The-Clash-between-Orthodox-Patristic-Theology-and-Franco-Latin-Tradition.pdf

8/11/2019 The-Clash-between-Orthodox-Patristic-Theology-and-Franco-Latin-Tradition.pdf

1/28

The Clash betweenOrthodox Patristic Theology and

Franco-Latin TraditionBy His Eminence Fr. Jeremiah Foundas

Metropolitan of Gortyna and Megalopolis, Professor of the Athens University School of Theology

A publication of the Holy Metropolis of Gortyna and Megalopolis

Dimitsana, Megalopolis of Arcadia Province, 2007

ISBN: 978-960-89712-02

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

To start with, I feel it necessary to write a few words about the Franco-latins,

whose theology is completely opposed to ours; this is precisely our topic here[1]. The once united Christian Roman Empire used to be known as a wholeunder the name of "Romania" [= Land of the Romans] and would be arrangedinto western and eastern sectors. Rome, the capital of the Empire, belonged toits western sector although it would have been better had it been in the East.For this reason, Constantine the Great transferred the capital to the city ofByzantium and named it New Rome initially; eventually, however, itreceived his name and became known as "Constantinople" [= Constantine'sCity].

Both Western and Eastern sectors of the United Christian Roman Empire (i.e.of Romania) faced enemies. For the West, which is of interest to us here, themain enemies were the Franks, barbaric and uncivilised peoples. Eventually,the Franks managed to subjugate the Western sector of the Empire and inorder to appear as the true successors of this Roman Empire namedthemselves Romans; whereas Romans, "Neoromans" [= the Hellenic wordRhomaios (m.) or Rhomaia (f.), in Latin Roman, would also be pronounced as"Rhomios" (m.) and Rhomia (f.) transliterated here as Neoroman; after the Fallof the Empire, in 1453, the term Rhomios and Roman were usedinterchangebly, exclusively among the populations of the Eastern sector of the fallenEmpire] are and should be called as such only we Orthodox. (For this reason
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#1._AS_AN_INTRODUCTION:_WHO_THE_FRANKOLATINS_AREhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#1.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#1.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#1.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#1._AS_AN_INTRODUCTION:_WHO_THE_FRANKOLATINS_ARE


2/28

we must ensure, with great care, to avoid calling the Franks as "Romans" or,worse, to call their confession as "the Roman Catholic Church"!)

In order for the Franks to cut off the conquered Romans of the western sector

completely from their other Orthodox brethren of the eastern sector, theydragged out of their vocabulary an insulting name which they used to call theeastern Romans with. They called them "Greeks" which [in this usage] means"impostors". And later, they called them "Byzantines". Whereas the oldglorious name "Roman" or "Neoroman" (Rhomios), which used to signify thewestern and eastern Orthodox of the united Empire, the Franks kept forthemselves and for those subjugated to them. But the Franks, aftersubjugating the Western sector of the Empire, realised then that they willhave a complete sovereign over the West if somehow they managed to

subjugate the Church and to give their own theology to the Christians livingin the West. But did the Franks have a theology to give? By the 8th century,the Franks had already received the existing theology of Blessed Augustine,who, as the great Fr. John Romanides tells us, and as we shall prove in ourpresent study, "essentially ignored the Patristic theology and itspresuppositions". The Franks managed, in the end, to subjugate the Church ofthe enslaved Orthodox Christians of the West by the 11th century (AD 1014-1046) and to impose upon them their own Augustinian theology, whichhowever does not express the patristic tradition.

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

After the above necessary introductory material, we come to our main topic.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#2.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#2.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#2.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#2.


3/28

2. PROPER STUDY OF THE HOLY FATHERS

I will begin my speech with the holy Fathers first. We the Orthodox haveFathers and our God we glorify as "God of our Fathers". Every worshipping

Gathering (Synaxis) as well as our personal prayers all end with "Through theprayers of our Holy Fathers". Many years have passed since the slogan"return to the Fathers" was first given; and many patristic studies and projectshave taken place since then and continue to do so. However, the deepunderstanding of the Fathers is achieved only by those who follow themethod and way of life of the Holy Fathers in their lives. And this is logicalindeed: the saint understands the Saint. It is not possible to understand theexperiences and the theology of the Holy Fathers through scientific methods, because their God- bearing lives (as well as the theopties (*) of the Holy

Fathers and the theology emanating from them) transcend the powers of logicand science, and for this reason they cannot belong to the realm of scientificstudy. Nor again, can we interpret the Holy Fathers with the aid ofpsychology, for theosis, namely the situation which the Holy Fathers wouldlive, is neither physical nor against nature ( para physin), in order forpsychology to intervene, but is a supranatural state of man. For this reason,we repeat that the deep understanding of the Fathers is achieved only bythose who live the way the Fathers did and have experiences of that way oflife's experiences. Very beautiful are the words of the ever-memorable

Professor and great Theologian of our century Fr. John Romanides:

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

Nevertheless, the heterodox also conduct patristic studies and in fact believethat they can understand the patristic tradition deeply and even better thanthose initiated in it, namely by us the Orthodox. This arises from the proudperception of the Franco-latins that the intellectual can, through his powerfullogic and learning, enter the depths of the patristic tradition and tounderstand it absolutely, even if he is extraneous to it. The problem though isthat this arrogance of Western intellectuals also persists among someOrthodox circles, with the result of not having a correct understanding of theFathers by us Orthodox, so long as we do not entertain the correct spiritualpresuppositions inside us for their study, namely the battle for the cleansing
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#2._PROPER_STUDY_OF_THE_HOLY_FATHERShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#*http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#*http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#3.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#3.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#3.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#3.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#*http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#2._PROPER_STUDY_OF_THE_HOLY_FATHERS


4/28

of the heart from the passions and the arrival of the Grace of the Holy Spiritinside it. In other words, we deal with theological studies without first havingcarried out the patristic presupposition of cleansing our heart from ourpassions.

