MYSTAGOGY

The Weblog Of John Sanidopoulos

BannerFans.com
  • Home
  • SAINTS & FEASTS
  • RESOURCES
  • BOOKSTORE
  • ABOUT
Loading...

MYSTAGOGY

MYSTAGOGY
My Photo
J.Sanidopoulos
This weblog offers insights and analysis on various matters of life and thought from a 21st century Orthodox Christian perspective, among other things.
View my complete profile
http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/ http://www.facebookloginhut.com/facebook-login/

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (324)
    • ►  May (69)
    • ►  April (67)
    • ►  March (77)
    • ►  February (9)
    • ►  January (102)
  • ►  2012 (1047)
    • ►  December (99)
    • ►  November (59)
    • ►  October (69)
    • ►  September (58)
    • ►  August (74)
    • ►  July (116)
    • ►  June (121)
    • ►  May (125)
    • ►  April (138)
    • ►  March (96)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (89)
  • ►  2011 (1427)
    • ►  December (60)
    • ►  November (65)
    • ►  October (84)
    • ►  September (63)
    • ►  August (107)
    • ►  July (40)
    • ►  June (133)
    • ►  May (161)
    • ►  April (198)
    • ►  March (174)
    • ►  February (161)
    • ►  January (181)
  • ►  2010 (2462)
    • ►  December (221)
    • ►  November (211)
    • ►  October (149)
    • ►  September (200)
    • ►  August (187)
    • ►  July (209)
    • ►  June (170)
    • ►  May (199)
    • ►  April (236)
    • ►  March (240)
    • ►  February (227)
    • ►  January (213)
  • ▼  2009 (874)
    • ►  December (160)
    • ►  November (124)
    • ►  October (140)
    • ►  September (116)
    • ►  August (86)
    • ►  July (97)
    • ►  June (60)
    • ▼  May (42)
      • Saint Leo the Great's Second Homily on the Ascensi...
      • The Funeral Oration of the Roman Empire: Delivered...
      • Saint Leo the Great's First Homily on the Ascensio...
      • The Theotokos at the Resurrection of Christ
      • Saint John the Russian, a New Confessor and His In...
      • On Faith and Reason: Selections From Saint John Ch...
      • John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins and Faustus of Rie...
      • Book Review: "Greek Orthodox Patrology" by Panagio...
      • Saint Evgeny Rodionov the New Martyr of Chechnya
      • The Orthodoxy of Tom Hanks
      • The Vision of Saint Paisios Regarding the Exalted ...
      • The Historic Truth Regarding Macedonia: A Letter t...
      • Constantine the Great Speaks on What the Aspiratio...
      • Constantine the Great and Historical Truth
      • The Miraculous Power of the Cross and Prayer - A S...
      • Thoughts on the "Petrified" Church of Harnack by N...
      • AGORA: A Film About Hypatia of Alexandria
      • Did Members of the Bilderberg Group Plot World Dom...
      • P.T. Barnum vs. the Brooklyn Bridge
      • Saint Pachomios the Great and Founder of Cenobitic...
      • The Feast of Mid-Pentecost and the Pentecostarion
      • Holy Cross Faculty Statement on the Ecumenical Pat...
      • No Wonder the Antichrist Superstar Emerged From He...
      • The God of Howard Stern
      • Brainwashed Liberals Can't Distinguish Science Fro...
      • My Pilgrimage To The Tomb of Saint John the Apostl...
      • Soul's Journey To God - A Challenge
      • The Cross That Appeared in the Sky Over Jerusalem ...
      • Movie Review: LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
      • Saint Ephraim of Nea Makri the Newly-Revealed
      • Saint Xenia of Kalamata (the newly revealed martyr...
      • Thousands of Mayans To Convert To Orthodoxy?
      • Egyptian Christians Riot After Swine Flu Cull
      • Jack the Ripper and the Historical Jesus
      • The Flying Chihuahua and the Pet Psychic
      • Churches Respond To Swine Flu Fear: An Orthodox Re...
      • Ohio Scholar Reports Bias Against "Darwin Doubters...
      • Dinosaurs Probably Did Walk With Humans
      • The Appeal of an African Woman In Favor of the Pop...
      • The Final Destruction of Byzantium
      • Saint Matrona the Blind of Moscow
      • Swine Flu Being Used To Persecute Christians In Eg...
    • ►  April (49)

Topics

  • Abortion (1)
  • Alexandros Papadiamandis (1)
  • Almsgiving (4)
  • America (156)
  • Angels (52)
  • Anglicans (3)
  • Annunciation (2)
  • Anthony the Great (3)
  • Anthropology (23)
  • Antiochian Archdiocese of America (10)
  • Apocrypha (1)
  • Apologetics (81)
  • Apostles and Early Church (164)
  • Art (40)
  • Athanasius the Great (3)
  • Atheism-Agnosticism-Skepticism (205)
  • Augustine of Hippo (4)
  • Balkans and Russia (61)
  • Basil the Great (3)
  • Bible (41)
  • Bible Difficulties (1)
  • Biblical and Christian Archaeology (11)
  • Biblical and Christian Archeology (94)
  • Biblical Criticism (30)
  • Bioethics (1)
  • Byzantine Music (1)
  • C.S. Lewis (2)
  • Calendar Issue (2)
  • Canon Law (36)
  • Catholicism and Papacy (158)
  • Celtic Saints (1)
  • Christian Living (171)
  • Christology (63)
  • Church and Society (1)
  • Church History (49)
  • Climate Change (1)
  • Conspiracies (93)
  • Constantine the Great (5)
  • Coptic Church (44)
  • Cross (91)
  • Cults (83)
  • Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • Demetrios of Thessaloniki (2)
  • Demonology (7)
  • Desert Fathers (12)
  • Divine Liturgy (8)
  • Divorce (5)
  • Documentaries (9)
  • Dormition Fast (35)
  • Ecclesiology (84)
  • Ecumenical Patriarchate (158)
  • Ecumenical Synods (7)
  • Ecumenism (105)
  • Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra (2)
  • Elder Cleopa of Romania (2)
  • Elder Ephraim Katounakiotis (2)
  • Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (2)
  • Elder Eusebius Yiannakakis (1)
  • Elder Iakovos of Evia (1)
  • Elder Paisios the Athonite (32)
  • Elder Porphyrios (7)
  • Elder Sophrony of Essex (6)
  • Entrance of the Theotokos (2)
  • Ephraim the Syrian (2)
  • Eschatology/Death (181)
  • Ethical and Moral Issues (70)
  • Europe (85)
  • Events (14)
  • Family and Parish (81)
  • Famous People (6)
  • Fasting (5)
  • Feasts of the Church (95)
  • Fr. George Florovsky (4)
  • Fr. George Metallinos (1)
  • Fr. John Romanides (7)
  • Fr. Seraphim Rose (1)
  • Freemasonry (1)
  • Funny (48)
  • George the Great Martyr (6)
  • Globalization (1)
  • God (69)
  • Gothic and Horror (38)
  • Great Lent (9)
  • Great Lent and Holy Week (333)
  • Greece and Greeks (212)
  • Greek Archdiocese of America (GOA) (66)
  • Gregory of Nyssa (1)
  • Gregory Palamas (9)
  • Gregory the Theologian (2)
  • Hagia Sophia (7)
  • Halki Seminary (2)
  • Halloween (5)
  • Happiness (1)
  • Health (1)
  • Health and Creation (138)
  • Heresy (100)
  • Holidays (17)
  • Holy Light (1)
  • Holy Matrimony (2)
  • Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) (142)
  • Holy Unction (1)
  • Holy Week (27)
  • Homosexuality (1)
  • Iconography (291)
  • Isaac the Syrian (3)
  • John Chrysostom (6)
  • John Climacus (2)
  • John the Baptist (10)
  • Judging (1)
  • Justin Popovic (1)
  • Lay Holiness (2)
  • Literature (28)
  • Literature and Book Reviews (89)
  • Liturgics (93)
  • Logic / Reason (1)
  • Luke of Crimea (1)
  • Mariology (273)
  • Marital and Relationship Issues (97)
  • Maximus the Confessor (2)
  • Maximus the Greek (2)
  • Medieval History and Theology (58)
  • Meteora (3)
  • Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos (20)
  • Middle East (54)
  • Miracles (449)
  • Missions (104)
  • Modern Saints and Elders (535)
  • Modernity (30)
  • Monasticism (129)
  • Monk Moses the Athonite (6)
  • Moral Stories (2)
  • Moscow Patriarchate (1)
  • Mothers (2)
  • Mount Athos (310)
  • Movies (132)
  • Music (111)
  • My Family and Friends (25)
  • My Writings (1)
  • N.T. - Colossians (1)
  • N.T. - John (2)
  • N.T. - Luke (1)
  • N.T. - Mark (6)
  • N.T. - Matthew (4)
  • N.T. - Revelation (1)
  • N.T. 1 Corinthians (1)
  • N.T. 1 Timothy (1)
  • N.T. Hebrews (1)
  • N.T. Luke (3)
  • Nationalism (6)
  • Nativity and Theophany (234)
  • Nektarios of Aegina (6)
  • Neomartys Under Turks (11)
  • New England (19)
  • New Martyrs Under Turks (1)
  • New Testament (181)
  • New Testament Exegesis (7)
  • Newly-Revealed Saints (3)
  • Nicholas of Myra (7)
  • Nicolae Steinhardt (3)
  • Nikephoros the Leper (1)
  • Nikodemos the Hagiorite (2)
  • Nikolai Velimirovich (8)
  • O.T. - Genesis (1)
  • Old Testament (150)
  • Old Testament Exegesis (9)
  • Oriental Orthodox (2)
  • Orthodox Church In America (OCA) (13)
  • Orthodox Converts (98)
  • Orthodox Diaspora (10)
  • Orthodox Extremism (149)
  • Orthodox Theologians (66)
  • Orthodoxy (39)
  • Orthodoxy in Abkhazia (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Africa (63)
  • Orthodoxy in Albania (13)
  • Orthodoxy in America (142)
  • Orthodoxy in Armenia (18)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia (46)
  • Orthodoxy in Asia Minor (171)
  • Orthodoxy in Australia (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Bulgaria (99)
  • Orthodoxy in Crete (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Cyprus (100)
  • Orthodoxy in Czech Republic (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Estonia (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Ethiopia (8)
  • Orthodoxy in Finland (1)
  • Orthodoxy in France (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Georgia (71)
  • Orthodoxy in Germany (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Greece (454)
  • Orthodoxy In Holy Land (21)
  • Orthodoxy In Israel (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Italy (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Kazakhstan (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Latin America (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Lebanon (1)
  • Orthodoxy in Macedonia (16)
  • Orthodoxy in Mainland Greece (6)
  • Orthodoxy in Moldava (4)
  • Orthodoxy in Poland (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Romania (86)
  • Orthodoxy in Russia (414)
  • Orthodoxy in Serbia (140)
  • Orthodoxy in Syria (5)
  • Orthodoxy in the Cyclades (4)
  • Orthodoxy in the Dodecanese (11)
  • Orthodoxy in the Ionian Islands (3)
  • Orthodoxy in the Saronic Islands (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Ukraine (59)
  • Orthodoxy in Uzbekistan (2)
  • Orthodoxy in Western Europe (73)
  • Ottoman Occupation (7)
  • Paganism and the New Age Movement (98)
  • Paranormal and the Occult (197)
  • Pascha and the Pentecostarion (249)
  • Patriarchate of Alexandria (1)
  • Patriarchate of Antioch (5)
  • Patriarchate of Russia (1)
  • Patristic Writings (16)
  • Patristics (325)
  • Personhood (1)
  • Philanthropy (9)
  • Philosophy (82)
  • Photios Kontoglou (3)
  • Photis Kontoglou (1)
  • Pneumatology (3)
  • Podcast (2)
  • Politics (142)
  • Polls (2)
  • Pop Culture (54)
  • Postmodernism (6)
  • Prayer (3)
  • Prayer / Fasting / Alms (159)
  • Priesthood (8)
  • Prison Ministry (6)
  • Prophecies (56)
  • Protestantism (119)
  • Psychology (73)
  • Religion (85)
  • Religion: Buddhism (19)
  • Religion: Hinduism (40)
  • Religion: Islam (184)
  • Religion: Jews and Judaism (57)
  • Repentance and Confession (3)
  • Roman (Byzantine) Empire (201)
  • Romiosini (34)
  • Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) (6)
  • Saint Nicholas (4)
  • Saints (847)
  • Saints of Africa (1)
  • Saints of America (3)
  • Saints of Crete (8)
  • Saints of Georgia (4)
  • Saints of Ionian Islands (8)
  • Saints of Lesvos (1)
  • Saints of Mainland Greece (15)
  • Saints of Mount Athos (9)
  • Saints of Patmos (1)
  • Saints of Romania (3)
  • Saints of Russia (8)
  • Saints of Scotland (2)
  • Saints of Serbia (4)
  • Saints of the Cyclades (2)
  • Saints of the Dodecanese (1)
  • Saints of the Holy Lnd (1)
  • Saints of Ukraine (5)
  • Scandal (56)
  • Science (2)
  • Science-Intelligent Design-Darwinism (249)
  • Secularism (97)
  • Seraphim of Sarov (2)
  • Sexual and Gender Issues (107)
  • Shrines and Relics (564)
  • Soteriology (80)
  • Spiritual Fatherhood (4)
  • Spirituality (220)
  • Sports (20)
  • sShrines and Relics (1)
  • St. Cyril Loukaris (1)
  • St. John of Kronstadt (1)
  • st. John the Baptist (2)
  • St. John the Russian (1)
  • St. Luke of Simferopol (1)
  • St. Maximus the Confessor (1)
  • St. Nektarios (2)
  • St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1)
  • St. Nikolai Velimirovich (3)
  • Strange (36)
  • Sts. Bartholomew and John (1)
  • Substance Issues (14)
  • Symeon the New Theologian (3)
  • Television and Media (45)
  • Television and Media. (1)
  • Theodicy/Evil/Suffering (84)
  • Theology (98)
  • Theophilos of Campania (1)
  • Theotokos Icons (17)
  • Tradition (62)
  • Triodion (8)
  • UFO's and Alien Life (2)
  • Uniates (6)
  • v (1)
  • Vice and Sin (111)
  • video (1)
  • Videos (80)
  • Violence-Crime-Persecution (158)
  • Virtue (117)
  • Youth Ministry (105)

