mean thatverification by observation is expressed in descriptive symbolswhich, in turn, act as guides for others to repeat this sameverification by observation. Thus, the observations of priorastronomers, biologists, chemists, physicists, and doctors becomethe observations of their successors.

In exactly the same manner, the experience of glorification ofthe prophets, apostles, and saints are expressed in linguisticforms, whose purpose is to act as a guide to the same experienceof glorification by their successors.

The tradition of empirical observation and verification is thecornerstone of sifting factual reality from hypotheses in all ofthe positive sciences. The very same is true of the Orthodoxpatristic theological method also.

A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method,mislead by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism,had been its naive confidence in the objective existence ofthings rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, theFranks substituted the patristic concern for spiritualobservation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaulwhen they first conquered the area) with a fascination formetaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations hadfoundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality.

No one would today accept as true what is not empiricallyobservable, or at least verifiable by inference, from an attestedeffect. so it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculationabout God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only thosethings which can be tested by the experience of the grace of Godin the heart are to be accepted. "Be not carried about bydivers and strange teachings. For it is good that the heart byconfirmed by grace," a passage from Hebrews 13.9, quoted bythe Fathers to this effect.

The Fathers did not understand theology as a theoretical orspeculative science, but as a positive science in all respects.This is why the patristic understanding of Biblical inspirationis similar to the inspiration of writings in the field of thepositive sciences.^{[2 ]}

Scientific manuals are inspired by the observations ofspecialists. For example, the astronomer records what he observesby means of the instruments at his disposal. Because of histraining in the use of his instruments, he is inspired by theheavenly bodies, and sees things invisible to the naked eye. Thesame is true of all the positive sciences. However, books aboutscience can never replace scientific observations. These writingsare not the observations themselves, but about theseobservations.

This holds true even when photographic and acousticalequipment is used. This equipment does not replace observations,but simply aids in the observations and their recordings.Scientists cannot be replaced by the books they write, nor by theinstruments they invent and use.

The same is true of the Orthodox understanding of the Bibleand the writings of the Fathers. Neither the Bible nor thewritings of the Fathers are revelation or the word of God. Theyare about the revelation and about the word of God.

Revelation is the appearance of God to the prophets, apostles,and saints. The Bible and the writings of the Fathers are aboutthese appearances, but not the appearances themselves. This iswhy it is the prophet, apostle, and saint who sees God, and notthose who simply read about their experiences of glorification.It is obvious that neither a book about glorification nor one whoreads such a book can never replace the prophet, apostle, orsaint who has the experience of glorification.

The writings of scientists are accompanied by a tradition ofinterpretation, headed by successor scientists, who, by trainingand experience, know w what their colleagues mean by the languageused, and how to repeat the observations described. So it is inthe Bible and the writings of the Fathers. Only those who havethe same experience of glorification as their prophetic,apostolic, and patristic predecessors can understand what theBiblical and Patristic writings are saying about glorificationand the spiritual stages leading to it. Those who have reachedglorification know how they were guided there, as well as how toguide others, and they are the guarantors of the transmission ofthis same tradition.

This is the heart of the Orthodox understanding of traditionand apostolic succession which sets it apart from the Latin andProtestant traditions, both of which stem from the theology ofthe Franks.

Following Augustine, the Franks identified revelation with theBible and believed that Christ gave the Church the Holy Spirit asa guide to its correct understanding. This would be similar toclaiming that the books about biology were revealed by microbesand cells without the biologists having seen them with themicroscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire futureteachers to correctly understand these books without the use ofthe microscope.

And, indeed, the Franks believed that the prophets andapostles did not see God himself, except possibly with theexception of Moses and Paul. What the prophets and apostlesallegedly did see and hear were phantasmic symbols of God, whosepurpose was to pass on concepts about God to human reason.Whereas these symbols passed into and out of existence, the humannature of Christ is a permanent reality and the best conveyor ofconcepts about God.

One does not, therefore, need telescopes, microscopes, or avision of God, but rather, concepts about invisible reality,which human reason is by nature allegedly capable ofunderstanding.

Historians have noted the naivet�of the Frankishreligious mind which was shocked by the first claims for theprimacy of observation over rational analysis. Even Galileo'stelescopes could not shake this confidence. However, severalcenturies before Galileo, the Franks had been shocked by the EastRoman claim, hurled by Saint Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), of theprimacy of experience and observation over reason in theology.