The heterodox scholars of the Fathers have gravely erroneous presuppositionsfor their studies; they have theological and philosophical presuppositionsforeign to the Biblical-Patristic theology of the Ecumenical Synods. For thisreason they are unable to provide a proper presentation of our Holy Fathers.Let us not be impressed one bit by their patristic studies because they are, werepeat, erroneous, for they study the Fathers in the manner of BlessedAugustines thinking. Fr. Romanides tells us: "When the Franks acquiredfinally a small familiarity with the Hellenic Patristic texts, they subdued

Patristic theology to the categorems of the Augustinian theology, exactly asthey also did in the 13th century with Aristotelian philosophy. Thus we seethe works of the Hellenic-speaking Roman Fathers translated into Latinthrough the prism of Augustine" [4].

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

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

The belief that there exist various Orthodox patristic traditions and differentschools of theological thought stems from the Franco-latin or Scholastic

tradition and is not met in the Fathers. Unfortunately there are also someamong our Orthodox theologians who are in agreement with the Franco-latins accepting the presence of Holy-Patristic camps; even the view that someamong the Fathers innovate on some points [5]. Thus, they divide the Fathersinto social, neptic or even dogmatic and they tell us about St. GregoryPalamas, for example, that he innovated and call his theology as "Palamism";in other words, as his own creation. Whereas others, Franco-latins and someof us Orthodox, who believe in the presence of camps and ability for theFathers to innovate, characterise the spirituality of this great among our Saints

as superior to the until-then existing patristic tradition, while converselyothers characterise it as inferior to it. At any rate, both of these types believe it
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#4.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#4.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#4.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#3._NO,_TO_THE_DIVISION_OF_THE_FATHERS_IN_CAMPShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#5.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#5.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#5.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#3._NO,_TO_THE_DIVISION_OF_THE_FATHERS_IN_CAMPShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#4.


5/28

to be novel teaching and life. The truth however is that Gregory Palamasfollows the one and united patristic tradition in everything, just like all theother Holy Fathers do.

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

The reason that we Orthodox see the unity of the Holy Fathers with the unityof the Biblical and Patristic theology is that the God-giving Grace of which the

Prophets, the Apostles (who wrote the Holy Bible) and the Holy Fatherspartake is ONE.

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

"Contrary to the Franco-latin, Protestant and other modern Westernperceptions on diversity in Biblical and Patristic theology, OrthodoxRomanity would always find the unity of the Biblical and Patristic theology inthe identification of the in-God theoria or theosis of the Prophets, Apostlesand Saints. The theology and spirituality of the Holy Writ and of the Fathersis a cohesive one, for the God-giving Grace of which the God-bearing(Theumen) Prophets, Apostles and Saints partook is such. The charisms of theHoly Spirit are numerous and the degree to which each one communes withthese charisms varies; but the undividedly dividable and incommunallycommunicable Grace and Reign ("Kingdom") of Christ is one, as this becomesperceived by the Theumens. For this reason exactly their theology is one,despite the linguistic variety found among the Saints.

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

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


6/28

Those who wish to make a proper study of the Holy Fathers need to clarifytheir position: Do they accept the unity of the Holy Bible with the HolyFathers and the unity between the Holy Fathers? If yes, then they speakorthodoxically. According to professor Fr. John Romanides, the one who

wishes to study the Fathers should "ideally, from a theological and spiritualviewpoint, look for a genuine spiritual father in order to be initiated to themysteries of the Orthodox tradition through him and, after having foundhimself along this initiation path, to study the Holy Bible intensively and atthe same time study its Patristic hermeneutics. Thus he will determineempirically if there is a difference 1) between the Fathers and the Holy Bible,2) between the Fathers and 3) between Palamas and the Fathers". [7]

Blessed Augustine does not belong to the Holy Fathers because he innovated.

As it is generally agreed, Augustine cut himself off the patristic Tradition,without however himself having realised this, as Fr. Romanides notes. Theproblem for Blessed Augustine is that he never studied those Fathers whowrote in Hellenic, for he did not know how to read in Hellenic. He had beentheologically isolated. He theologised based only on the Holy Writ and on hispowerful logic, based on the motto " Credo ut intelligam" (= I believe in order tocomprehend), which became a theological slogan of the Franks, as we shallsee later. He was however humble and wanted to agree with the Fathers [8]; and had they admonished him for his erroneous writings and forced him tocorrection, "certainly -- Fr. Romanides tells us -- he would have accepted theircorrections, since he himself declared the wish to agree in everything with theHellenistic-writing Fathers, whom he had never been in a position to study. Itis however clear that he had not even studied Ambrosius". [9] SaintAmbrosius, who appears as a teacher of blessed Augustine, follows theHellenic-speaking Roman (Orthodox) Fathers of the East faithfully ineverything. He innovates in nothing. Between Ambrosius and Augustine wefind many differences. It is enough for us to note the vast difference betweentheir views on theophany in the Old Testament. Saint Ambrosius, followingthe uniform tradition of the Holy Bible and of the Fathers absolutely, acceptsthat the Angel of God who appeared to the Prophets, the Angel of Glory,Angel of Great Counsel or Lord of Glory is the very Logos of God, Christ.Blessed Augustine however calls all those who support that the very LogosHimself appeared to the Prophets without an intermediary as blasphemous.But in our present study we shall also talk about other innovations of blessedAugustine.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#7.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#7.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#7.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#8.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#8.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#8.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#9.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#9.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#9.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#8.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#7.


