Subscribe by Email
« westernorthodox.blogspot.com not a dia-blog, but rather a mono-blog | Main | Fr. Michael Azkoul, Photius Jones and the gang ask the difficult questions about Augustine »
Anti-Romanides Sentiments On OrthodoxWiki Will Not Go Unanswered
By James Kelley | July 23, 2008
I posted an ‘edit’ to the Romanides entry in Wiki. In case they do no accept it (quite possible), you can comment here, of course. Maybe you will see it [here].
You obviously have no idea what Fr. John Romanides means when he says “Franks.” He means exactly what Greeks and Ottoman Turks and other Arabs meant througout the Middle Ages and up to the present day by “Franks”: Those from Europe who propogate and further Frankish Civilization and Frankish Christianity. The Arabs still call anyone who is a non-Orthodox Christian “Frankji,” as Fr. John Romanides points out. In Western sources we find a false distinction between Western Romans and Eastern Greek heretics; Eastern sources (Roman Orthodox as well as Moslem) invariably distinguish between Romans (Orthodox) and Franks (non-Orthodox Christians from Europe). As a matter of fact, I recently listened to a lecture on cd by Fr. Michael Azkoul in which he noted that the icons of the Theotokos produced in the West are indiscriminately called “Francopanagia” by Greek-speakers. The point is, since the Fourth Crusade at least, Eastern Christians (along with Moslem Easterners) refer to those who follow Charlemagne and his Frankish successors’ schemes, both geopolitical and “religious,” as “Franks,” since they follow their father Charlemange.
The foremost scholar of the history of the Normans, R. Allen Brown, once retorted that the Scandinavian Normans, in a generation, became “more Frankish than the Franks,” simply by adopting the customs and war-techniques of the Franks. That the Normans became Franks in no time at all is shown by their ability to replicate Frankish civilization (feudalism) and Frankish religion (”Roman” Catholicism) in England and elsewhere, by force, of course. Would any of you Romanides critics like to make the idiotic statement that the Normans did not become Franks? What about this quotation from Liutprand, Frankish advisor to the Frank Otto I: “We…Lombards, Saxons, Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt [for Romans and their emperors] that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romane), this alone, i.e., the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed whatever is evil.” Hmmm. Seems that all these Teutons stick together like glue (at least in their self-conceptions) when it comes to anti-Roman (meaning anti-Greek and anti-Orthodox)sentiments and schemes. The sources don’t lie: If anything, it is disingenuous to suppress the obvious notion of “Franks” used by BOTH EASTERN AND WESTERN SOURCES, THOUGH THE LATTER EQUATE FRANK WITH ROMAN AND THE FORMER EQUATE FRANK WITH ANTI-ROMAN HERETIC.
Also, I put forth for your consideration, that the term “Frank” was also used by Germans themselves to refer (at various times in the Middle Ages) to anyone who was a warrior in the Kingdom of the Franks, a kingdom which comprised most of the German-speaking world for quite a while. Case in point: In one of Charlemagne’s capitularies, the Great Frank castigated the poor warrior-farmers in his Frankish army who were suffering under his policies and who could no longer afford to arm themselves. “Gird yourselves like men; arm yourselves and be Franks,” Charlemagne tells them. Now, Romanides-critics, are you telling me that Charlemagne’s audience here is comprised only of those who can trace their bloodlines back to a Frank? This would be anachronistic and just plain stupid. Obviously, Charlemage would accept any warrior who could raise a sword and who was a German barbarian. Do me a favor and read all of the works of John Romanides before you generalize about his supposed historical errors.
–James Kelley, www.orthodoxpatristics.com
Topics: Heresy, Historiography, History, Patristics, Romanides, Theology |
July 24th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
James-
All that you wrote is generally apropos. However, I looked at the OrthodoxWiki article on Fr. Romanides and came up with a pretty standard set of biographical/ bibliographical data with nothing really controversial or polemical in tone (which is as it should be.)
Was there an ‘anti- Romanides’ Romanides entry there previously? Forgive me for indulging in a bit of ‘venting’, but this is what kills me about OrthodoxWiki: can any idiot with a pet agenda create a page slandering- or trumping the perceived errors of a (fellow) member of the Body of Christ and call this a legitimate encyclopedia article? I’ve seen this before over there (and this is mostly what this gripe is about)- and, personal sympathies/ antipathies aside, I just can’t comprehend why people don’t get the concept of sticking to objective details in an ‘encyclopedia’-type article. It should be possible to point out controversy or problematics with a person’s thought in this setting without being patronizing, caricaturizing, or otherwise presenting a one-dimensional projection of a real flesh and blood human being dear to God.