Today's Latin theologians, who still use their predecessor'smetaphysical approach to theology, continue to present East Romantheologians, such as the hesychasts, as preferring ignorance toeducation in their ascent to union with God. This is equivalentto claiming that a scientist is against education because heinsists on the use of telescopes and microscopes instead ofphilosophy in his search for descriptive analysis of naturalphenomena.

The so-called humanist movement in Eastern Romania was anattempt to revive ancient Greek philosophy, whose tenets hadalready been rejected, long before modern science led to theirreplacement in the modern West. To present this so-calledhumanist movement as a revival of culture is to overlook the factthat the real issue was between the primacy of reason and that ofobservation and experience.

Modern science has arisen by the accumulated techniques oftesting with the aid of instruments the imaginative theoriesproposed by the intellect. Observation by means of these man-madeinstruments has opened up vast areas of knowledge which wouldhave been absolutely impossible for the intellect to even beginto imagine.

The universe has turned out to be a much greater mystery toman than anyone was ever able to imagine, and indications arestrong that it will yet prove to be an even greater mystery thanman today can yet imagine. In the light of this, one thinkshumorously of the bishops who could not grasp the reality, letalone the magnitude, of what they saw through Galileo'stelescope. But the magnitude of Frankish naivet� becomes evengreater when one realizes that these same church leaders whocould not understand the meaning of a simple observation wereclaiming knowledge of God's essence and nature.

The Latin tradition could not understand the significance ofan instrument by which the prophets, apostles, and saints hadreached glorification.

Similar to today's sciences, Orthodox theology also depends onan instrument which is not identified with reason or theintellect. The Biblical name for this is the heart. Christ says,"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God."^{[3 ]}

The heart is not normally clean, i.e., it does not normallyfunction properly. Like the lens of a telescope or microscope, itmust be polished so that light may pass through and allow man tofocus his spiritual vision on things not visible to the nakedeye.

In time, some Fathers gave the name nousto the faculty of the soul which operates withinthe heart when restored to normal capacity, and reserved thenames logos and dianoia () for the intellect and reason, orfor what we today would call the brain. In order to avoidconfusion, we use the terms noetic faculty and noetic prayer todesignate the activity of the nous in the heart called.

The heart, and not the brain, is the area in which thetheologian is formed. Theology includes the intellect as allsciences do, but it is in the heart that the intellect and all ofman observes and experiences the rule of God.

One of the basic differences between science and Orthodoxtheology is that man has his heart or noetic faculty by nature,whereas he himself has created his instruments of scientificobservation.

A second basic difference is the following: By means if hisinstruments, and the energy radiated by and/or upon what heobserves, the scientist sees things which he can describe withwords, even though at times inadequately. These words are symbolsof accumulated human experience.

In contrast to this, the experience of glorification is to seeGod who has no similarity whatsoever to anything created, noteven to the intellect or to the angels. God is literally uniqueand can in no way be described by comparison with anything thatany creature may be, know or imagine. No aspect about God can beexpressed in a concept or collection of concepts.

One can readily see why Plato's theory of ideas, even inAugustinian form (whereby creatures are literally copies of realarchetypal prototypes in the divine mind), are consistentlyrejected by the Fathers of the Church.

Thus, the experience of glorification has no room either forAugustine's speculation about God by the use of psychologicalanalogies, nor for the claim of some Russian theologians that theFathers of the Church allegedly theologize about God on the basisof some kind of 'personalism.' Neither the term, nor the concept,is ever applied to God by the Fathers. The reason is clear. Allthe Fathers emphasize, and mean what they say, that there isabsolutely no similarity between God and any of His creatures.This means that the names of God or language about God are notintended to be the means by which the human intellect can attainto concepts which reveal the essence of God to the intellect.Rather, the purpose of language about God is to be a guide in thehand of a spiritual father who leads his student through variousstages of perfection and knowledge to glorification where onesees for himself what the saints before him insisted upon-thatGod is completely different from concepts used about Him.

It is for this reason that positive statements about God arecounterbalanced by negative statements, not in order to purifythe positive ones of their imperfections, but in order to makeclear that God is in no way similar to the concepts conveyed bywords, since God is above every name and concept ascribed to Him.