Subscribe To

Posts
Atom
Posts
All Comments
Atom
All Comments

Visitor Map
Create your own visitor map!

Sunday, May 24, 2009

John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins and Faustus of Riez Were Not Semi-Pelagians

Saint Vincent of Lerins (Feast Day - May 24)

By John Sanidopoulos

Saints John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins and Faustus of Riez are Orthodox Church Fathers. The West has designated these Fathers as Semi-Pelagians out of convenience because they opposed the Augustinian doctrines of the total bondage of the will, of the priority and irresistibility of grace, and of rigid predestination. In fact, these Fathers of the Church were influenced by Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil the Great, who could be better viewed as Synergists. Synergistic Soteriology is Orthodox Soteriology, and it is opposed to the errors of Pelagius and Augustine. In other words, these three Fathers took the moderate route in opposing two grave errors: the self-made, man-based salvation of Pelagianism and the monergistic, deterministic salvation of Augustine.

Saint John Cassian expressed his views concerning the relation of grace and freedom in his Conferences according to the tradition he received from the Greek-speaking Fathers by whom he was taught. With unmistakable reference to the Bishop of Hippo, he had endeavored in his thirteenth chapter of Conferences to demonstrate from Biblical examples that God frequently awaits the good impulses of the natural will before coming to its assistance with His supernatural grace; while the grace often preceded the will, as in the case of Matthew and Peter, on the other hand the will frequently preceded the grace, as in the case of Zacchæus and the Good Thief on the Cross. Furthermore, in his Institutes, Saint John shows in chapters 20-22 what he learned from his teacher Paphnutios that there is no salvation apart from the cooperation (synergeia) of man's free-will along with divine grace. Without identifying Augustine by name, Saint Vincent condemned Augustine's doctrine of grace and predestination as well, calling it heresy to teach of "a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God [which is given to the predestined elect] without any labor  without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock" (Saint Vincent, Commonitorium, ch. 26). Augustine had already passed away in 430, while this refutation was written in 434 to support the teachings of Saint John Cassian. In refuting the doctrines of Augustine, these two Fathers emphasized the cooperation of man's free-will and God's grace not just initially in the process of salvation but throughout one's lifetime.

Augustine was not named in these refutations out of respect for his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagius. Augustine, more known as a speculative theologian and largely unaware of the traditions of the Greek-speaking Fathers, took his refutation of Pelagius to an opposite extreme to the point of nearly obliterating human free-will. The exchanges between Augustine and the Fathers of the West were respectful and they never labelled each other as heretics, just erring friends. The polemics only started after the death of Augustine by his disciple Prosper who falsely labelled the Fathers of the West as "enemies of grace".

Since false teachers often employ the use of Holy Scripture and manipulate it towards their own teachings, Saint Vincent offers three tests of accurate, Orthodox interpretation of Holy Scripture according to the tradition taught to him by the Greek-speaking Fathers: universality, meaning the entire Church adheres to the teaching; antiquity, meaning the teaching was always taught from the time of the apostolic successors; and consent, meaning that Ecumenical Synods, Fathers and bishops harmoniously agree the teaching is true. He also demonstrates that if any one of these three criteria are compromised, then the faithful should look to the other criteria to establish truth. These three criteria also were used by Saint Vincent to refute the novel doctrines of Augustine.

That Augustine was in error is evident by his frequent use of Scripture to tweak his novel views. In fact, Augustine himself admitted that he once believed in Synergism, or what he calls "a similar error", until he examined what the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:7. Preferring his own interpretation to the consensus of the Holy Fathers, Augustine fell into error. That Saints John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, and Faustus of Riez were upholding the doctrines of the Greek Fathers is clear from their writings and the fact that they do not deny any established doctrine as Augustine does, but confront a deviation of this doctrine in the person of the unnamed Augustine and his disciples.

Saint Faustus of Riez was the successor of Saint John Cassian and upheld all his teachings. To the doctrine of predestination taught by Augustine and his followers such as Lucidus, Saint Faustus responded that those who ascribe salvation entirely to the will of man (Pelagius) or to irresistible grace (Augustine) fall into heathen folly. In a letter to Lucidus he wrote: "We assert that whoever is lost is lost by his own volition, but that he could have obtained salvation by grace had he cooperated with it. On the other hand, whoever, by means of [this] cooperation attains perfection may, of his own fault, his own negligence, fall and lose it and [become] lost. Certainly we exclude all personal boasting, for we declare that all that we have has been gratuitously received from God's hand" (Epistle to Lucidus, 53:683). Saint Faustus by no means defended Augustinian doctrines as many contemporary Orthodox defenders of Augustine claim, but such a preposterous claim is refuted by the above quotation. Furthermore, the cooperation between God's grace and man's free-will described in the above passage reveals that Saint Faustus also was not a Semi-Pelagian.

In 475, the Synod of Arles condemned Augustine's teaching of predestination. The Synod of Lyons in the fifth century, under the Archbishop of Lyons Saint Patiens, did the same. In 829, the Synod of Paris again condemned Augustine's teaching of irresistible grace and reaffirmed the Orthodox Christian doctrine of Synergism. At the Synod of Mainz in 848, under Saint Hincmar, Augustine's doctrine of double predestination was again condemned. It was not until the Frankish theologians begun studying Augustine during the time of Charlemagne that the tides changed in the churches of the West and divided itself into a hopeless mess. Even now, in the 21st century, one of the many major divisions in Protestantism is over the question of predestination and irresistible grace.