Who reviews these articles anyhow? Alas, it seems on the web, all pretentions to decency seem to vanish so quickly, which is a great shame to us Orthodox. Lord have mercy.
Anyway- James, keep up the good work with your site. God bless you and yours. I look forward to seeing more soon,
In XC,
Symeon
July 25th, 2008 at 12:33 am
As someone who seems friendly to - and knowledgeable of - the work of Fr. Romanides, I thought you might be the proper person to ask the following question. I would normally find the answer for myself, but I am a bit strained for time.
Anyways, I was reading somewhere that, near the beginning of his “The Ancestral Sin”, Fr. Romanides claims that St. Augustine of Hippo is not a saint. Is this true? If so, how is the claim justified?
Thanks!
July 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Symeon, God bless you. The comment I was countering was apparently by a certain “Bratton,” who posted (on the edit part, not the regular bio part of the JSR entry), that:
“Professor Romanides and his followers appear to confuse the Greek usage of “Franks” — which later writers applied indiscriminately to _all_ Western Latin Europeans, including Germans! — with the original tribe that occupied Gaul.”
The guy who pasted this in the edit page is a pro-Romanides commentator (Fr. John, I guess) who was looking for someone to discuss the subject of “Franks,” and to expand upon his point, which is very correct, and which references the “Frank” article in Wiki. Hopefully, my comments are valuable in explaining the “Romeic thesis” of Fr. John, though I’ll certainly go back and cite sources, etc.
After you posted here, I looked back at the Wiki JSR site, and, like you, I found it hard to find my opponent, Bratton, who is not given a “by line” after the pasted comment. Sorry for the confusion, I’m definitely on the same side as “Fr John” and “Rdr Andrew,” both of whom have already commented against “Bratton”s wild inaccuracies.
————————————————————–
Dear Dionysios, God bless you,
Fr. John apparently instructed George Gabriel, translator of Ancestral Sin, not to refer to Augustine as “Saint Augustine” in his translation. Though he may have changed his mind, Fr. John’s writings indicate that he did not wish to proclaim Augustine a heretic or to take up the question of his Sainthood.
Fr. John did not deny that Augustine taught heresies:
“It is suspected that behind this movement are those who are trying to penetrate Orthodox countries with Augustine’s heresies under the guise of Traditional Old Calendar Anti-Ecumenical Orthodoxy.” [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.12.en.orthodox_heterodox_dialogues.01.htm]
also:
“Augustine is in total darkness about the very foundations of the theology of the Ecumenical Councils.” [further down in the same article]
However, below Fr. John gives the full context for Augustine’s teachings, which allows us to stop short of calling Augustine a heretic:
“What is truly amazing is that the East Romans being lead by St. Gregory Palamas at the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1451 never realized that that the silly teachings of Barlaam, which they were condemning, were the teachings of Augustine himself. For this reason they claimed that the devil himself inspired this Calabrian to teach his new heresies. While pointing this out, this writer has never raised the question about the sainthood of Augustine. He himself believed himself to be fully Orthodox and repeatedly asked to be corrected.
Augustine was completely obsessed by the Arian argument that proof that the Logos of the Father is created is the fact that He appeared the Prophets and Patriarchates of the Old Testament and the prophets and apostles of the New Testament. It is because of this concrete problem that Augustine took refuge in his peculiar argument that the Holy Trinity reveals Himself by creatures which He brings into existence to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non-existence when their missions are accomplished. In this way the receptors of revelation end up with supposedly divinely inspired words and concepts without real communion with the uncreated glory of God.” [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.00.htm]
I’ll expand on this later (I know, I always say that, and I don’t always deliver. Oh well, I intend to, anyway. . .)
Thanks again for your interest,
James
July 25th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Blessed Augustine is commemorated on the calendar (albeit as a lesser feast) of most of the canonical Orthodox Churches. He is not generally honored among the Orthodox for his theology, which as others have noted is controversial, but rather for his soul. Also it must be recalled that before his death Augustine recanted a great deal of his earlier opinions.
I think it is rather a dangerous thing to go down the road of un-sainting saints. Where will this end? If your going to question someone’s theological bona fides for sainthood I would probably start with Constantine who was an Arian before I would go after Augustine. The Church has commemorated Augustine as a saint for centuries, long before the Rome was lost to heresy. I generally believe it unwise to challenge that which has hitherto been noncontroversial in the Church for over a thousand years absent extraordinary cause.
The only ones I hear of who are promoting this idea are schismatics.
ICXC
John
July 25th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Augustine’s ‘Retractions’, to my knowledge, did not include a recanting of original sin, prevenient/irresistible grace, or his infamous “angelophanies.” However, the fact that Augustine’s extant writings spell out for us that he was not free of theological error does not give us the go-ahead to proclaim him a heretic, so I agree with you, Ad.