The Fathers insisted against the Eunomian heresy that languageis a human development and not created by God. Arguing from theOld Testament itself, Saint Gregory of Nyssa claimed that Hebrewis one of the newer languages in the Middle East, a positionconsidered today correct. Compare this with Dante's claim thatGod created Hebrew for Adam and Eve to speak, and preserved it sothat Christ would speak this language of God also. Of course,Christ did not speak Hebrew, but Aramaic.

Nyssa's analysis of Biblical language has always been dominantamong East Roman writers. I have found Dante-type theories so faronly among the Eunomians and Nestorians. Given suchpresuppositions, one can see why the Fathers insist that to studythe universe, or to engage in philosophical speculation addsnothing to the stages of perfection leading to glorification.

The doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of the incarnation, whentaken out of their empirical or revelatory context, become andhave become ridiculous. The same is true of the distinctionbetween the essence and uncreated energy of God. We know thisdistinction from the experience of glorification since the timeof the prophets. It was not invented by Saint Gregory Palamas.Even modern Jewish theologians continue to see this clearly inthe Old Testament.

Although God created the universe, which continues to dependon Him, God and the universe do not belong to one category oftruth. Truths concerning creation cannot apply to God, nor canthe truth of God be applied to creation.

Having reached this point, we will turn our attention to thoseaspects of differences between Roman and Frankish theologieswhich have had a strong impact on the development of differenceis the doctrine of the Church. The basic difference may be listedunder diagnosis of spiritual ills and their therapy.

Glorification is the vision of God in which the equality ofall mean and the absolute value of each man is experienced. Godloves all men equally and indiscriminately, regardless of eventheir moral statues. God loves with the same love, both the saintand the devil. To teach otherwise, as Augustine and the Franksdid, would be adequate proof that they did not have the slightestidea of what glorification was.

God multiplies and divides himself in His uncreated energiesundividedly among divided things, so that He is both present byact and absent by nature to each individual creature andeverywhere present and absent at the same time. This is thefundamental mystery of the presence of God to His creatures andshows that universals do not exist in God and are, therefore, notpart of the state of illumination as in the Augustiniantradition.

God himself is both heaven and hell, reward and punishment.All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreatedglory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or hell, reward orpunishment, depends on man's response to God's love and on man'stransformation from the state of selfish and self-centered love,to Godlike love which does not seek its own ends.

One can see how the Frankish understanding of heaven and hell,poetically described by Dante, John Milton, and James Joyce, areso foreign to the Orthodox tradition. This is another of thereasons why the so-called humanism of some East Romans (those whounited with the Frankish papacy) was a serious regression and notan advance in culture.

Since all men will see God, no religion can claim for itselfthe power to send people either to heaven or to hell. This meansthat true spiritual fathers prepare their spiritual charges sothat vision of God's glory will be heaven, and not hell, rewardand not punishment. The primary purpose of Orthodox Christianitythen, is to prepare its members for an experience which everyhuman being will sooner or later have.

While the brain is the center of human adaptation to theenvironment, the noetic faculty in the heart is the primary organfor communion with God. The fall of man or the state of inheritedsin is: a.) the failure of the noetic faculty to functionproperly, or to function at all; b.) its confusion with thefunctions of the brain and the body in general; and c.) itsresulting enslavement to the environment.

Each individual experiences the fall of his own noeticfaculty. One can see why the Augustinian understanding of thefall of man as an inherited guilt for the sin of Adam and Eve isnot, and cannot, be accepted by the Orthodox tradition.

There are two known memory systems built into living beings,1.) cell memory which determines the function and development ofthe individual in relation to itself, and 2.) brain cell memorywhich determines the function of the individual in relation toits environment. In addition to this, the patristic tradition isaware of the existence in human beings of a now normallynon-functioning or sub-functioning memory in the heart, whichwhen put into action via noetic prayer, includes unceasing memoryof God, and therefore, the normalization of all other relations.

When the noetic faculty is not functioning properly, man isenslaved to fear an anxiety and his relations to others areessentially utilitarian. Thus, the root cause of all abnormalrelations between God and man and among me is that fallen man,i.e., man with a malfunctioning noetic faculty, uses God, hisfellow man, and nature for his own understanding of security andhappiness. Man outside of glorification imagines the existence ofgod or gods which are psychological projections of his need forsecurity and happiness.