7/28

4. NO, TO THE TERMINATION OF PATRISTIC THEOLOGY

But we also have another plani (delusion) of the Franco-latins about theFathers; similar to the aforementioned yet worse: That patristic theology

ended after Photius the Great. The worst thing is that this idea on terminationof the patristic theology found fertile ground even on Orthodox Hellenic soil.The issue is simple and is as follows:

Early 9th century AD finds the Franks introducing the Filioque (viz. that theHoly Spirit proceeds not only from the Father but also from the Son) to theSymbol of our Faith (Creed). Then, all five Roman Patriarchates (of Rome,New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) condemned formally thisFrankish teaching as heretical in the Eighth Ecumenical Synod(AD 879). Since

the Franks could not any more recognise as Fathers those who fought againsttheir filioque, for this reason they were forced to theorize that patristictheological tradition ended in the 8th century. After all, the Franks had alsocondemned in AD 794 the Seventh Ecumenical Synod; thus they did not evenaccept John the Damascene as a Father of the Church. Later on, however,during the 12th century, under pressure by the Italian-Lombards and by theoccupied Romans of Southern Italy, the Franks were forced to finally acceptthe Seventh Ecumenical Synod. Thus they included Saint John the Damasceneamong the Fathers of the Church. To this day the Westerners believe that the

last "Greek" Father of the Church is Saint John the Damascene.

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

Those Franks, Russians and together with them modern Greeks who acceptthat the patristic theological period has ended have been excommunicated byour Church; since, when the Synod of Constantinople in AD 1368 proclaimedGregory Palamas not only as a "Saint" of our Church but also as a "Father", itexcommunicated all those who do not accept him as a Father of equal statusto the older Fathers of our Church. However, Saint Gregory Palamas livedduring the 13th century, in other words much later than Saint John theDamascene or Saint Photius, who are considered by the above groups as thelast Fathers of the Church.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#4._NO,_TO_THE_TERMINATION_OF_PATRISTIC_THEOLOGYhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#10.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#10.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#10.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#11.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#11.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#11.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#11.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#10.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#4._NO,_TO_THE_TERMINATION_OF_PATRISTIC_THEOLOGY


8/28

That is:

Through the synodal recognition of Saint Gregory Palamas as a Father andthe excommunication of all those who do not accept him as a Father of equal

status to the older Fathers of the Church, the Franco-latin heresy on thetermination of the patristic age was condemned as such and the Franco-latinsthemselves were excommunicated.

Despite the sophist jabbers of Franks and Russians alike on supposedtermination of the Fathers until the Damascene or until Photius, we Orthodox,even during this harsh and dark period of Turkocracy, brought living carriersof the genuine theology and spirituality of the older Holy Fathers, such as:Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Eugenius Bulgaris, Nicephorus Theotokes,

Athanasius of Paros, Macarius Notaras, Cosmas of Aetolia, Maximus theGreek, Pachomius Russanus, Gennadius Scholarius, Jacob Monachus,Maximus of Peloponnese, Agapius Lardus together with Hierarchs andPatriarchs who participated in so many Synods from the 17th until the 19thcenturies.

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

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

5. NO, TO SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY

But, if according to the Franks the patristic age ended with Saint John theDamascene or with Photius the Great, what shall we have in their place to
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#12.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#12.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#12.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#5._NO,_TO_THE_SCHOLASTIC_THEOLOGYhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#5._NO,_TO_THE_SCHOLASTIC_THEOLOGYhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#12.


9/28

follow? The Franks offer us their Scholastic theology even claiming that thistheology went above the terminated patristic theology! ... Those among ourown Orthodox, who were accepting of a termination of the patristic tradition,would present as a continuation of this tradition badly written catechetical-

dogmatic studies, in imitation of the Franks, as well as other scholastictheological works. Whereas, as we already said above, the Ecclesia alwayshad her Fathers even during the difficult period of Turkocracy.

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

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

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

When the Russians, like the Franks before them, adopted the Scholastictheological method and the Latin tongue as the official theological language(in the 18th century), they also adopted the belief that they went beyond thetheology of the Romans (Orthodox) of the Ottoman Empire. The strange thingthough is that there were some Neo-Hellene [modern Greek] theologians

who, inlfuenced by the Franks and the Russians, would apologise for anumber of years to the Franks and to the Frankicised Russia because they had


10/28


11/28

look to the foreign ones for guidance because they, supposedly due to theirnatural identity and idiosyncrasy, understood theology and hesychasm betterthan we did. Exactly this was what the Slavophil proponents of AlexisKhomiakov would propagandise loudly: That they the Slavs, due to their

natural idiosyncrasy and mentality, understood Christianity better than the"Latins" and the "Greeks"! ...

Wrong! Because the Hagiorite [=mountain Athos] Fathers who had enteredRussia through Moldovlachia and brought hesychasm to them had beenHellenic-speaking Romans and not Slavs. Apart from this, the Grace of God, which sanctifies and glorifies us ( theosis), has no relation to nationalchauvinism but instead visits and supports every man who seeks God,whatever nation he may come from , so that he may live the Mystery of our

faith and achieve his sanctification. The things that professor Fr. JohnRomanides write are very beautiful:

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

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

Of course, modern Greek [Neo-Hellene] theologians did not accept Russianhesychasm absolutely, the so-called "Russian mysticism", and reacted againstit. However, instead of turning to the real and true hesychasm of our Ecclesia

they turned instead with awe, as a counter-reaction to the Russian mysticism,towards a non-hesychast, as they imagined it, and also supposedly non-


12/28

ascetical tradition of the Great Fathers who lived before Photius, whosupposedly had been men of action and of philosophical contemplation(stochasm) and not of mysticism. And these pitiful modern Greeks believedthat by thinking and acting this way they were acting in an Orthodox manner,

since: on the one hand they were fighting against the erroneous, indeed,Russian mysticism; and on the other hand they were turning to the Fathers;whom though they would blaspheme since, on one hand they wouldterminate the Patristic era in the times of Photius the Great and on the otherhand since these modern Greeks had not tasted hesychasm they wouldpresent the Fathers as non-hesychasts, as social men, as men of action withphilosophical stochasm , certainly not as ... inactive monks!