It has been assumed that the Second Synod of Orange in 529 condemned the views of the so-called "Semi-Pelagians" John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Faustus of Riez and others. This is a complete misunderstanding of the Synod as Gaul at the time was predominantly Orthodox and largely untainted by Augustine's novel doctrines. A careful examination of the 25 Canons formulated by the bishops of Gaul reveals in fact the upholding of the Orthodox doctrine of Synergism and both a condemnation of the errors of Pelagius as well as those of Augustine, though again out of respect Augustine is not named. That Augustine is refuted here is further evidenced in the writings of Saint Gregory of Tours who never cites Augustine in his works, though he does show admiration for Saint John Cassian as a guide for monasticism in Gaul.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 9:14 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Bible, Medieval History and Theology, Patristics, Soteriology, Tradition
Reactions: 

Book Review: "Greek Orthodox Patrology" by Panagiotes K. Chrestou


For those who are not familiar with the late Dr. Panagiotes Chrestou, he is without a doubt the greatest patristics scholar of the twentieth century and has yet to be surpassed. A foretaste of his genius is presented in this volume which introduces the reader to the study of the Church Fathers. One should keep in mind that this volume, translated by another patristics scholar Fr. George Dragas, consists of only about half of the first volume introduction to Professor Chrestou's 5-volume magnum opus. The second half of the introduction is forthcoming.

According to Fr. Dragas: "His [Dr. Chrestou's] Greek Patrology in 5 volumes, written in Greek and comprising some 3,300 pages, is the most updated Patrology around the world, surpassing any other in thoroughness and extensiveness, and it would have been the indespensible textbook in this field worldwide had it been translated into a more commonly used language, like English..." When all 5 volumes are translated, no doubt it will achieve this status.

This first half of the first volume "gives a birds eye view of Greek Orthodox Patrology, and elucidates in a thorough and succinct way such basic topics as: who the Fathers are; the historical context of patristic literature; the nature and characteristics of Greek patristic literature; and the seven major periods of Greek patristic literature from AD 90 through 1453, the capture of Constantinople." Furthermore, it examines not only the writings of those we know today as Fathers, but examines all the ecclesiastical authors, whether Orthodox or heretical, who wrote in Greek from the beginning of the Christian era to the capture of Constantinople in 1453. It is the Fathers who constitute the nucleus of this examination as they gave the tone of life from post-apostolic times throughout the entirety of the history of the Roman Empire after Constantine the Great.

The effort of Professor Chrestou is meant to revitalize Greek patristic scholarship not only at the academic level, but also as the direct inheritance of Orthodox Christianity. As he says: "It is the Fathers who move the threads of Holy Tradition." The organic unity between the writings and lives of the Church Fathers with Orthodox theology is indispensible for a comprehensve understanding of patrology.

This is not another mere catalogue of names and writings of the Church Fathers. Professor Chrestou understood well that this does little to benefit students of the Fathers and he avoided it as much as possible. In this and other forthcoming volumes there will be presented a "new type of Patrology" as Dr. Chrestou called it. This is not merely a dry systematic exposition of texts and bibliographies and the problems they address, but this is primarily a Patrology with personality. According to the author, it "brings to the fore the personalities of particular authors by projecting those points in their activity and teaching which allow the reader to acquire a full image of them."

If your looking for a dry Patrology with no personality and you have no desire to understand the context of the Church Fathers, this volume is not for you. If you are looking to enhance and broaden your view of patristics and Greco/Roman literature, then you will welcome this volume as an indespensible part of your library.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 12:00 AM 1 comment: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Literature and Book Reviews, Orthodox Theologians, Patristics
Reactions: 

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Saint Evgeny Rodionov the New Martyr of Chechnya


Below is a story of the courage and faith of a young man in Post-Soviet Russia whose memory we celebrate on May 23rd and August 20th.

Evgeny Aleksandrovich Rodionov was born thirty minutes after midnight on May 23, 1977 in the village of Satino-Russkoye near Moscow in what was then the Soviet Union. According to his mother, as a boy in this small village, all he really wanted was to be a cook. When he was eleven years old, Evgeny Rodionov received from his grandmother a little Cross on a chain. He wanted to wear it to school, but his mother, then an atheist, warned him against it, since the communist authorities frowned on such things. Evgeny wore it anyway and refused to ever take it off.

In 1995 Evgeny turned eighteen and was drafted into the Russian armed forces as is required for all Russian men. Right before being drafted, Evgeny was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church on his own accord seperate from his parents who were still atheists. For his duty he was chosen to work in a frontier guard unit (something of a mix between the US Border Patrol and the National Guard) and sent for training in the Kalingrad area of what was formerly East Prussia. After training he was sent to the border of Chechnya and posted near the town of Galashki. This was towards the end of the controversial
First Chechnyan War. On the night of February 14, 1996, just six months after he started his service, Evgeny and three comrades were captured by a force of Muslim Chechen guerillas who were disguised in an ambulance while the Russian soldiers were manning a checkpoint.


According to a report in
Pravda from 2003:

"They [Evgeny and the soldiers with him] patrolled the border between the republics of Chechnya and Ingushetia. Their control and registration post was located some 200 meters far from the security detachment. The post was just a small cabin, without any light or wire communication. The cabin did not even have a military support, in spite of the fact that it was a single cabin on the mountainous road, which was used for carrying weapons, ammunition, captives, drugs and so on. The border guards stopped an ambulance vehicle to check it. More than ten armed Chechens got out of the vehicle. Needless to mention that it was very easy for them to cope with young inexperienced soldiers. The guys showed as much resistance as they could, but the outcome of the fight was evident before it even started."

Upon capture they were held in the cellar of an abandoned house for 100 days as ransom demands were sent to their families. Kidnapping and demanding ransom was almost a cottage industry in Chechnya during that time period. They kept Evgeny hanging by his wrists in a basement. They starved and beat him. Rodionov's ransom was reported to be 50 million rubles (1.6 million dollars) - at the time an impossible sum. Another report says it may have been in the $10,000 range. Whatever it was, the ransom was not met.

Chechen field commander Rusland Haihoroev (also spelled Khaikhoroyev in some sources) eventually beheaded Evgeny with a rusted saw that took over an hour to complete on May 23, 1996 (his 19th birthday) near the settlement of Bamut. His body, along with four other Russian prisoners were placed in a bomb crater outside the village of Alexeevskaya and covered up with lime and dirt. Haihoroev stated later in an interview that he only killed Rodionov after the soldier denied conversion to Islam and refused to give up his Orthodox Cross, while two others with him had converted to Islam. Russian troops occupied the village where Evgeny was murdered the following day after the execution.

Evgeny's mother, Lubov Rodionova, was informed that her son had deserted the army. She did not believe the news and went to look for him in Chechnya. She stayed there for ten months chasing down leads and questioning anyone who would talk to her. It was months before she found out that he had in fact been killed. This news came when she found the Chechens who had held her son prisoner and then killed him. Rusland Haihoroev, the leader of the Chechen gang, told her seventeen times over the course of seventeen seperate meetings, that she had born a bad son who refused to adopt Islam and join the separatists in their fight against Russia. “Your son had a choice to stay alive. He could convert to Islam, but he did not agree to take his Cross off. He also tried to escape once,” said Haihoroev to Evgeny's mother. She finally agreed to pay Haihoroev some 100,000 rubles (about $4000 US) to take her to his gravesite in the forests outside of Alexeevskaya. This was money she did not have, so she had to sell her apartment to finance the deal. Chechens in Moscow handled the deal and when all was done Haihoroev showed her where his body was. There late at night, with the assistance of the military, she was able to exhume his body. She found her sons headless body together with the Cross he wore and died for among his bones and stained with small drops of blood. The head was discarded in another place. According to Evgeny's mother, this event took place in the following way:

“When I came to Chechnya in the middle of February, a living private cost ten million rubles. This price was 50 million in August. A friend of mine was told to pay 250 million rubles for her son, since he was an officer. It was nighttime when I and some sappers digging the pit, in which the bodies of four Russian soldiers were thrown. I was praying all the time, hoping that my Evgeny was not going to be there. I could not and did not want to believe that he was murdered. When we were taking out the remnants, I recognized his boots. However, I still refused to accept the fact of his death, until someone found his Cross. Then I fainted.”


Lubov took Evgeny’s body away along with the bodies of his murdered friends. She returned to Moscow with the aide of the Russian Orthodox Church and buried him. When Lubov Rodionova came back home, Evgeny’s father died five days after the funeral. He could not stand the loss of his son.

“We know that he had to go through horrible, long-lasting sufferings that could be compared to the ones of great martyrs in ancient times. They were beheaded, dismembered, but they remained devoted to Jesus Christ anyway,” priest Alexander Shargunov said during the requiem in Evgeny Rodionov’s memory.

Evgeny was posthumously awarded the Order of Courage by the Army. Lubov Rodionova later returned to Chechnya on a second trip and recovered her sons head.

Haihoroev himself and his bodyguards were killed on August 23, 1999 in a fight between his group and a rival Chechen band.

The soldier's fate would have probably been forgotten, if a Central TV film crew had not come to the village where Evgeny's relics now lie six years later to shoot a short report on a Cross being set on a restored church. Parishioners told the reporters about the heroic deed of the son and the courage of the mother, who had buried him in his homeland. They filed the story as a separate report. A year later a huge devotion spread throughout Russia and the entire world.


The
New York Times reported in 2003:

"In pamphlets, songs and poems, in sermons and on Web sites, Private Rodionov's story has become a parable of religious devotion and Russian nationalism. The young soldier, it is said, was killed by Muslim rebels seven years ago because he refused to renounce his religion or remove the small silver Cross he kept around his neck...

"As his story has spread, pilgrims have begun appearing in this small village just west of Moscow, where his mother, Lubov, 51, tends his grave on an icy hillside beside an old whitewashed church. Some military veterans have laid their medals by his graveside in a gesture of homage. People in distress have left handwritten notes asking for his intercession. In a church near St. Petersburg, his full-length image stands at the altar beside icons of the Virgin Mary, the Archangel Michael, Jesus and Nicholas II, the last of the czars, who was canonized three years ago.