However, if we do not take very seriously Fr. John Romanides’ discovery (one of the most significant, in my opinion, of the last century) that the errors of Barlaam the Calabrian–and the post-Orthodox West by extension–were inspired by the unique teachings on created grace, filioque, and rationalistic-creaturely theophanies taught by Augustine, then we are in danger of misunderstanding the meaning of sainthood.
Whether you, Ad, or anyone else, likes it or not, we as Orthodox condemn many of the teachings (though not the man, for we must pass over his errors in silence and honor him as Blessed) of Augustine every year at the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Listen to the words coming out of your own mouth (assuming you are Orhtodox) next Sunday of Orthodoxy. To the Anathemas against the errors of the West could be added:
Those who have elevated speculations on “created grace” and “salvation through creatures” and the like to the level of dogma, Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!
Thus, I see no reason to be wishy-washy regarding Augustine. As I understand matters, we all must uphold the following two points equally, though I’m open to any new information which may deepen my understanding:
1) As an Orthodox Saint, Augustine is honored as Blessed by the Orthodox Church
2) Those who elevate Augustine’s speculative teachings about the Trinity, grace, and salvation to the level of dogma (Roman Catholics and Protestants) are outside of the Church.
At any rate, I think Fr. John emphasizes no. 2 because the West based its heretical theology on Augustine’s errors. This is a pretty significant point, don’t you think?
Augustine’s writings show no indication that he understood or shared in the tradition of illumination/glorification of the heart which is the basis of our salvation and the only criterion there could ever be for sainthood. In fact, Augustine’s De Trinitate is a literal broken-record tirade against the Orthodox dogmas of the Trinity and Christology, though Augustine thought he was upholding the faith of the Fathers.
Fr. John’s discovery is bad news indeed for those who would like to use Augustine as a “bridge” between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Because of the writings of Fr. John and others, it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to pull the Augustinian wool over Orthodox eyes anytime soon.
However, as I have already said, Augustine’s bad theology does not tell the whole tale, and we are not remiss in honoring him as Blessed.
As always, thanks for your very relevant comment, Ad.
God bless you, and may we all find mercy!
July 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Of course, I understand the fundamental problems with Augustinian philosophical theology. My question was motivated more by a concern that we might be “out of our depth” by “un-sainting” those revered by the Church.
That said, thanks for your clarification. I’m glad that Fr. John seems to have left the question alone.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Dear friends,
I think perhaps the basic mechanisms of the OrthodoxWiki site are being misunderstood. Like another poster above, I don’t see what in the Romanides articles is “anti-Romanides.”
What Mr. Kelley added, he added only to the Talk page for the article, which is for discussing improvements to it. He did not actually edit the article to expand its offerings, even when encouraged to do so by me. Why, I can only guess. I think perhaps he mistook the Talk page for a sort of queue into which edits should go. (That’s sometimes the case when an article has been protected due to being the subject of edit-warring. As yet, the article in question is not protected.)
In any event, in response to another poster above, OW articles are under constant review by numerous editors on the site, including many clergy and scholars. It is not the case, however, that anyone with an Internet connection can edit the wiki — a registered email address is required. In addition, if an editor proves that he is not going to play by the rules, he is banned. (In short, this is not Wikipedia with icons.)
OrthodoxWiki is always, however, a work in progress. As ever, if you see a problem with an article, we encourage you to come and help fix it! As always seems to be the case in Church service, those who complain the most are also usually the least involved. Let that not be so of us!
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Andrew
August 8th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Father bless,
As I posted earlier, my comments were directed solely toward a certain Dr. Bratton, whose comments I had read in their original context some years ago, though I cannot find the original internet source. The Bratton comment was posted on the “discussion” page of the Fr. John Romanides entry. Whoever posted it (the basic sentiment of Bratton is “Romanides calls all Teutons Franks, and this is a gross oversimplification”) was wanting to refute Bratton, and I obliged. My comment was against Bratton, not against anyone else. My post should have been called “Anti-Romanides comment by Bratton, alluded to but not supported by OrthodoxWiki, will not go unanswered.”
I do not know how to make myself more clear, but thanks for your imput.
James
August 8th, 2008 at 9:04 am
One shouldn’t take what appears on OrthodoxWiki Talk pages too seriously. They’re merely in some sense “scratch pads” for notes on how to improve articles. They’re deliberately excluded from indexing by external search engines by OW precisely for that reason.
That being said, OW is not a forum for expressing “sentiments” nor for “answering” them. It’s an encyclopedia which tries to describe things in an encyclopedic way. Bratton’s sentiment never made it into the article, which is probably as it should be.