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

writes:

"A result of the above entirely destructive events for Orthodoxy, was that themodern theology of the Russians and modern Greeks not only did it notcontribute to the incorporation of the young people to traditional hesychastmonasticism, but instead contributed to some modern Greeks following theRussians in their scorn of traditional monasticism and to the admiration of theFrankish monastic orders. This way the religious brotherhoods came intoexistence [in Greece] with strong feelings of inferiority opposite WesternChristianity, whose works they would translate and scatter among theHellenic Orthodox population. The strange thing is that the religious brotherhoods would react by instinct against the Academic theology of themodern Greeks, would love the Fathers, but at the same time would stayvictims of the modernist perception of the Fathers as presented above, andwould imitate an imaginary picture they had created in their minds aboutthem, which picture would differ from the dominant hesychastic monasticismduring Turkocracy in an essential manner. And this is because they wouldaccept the distinction in question between the Great Fathers and the asceticSaints beyond Photius the Great who were supposedly not Fathers". [17]

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

The Protestants knew well that the Augustinian theology and the Frankish

Scholastic theology that had been influenced by it, ruled under the stronginfluence of Plato and Aristotle. However, a proud feeling of superiority
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#17.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#17.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#7._NO,_TO_THE_THEORY_ABOUT_HELLENIC-SPEAKING_FATHERS_INFLUENCED_BY_HELLENIC_PHILOSOPHERShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#7._NO,_TO_THE_THEORY_ABOUT_HELLENIC-SPEAKING_FATHERS_INFLUENCED_BY_HELLENIC_PHILOSOPHERShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#17.


13/28

developed eventually opposite to any older type of theology, mainly amongGerman circles of theology and philosophy, because the Germans believedthat they had cultivated a higher theology based on modern Europeanphilosophies and not based on Plato and Aristotle, from whose philosophy

the theology of Augustine had been influenced and from it the scholasticismof the Franks. The Germans, like their Frankish ancestors, being unaware ofthe Roman Patristic tradition, believed that the Hellenic, the "Greek" as theywould call them, Fathers had also been influenced, like the Franks had had,from the Hellene philosophers and thus had adulterated Christianity throughtheir influence from Hellenic philosophy.

The sad thing though is that some modern Greeks also believed in the scienceof (Western) Europe and admitted that the Patristic theology is based on

Hellenic philosophy. As Hellenes, though, they accepted this erroneous andheretical theory with patriotic enthusiasm, without of course accepting theadulteration of Christianity by the Fathers due to their supposed influence byHellenic philosophy. So: the encouragement of many Hellene theologians,older and modern (particularly of Plevris) to study the Hellenic philosophywith admiration because supposedly that is the one the Fathers had studiedand through it wrote all the wise things they did, is based on theaforementioned theory of the Protestants; which theory had been presented by them in a negative sense, however, in order to claim that Christianity had been adulterated by the Fathers due to their influence by the Hellenicphilosophers. Nevertheless, it became accepted by the Modern Greeks dueto their nationalism .

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

A strong and effective blow to the above theories, namely of the supposedadulteration of Christianity by the "Greek" Fathers due to a supposedinfluence of theirs by Hellenic philosophy and their inability to fullycomprehend it, because, again, they were "Greeks", was brought by thegreatest Russian theologian of the 20th century, Professor and protopresbyterFr. George Florovsky. For more than half a century, the great Fr. Florovsky

would strongly check the Russians who supported the view that the Fathershad not comprehended Christianity in a sufficient manner because they were


14/28

"Greeks" whereas they, as Iranian Slavs that they were, with their ideologysupposedly understood it fully; and he would also check the Protestantsstrongly who would claim that the Fathers had supposedly adulteratedChristianity due to their supposed influence by Hellenic philosophy, whereas

they, thanks to their modern European philosophy, had understoodChristianity in a better way.

Fr. Florovsky stressed the permanent importance of the Hellenism of theFathers for Christianity. Working together with other Roman theologiansfrom Hellas and Constantinople, he contributed to the return to the Fathersand their hesychasm as the bedrock of Orthodox theology and spirituality.Thus the necessary presuppositions were created for the correctunderstanding of the Fathers beyond Photius the Great and particularly of

Saint Gregory Palamas. For, as we said in the beginning, Fr. Florovskycontributed more than anyone else to the vitiation of the idea on thetermination of the patristic theology and proved that the patristic theologycontinues safely even after Photius.

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

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

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

Hellenising Fathers, also represent a tradition, the Hellenising Patristic
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#8._NO,_TO_THE_DISTINCTION_BETWEEN_BIBLICISING_AND_HELLENISING_FATHERShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#18.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#18.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#18.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#8._NO,_TO_THE_DISTINCTION_BETWEEN_BIBLICISING_AND_HELLENISING_FATHERS


15/28

tradition, to which Great Fathers belong to [19]; but these Fathers hadadulterated Christianity with their Hellenic philosophy.

During the times of Saint Gregory Palamas head of this Tradition of the

Hellenising Fathers supposedly was Barlaam. And head of the Biblicisingtradition supposedly was Saint Gregory Palamas [20].

This heresy is dreadful; that is: the Patristic Tradition is dichotomised intoBiblical and Hellenistic and this way Patristic "camps" are created, while theheretic Barlaam appears to belong also to the Fathers, supposedly to the"Hellenising" ones. But with the condemnation of Barlaam in AD 1368 duringthe Synod of Constantinople Great Fathers were also condemned accordingto this heresy of patristic dichotomy into Biblicising and Hellenising Fathers

such as Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessoretc. all of whom they would place in the same camp as Barlaam's. But thetheology of these Fathers constituted the basis for the decisions of EcumenicalSynods as well as the bedrock of the education of so many Fathers includingSaint Gregory Palamas'. Therefore, how come these Fathers appear as belonging to the same camp as Barlaam and hence are also condemned withhim? And how come Saint Gregory Palamas is shown as disagreeing withthese Fathers since he is placed in a different camp from whom hereceived his education and became similar in everything to them since he also(like them) did not innovate? The comic element with this blasphemoustheory on supposed Hellenising and Biblicising Fathers is that bishops arepresented as condemning the ... Fathers, since the bishops had condemned thecamp of the Hellenising (supposedly) Fathers (since they had condemned oneof its members, namely Barlaam [the Calabrian], during the proceedings ofthe Synod of Constantinople in AD 1368).