"Aleksandr Makeyev, a paratroop officer who heads a foundatioion to assist soldiers, said he had seen soldiers kneeling in prayer before an image of Private Rodionov. 'The kids in Chechnya, they feel they've been abandoned by the state and abandoned by their commanders,' he told the newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets. 'They don't know who to appeal to for help, but they understand that Zhenya is one of them,' he said, using Private Rodionov's nickname. 'You can say he is the first soldier-saint.'

"Among the photographs of her son that Mrs. Rodionov spreads on her kitchen table are laminated cards that she says some soldiers carry with them for luck. They bear his image along with a prayer:

"Thy martyr, Evgeny, O Lord, in his sufferings has received an incorruptible crown from Thee, our God, for having Thy strength he has brought down his torturers, has defeated the powerless insolence of demons. Through his prayers save our souls."

Icons and pictures of this young man Evgeny spread around Russia very quickly and he was hailed as a New Martyr for Christ. In these icons sometimes he wears a uniform, sometimes a red robe (which is a way he appears in visions to the faithful, especially soldiers and children), sometimes armed, sometimes holding a Cross of martyrdom, but always with his halo. The picture distributed of him shows Evgeny wearing the Cross around his neck for which he died. Miracles have been occurring in connection with Evgeny's relics as well. During a religious procession in commemoration of Martyr Evgeny on November 20, 2002 the icon with the image of the soldier started secreting sweet-scented myrrh.


A sign in memory of the brave Evgeny was put at the entrance to the school where he studied. There was also a documentary released about him. People’s donations made it possible to put a two-meter (6 ft.) high Orthodox Cross on his grave which is located in the village of Satino-Russkoye, near Podolsk, in the Moscow region. People come to visit his grave from the most distant parts of Russia. A WWII veteran once came to visit Evgeny’s grave and he took off his military decoration – the Bravery Medal – and put in on the tombstone. The writings on Evgeny’s grave Cross run: “Russian soldier Evgeny Rodionov is buried here. He defended his Fatherland and did not disavow Christ. He was executed on May 23, 1996, on the outskirts of Bamut.”

His own Cross, the one that he refused to give up, his mother has donated to St. Nicholas Church in Ordinka, Moscow.


Because of the huge devotion to the New Martyr Evgeny, the pious faithful sought official canonization from the Moscow Patriarchate. Initially they refused and this divided the Orthodox in Russia. Maksim Maksimov, secretary of the canonization commission, explained the Synod's position in Tserkovny Vestnik (Church Bulletin), the official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church. His arguments can be summarised in three points: the only evidence that the soldier was executed for this faith is the testimony of his mother, who in her love made a god of her son; the Russian Orthodox Church has never canonized anyone killed at war; the period of new martyrs ended with the collapse of the Bolshevik regime. However, he emphasised, the deceased can be honoured without canonization. Patriarch Alexy of Moscow personally blessed the popular account of Evgeny's life, but worried that his cult would balloon into anti-Muslim rage.

Opponents of the decision, including well-known priest Alexander Shargunov, argued that an outbreak of people's love is enough for the truth; that Evgeny's grave works miracles, curing the sick and reconciling enemies. They also point out that the solider did not die at war but in captivity, and that to say that the time of martyrs is over is near heresy.

Evgeny was officially declared a Saint on August 20, 2002. A Church in his name was built in Hankala, near Groziniy. It is the only Orthodox Church in Chechnya.

Evgeny's mother, who never before set foot in a church, is now an Orthodox Christian believer, saved by the example of her son, the Holy Martyr Evgeny Rodionov. Eventually the faithful helped her to raise enough money to buy a new home.


Evgeny Rodionov’s biography was published in a booklet that came out in 2002. The book was called The New Martyr of Christ, Warrior Evgeny. The fifth edition of this booklet was the one blessed by Patriarch Alexy. It was written by priest
Alexander Shargunov who is a noted communist and nationalist which in turn has been the cause of speculation regarding the truth of his tale. Some say Fr. Alexander merely contemporized a story from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (Book III, Chapter 7, “Disputation”) to promote Russian interests in the Chechnyan War. Though this tale of Dostoevsky, which is based on actual events as described by Dostoevsky in his Diary of a Writer (1877), is very similar to the story of Evgeny, this only testifies to the possibility of its actuality. This argument does not hold up when the testimony of Evgeny's mother and executioner bear testimony to the truth of the tale, as well as the fact that there is video evidence to prove Evgeny was beheaded and countless stories of miracles reported by the pious faithful. Evgeny's relics also testify to the truth of the story.

There are a few videos being ciculated on the internet of Russians being beheaded by Muslim Chechens. In fact, there are over 400+ hours of such videos known. They say that a video was made by the Chechens of Saint Evegni's death as well, though its whereabouts are unknown. According to
one person who has examined all these videos, as well as the execution of Saint Evgeny: "They used the rusted old saw, and slowly sawed his head off. Everything was filmed, and when Lubov Rodionova came to see the field commander who did it, he gave her a tape with her son's execution on it." I must warn my readers that these videos are very gruesome and are best avoided, as they will likely leave your mind in a frenzy for a few seconds as they did to me. The Chechens preferred this atrocious method of execution because they followed a legend saying that a decapitated victim would not come for the murderer after death.

Below is a tribute video to the New Martyr Evgeny Rodionova


The video below depicts two Russian kids on the Chechen side who were converted to avoid death and they also killed Russian POW's to prove their loyalty. Eventually they were caught planting an IED and were put in jail for life .. possibly even death penalty. One of the kids, Kostiya, disowned his mother on Chechen video and accepted "Allah" as his new "mother". This video shows the bravery and courage of Saint Evgeny who refused to convert and kill his own countrymen by choosing death instead.


Below is a 10-minute video worth watching, though only in Russian, from the documentary of Saint Evgeny. Warning: there is a short scene of an initial beheading at the 3:20 mark and a sheep beheading at the 4:35 mark. If someone knows Russian, it would be appreciated to translate this for me:

Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 11:52 AM 4 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Miracles, Modern Saints and Elders, Orthodoxy in Russia
Reactions: 

Friday, May 22, 2009

The Orthodoxy of Tom Hanks


An interesting article recently appeared regarding Tom Hanks and his happiness in being Greek Orthodox (below). But how Orthodox is Tom Hanks? Though he is not very vocal about his Orthodox faith, we can get a few glimpses of his Orthodoxy through his interviews and many successful films.

Tom Hanks was an adherent of a number of different Christian denominations while growing up, including Catholic, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), Nazarene, and a Fundamentalist Christian group. His jump from one faith to another mainly was due to the various relationships his divorced parents got into that left him with a very troubled and confused childhood. From an interview published in George magazine, April 1998:

"The major religion I was exposed to in the first 10 years of my life was Catholicism. My stepmother became a Mormon. My aunt, whom I lived with for a long time, was a Nazarene, which is kind of ultra-super Methodist, and in high school, all my friends were Jews. For years I went to Wednesday-night Bible studies with my church group. So I had this peripatetic overview of various faiths, and the one thing I got from that was the intellectual pursuit involved. There was a lot of great stuff to think about. What were the four spiritual laws? Are you a post-tribulationist or a pre-tribulationist?"

Hanks joined the Greek Orthodox Church when he married his wife Rita Wilson in 1988 and has since found his stability there. They attend Saint Sophia's Greek Orthodox Church in Los Angeles and his spiritual father is Fr. Robert Stephanopoulos (his son George is the famous political commentator and his daughter is a nun of the ROCOR church in the Holy Land). Tom has stated that he enjoys being Orthodox because the people at his church don't bother him too much and the atmosphere helps him meditate on the bigger questions. Furthermore, Tom and his family are well-known for attending the daily services of Holy Week.

Rita Wilson has written about various Greek Orthodox traditions and they were both producers in the highly popular film My Big Fat Greek Wedding by Nia Vardalos. Vardalos' upcoming film (to be released June 5, 2009) My Life In Ruins, a comedy about a Greek-American tour guide in Greece, is also produced by Tom Hanks by his studio The Playtone Company. This same studio also produced Mama Mia! which is set in Greece. All these movies reflect the faith and heritage of his wife Rita, while Hanks presents more subtle theological messages in his films that have not been without controversy.


Hanks is most controversial for his role as Robert Langdon in the film The Davinci Code as well as Angels and Demons. While these books and movies promote theological heresy and historical revisionism, Hanks has always promoted these movies as having no basis in fact and endorses them as a means to ponder the big questions of life. Regarding what these questions are, Hanks says:

"I must say that when I go to church, and I do go to church, I ponder the mystery. I meditate on the, 'why?' of 'Why people are as they are,' and 'Why bad things happen to good people,' and 'Why good things happen to bad people.' ... The mystery is what I think is, almost, the grand unifying theory of all mankind."

When asked whether his wife Rita had any qualms about a story that has been condemned from Greek churches, he said: "No, absolutely not. My heritage, and that of my wife, suggests that our sins have been taken away, not our brains."

When asked about his personal views on God, Hanks is far from dogmatic and Orthodox in his thinking. It's a very personal matter to him and his upbringing probably had a lot to do with his inclusivistic approach to the subject. He says:

"My parents divorced so often that I've seen a lot of different sort of religions down the line. My wife is Greek Orthodox and I've been converted. My kids have been baptized in the same font in which she was baptized at our cathedral in town. But I still believe in being able to leave the heavens to those who want to interpret the heavens as they see fit."

This "open-minded" attitude even steers into moral issues. In 1993 Hanks starred in a film called Philadelphia revolving around HIV/AIDS, homosexuality and homophobia which earned him an Academy Award for Best Actor In A Leading Role. This role made Hanks into a Gay Rights icon which he proudly embraced. In his acceptance speech he said the following about his role and his inspiration:

"I would not be standing here if it weren't for two very important men in my life. Two that I haven't spoken with in a while but I had the pleasure of the other night: Mr Rawley Farnsworth, who was my high school drama teacher, who taught me to act well the part, there all the glory lies.