That all men have this noetic faculty in the heart also meansthat all are in direct relation to God at various levels,depending on how much the individual personality resistsenslavement to his physical and social surroundings and allowshimself to be directed by God. Every individual is sustained bythe uncreated glory of God and is the dwelling place of thisuncreated glory of God and is the dwelling place of thisuncreated creative and sustaining light, which is called therule, power, grace, etc. of God. Human reaction to this directrelation or communion with God can range from the hardening ofthe heart (i.e., the snuffing out of the spark of grace) to theexperience of glorification attained to by the prophets,apostles, and saints.

This means that all men are equal in possession of the noeticfaculty, but not in quality or degree of function.

It is important to not the clear distinction betweenspirituality, which is rooted primarily in the heart's noeticfaculty, and intellectuality, which is rooted in the brain. Thus:

1.) A person with little intellectual attainments can raise tothe highest level of noetic perfection.

2..) On the other hand, a man of the highest intellectualattainments can fall to the lowest level of noetic imperfection.

3.) One may also reach both the highest intellectualattainments and noetic perfection.

Or 4.) One may be of meager intellectual accomplishment withthe hardening of the heart.

The role of Christianity was originally more like that of themedical profession, especially that of today's psychologists andpsychiatrists.

Man has a malfunctioning or non-functioning noetic faculty inthe heart, and it is the task especially of the clergy to applythe cure of unceasing memory of God, otherwise called unceasingprayer or illumination.

Proper preparation for vision of God takes place in twostages: purification, and illumination of the noetic faculty.Without this, it is impossible for man's selfish love to betransformed into selfless love. This transformation takes placeduring the higher level of the stage of illumination calledtheoria,literally meaning vision-in this case vision by means ofunceasing and uninterrupted memory of God.

Those who remain selfish and self-centered with a hardenedhear, closed to God's love, w ill not see the glory of God inthis life. However, they will God's glory eventually, but as aneternal and consuming fire and outer darkness.

In the state of theoria the noetic faculty is liberated fromits enslavement to the intellect, passions, and environments, andprays unceasingly. It is influenced solely by this memory of God.Thus continual noetic prayer functions simultaneously with thenormal activities of everyday life. It is when the noetic facultyis in such a state that man has become a temple of God.

Saint Basil the Great writes that "the indwelling of Godis this-to have God established within ourself by means ofmemory. We thus become temples of God, when the continuity ofmemory is not interruptedby earthly cares, nor the noeticfaculty shaken by unexpected sufferings, but escaping form allthings this (noetic faculty ) friend of God retires to God,riving out the passions which tempt it to incontinence and abidesin the practices which lead to virtues."^{[4 ]}

Saint Gregory the Theologian points out that "we ought toremember God even more often than we draw out breath; and if itsuffice to say this, we ought to do nothing else... or, to useMoses' words, whether a man lie asleep, or rise up, or walk bythe way, or whatever else he is doing, he should also have thisimpressed in his memory for purity."^{[5 ]}

Saint Gregory insists that to theologize "is permittedonly to those who have passed examinations and have reachedtheoria,and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or atleast are being purified."^{[6 ]}

This state oftheoria is twofold of has two stages: a.)unceasing memory of God and b.) glorification, the latter being agift which God gives to His friends according to their needs andthe needs of others. During this latter sate of glorification,unceasing noetic prayer is interrupted since it is replaced by avision of the glory of God in Christ. The normal functions of thebody, such as sleeping, eating, drinking, and digestion aresuspended. In other respects, the intellect and the body functionnormally. One does not lose consciousness, as happens in theecstatic mystical experiences of non-Orthodox Christian and paganreligions. One is fully aware and conversant with his environmentand those around him, except that he sees everything and everyonesaturated by the uncreated glory of God, which is neither lightnor darkness, and nowhere and everywhere at the same time. Thisstate may be of short, medium, or long duration. In the case ofMoses it lasted for forty days and forty nights. The faces ofthose in this state of glorification give off an imposingradiance, like that of the face of Moses, and after they die,their bodies become holy relics. These relics give off a strangesweet smell, which at times can become strong. In many cases,these relics remain intact in a good state of preservation,without having been embalmed. They are completely stiff from headto toes, light, dry, and with no signs of putrefaction.