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

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

The first horrible element in the above theory is the division of the Fathers intwo opposing camps, the Biblicising and the Hellenising. The second, evenmore horrible thing is that they placed the heretic Barlaam among the Fathers(the Hellenising ones) among whom were also placed, as we said, Great

Fathers such as Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus theConfessor etc. And yet NONE, NOT EVEN ONE, of the condemned heresies
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#19.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#19.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#20.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#20.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#20.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#9._NO_TO_THE_DISAGREEMENTS_OF_AUGUSTINE_WITH_THE_FATHERS_AND_NO_TO_HIS_AGREEMENTS_WITH_THE_HERETICShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#9._NO_TO_THE_DISAGREEMENTS_OF_AUGUSTINE_WITH_THE_FATHERS_AND_NO_TO_HIS_AGREEMENTS_WITH_THE_HERETICShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#20.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#19.


16/28

of Barlaam is included in the teachings of the (wrongly described as) so-calledHellenising Fathers of the Church. On the contrary, all the heresies of Barlaamare placed at the centre of the Frankish Augustinian Tradition. And the clash between Barlaam and Saint Gregory Palamas is not a clash supposedly

between Biblicising and Hellenising Fathers, but at its depth hides the clash between Patristic and Franco-latin Augustinian Tradition and to this verypoint can the great importance of this clash be found. And if we wish toexamine the matter in more detail, we will find that this clash betweenPatristic and Franco-latin Augustinian Tradition has its source in the dispute between the Orthodox and the heretic Arians and Eunomians of the times ofthe First and Second Ecumenical Synods.

Let us analyze this point, for it is essential to our topic and brings important

differences between our Tradition and the opposing Franco-latin AugustinianTradition.

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

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

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

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

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

We shall explain these four points:

a) All Holy Fathers agree on this point, namely that the Angel of God (as theHoly Writ calls Him) who appeared to the Prophets of the OT, a.k.a. Angel ofGlory or Angel of Great Counsel or Lord of Glory, is the Logos of God, Christ.Christ would appear in the OT too, although non-incarnately. This truth is noteven denied by the heretic Arians and Eunomians. They would teach thoughthat the Angel of the Lord, who would appear to the Prophets, namely Christ,was a creature; because they supported that God would reveal or showHimself through creatures. And they believed the divine Logos, the Son of

God, to be created.


17/28


18/28

pron. meth-ek -tee ), communicable. This distinction would also be done by theheretic Arians and they too taught that the creations know not the essence butthe energy of God. However, they would include the divine Logos Himselfamong the creatures and that was their great difference with the Orthodox.

Arius, as proof that the Logos of God is a creation and not God, as we theOrthodox believe, would say that the Logos does not know the essence of theFather but partakes, by grace, in some of His energies. Therefore, the Arianswould also make a distinction between essence and energy as regards God.

And yet blessed Augustine would not make this distinction. Augustine is theonly person in the ancient era who attempted to theologise on the HolyTrinity without having studied the patristic works, but based only on theHoly Writ and on the Neo-Platonic philosopher Plotinus. Not knowing

therefore the patristic theology, blessed Augustine identified the DivineEssence with the divine energy. This plani (deluded teaching) had been made before by the heretic Eunomians and without realising it Augustine followedthem, while the Franco-latins followed him [23].

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

Because blessed Augustine would identify the Divine Essence with the divineenergies, for this reason he would claim that during their theoptiae (visions ofGod) the Prophets, Apostles and Saints would see created symbols of thedivinity and not the divinity itself, as for him this would mean that they seethe very Divine Essence, since he would not make a distinction betweenDivine Essence and divine energies of God. It seems that he had heard fromsomewhere that the Fathers had rejected the idea that in the Holy Writ theones engraced would see the Divine Essence and for this reason Augustinewould also reject this possibility [26]. For this reason, all the natural iconicsymbols of divinity that we meet in the Holy Writ (such as: gnophus, light,glory, cloud, lightning, smoke, fire, column of fire, column of cloud, fierytongues, the likening to a dove) would be taken by blessed Augustine asmade and unmade creations which symbolised the divine presence on those

who would see them, in order for God to be heard among men through thesecreations. Blessed Augustine would also say (and through him so do the
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#23.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#23.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#23.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#24.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#24.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#24.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#25.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#25.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#25.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#26.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#26.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#26.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#25.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#24.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#23.


19/28

Franks) that the revelation of God done upon the nous of man is higher thanthe above revelations which are supposedly performed through thesecreations (made and then unmade). [27]

Since Franco-latins believe that the Prophets saw and heard creatures, whorepresent or reflect God, for this reason of course, as Fr. Romanides also says,they took the divine inspiration of the Holy Writ to the letter, since the thingsseen and heard were written down in order to become accessible to thenatural powers of man, sense and logic. According to this theory, the thingrevealed becomes revealed in order to become perceived by the logic of man.According to blessed Augustine, man accepts the dogmas of the Holy Writthrough faith and then he tries through his mental abilities, with his logic, tounderstand them (also aided by philosophy, esp. Neo-Platonic philosophy).

