The
question before us is quite simple. We are engaged in types of
Ecumenical Movements whose end purpose is to reunite Christian
Churches. However, certain historical facts have been swept under
the carpet and out of sight which cause complications in this
effort. Such invisible facts do not allow full treatment of the
question of apostolic succession. Perhaps one of these facts swept
under the carpet is that there are synods of bishops who derive
their episcopal succession from bishops who caused the removal
of synods of Orthodox bishops of the vanquished. We will deal
briefly with specific instances whereby the Roman Orthodox bishops
of the Papacy were forcefully replaced, first by turncoat Roman
lackeys of the Franks and then by the Franks themselves.
[2] Then we will turn our attention to the orthodox bishops
of the British Isles who were removed from their Churches at the
instigation of the Frankish Papacy which had instigated the Norman
invasion of England. These Norman conquerors and their allies
condemned the Orthodox leadership of the British Isles as schismatics
and heretics and imprisoned them for life and replacing them with
themselves.
But this type of research may be applied also in such cases wherein
the Orthodox themselves may have forcefully replaced non Orthodox
leaders with themselves. This had happened during the times of
the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils, whereby condemned heretics
were replaced by the Orthodox according to Roman law. The theory
behind this was strangely medical. In other words Orthodoxy is
a cure of the sicknesses which stem from fantasies which are cured
by the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification.
The fantasies in question originate from an electrical short circuit
between the spinal fluid and the blood fluid. These fantasies
are the main tools by which humanity is ruled by either the devil
or by mental sicknesses. This short circuit is repaired by the
unceasing prayer in the heart called illumination which leads
to illumination of the heart and perhaps to glorification which
is ordination to prophethood in the Old and New Testament and
within the Body of Christ since Pentecost. The lack of this tradition
is the main cause of today’s disunion among Christians because
each group is ruled by their peculiar fantasies.
Roman Popes and Franco-Latin Popes
The key to the transition of the Orthodox Catholic Tradition from
an illegal to a legal religion and then to an established Church
lies in the fact that the Roman Empire realized that it was not
confronted simply by another form of religion or philosophy, but
by a well organized society of psychiatric clinics which cured
the happiness-seeking sickness of humanity and produced normal
citizens with selfless love dedicated to the radical cure of personal
and social ills. The relation between State and Church which developed
was exactly parallel to that between the State and modern medicine.
The incorporation of the episcopate of Carolingian Francia into
the Frankish army and its occupation by military officers whose
duty was to pacify the revolutionary Gallo-Roman population is
the key to understanding the so-called Great Schism between Roman
and Latin Christendoms. These Frankish bishops and their successors
never understood the meaning of Apostolic Tradition and succession
which they reduced to episcopal power over a system of sacramental
magic which sends people either to heaven or hell. This they transferred
to the Papacy when they forcefully took it over during a struggle
which reached its final stages between 983 and 1046.
This break in Apostolic Tradition and succession was provoked
and sustained for centuries by military and political power as
a normal function within Latin Christendom. Considered just as
normal was the distortion of both the reality of the East Roman
Empire and its Church and civilization which continues today under
modified guise. This guise caked in "Byzantine" honey
does not change distortion into truth.
Canon Law makes specific provisions for the regular convocation
of the Synods of bishops presided over by a Metropolitan, Archbishop,
or Patriarch at regular intervals for dealing with the proper
execution of the Church's mission of cure within society. There
are no such provisions for Ecumenical Councils.
The reason for this is that the local synods were part of the
original structure of the Church, whereas the Ecumenical Synod
was of an extra-ordinary and imperial nature. One may draw a parallel
between Ecumenical Councils and the Apostolic Council convoked
in Jerusalem (Acts 15, 6:6-29). Ecumenical Councils, however,
were convoked by the Roman Emperor for the purpose of signing
into Roman Law what the synods of Autocephalous and Autonomous
Churches believed and practiced in common.
Arius, Nestorius and Eutyches were condemned by local Councils
first and then by Ecumenical Councils. Paul of Samosata was condemned
by a local council whose decision was accepted by all other synods.
The same was the case with Sabellius. Even at Ecumenical Councils
bishops participated as members of their own synods whose spokesmen
were their Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Patriarchs, or their
legates. It should be clear that neither can an Ecumenical Council
become a substitute for local synods, nor can local synods take
precedence over an Ecumenical Council, unless the one or the other
strays from the faith. The reason for this is that authority resides
neither in the Ecumenical nor Local Council, but in the glorified
Prophets, Apostles and Fathers who participate in Councils or
whose teachings the Councils follow.
Method.
The method underlying this presentation is rather simple. The
New Testament writers and the Fathers read back into history their
own experience of purification and illumination of the heart and
glorification which they identify with that of the Prophets of
all ages beginning at least with Abraham. This is parallel to
repetition of cure in medical science passed on from doctors to
doctors, except that in this case Christ is the doctor Who personally
cures and perfects His doctors in both the Old and New Testaments.