There is no metaphysical criterion for distinguishing betweengoodandbad people. It is much more correct to distinguishbetweenill and morehealthy persons. The sick onesare those whose noetic faculty is being cleansed and illumined.

These levels are incorporated into the very structure of thefour Gospels and the liturgical life of the Church. Gospels ofMark, Matthew, and Luke reflect the pre-baptismal catechism forcleansing the heart, and the Gospel of John reflects thepost-baptismal catechism which leas to theoria by way ofthe stage of illumination. Christ himself is the spiritual Fatherwho led the apostles, as He had done with Moses and the prophets,to glorification by means of purification and illumination.^{[7 ]}

One can summarize these three stages of perfection as a.) thatof the slave who performs the commandments because of fear ofseeing God as a consuming fire; b.) that of the hireling whosemotive is the reward of seeing God as glory, and c.) that of thefriends of God whose noetic faculty is completely free, whoselove has become selfless and, because of this, are willing to bedamned for the salvation of their fellow man, and in the cases ofMoses and Paul.

Theoretically, the clergy is supposed to be elected from amongthe faithful who have reached illumination or glorification. Thehistorical outline of the process, whereby it became customary toelect bishops who had not reached the spiritual experience ofwhich dogmas are a verbal expression, is described by SaintSymeon the New Theologian (d. 1042), recognized as one of thegreatest Fathers of the Church. This means that his historicalanalysis is part of the Orthodox Church's self-understanding.

The three stages of perfection are three stages of spiritualunderstanding and, at one time, existed in each community. Thisis comparable to having in each community university students,graduate students, and professors. This would be the case whenreligious leaders are at the higher levels of illumination.However, it is possible that the religious leaders may not bespiritually at the level of the students.

The outcome of the collapse among the clergy in the spirituallife and understanding thus far described, was the rise of anascetic movement parallel to the Episcopal communities. Thisbecame the monastic movement, which preserved the prophetic andapostolic tradition of spirituality and theology. When he customprevailed that bishops were recruited mostly from monasticism,the ancient tradition of bishops as masters in spirituality andtheology was greatly restored, due to the very powerful influenceof Saint Symeon the New Theologian. This restoration was sostrong that it gave the East Roman Churches the strength to notonly survive the dissolution and disappearance of the Empire, butalso to keep spirituality and theology at a surprisingly highlevel during the Ottoman occupation of the four East RomanPatriarchates, right down to the so-called "Greek"revolution.

Under the influence of the French citizen and agent AdamantiosKoraes, officially recognized by the 1827 Hellenic Third NationalAssembly as theFather of Neo-Hellenism, the new Greekstate decided the Church of Greece should follow the example ofRussian Orthodox, because it was in an advanced state ofWesternization, especially since the time of Peter the Great(1672-1725). The Greek state founded a Greek Church, andliterally forced it to separate from the Ecumenical patriarchateof Constantinople-New Rome, and at the same time declared war onmonasticism. The unbelievable ignorance of Adamantios Koraesbecame the ideology upon which the Church of Greece's newspirituality and new theology was founded.

The Russian Church had dealt a blow to Orthodox spiritualityand theology by condemning Maximos of Mount Athos and Trans-Volgaelders in the sixteenth century. In other words, the RussianChurch 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. This made the Church ripe forWesternization under Peter the Great.

One of the amazing quirks in history is that while the Greekstate was getting rid of theology and spirituality based onnoetic prayer, this same tradition was being reintroduced intoRussia by means of the spiritual children of PaisiosVelitchkovsky of Moldavia who passed away in 1817.

It was extremely fortunate for Orthodoxy at the same time whenKoraes' followers were in power that the Greek state did notextend to Mount Athos and the many monasteries within what wasleft of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, the imbecilities ofAdamantios Koraes would have had an even more destructive effecton Roman Orthodoxy, now called Byzantine Orthodoxy, because ofthis same Adamantios Koraes who undertook to convince theinhabitants of Old Greece that they were not also Romans, butexclusively Greeks, who had allegedly forgotten their realnational identity. The vision of Adamantios Koraes was to replacepatristic spirituality, theology, and Roman nationality withGreek philosophy and nationalism as the basis of theology andpolitical philosophy. It is perhaps not an accident thatNapoleonic France revived such policies pertaining to East Romanswhich are similar to the Charlemagnian ones described in Lecture1. Napoleon was, after all, a descendant from the Frankishnobility of Tuscany, established there since the time ofCharlemagne.