"And one of my classmates under Mr Farnsworth, Mr John Gilkerson. I mention their names because they are two of the finest gay Americans, two wonderful men that I had the good fortune to be associated with, to fall under their inspiration at such a young age. I wish my babies could have the same sort of teacher, the same sort of friends.

"And there lies my dilemma here tonight. I know that my work in this case is magnified by the fact that the streets of Heaven are too crowded with angels. We know their names. They number 1,000 for each of the red ribbons we wear here tonight.

"They finally rest in the warm embrace of the gracious Creator of us all. A healing embrace that cools their fevers, that clears their skin, and allows their eyes to see the simple, self-evident commonsense truth that is made manifest by the benevolent Creator of us all, and was written down on paper by wise men, tolerant men, in the city of Philadelphia 200 years ago. God bless you all, God have mercy on us all, and God bless America."

The revelation about his gay teacher inspired the 1997 film In and Out, starring Kevin Kline as an English Literature teacher who is outed by a former student in a smilar way.


Furthermore, Hanks is very open about his approval of same-sex marriage. According to Wkipedia:

"Hanks was extremely public with his opinion and opposition to Proposition 8 that amended the California constitution to define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. Hanks and those in opposition raised over USD$44 million in contrast to the supporters' $38 million, but Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

"Hanks went on to blame supporters of Prop 8 as un-American and attacked the LDS (Mormon) church members — major proponents of the bill — for their views on marriage and their role in supporting the bill. About a week later, Hanks apologized for the remark, saying that nothing is more American than voting one's conscience, and that is what the supporters of Prop 8 did."

As far as Tom Hanks being an Orthodox Christian, I would say for him it is more about being part of a faith and cultural tradition than anything else. It can be best symbolized from a famous scene in My Big Fat Greek Wedding when Toula’s fiance is baptized in a rite that is a complete mystery to him. Afterwards, he shows her his new Cross and says: “I’m Greek now.”

For someone who attends the daily services of Holy Week, though few other times throughout the year, it's unfortunate Tom is not more vocal about his Orthodox faith. Could it be because there are contradictions between his faith as an Orthodox Christian with his inclusivistic attitude regarding who God is as well as his moral stance in favor of same-sex marriage? Could it be his lack of education in Orthodoxy? Maybe he doesn't want to sound as snobby as some of his fellow celebrities involved in Scientology and Kabbalism? Perhaps it is all of the above, and he also wants to maintain an individualist attitude with regards to his philosophical outlook on life, and not be bound to the particular views of his faith. At the end of the day, he is still a great entertainer who aims to please his audience and is formed within an individualistic and liberal Hollywood milieu.


Tom Hanks is Happy to be a Member of the Orthodox Church

Moscow, May 21 2009, Interfax - Hollywood actor Tom Hanks appreciates his membership in the Orthodox Church and intends to raise his four children in similar vein.

"I am aware that it is vitally important to come to church and contemplate those substantial questions put up by Orthodoxy and the answers it offers," Hanks said in an interview published by Argumenty i Fakty.

According to him, when a man arrives at a decision to marry and have children, "it is crucial to define spiritual heritage of a future family at this stage."

"I consider Greek Orthodoxy my own spiritual heritage. I got married in the same church where my wife had been baptized. My children were baptized in the same baptismal font as my wife," Tom Hanks said.

According to Hanks, this makes his family "a part of the large universal Church".

"We go to church on rare occasions, but when we do, we have dinner together and discuss our feelings after that," he added.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 7:49 PM 4 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Movies, Orthodox Converts, Orthodoxy in America
Reactions: 

The Vision of Saint Paisios Regarding the Exalted State of the Monastic Life


This icon of Saint Paisios the Great depicts a vision he had of Saint Constantine the Great, his contemporary who passed away before him. Below are the words which Saint Constantine spoke to this great ascetic.


"I am Constantine the Great...
I descended from heaven to reveal to you
the glory which monks receive
in heaven, and the closeness and boldness
they have towards Christ...
I blame myself and I condemn myself,
for not having been granted this great rank of the Monastics...
I am unable to bear the loss, which I experienced...
I do not have the same boldness as the Monastics,
nor equal honor towards them...."
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 6:05 PM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Monasticism, Roman (Byzantine) Empire, Saints
Reactions: 

The Historic Truth Regarding Macedonia: A Letter to President Barack Obama

Alexander the Great of Macedonia

[On May 18th, 200 Classical Scholars from around the world, sent a letter to the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. Since then the list of co-signers has grown to 222, all listed below. For all the evidence supporting the arguments in this letter and the documentation sent along with it to the President, please visit here. -J.S]

May 18, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President, United States of America
White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama,

We, the undersigned scholars of Graeco-Roman antiquity, respectfully request that you intervene to clean up some of the historical debris left in southeast Europe by the previous U.S. administration.

On November 4, 2004, two days after the re-election of President George W. Bush, his administration unilaterally recognized the “Republic of Macedonia.” This action not only abrogated geographic and historic fact, but it also has unleashed a dangerous epidemic of historical revisionism, of which the most obvious symptom is the misappropriation by the government in Skopje of the most famous of Macedonians, Alexander the Great.

We believe that this silliness has gone too far, and that the U.S.A. has no business in supporting the subversion of history. Let us review facts. (The documentation for these facts [here in boldface] can be found attached and at: http://macedonia-evidence.org/documentation.html)

The land in question, with its modern capital at Skopje, was called Paionia in antiquity. Mts. Barnous and Orbelos (which form today the northern limits of Greece) provide a natural barrier that separated, and separates, Macedonia from its northern neighbor. The only real connection is along the Axios/Vardar River and even this valley “does not form a line of communication because it is divided by gorges.”

While it is true that the Paionians were subdued by Philip II, father of Alexander, in 358 B.C. they were not Macedonians and did not live in Macedonia. Likewise, for example, the Egyptians, who were subdued by Alexander, may have been ruled by Macedonians, including the famous Cleopatra, but they were never Macedonians themselves, and Egypt was never called Macedonia.

Rather, Macedonia and Macedonian Greeks have been located for at least 2,500 years just where the modern Greek province of Macedonia is. Exactly this same relationship is true for Attica and Athenian Greeks, Argos and Argive Greeks, Corinth and Corinthian Greeks, etc.

We do not understand how the modern inhabitants of ancient Paionia, who speak Slavic – a language introduced into the Balkans about a millennium after the death of Alexander – can claim him as their national hero. Alexander the Great was thoroughly and indisputably Greek. His great-great-great grandfather, Alexander I, competed in the Olympic Games where participation was limited to Greeks.

Even before Alexander I, the Macedonians traced their ancestry to Argos, and many of their kings used the head of Herakles - the quintessential Greek hero - on their coins.

Euripides – who died and was buried in Macedonia– wrote his play Archelaos in honor of the great-uncle of Alexander, and in Greek. While in Macedonia, Euripides also wrote the Bacchai, again in Greek. Presumably the Macedonian audience could understand what he wrote and what they heard.

Alexander’s father, Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and Delphi, the two most Hellenic of all the sanctuaries in ancient Greece where non-Greeks were not allowed to compete. Even more significantly, Philip was appointed to conduct the Pythian Games at Delphi in 346 B.C. In other words, Alexander the Great’s father and his ancestors were thoroughly Greek. Greek was the language used by Demosthenes and his delegation from Athens when they paid visits to Philip, also in 346 B.C. Another northern Greek, Aristotle, went off to study for nearly 20 years in the Academy of Plato. Aristotle subsequently returned to Macedonia and became the tutor of Alexander III. They used Greek in their classroom which can still be seen near Naoussa in Macedonia.

Alexander carried with him throughout his conquests Aristotle’s edition of Homer’s Iliad. Alexander also spread Greek language and culture throughout his empire, founding cities and establishing centers of learning. Hence inscriptions concerning such typical Greek institutions as the gymnasium are found as far away as Afghanistan. They are all written in Greek.

The questions follow: Why was Greek the lingua franca all over Alexander’s empire if he was a “Macedonian”? Why was the New Testament, for example, written in Greek?

The answers are clear: Alexander the Great was Greek, not Slavic, and Slavs and their language were nowhere near Alexander or his homeland until 1000 years later. This brings us back to the geographic area known in antiquity as Paionia. Why would the people who live there now call themselves Macedonians and their land Macedonia? Why would they abduct a completely Greek figure and make him their national hero?

The ancient Paionians may or may not have been Greek, but they certainly became Greekish, and they were never Slavs. They were also not Macedonians. Ancient Paionia was a part of the Macedonian Empire. So were Ionia and Syria and Palestine and Egypt and Mesopotamia and Babylonia and Bactria and many more. They may thus have become “Macedonian” temporarily, but none was ever “Macedonia”. The theft of Philip and Alexander by a land that was never Macedonia cannot be justified.

The traditions of ancient Paionia could be adopted by the current residents of that geographical area with considerable justification. But the extension of the geographic term “Macedonia” to cover southern Yugoslavia cannot. Even in the late 19th century, this misuse implied unhealthy territorial aspirations.

The same motivation is to be seen in school maps that show the pseudo-greater Macedonia, stretching from Skopje to Mt. Olympus and labeled in Slavic. The same map and its claims are in calendars, bumper stickers, bank notes, etc., that have been circulating in the new state ever since it declared its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. Why would a poor land-locked new state attempt such historical nonsense? Why would it brazenly mock and provoke its neighbor?

However one might like to characterize such behavior, it is clearly not a force for historical accuracy, nor for stability in the Balkans. It is sad that the United States of America has abetted and encouraged such behavior.

We call upon you, Mr. President, to help - in whatever ways you deem appropriate - the government in Skopje to understand that it cannot build a national identity at the expense of historic truth. Our common international society cannot survive when history is ignored, much less when history is fabricated.