This method became the bedrock of the Franco-latin tradition and can besummarised in Augustine's motto "Credo Ut Intelligam" viz. "I believe inorder to comprehend". Thus, as we already said, Augustine reached the pointof saying:

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

Fr. John Romanides says clearly and with emphasis: The whole basis of thetheology of Augustine is summarised in the motto that became the theologicalslogan of the Franks, namely Credo Ut Intelligam, I believe in order tocomprehend. According to this deluded method, the faithful one first acceptsthe dogmas through faith and then, if he has the necessary philosophicalproficiency, he makes every possible effort to transform the simple faith intoknowledge [28].

d) Contrary to the above Augustinian Franco-latin plani (delusion) ontheophanies, the Holy Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods hadused as a common axis around which they developed their conversationswith the heretic Arians and Eunomians, the following unshakeable teachingof the Holy Writ and of the Holy Tradition, that says: "The Prophets, theApostles and the Saints, seeing invisibly and listening suprarationally andunderstanding supranoetically would see the Glory, Reign ("Kingdom") andDivinity of the Logos, would listen to and know Him, the very Logos in theSpirit, and through Him God the Father" (Fr. Romanides). [29] And precisely because of this were the Orthodox in a position to have a discussion with theheretics as to whether the appearing Logos is homoousios (consubstantial),homoiousios or anomoios to the Father. For, if both the Fathers and the heretics

had interpreted the theophanies in the way blessed Augustine had, and thusidentified every Divine Person with the common Divine Essence, as he did,
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#27.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#27.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#27.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#28.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#28.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#28.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#29.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#29.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#29.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#28.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#27.


20/28

then there would have been no problem of a homoousios or homoiousios oranomoios Logos or Holy Spirit towards (relative to) the Father. This way wecan say that Saint Augustine would accept the decisions of the First andSecond Ecumenical Synods only superficially because in actuality he would

disagree with the presuppositions of the Holy Fathers in their polemicsagainst the heretics.

The view of blessed Augustine on revelation, namely that the Prophets of theOT did not have a theophany of God the Logos but only saw creatures, madeand unmade, as well as his other view on Original Sin, namely that Adam'sdescendants supposedly inherited his guilt, led the Franco-latin tradition todepreciate extremely the people of God who had lived before the Incarnationof the divine Logos, namely the people of the OT, the Patriarchs and the

Prophets[30]

. According to the Fathers, however, the just people in the OTwere friends of God even before the offering of the Crucificial Sacrifice ofChrist on Golgotha, because the mystery of the Cross would be effected(energised) on them [31]. For this reason the Holy Fathers use the life of Mosesas an example of perfection in this life.

10. THE FIRE OF HELL IS NOT CREATED

The other deluded teachings ( plani) of the Franco-latins on hell and purgatorystem from Augustines views on the issues pertaining to revelation. As wesaid, blessed Augustine would take all natural iconic symbols of the divinitythat we meet in the Holy Writ such as e.g. cloud, light, column of fire andcloud, fiery tongues etc. as creatures; thus, in the same way, the Franks, whofollowed Augustine's teaching, imagined the eternal fire as well as the outerdarkness of hell to be created things. Through this misinterpretation,therefore, we have the paradoxal and superstitious beliefs of the Franks on

hell and purgatory, which are described poetically by Dante, who isconsidered father of Western Enlightenment [32]. The truth is that the eternalfire and the outer darkness are the SAME as the Glory and Gnophus of God.Everyone will see God; His uncreated, of course, energy. However those whohave a clean heart will see Him as Glory and Gnophus (this is Paradise), whilethose who have an unclean heart will see Him as Scathing Fire (this is Hellwith the eternal fire and the outer darkness).

Because the Franco-latins believed that the damned will not see something

uncreated, they took the eternal fire of the Holy Writ to be something created,as we said. At least, using common sense they should have realised that the
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#30.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#30.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#31.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#31.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#31.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#10._THE_FIRE_OF_HELL_IS_NOT_CREATEDhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#32.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#32.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#32.http://www.oodegr.com/english/theos/pyr_fws1.htmhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/theos/pyr_fws1.htmhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/theos/pyr_fws1.htmhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/theos/pyr_fws1.htmhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#32.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#10._THE_FIRE_OF_HELL_IS_NOT_CREATEDhttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#31.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#30.


21/28

eternal fire and the outer darkness will not be perceptible by the fact that " ithas been prepared for the devil and his angels" [33]. These beings certainly do nothave senses in order to see perceptibly a darkness or fire perceived by thesenses. Anyway, since the Franco-latins took the eternal fire to be something

created, they also imagined, like the ancient idolaters had also imagined before them, that the world of salvation and perdition is like a "three-storey building" consisting of: an unchangeable heaven for the blessed, a changeableearth for the trial of the people and changeable infernal areas for the damnedand those being purged! ...

"Contrary to this Frankish Tradition, Romanity never interpreted the issueson hell and divine inspiration in such a way as to adopt the cosmology of theancient idolatric world's three-storey universe, with a paradise above the

heavens, hell and purgatory fire under the earth and the earth as a place oftrial for men. And Romanity never even imagined that God somehowdictated words to the Prophets and Apostles in ways other than the humannature of the Logos" (Fr. John Romanides) [34].

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

Finally, we wish to talk about the most fundamental difference between blessed Augustine and the Fathers of the Church. Augustine believes,together with the Platonics, that man can know God with his logic, whereason the contrary the Fathers of our Church teach that logic can only know ofthe created things. And since there is no similarity between the createduniverse and the Uncreated God and since logic can only know the createdthings, it is not possible, therefore, for man to know God through his logic.Then how do we get to know God? By becoming Saints, Theumens! This is

the only way of knowing God: the experience of Theosis; not mans apt logic.But even if we are not Saints, in order to have a personal experience ofTheosis yet, by living inside the Church, we turn to our Saints and throughthem we obtain knowledge of God. By reading the Holy Writ and the life andteaching of the Saints of our Church, we receive knowledge of God throughthem. The Prophets, the Apostles and the Saints of our Church; these are ourown authenticity on God. The Franco-latins, however, by followingAugustine, introduced a supposedly different way of knowing God, which isachieved via logic. According to this theory, mans logic can know God

directly, without the experience of Theosis [35]. It is the well-known adage thatformed the basis for the theology of Augustine, namely Credo ut intelligam; "I
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#33.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#33.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#33.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#34.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#34.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#34.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#11._NO,_TO_THE_KNOWLEDGE_OF_GOD_THROUGH_LOGIC_AND_THROUGH_THE_PLATONIC_ARCHETYPEShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#35.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#35.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#35.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#35.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#11._NO,_TO_THE_KNOWLEDGE_OF_GOD_THROUGH_LOGIC_AND_THROUGH_THE_PLATONIC_ARCHETYPEShttp://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#34.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#33.