Now this vision is dead, put into the grave by the furtheradvances in modern science and the very strong revival ofpatristic theology and spirituality along with Roman or so-calledByzantine national identity.

In order to have a clear picture of what this means in termsof today's dialogues, we have only to be reminded that thetheology and spirituality of Roman Christians was the same inboth East and West, whether written in Greek or Latin, with,however, the exception of Augustine.

The later differences between Carolingian Frankish and RomanOrthodox theology are clearly visible in the differences betweenAugustine and Saint Ambrose, who is usually presented asAugustine's teacher. However, not only is there no evidence thatthere were intimate relations between the two, but theirtheologies point in different directions. We have pointed thisout in some detail elsewhere.

However, we shall turn our attention to Gregory of Tours, whogives us clear testimony that during Merovingian Frankish rule,Orthodox spirituality and theology were flourishing in Francia.At the same time, they were not very well understood by the newclass of aristocratic administrator bishops created by theFrankish kings. (We skip Saint John Cassian, since he ispre-Frankish and his identification with Eastern spirituality andtheology is unquestioned.)

Gregory of Tours was a great admirer of the spirituality andtheology described in this lecture. He recognizes and expresseshis high regard for Saint Basil the Great and Saint John Cassianof Marseilles (one time deacon of Saint John Chrysostom) as theguides of monasticism in Gaul. IN his many writings, Gregory ofTours never mentions Augustine. Yet Gregory's understanding ofthe spirituality and theology of Saint Basil and Saint JohnCassian is very limited and is colored by some basic and, attimes, humorous errors.

Gregory reports that in the treasury of Saint Martin's Church,he found the relics of the Agaune Martyrs, members of the ThebanLegion sent to Gaul in 287 to crush a revolt. Gregory writes that"the relics themselves were in a terrible state ofputrefaction."^{[8 ]} It is clear thatGregory did not know how to recognize holy relics. Corpses ineven a slight, let alone terrible, state of putrefaction are notholy relics.

Gregory terminates hisHistory of the Franks with themiracles and death of Saint Aredius Abbot of Limoges. He writesthat, "One day when the clergy were chanting psalms in thecathedral, a dove flew down from the ceiling, fluttered gentlyaround Aredius and then alighted on his head. This was, in myopinion, a clear sign that he was filled with the grace of theHoly Spirit. He was embarrassed at what had happened and tried todrive the dove away. It flew around for a while and then settleddown again, first on his head and then on his shoulder. Not onlydid this happen in the cathedral, but when Aredius went off tothe bishop's cell, the dove accompanied him. This was repeatedday after day..."^{[9 ]}

Aredius clearly had reached the state of glorification of longduration. However, Gregory's ignorance of this tradition led himto confuse and substitute the linguistic symbol of the dove usedto describe this experience, with a real bird. The attempt todrive the dove off is Gregory's understanding of Aredius' testingof the vision, to make sure it is not demonic or hallucinatory.That the dove left, and returned, and then remained on him dayafter day means that he was in a state of glory, first of shortduration and then of long duration. That he went about hisbusiness as usual during this state, and that the state was inperceptible to those around him who themselves were in a state ofillumination, was also evidence of his being in a state of glory.

Gregor's misunderstanding can also be seen in his descriptionof the life of Patroklos the Recluse. Gregory writes that his"diet was bread soaked in water and sprinkled with salt. Hiseyes were never closed in sleep. He prayed unceasingly, or if hestopped praying for a moment, he spent his time reading orwriting."^{[10 ]}

Gregory believes that to pray unceasingly, one would have tosomehow stay awake unceasingly. Also since Patroklos was known tospend time reading and writing, this means for Gregory that hehad to stop praying to do so. Gregory was unaware that unceasingprayer continues without intermission, while asleep or whileawake, and while reading, writing, walking, talking, toiling,etc.