This historical succession of cure and perfection in the Lord
of Glory, both before and after His incarnation, is the heart
and core of the Biblical and Patristic Tradition and the Synodical
System.
Historical Context.
Biblical
Faith is one's co-operation with the Holy Spirit Who initiates
the cure of the sickness of possessive love in the heart and transforms
it into love which does not seek its own. This cure is consummated
in glorification (theosis) and constitutes the heart of the Orthodox
Catholic Church, which replaced paganism as the core of the Hellenic
Civilization of the Roman Empire.
Political architects whose historians report ' history within
the context of their plans for the future claim that the world
is being Westernized by means of technology and economics. Orthodox
Civilization is listed among those which are arrested.
Their claim that the Hellenic Civilization of the Roman Empire
disappeared in the 8th century
[3] and was replaced in the East by a "Byzantine"
Civilization and Empire and in the West by a European Civilization
is a modern modification of Charlemagne's theology of history.
Charlemagne (768-814) fabricated this disappearance of the Roman
Empire and its Civilization in order to solve a family problem.
His grandfather, Charles Martel (715-741), had finally suppressed
Gallo-Roman revolutions in the battles of Poitiers and Provence
in 732 and 739, which were supported by Arabs and Numidian Romans
who, together with the Spanish Romans, had recently overthrown
the Goths in Spain (711-719). The Numidian Romans were under the
command of Constantinople's governor of Mauritania in Ceuta. Another
Gallo-Roman revolution was suppressed by Charlemagne's father
and uncle in 742, the year he was born.
Charlemagne had to find a way to break the religious and cultural
unity between his own enslaved Romans and the Roman Empire which
now extended from parts of Italy to the frontiers of Persia. He
devised a plan to convince his subjugated Romans that the Papal
States, called Romania and Res Publica Romana, under his family's
control since 756, was all that was left of the Roman Empire.
The rest of the Empire would become "heretical" and
therefore a hateful "Greece", inhabited not by Romans,
but by "Greeks", and headed not by an Emperor of the
Romans, but by an Emperor of "Greeks". The Franks called
the Empire Roman for the last time in their Libri Carolini which
attack the Empire as pagan and heretical. The Franks then decided
by their Council of Frankfurt in 794 to give the names Graeci
to the free Romans and Graecia to free Romania. This became Franco-Latin
customary law.
Since the time of Roman Emperor Constantine the Great we have
the beginning of a development which led to the Pentarchy of Roman
Popes and Patriarchates: 1. Old Rome, 2. Constantinople New Rome,
3. Alexandria, 4. Antioch and 5. Jerusalem. The two Romes became
equals as Capitals with Old Rome having precedence over New Rome.
This arrangement remained intact until the Franks liberated the
Roman Papacy from the Lombard threat. Then Charlemange decided
to call the East Romans Greeks and heretics. The last time that
Charlemange called the Eastern part of the Empire Roman and heretic
was in his Libri Carolini. Thenceforth the Roman Empire in the
East became for the Franks heretical and Greek and the Emperor
a Greek heretic.
The modern guardians of this Carolingian law 1) replaced "Greek"
with "Byzantine", and "heresy" with "change
of Civilization". 2) Following Napoleon's plans for the dissolution
of the Ottoman Empire and of the ecclesiastical remains of the
Roman Empire within it, these same guardians destroyed the legal
identity of the citizens of Greece with the Romans of Constantinople,
by presenting them as having been under the yoke of this so-called
"Byzantine Empire". 3) They have used this fabrication
to Balkanize the "Roman Milet" [4] and dissolve its Ecumenical Patriarchate of New Rome Constantinople
in the process.
Turning back to 8th century Western Europe we are indeed confronted
by real and radical changes. Europe is dominated in its center
by the Empire of Charlemagne. Gothic Spain is overrun by Arabs
and Numidian Romans, who together had fought as liberators of
the Spanish Romans but ended up as their masters. These Numidians
were converted to Islam several times according to Ibn Khaldoun.
The birth of Frankish Civilization is described in a letter of
St. Boniface to Pope Zacharias (natione Graecus
[5] in 741. The Franks had rid the Church in Francia of all
Roman bishops by 661 and had made themselves its bishops and clerical
administrators. They had divided up the Church's property into
fiefs which had been doled out as benefices according to rank
within the pyramid of military vassalage. These Frankish bishops
had no Archbishop and had not met in Synod for eighty years. They
had been meeting as army officers with their fellow war-lords.
They are, in the words of St. Boniface, "voracious laymen,
adulterous clergy and drunkards, who fight in the army fully armed
and who with their own hands kill both Christians and pagans". [6]
Fifty three years later the successors to these illiterate barbarians
condemned the East Roman Empire as "heretical" and "Greek"
on Icons at their Council of Frankfurt in 794 and then on the
Filioque at their Council of Aachen in 809. For 215 years the
Roman Popes refused to conform to their Frankish masters on Icons
and the Filioque.