22/28

believe in order to comprehend". According to this erroneous principle, manaccepts whatever the Holy Writ writes in faith and then attempts, using hislogic and helped along the way by Philosophy, to comprehend the revealedthings; in fact the more clever he is, the better he gets to know God! ...

The matter is very serious because through this erroneous principle anotherway of knowing the Uncreated God enters; through logic. But how (accordingto blessed Augustine and the Franco-latins) can man come to know theUncreated God with his logic? Answer: (supposedly) via the "archetypes"!The Franco-latins accept the Platonic teaching that the created things in ourworld are icons of the transcended archetypes. This deluded teaching ( plani)that supposedly these uncreated archetypal articles (ideas or words) are metin God's nous and that the created objects in the world are icons of these

archetypal ideas, this I say teaching, constitutes the gnosiological basis of theso-called Scholastic theological and philosophical tradition of the Franco-latins. According to this principle, there is an analogy ( analogia) between thecreated objects in this world and the uncreated archetypal (supposedly)species, which according to the Franco-latins are identified with the DivineEssence. This way, according to them, if we study the created objects with ourlogic we can then trace the Divine Essence through them and come to know(or so they tell us) God!

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

Plato's archetypes exist in reality.


23/28

We repeat: Through the above deluded teaching of the Franco-latins, as theyreceived it by blessed Augustine, the idea is introduced into Christianity thatman can come to know the Uncreated God through his logic alone; even theEssence of God! ... How? By studying the creatures, penetrating the essence

and the concept of the created through human reason ( logos); which createdobjects are (supposedly) copies of the eternal archetypes. They claim thatthese eternal archetypes coincide with the essence of God. This way, i.e.through the study of the objects of this world, we come to learn of God, of Hisvery essence! We repeat, this is a terrible plani , opposed to the teachings of theFathers of our Church, who teach that God is known through prayer andpurity of the heart, in other words by our becoming Saints. Of course,guidance is required in the ascesis of prayer, in this battle for catharsis (innercleansing) of the soul from the passions; for this reason for him who wishes to

know God, the knowledge of the Holy Writ is necessary, as well as the studyof the life and teaching of the Holy Fathers of our Church also are.

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

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

NOTES

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

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

3. Ibid. p. 52

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

5. This idea first made its appearance to us after Turkocracy.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#37.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#37.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#37.http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[1]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[2]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[4]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[5]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[5]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[4]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[2]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[1]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#37.


24/28

6. Ibid. p. 55-56

7. Ibid. p. 54-55

8. We Orthodox claim that this wish of Augustine to agree with the Fathers, despite the fact

that due to his ignorance of their teaching and due to his Manichean past he would not agreewith them, this humility of his, shown with his willingness to correct his errors in theoccasional suggestions to do so, and most of all this repentance of his for his former sinfullife, elevate him to a Saint of our Church. He has however, we repeat, erroneous theology,which has become accepted in everything by the Franks. The clash of the patristic theologywith the Frankish one or the clash of Saint Gregory Palamas with Barlaam are in their essencea clash between the patristic and Augustinian teachings.

9. Ibid. p. 59

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

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

12. Cf. our periodical "Incense" issue 13

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

14. Ibid. p. 81

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

16. Ibid. p. 83

17. Ibid. p. 87, 88.

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

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

20. To the support of his theory on distinction of the Fathers to Biblicising and Hellenising,the Russian Meyerdorff went astray due to another fact also, namely the fact that Barlaam,

even before his clash with Palamas, had announced himself in favour of the superiority of theEcumenical Synods against the Pope and against the insistence of the Latins on the dogmatic
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[6]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[7]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[8]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[9]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[10]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[11]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[12]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[13]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[14]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[15]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[16]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[17]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[18]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[19]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[20]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[20]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[19]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[18]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[17]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[16]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[15]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[14]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[13]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[12]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[11]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[10]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[9]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[8]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[7]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[6]


25/28


26/28

differs and is differentiated from the manner, in the same way it does from the essence. Themanners of existence of each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity are hypostatic; in other words,each manner of existence belongs to only one divine hypostasis; however, the divine energyis natural of the essence and for this reason it is common. For this precise reason theprocession of the Holy Spirit, as a manner of existence, cannot become identified with the

sending of the Holy Spirit.

24. Blessed Augustine would claim however that those being in divine ecstasy can also seefrom this life the essence of God, such as Moses and Paul did. However, generally speaking,Augustine, like all the Franco-latin Scholastics after him also do, accepts that the ones savedview the Divine Essence after death. "Nevertheless, according to the Orthodox Fathers, theTheumens do not see or will not see the Divine Essence either in this life or beyond the grave; but now and beyond the grave and during the common resurrection they see and will see thenatural and Uncreated glory and reign ("kingdom") of Christ, in the same way that theApostles had seen Him on Mount Tabor and during the Pentecost. The same holds for theangels who only know the divine glory and divinity and in no way do they know the Divine

Essence, which is known only to the Holy Trinity" (Fr. John Romanides, ibid. p. 112). 25. De Trinitate cf. Prologue II

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

27. Fr. Romanides writes in his monumental book (p. 118): "Contrary to this Patristic teaching,the above (higher?) revelations of a bright gnophus, glory, light, luminous cloud, column offire, column of cloud, fiery tongues, all are -- according to Augustine -- theophanies of made

and unmade creatures, perceptible by the senses of the Prophets and the Apostles and, assuch, inferior to those revelations done to the nous directly, since to these the nous does nothave to remove notions/signs (noemata) from the senses. For Barlaam's Augustinian Franco-latin tradition, the truth revealed through philosophy and the Holy Writ is approachable byfaith in the logic of the able faithful (ability depending on the amount of his secular learning);thus only the things that have not been revealed transcend logic".