Sincerely,

NAME TITLE INSTITUTION

Harry C. Avery, Professor of Classics, University of Pittsburgh (USA)

Dr. Dirk Backendorf. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz (Germany)

Elizabeth C. Banks, Associate Professor of Classics (ret.), University of Kansas (USA)

Luigi Beschi, professore emerito di Archeologia Classica, Università di Firenze (Italy)

Josine H. Blok, professor of Ancient History and Classical Civilization, Utrecht University (The Netherlands)

Alan Boegehold, Emeritus Professor of Classics, Brown University (USA)

Efrosyni Boutsikas, Lecturer of Classical Archaeology, University of Kent (UK)

Keith Bradley, Eli J. and Helen Shaheen Professor of Classics, Concurrent Professor of History, University of Notre Dame (USA)

Stanley M. Burstein, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Los Angeles (USA)

Francis Cairns, Professor of Classical Languages, The Florida State University (USA)

John McK. Camp II, Agora Excavations and Professor of Archaeology, ASCSA, Athens (Greece)

Paul Cartledge, A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture, University of Cambridge (UK)

Paavo Castrén, Professor of Classical Philology Emeritus, University of Helsinki (Finland)

William Cavanagh, Professor of Aegean Prehistory, University of Nottingham (UK)

Angelos Chaniotis, Professor, Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford (UK)

Paul Christesen, Professor of Ancient Greek History, Dartmouth College (USA)

Ada Cohen, Associate Professor of Art History, Dartmouth College (USA)

Randall M. Colaizzi, Lecturer in Classical Studies, University of Massachusetts-Boston (USA)

Kathleen M. Coleman, Professor of Latin, Harvard University (USA)

Michael B. Cosmopoulos, Ph.D., Professor and Endowed Chair in Greek Archaeology, University of Missouri-St. Louis (USA)

Kevin F. Daly, Assistant Professor of Classics, Bucknell University (USA)

Wolfgang Decker, Professor emeritus of sport history, Deutsche Sporthochschule, Köln (Germany)

Luc Deitz, Ausserplanmässiger Professor of Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin, University of Trier (Germany), and Curator of manuscripts and rare books, National Library of Luxembourg (Luxembourg)

Michael Dewar, Professor of Classics, University of Toronto (Canada)

John D. Dillery, Associate Professor of Classics, University of Virginia (USA)

Sheila Dillon, Associate Professor, Depts. of Art, Art History & Visual Studies and Classical Studies, Duke University (USA)

Douglas Domingo-Forasté, Professor of Classics, California State University, Long Beach (USA)

Pierre Ducrey, professeur honoraire, Université de Lausanne (Switzerland)

Roger Dunkle, Professor of Classics Emeritus, Brooklyn College, City University of New York (USA)

Michael M. Eisman, Associate Professor Ancient History and Classical Archaeology, Department of History, Temple University (USA)

Mostafa El-Abbadi, Professor Emeritus, University of Alexandria (Egypt)

R. Malcolm Errington, Professor für Alte Geschichte (Emeritus) Philipps-Universität, Marburg (Germany)

Panagiotis Faklaris, Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Denis Feeney, Giger Professor of Latin, Princeton University (USA)

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Professor of Classics and Art History, Randolph-Macon College (USA)

Nick Fisher, Professor of Ancient History, Cardiff University (UK)

R. Leon Fitts, Asbury J Clarke Professor of Classical Studies, Emeritus, FSA, Scot., Dickinson Colllege (USA)

John M. Fossey FRSC, FSA, Emeritus Professor of Art History (and Archaeology), McGill Univertsity, Montreal, and Curator of Archaeology, Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (Canada)

Robin Lane Fox, University Reader in Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK)

Rainer Friedrich, Professor of Classics Emeritus, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. (Canada)

Heide Froning, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Marburg (Germany)

Peter Funke, Professor of Ancient History, University of Muenster (Germany)

Traianos Gagos, Professor of Greek and Papyrology, University of Michigan (USA)

Robert Garland, Roy D. and Margaret B. Wooster Professor of the Classics, Colgate University, Hamilton NY (USA)

Douglas E. Gerber, Professor Emeritus of Classical Studies, University of Western Ontario (Canada)

Hans R. Goette, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Giessen (Germany); German Archaeological Institute, Berlin (Germany)

Sander M. Goldberg, Professor of Classics, UCLA (USA)

Erich S. Gruen, Gladys Rehard Wood Professor of History and Classics, Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Christian Habicht, Professor of Ancient History, Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (USA)

Donald C. Haggis, Nicholas A. Cassas Term Professor of Greek Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

Judith P. Hallett, Professor of Classics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (USA)

Prof. Paul B. Harvey, Jr. Head, Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, The Pennsylvania State University (USA)

Eleni Hasaki, Associate Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Arizona (USA)

Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos, Director, Research Centre for Greek and Roman Antiquity, National Research Foundation, Athens (Greece)

Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, Prof. Dr., Freie Universität Berlin und Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin (Germany)

Steven W. Hirsch, Associate Professor of Classics and History, Tufts University (USA)

Karl-J. Hölkeskamp, Professor of Ancient History, University of Cologne (Germany)

Frank L. Holt, Professor of Ancient History, University of Houston (USA)

Dan Hooley, Professor of Classics, University of Missouri (USA)

Meredith C. Hoppin, Gagliardi Professor of Classical Languages, Williams College, Williamstown, MA (USA)

Caroline M. Houser, Professor of Art History Emerita, Smith College (USA) and Affiliated Professor, University of Washington (USA)

Georgia Kafka, Visiting Professor of Modern Greek Language, Literature and History, University of New Brunswick (Canada)

Anthony Kaldellis, Professor of Greek and Latin, The Ohio State University (USA)

Andromache Karanika, Assistant Professor of Classics, University of California, Irvine (USA)

Robert A. Kaster, Professor of Classics and Kennedy Foundation Professor of Latin, Princeton University (USA)

Vassiliki Kekela, Adjunct Professor of Greek Studies, Classics Department, Hunter College, City University of New York (USA)

Dietmar Kienast, Professor Emeritus of Ancient History, University of Duesseldorf (Germany)

Karl Kilinski II, University Distinguished Teaching Professor, Southern Methodist University (USA)

Dr. Florian Knauss, associate director, Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek Muenchen (Germany)

Denis Knoepfler, Professor of Greek Epigraphy and History, Collège de France (Paris)

Ortwin Knorr, Associate Professor of Classics, Willamette University (USA)

Robert B. Koehl, Professor of Archaeology, Department of Classical and Oriental Studies Hunter College, City University of New York (USA)

Georgia Kokkorou-Alevras, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Classical Studies, Brandeis University (USA)

Eric J. Kondratieff, Assistant Professor of Classics and Ancient History, Department of Greek & Roman Classics, Temple University

Haritini Kotsidu, Apl. Prof. Dr. für Klassische Archäologie, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/M. (Germany)

Lambrini Koutoussaki, Dr., Lecturer of Classical Archaeology, University of Zürich (Switzerland)

David Kovacs, Hugh H. Obear Professor of Classics, University of Virginia (USA)

Peter Krentz, W. R. Grey Professor of Classics and History, Davidson College (USA)

Friedrich Krinzinger, Professor of Classical Archaeology Emeritus, University of Vienna (Austria)

Michael Kumpf, Professor of Classics, Valparaiso University (USA)

Donald G. Kyle, Professor of History, University of Texas at Arlington (USA)

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Helmut Kyrieleis, former president of the German Archaeological Institute, Berlin (Germany)

Gerald V. Lalonde, Benedict Professor of Classics, Grinnell College (USA)

Steven Lattimore, Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of California, Los Angeles (USA)

Francis M. Lazarus, President, University of Dallas (USA)

Mary R. Lefkowitz, Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities, Emerita, Wellesley College (USA)

Iphigeneia Leventi, Assistant Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Daniel B. Levine, Professor of Classical Studies, University of Arkansas (USA)

Christina Leypold, Dr. phil., Archaeological Institute, University of Zurich (Switzerland)

Vayos Liapis, Associate Professor of Greek, Centre d’Études Classiques & Département de Philosophie, Université de Montréal (Canada)

Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Professor of Greek Emeritus, University of Oxford (UK)

Yannis Lolos, Assistant Professor, History, Archaeology, and Anthropology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Stanley Lombardo, Professor of Classics, University of Kansas, USA

Anthony Long, Professor of Classics and Irving G. Stone Professor of Literature, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Julia Lougovaya, Assistant Professor, Department of Classics, Columbia University (USA)

A.D. Macro, Hobart Professor of Classical Languages emeritus, Trinity College (USA)

John Magee, Professor, Department of Classics, Director, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto (Canada)

Dr. Christofilis Maggidis, Associate Professor of Archaeology, Dickinson College (USA)

Jeannette Marchand, Assistant Professor of Classics, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio (USA)

Richard P. Martin, Antony and Isabelle Raubitschek Professor in Classics, Stanford University

Maria Mavroudi, Professor of Byzantine History, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

James R. McCredie, Sherman Fairchild Professor emeritus; Director, Excavations in Samothrace Institute of Fine Arts, New York University (USA)

James C. McKeown, Professor of Classics, University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA)

Robert A. Mechikoff, Professor and Life Member of the International Society of Olympic Historians, San Diego State University (USA)

Andreas Mehl, Professor of Ancient History, Universitaet Halle-Wittenberg (Germany)

Harald Mielsch, Professor of Classical Archeology, University of Bonn (Germany)

Stephen G. Miller, Professor of Classical Archaeology Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Phillip Mitsis, A.S. Onassis Professor of Classics and Philosophy, New York University (USA)

Peter Franz Mittag, Professor für Alte Geschichte, Universität zu Köln (Germany)

David Gordon Mitten, James Loeb Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology, Harvard University (USA)

Margaret S. Mook, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, Iowa State University (USA)

Anatole Mori, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, University of Missouri- Columbia (USA)

Jennifer Sheridan Moss, Associate Professor, Wayne State University (USA)

Ioannis Mylonopoulos, Assistant Professor of Greek Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University, New York (USA).