These Frankish bishops were neither familiar with the Fathers
of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, nor were they aware of, nor
interested in learning anything about, illumination and glorification
which were the presuppositions of these Councils. Between the
end of the 8th and the l2th centuries the Franks were familiar
only with St. Augustine, who was neither a Father of an Ecumenical
Council, nor did he understand Biblical illumination and glorification,
which he confounded with Neo-Platonic mysticism. He therefore
did not understand the Apostolic Tradition and succession and
deviated sharply from St. Ambrose who had baptized him. What the
Franks finally accepted from the Eastern and Western Fathers they
forced into Augustinian categories and so created the myth of
Platonising Eastern Fathers, which is still dominant.
The Frankish bishops encountered by St. Boniface understood Apostolic
succession as a magical power which allowed them to make it the
property of their race and use it as the prime means of keeping
their subjugated populations pacified by fear of their religious
and military powers. Augustine's theories about original sin and
predestination helped them in this direction.
This schism between Franks and Romans expanded into a schism between
Franco-Latin and Roman Christendom with their diametrically opposed
understandings of the mission of bishops and their synods within
the Church and in society. The Franks literally captured a medical
association and transformed it into a quack medical association.
The East Franks completed the job when they took over the Papacy
definitively between 1012-1046.
While the Norman Franks were in process of expelling the Roman
army from Southern Italy and of helping the Italo-Franks wrest
the Papacy from the Franconian emperors, their Duke William of
Normandy invaded England with Pope Alexander's blessing in 1066.
He had his Lombard friend, the "Blessed Saint" Lanfranc,
the pope's teacher, installed as the first non-Roman /Saxon Archbishop
of Canterbury in 1070, and together they replaced all native bishops
with Franco-Latins. All Celtic and Saxon bishops and abbots were
dismissed en masse [7] and sentenced to prison to
die premature deaths by torture and starvation.
[8] The new noblemen bishops from the Frankish Empire were
in turn killed by the people whenever opportunity presented itself. [9] Indeed the Saxons and Celts celebrated
the death of Lanfranc in 1089 by launching their third and most
severe revolt against the foreign intruders.
[10] Such reforms by military might became crusades in both
East and West. They ultimately provoked the Protestant Reformation
and met with little success among the East Romans and some among
the Slavs.
This tradition of killer bishops, clergy and monks was given its
near final theological foundation by "Saint" Bernard
of Clairvaux in his sermons "De Laude novae militiae ad
milites Templi" [11] in which he argues that the religious Knight Templer "who
kills for religion commits no evil but rather does good, for his
people and himself. If he dies in battle, he gains heaven; if
he kills his opponents, he avenges Christ. Either way, God is
pleased". [12] Its final form was given by the Inquisition
which condemned to death but usually turned executions over to
laymen:
Orthodox Civilization may indeed become arrested, not, however,
because of Westernisation; but because of strong doses of Franco-Latinisation
introduced by Peter the Great (1682-1725), whose religious policies
became the law of the Neo-Hellenic Nation in 1827.
Western Europe had been in a long process of De-Franco-Latinisation
by means of powerful elements of Re-Greco-Romanisation, but not
in its Apostolic form. Its embryo appeared in the l2th century
with the rise of the middle class and went into labor during the
Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation. It was born in the
Enlightenment and matured during the American and French Revolutions.
American and French Democracies, based on human rights and the
equality of all citizens, began the progressive destruction of
the class distinctions which had been imposed by the Franks and
their allies, who had brought Latin Christendom into existence
on the ruins of those parts of Roman Christendom they conquered,
including the Papacy. Franco-Latin metaphysics, cosmology and
psychology were made past history by parallel developments in
modern science.
But this has neither all happened everywhere, nor at the same
time. Royalties, nobilities, the Papacy, and those Reformation
Churches which still serve as props for the remnants of Teutonic
royalty and nobility, badly need the identification of Franco-Latin
Civilization and Western Civilizations for their own survival.
It is exactly this identity which parts of the Reformation and
the American and French Revolutions had rejected. However, over
a period of time seem to be now accepting.
Having the above background in mind the reader himself can study
the question of such examples as the APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION OF THE
NORMAN AND FRANCO-LATIN SUCCESSORS OF THEIR ORTHODOX PREDECESSORS
or else leave it to God Himself to decide, which He may have already
done. This may be so especially since the bishops and clergy in
question probably do not know that apostolic succession depends
on the cure of the purification and illumination of the heart
which leads to glorification, i.e. to ordination to prophethood.
These criteria probably are applicable for most churches and religions,
including many individual Orthodox and their leaders today.
E N D