28. Ibid. p. 109-114. 129

29. Ibid. p. 114. The same theologian Father adds elsewhere: "According to the Holy Writ andthe Fathers, the entry of Moses, of the Prophets and of the Apostles on Tabor to the luminous

cloud, to the glory, to the reign ("kingdom"), to the Bright gnophus, to the luminous darkness,to the place where God resides, to the column of fire, to the column of cloud, as well as thecommunion (metheksis) of the fiery tongues of Pentecost, all signify the appearance(phanerosis) and communion (metheksis) in the divinity of Christ, of the Father and of theHoly Spirit, and constitute the highest form of revelation and the entire basis of Patristictheology, while these constitute/comprise/establish the very theosis (deification orglorification) or theoptia (divine vision) or theoria (divine contemplation) of the Uncreatedenergy and presence of God".

30. This, according to Fr. Romanides, is due to the strong Platonic and Manichean influenceon Augustine on the matters on Man, Fall, God and the Old Testament.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[24]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[25]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[26]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[27]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[28]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[29]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[30]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[30]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[29]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[28]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[27]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[26]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[25]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[24]


27/28

31. Contrary to the Franco-latins, saint Gregory Palamas says: "The Cross of Christ would bepre-proclaimed and pre-typed (pre-shadowed) mystically since [the times of] ancientgenerations and no one ever KATHLLAGH TW UEW without the power of the Cross ...There were many friends of God, before and after the Law, without the Cross having beenseen/revealed yet [by/to them], who were declared as such by God Himself; and the king and

prophet David, being the greatest friend of God of his era, "to me", he says, "your friendswere well-honoured in God". How come the friends of God who lived in the times before theCross EXRHMATISAN? I will show you ... Just as the man of sin, the Son of unlawfulness,the Antichrist I say, has not come yet, [and yet] the beloved-in-Christ Theologian says "andnow, beloved, the Antichrist is"; in the same way also the Cross was [being energised] informer [generations] and [will continue to do so] until the end" (Homily 11 on the Honouredand Life-giving Cross (Hellenic Patrology (EPE) 9, 282 ff). We recommend that the entirehomily is studied as it proves that the just people of the OT were friends of God even beforethe offering with the Crucificial sacrifice of Christ).

32. Professor Mr. N. Matsoukas writes in his book "Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology" II, p.

548, 549, note 204: In his "The City of God" Augustine describes the created fire of hell withterrifying expressions. In fact, in his desire to prove that the fire of hell exists in all eternitywithout ever becoming quenched and that those tormented in it are not eventuallyannihilated, he musters examples from the physical world. He tells us that there exist wormsthat live in very high temperatures (indeed there exist such micro-organisms, as there are alsoothers that live in very low temperatures). Among these we find the salamander. (Only thataccording to the mythical beliefs of his era, the salamander would quench the fire when it isfound inside it). The volcanoes of Sicily blaze and yet they never burn themselves. After all,the flesh of a dead peacock does not dissolve under any way. (Augustine himself tells us thatonce he took a piece of peacock flesh off the dinner table and experimented). Calcium is aneternally living fire that can never be quenched except inside water. Cf. De Civitate Dei 21,2

and PL 41, 700-712. Thus Augustine -- already Tertullian had risen to claim these views before him -- managed with these descriptions to give a basis for the scholastics to supporttheir theory that the fire of hell is created. After all, the inability to distinguish betweenessence and energy in God leads one there in a natural way. (A created reality must out ofnecessity come in contact with the damned and not with the uncreated essence of God).Orthodox theology of course does not accept this view. God, through His uncreated energies,engulfs everything. The damned feel anguish (blind as they are) since they do not have thevision (thea) of God (Theos). The influence stems from the uncreated illuminating energywhich is dolorous to the damned. Cf. Nicephorus Gregoras' "Roman History" 24,9 PG 148,1424C: "We hear in the holy gospels of a fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. Thus, ifthat fire is uncreated, as Palamas claims, KAI UEOS AN PROS TE KAI ANARXOS EIH AN

AUTO". Here we see that the scholastics are being sarcastic with Palamas; they believe thatthe fire of hell cannot be uncreated. According to their presuppositions they are certainlyright. The same (correct in its deduction, erroneous in its starting hypothesis) syllogism canalso be made by some Orthodox theologians, provided they declare that they do not interpretthe Orthodox tradition. I had underlined this on another occasion and I will do so here aswell: theology and dogmatics in particular (in other words epistemological theology) followsthe method of de lege lata: it describes what it sees. However, patrologist P. Christou, bydisagreeing with me, has, without perhaps having realised it, also disagreed with theOrthodox fathers; and supports the view that the fire of hell is created. Cf. P. K. Christou"Maximus the Confessor and Nikolaos Matsoukas", Inheritance, 12, 1, Thessaloniki 1980 p.206-207. See also the reply of N. A. Matsoukas "A reply to Mr. Panagiotis Christou",

Thessaloniki 1981, p. 25-26.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[31]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[32]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[32]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[31]


28/28

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

34. Ibid. par. p. 135.

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

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

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

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

who theologize dialectically, on the basis of their own personal philosophical principles, and who reject the experiences of the Saints.
http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[33]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[34]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[35]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[36]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#[37]http://www.oodegr.com/english/istorika/romi/Patristic_theology_vs_Latin_tradition.htm#%28*%29http:

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	giorgosby17
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

The-Clash-between-Orthodox-Patristic-Theology-and-Franco-Latin-Tradition.pdf

Documents