Richard Neudecker, PD of Classical Archaeology, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Rom (Italy)

James M.L. Newhard, Associate Professor of Classics, College of Charleston (USA)

Carole E. Newlands, Professor of Classics, University of Wisconsin, Madison (USA)

John Maxwell O'Brien, Professor of History, Queens College, City University of New York (USA)

James J. O'Hara, Paddison Professor of Latin, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (USA)

Martin Ostwald, Professor of Classics (ret.), Swarthmore College and Professor of Classical Studies (ret.), University of Pennsylvania (USA)

Olga Palagia, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Vassiliki Panoussi, Associate Professor of Classical Studies, The College of William and Mary (USA)

Maria C. Pantelia, Professor of Classics, University of California, Irvine (USA)

Pantos A.Pantos, Adjunct Faculty, Department of History, Archaeology and Social Anthropology, University of Thessaly (Greece)

Anthony J. Papalas, Professor of Ancient History, East Carolina University (USA)

Nassos Papalexandrou, Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Austin (USA)

Polyvia Parara, Visiting Assistant Professor of Greek Language and Civilization, Department of Classics, Georgetown University (USA)

Richard W. Parker, Associate Professor of Classics, Brock University (Canada)

Robert Parker, Wykeham Professor of Ancient History, New College, Oxford (UK)

Anastasia-Erasmia Peponi, Associate Professor of Classics, Stanford University (USA)

Jacques Perreault, Professor of Greek archaeology, Université de Montréal, Québec (Canada)

Yanis Pikoulas, Associate Professor of Ancient Greek History, University of Thessaly (Greece)

John Pollini, Professor of Classical Art & Archaeology, University of Southern California (USA)

David Potter, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Greek and Latin. The University of Michigan (USA)

Robert L. Pounder, Professor Emeritus of Classics, Vassar College (USA)

Nikolaos Poulopoulos, Assistant Professor in History and Chair in Modern Greek Studies, McGill University (Canada)

William H. Race, George L. Paddison Professor of Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

John T. Ramsey, Professor of Classics, University of Illinois at Chicago (USA)

Karl Reber, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Lausanne (Switzerland)

Rush Rehm, Professor of Classics and Drama, Stanford University (USA)

Werner Riess, Associate Professor of Classics, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

Robert H. Rivkin, Ancient Studies Department, University of Maryland Baltimore County (USA)

Barbara Saylor Rodgers, Professor of Classics, The University of Vermont (USA)

Robert H. Rodgers. Lyman-Roberts Professor of Classical Languages and Literature, University of Vermont (USA)

Nathan Rosenstein, Professor of Ancient History, The Ohio State University (USA)

John C. Rouman, Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of New Hampshire, (USA)

Dr. James Roy, Reader in Greek History (retired), University of Nottingham (UK)

Steven H. Rutledge, Associate Professor of Classics, Department of Classics, University of Maryland, College Park (USA)

Christina A. Salowey, Associate Professor of Classics, Hollins University (USA)

Guy D. R. Sanders, Resident Director of Corinth Excavations, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens (Greece)

Theodore Scaltsas, Professor of Ancient Greek Philosophy, University of Edinburgh (UK)

Thomas F. Scanlon, Professor of Classics, University of California, Riverside (USA)

Bernhard Schmaltz, Prof. Dr. Archäologisches Institut der CAU, Kiel (Germany)

Rolf M. Schneider, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Ludwig-Maximilians- Universität München (Germany)

Peter Scholz, Professor of Ancient History and Culture, University of Stuttgart (Germany)

Christof Schuler, director, Commission for Ancient History and Epigraphy of the German Archaeological Institute, Munich (Germany)

Paul D. Scotton, Assoociate Professor Classical Archaeology and Classics, California State University Long Beach (USA)

Danuta Shanzer, Professor of Classics and Medieval Studies, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America (USA)

James P. Sickinger, Associate Professor of Classics, Florida State University (USA)

Marilyn B. Skinner 
Professor of Classics, 
University of Arizona (USA)

Niall W. Slater, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Latin and Greek, Emory University (USA)

Peter M. Smith, Associate Professor of Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA)

Dr. Philip J. Smith, Research Associate in Classical Studies, McGill University (Canada)

Susan Kirkpatrick Smith Assistant Professor of Anthropology Kennesaw State University (USA)

Antony Snodgrass, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge (UK)

Theodosia Stefanidou-Tiveriou, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece).

Andrew Stewart, Nicholas C. Petris Professor of Greek Studies, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Oliver Stoll, Univ.-Prof. Dr., Alte Geschichte/ Ancient History,Universität Passau (Germany)

Richard Stoneman, Honorary Fellow, University of Exeter (England)

Ronald Stroud, Klio Distinguished Professor of Classical Languages and Literature Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley (USA)

Sarah Culpepper Stroup, Associate Professor of Classics, University of Washington (USA)

Nancy Sultan, Professor and Director, Greek & Roman Studies, Illinois Wesleyan University (USA)

David W. Tandy, Professor of Classics, University of Tennessee (USA)

James Tatum, Aaron Lawrence Professor of Classics, Dartmouth College

Martha C. Taylor, Associate Professor of Classics, Loyola College in Maryland

Petros Themelis, Professor Emeritus of Classical Archaeology, Athens (Greece)

Eberhard Thomas, Priv.-Doz. Dr.,Archäologisches Institut der Universität zu Köln (Germany)

Michalis Tiverios, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Michael K. Toumazou, Professor of Classics, Davidson College (USA)

Stephen V. Tracy, Professor of Greek and Latin Emeritus, Ohio State University (USA)

Prof. Dr. Erich Trapp, Austrian Academy of Sciences/Vienna resp. University of Bonn (Germany)

Stephen M. Trzaskoma, Associate Professor of Classics, University of New Hampshire (USA)

Vasiliki Tsamakda, Professor of Christian Archaeology and Byzantine History of Art, University of Mainz (Germany)

Christopher Tuplin, Professor of Ancient History, University of Liverpool (UK)

Gretchen Umholtz, Lecturer, Classics and Art History, University of Massachusetts, Boston (USA)

Panos Valavanis, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Athanassios Vergados, Visiting Assistant Professor of Classics, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA

Christina Vester, Assistant Professor of Classics, University of Waterloo (Canada)

Emmanuel Voutiras, Professor of Classical Archaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece)

Speros Vryonis, Jr., Alexander S. Onassis Professor (Emeritus) of Hellenic Civilization and Culture, New York University (USA)

Michael B. Walbank, Professor Emeritus of Greek, Latin & Ancient History, The University of Calgary (Canada)

Bonna D. Wescoat, Associate Professor, Art History and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Emory University (USA)

E. Hector Williams, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of British Columbia (Canada)

Roger J. A. Wilson, Professor of the Archaeology of the Roman Empire, and Director, Centre for the Study of Ancient Sicily, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada)

Engelbert Winter, Professor for Ancient History, University of Münster (Germany)

Timothy F. Winters, Ph.D. Alumni Assn. Distinguished Professor of Classics, Austin Peay State University (USA)

Michael Zahrnt, Professor für Alte Geschichte, Universität zu Köln (Germany)

Paul Zanker, Professor Emeritus of Classical Studies, University of Munich (Germany)



200 signatures as of May 18th 2009.

For the growing list of scholars, please go to the Addenda.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



cc: J. Biden, Vice President, USA

H. Clinton, Secretary of State USA

P. Gordon, Asst. Secretary-designate, European and Eurasian Affairs

H.L Berman, Chair, House Committee on Foreign Affairs

I. Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs

J. Kerry, Chair, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

R.G. Lugar, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

R. Menendez, United States Senator from New Jersey.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Addenda


12 Scholars added on May 19th 2009:

Mariana Anagnostopoulos, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, California State University, Fresno (USA)

John P. Anton, Distinguished Professor of Greek Philosophy and Culture University of South Florida (USA)

Effie F. Athanassopoulos, Associate Professor 
Anthropology and Classics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (USA)

Leonidas Bargeliotes, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Athens, President of the Olympic Center for Philosophy and Culture (Greece)

Joseph W. Day, Professor of Classics, Wabash College (USA)

Christos C. Evangeliou, Professor of Ancient Hellenic Philosophy, Towson University, Maryland, Honorary President of International Association for Greek Philosophy (USA)

Eleni Kalokairinou, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Secretary of the Olympic Center of Philosophy and Culture (Cyprus)

Lilian Karali, Professor of Prehistoric and Environmental Archaeology, University of Athens (Greece)

Anna Marmodoro, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford (UK)

Marion Meyer, Professor of Classical Archaeology, University of Vienna(Austria)

Jessica L. Nitschke, Assistant Professor of Classics, Georgetown University (USA)

David C.Young, Professor of Classics Emeritus, University of Florida (USA)


10 Scholars added on May 20th 2009:

Maria Ypsilanti, Assistant Professor of Ancient Greek Literature, University of Cyprus

Christos Panayides, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Nicosia, (Cyprus)

Anagnostis P. Agelarakis, Professor of Anthropology, Adelphi University (USA)

Dr. Irma Wehgartner, Curator of the Martin von Wagner Museum der Universität Würzburg (Germany)

Dr. Ioannis Georganas, Researcher, Department of History and Archaeology, Foundation of the Hellenic World (Greece)

Maria Papaioannou, Assistant Professor in Classical Archaeology, University of New Brunswick (Canada)

Chryssa Maltezou, Professor emeritus, University of Athens, Director of the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Postbyzantine Studies in Venice (Italy)

Myrto Dragona-Monachou, Professor emerita of Philosophy, University of Athens (Greece)

David L. Berkey, Assistant Professor of History, California State University, Fresno (USA)

Stephan Heilen, Associate Professor of Classics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (USA)
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 9:30 AM 3 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Greece and Greeks
Reactions: 

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Constantine the Great Speaks on What the Aspiration of Every Roman Citizen Should Be


[Some scholars who read The Oration of Constantine are in utter disbelief that he could have have ever written and proclaimed publicly such a well-articulated confession of faith and been so utterly converted from paganism that he absorbed the loftiness of the Christian message. The truth of the matter is that there is no reason to disbelieve what the Church already knew about one of its greatest and most misunderstood Saints who has been scapegoated as the source of every error in Christendom. Below is a chapter from his Oration that I especially love because it shows the utter depth of his humility by distinguishing all created things from Him who alone is uncreated, and it reveals the depth of his spiritual stature in his ability to clearly teach how created mortals as ourselves can be partakers of the glory of God. This revolutionary proclamation transformed the Roman Empire for centuries until its demise over a thousand years later and became the focal point of everything the Roman Empire tried to stand for all those years. No longer would an emperor be a god on earth and no longer would the citizens of its empire be subject to the fears and passion-filled rituals inflicted upon them as pagans. What is written below is the essence of what every true Roman/Byzantine was to aspire to be. -J.S.]