In addition, Gregory's claim that Patroklos' "eyes werenever closed in sleep" would be an unheard of miracle. WhenPatroklos was in a state of glorification, he not only did notsleep, but he did not eat bread or drink water either. But he wasnot unceasingly in such a state in this life. During this statehe stopped praying. When he was not in this state of glory, heboth slept his three or so hours per day, and prayed without anyinterruption whatsoever. However, at the time thesemisunderstandings were being recorder, there were many bishops inFrancia who understanding was less that that of Gregory.

This can be seen in the case where certain bishops ordered theLombard ascetic Vulfolaic to come down from his column, claimingthat "It is not right what you are trying to do. Such anobscure person as you can never be compared with Symeon theStylite of Antioch. The climate of the region makes it impossiblefor you to keep tormenting yourself in this way."^{[11 ]} Evidently the life of Saint Daniel the Styliteof Constantinople was still unknown in Francia.

While in the state of noetic prayer or glory, wherein onepasses back and forth between these two stages, one attains tosuch physical resources that one resists the normal effects ofthe environment. This has nothing to do with self torment or anattempt to appease God. Noetic prayer is also the key tounderstanding the spiritual power by which Orthodox Christianspersevered in martyrdom, and also why those who renounced Christunder torture were considered to have fallen from the state ofgrace, i.e., illumination, or noetic prayer.

What is important for Gregory is that he presents Vulfolaic assaying "Now, it is considered a sin not to obey bishops, soof course, I came down...I have never dared to set up again thecolumn...for that would be to disobey the commands of thebishops."^{[12 ]}

Here we have an important distortion of the meaning ofobedience. It is clear that neither Gregory nor his colleaguesknew what Vulfolaic had been doing. However, what they did knowis that they had to secure the obedience of the faithful in orderto preserve, as much as possible, law and order for their master,the Frankish king, who appointed them. Therefore, disobedience toa bishop is a sin that has a special importance.

The effectiveness of the bishops as officers of the law wasalso enhanced by the pagan distinction between heaven and hellwhich we find in Augustine and Gregory of Tours. Both are unawarethat the clergy are supposed to prepare people for the vision ofGod, which everyone will have either as heaven or as consumingfire. This unawareness is coupled with the peculiar shift of theneed to change from man to God. For Gregory, God must besatisfied by obedience to the clergy and participation in theirsacraments as the condition for man's entry into paradise.

Augustine's position had been even more consistent in that Godhad allegedly decided in advance who is going to heaven and whois to remain in hell. Because of the alleged inherited guilt ofAdam and Eve, all are worthy of hell, so that those chosen forheaven have no merit of their own to warrant God's choice, whichis therefore allegedly unconditioned and free. These ideas ofAugustine would be quite humorous if it were not for the factthat so many millions of Europeans and Americans used to believein them, and many still do.

The criteria used for the reunion of divided Christians cannotbe different from those used for the union of associations ofscientists. Astronomers would be shocked at the idea that theywould unite with astrologers. Members of a modern medialassociation would be shocked at the suggestion that they shouldbecome one with an association of quack doctors and tribalmedicine men. In the same way, the Fathers would be shocked atthe idea of a union between Orthodoxy and religious superstitionswhich has not the slightest idea about the production ofauthentic holy relics. Avoiding this issue by claiming that sucha theology is for monks only, is like claiming that the cure ofcancer is for doctors only.

The correct interplay between theology and society is not muchdifferent from a correct interplay between science and society.Thus, the question of organizational and administrativestructure, as in the sciences, is resolved into the question ofthe success of theology in producing the results for which itexists.

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall seeGod."

| HOMEPAGE |

For further details onthis subject one may consult my studies: "CriticalExamination of the Applications of Theology," Proces -Verbaux du Deuxieme Congres de TheologieOrthodoxe.(Athens, 1978), pp. 413-41, and the various works quoted therein.

Matthew 5.8.

Epistle 2.

Theological Oration1.5.

Ibid. 1.3

On the relationsbetween the Johanine and Synoptic gospel traditions see my study,"Justin Martyr and the Fourth Gospel," The GreekOrthodox Theological Review, 4 (1958-59), pp. 115-39.

The History of theFranks 10.31, trans. Lewis Thorpe (London, 1977), p. 601.

Ibid. 10.20, p. 589.

Ibid. 5.10, p. 265

Ibid.8.15, p. 447.

Ibid.

| HOMEPAGE |