Excerpt from The Oration of Constantine by Roman Emperor Constantine the Great

Chapter XIV — That Created Nature differs infinitely from Uncreated Being; to which Man makes the Nearest Approach by a Life of Virtue.

Surely it must be the very height of folly to compare created with eternal things, which latter have neither beginning nor end, while the former, having been originated and called into being, and having received a commencement of their existence at some definite time, must consequently, of necessity have an end. How then can things which have thus been made, bear comparison with Him who has ordained their being? Were this the case, the power to command their existence could not rightly be attributed to Him. Nor can celestial things be compared to Him, any more than the material with the intellectual world, or copies with the models from which they are formed. Nay, is it not absurd thus to confound all things, and to obscure the honor of God by comparing him with men, or even with beasts? And is it not characteristic of madmen, utterly estranged from a life of sobriety and virtue, to affect a power equivalent to that of God? If indeed we in any sense aspire to blessedness like that of God, our duty is to lead a life according to His commandments: so shall we, having finished a course consistent with the laws which he has prescribed, dwell for ever superior to the power of fate, in eternal and undecaying mansions. For the only power in man which can be elevated to a comparison with that of God, is sincere and guileless service and devotion of heart to Himself, with the contemplation and study of whatever pleases Him, the raising our affections above the things of earth, and directing our thoughts, as far as we may, to high and heavenly objects: for from such endeavors, it is said, a victory accrues to us more valuable than many blessings. The cause, then, of that difference which subsists, as regards the inequality both of dignity and power in created beings, is such as I have described. In this the wise acquiesce with abundant thankfulness and joy: while those who are dissatisfied, display their own folly, and their arrogance will reap its due reward.
Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 10:32 AM No comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Roman (Byzantine) Empire, Spirituality
Reactions: 

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Constantine the Great and Historical Truth

Saints Constantine and Helen (Feast Day May 21)

[Below is an excellent article by Fr. George Metallinos that portrays the truth about Constantine the Great and shows with conviction why the Orthodox Church honors him as a Saint and "Equal of the Apostles". It also answers the numerous critics of Constantine, among whom accuse him as being one of the most evil men in history. This is a transcribed lecture translated from Greek. -J.S.]

Constantine the Great and Historical Truth

By Protopresbyter Fr. George D. Metallinos

The reason that I chose this day for the presentation of my thesis is the feast of St. Constantine and his mother, St. Helen, which was just two days ago (May 21st).

The Appropriate Use of Sources

It is a known fact that the stance of historians with respect to Constantine the Great is a contradictory one. For some, his life is an enigma and he himself is a sullen murderer and opportunist, while for others, his life is a huge miracle of history. This is due to the predominance of ideological criteria and a procession of assessments that are devoid of historical sources. Among the worst tragedies in the arena of history, which lead exclusively to the self-abrogation of the historian and his research, is the handling of history at will so that history is thus used to prove events, which history however is baseless and lacking in proof. Another problem is not only the ideological use of history and sources, but historical anachronism. What I mean is that hermeneutical attempts are made on historical events and historical persons within the understanding of the Present, whatever that Present may be. Of course, you know that when someone prepares a historical diatribe, and especially when it is the opus of a certain scholar, it serves as a prologue or a first chapter that is often quoted in the epoch in which the matters and the events are located in history. This situating is extremely needful, spherical from every side, so that a person may infer that his conclusions are undeniable. Historical anachronism and the ideological use of history, I repeat, are the worst illnesses of those who avail themselves with history, especially in our time. It is also possible for someone to work with history without utilizing sources. Then his work becomes a novel, not history. A novel is something used by someone, and it may include some sources, but in the end it becomes something that is composed by someone in an arbitrary way. This becomes another blot for the science of history. Apostolos Bakalopoulos, until his death the patriarch of ecclesiastical history of our land [Greece], in a classic work of his, in many volumes that he gave us, about new Hellenism, is forced to explain himself after the reissuance of the first and second volumes and to say that “You accuse me of not following the events, but I believe that science is firstly the search and then the presentation of one’s sources, analytically, critically, and then after all that, stochastically. Allow me therefore to deal with the sources,” Bakalopoulos would say, “and then go ahead and act on your stochasticism.”

I repeat then, that ideological use of history, historical anachronism, out-of-order mentality and unfounded stochasticism suppress the historian and his research.

The Sources

Speaking of Constantine the Great, what are the sources from which we gather his information? The contemporary historian of the era, the father of ecclesiastic history, Eusebius, was tied to Constantine by personal friendship, and so his information must be judged differently and cross-referenced with other sources. If they cannot be cross-referenced, they remain testimonies but cannot be used to prove a point. Another contemporary historian and friend of Constantine’s son, Crispus, was Lactantius. He wrote The Death of the Persecutors, that is those who persecuted the Christians. But there are also St. Gregory the Theologian who in his epics dealt with the two Romes, the Old and the New Rome. He considers the second Rome as a link between East and West (I will return to this). These are the safest, most trustworthy sources.

Zosimos

On the other hand, the only source that contains anything negative that is repeated to this day about Constantine the Great is the idol-worshipping gentile, the fanatical paganist historian Zosimos (425 - c. 518). He writes about one and a half century after Constantine.

Eusebius is the father of ecclesiastical history, and he died circa 339 or 340 A.D. Constantine died in 337, these two are synchronous. Zosimos was a fanatic of the ancient religion and he wrote the book New History in six volumes which begins with Augustus and ends in 410. His sources are paganistic. The information he provides cannot be cross-referenced. Those who wish to take advantage of the case against Constantine are constantly using the elements provided by Zosimos. You can see that I’m trying to stay objective. It’s not important to us whether Constantine appears good or bad. The problem in searching this topic is to see what the sources tell us. To this end, Eusebius must be cross-referenced many times, but Zosimos must be checked more since he writes much later. He is very anti-Constantine and also extremely vilifying to Constantine’s person.

Today, history accepts that Zosimos is not a true historian. He writes with bias, and he is rather more ethicological than scientific. There exists a fine article by Diddley that appeared in a German magazine in 1972 and also a splendid article using Diddley in a biographical lexicon of Mr. Tsakanikas. Zosimos’ fanaticism and his libelous attack on Constantine appear to be based on the decline of the ancient religion of the Roman Empire at a time when the empire acquires its greatest extent and is at its most unified and reaches its greatest glamour. Things are exactly opposite to what Zosimos is trying to present.

It is important to note that the views of Zosimos are referred to by people, especially the neo-paganists or new idol worshipers, without critical scrutiny. They want to stigmatize Constantine and to have his work rejected and to undervalue his person. This is rather devious, after this nothing can be done, and there can be no justice, since these things are published and very often published illegally. Many times they send me articles from the internet, where some people praise my work, but most of the time they accuse me and attribute things to me that I never said or thought. Even so and so says in his book that I wrote certain things that are anti-Hellenic, which I never wrote. I hope he repents for these lies before he leaves this world. It doesn’t bother me, but it hurts his readers and the students who read his books. This is pretty much what happened with Zosimos. For example, Voltaire has a very negative stance with respect to Constantine. Gibbon is also against him, and we shall see this later.

At the present time, diachronically and synchronically, who are they that attack and abase Constantine?

Constantine Paparigopoulos, in the 19th century, the first great historian of the Modern Greek nation, (many of his works should be renewed in our day), his work is very valuable because, I say this for those who do not know him, Paparigopoulos has one asset: he is never stochastic and he follows historical sources. If a person can’t find all the sources, he may trustworthily follow them and study them as they are presented by Constantine Paparigopoulos. He says that the first group that hated Constantine as a defender of the new religion (Christianity), is the defenders of the ancient religion (Roman idol-worshippers), like Zosimos. Zosimos attributes all catastrophes of his era to Constantine, without proof. Today also, these catastrophes are attributed to him by the neo-paganists. How justified they are in doing so we shall see later. Second, from the 18th century on, proponents of the Enlightenment (Renaissance) have attacked Constantine. A certain opinion of Zosimos that they use is this: “He abandoned the dogma of our forefathers and espoused dishonor.” Do you see how things are relative? Christianity is said to be ‘dishonor’. And the religion of our forefathers is honorable! Of course the person who studies history, like he who is speaking to you, does not concern himself with sentimentality. But it is understood that a person’s mindset is influenced by reading these things, and it becomes impossible for anyone to have a good opinion on Constantine. In spite of all this, I will say that there are times that Zosimos either keeps quiet when it comes to worthwhile things that Constantine did or praises him, a few times for his virtues. St. Gregory the Theologian, in talking about Basil the Great uses the following adage, which may be attributed to him: “Even his enemies marvel at the virtues of the man.” A man’s assets are awe-inspiring even to his adversaries. When your enemy praises you, it means that you are worth something. It is not only a few times that Zosimos is forced to praise Constantine.

Enlighteners

The Enlighteners, especially Gibbon and Voltaire, attack and abase Constantine. Voltaire constantly abases Byzantium, while Gibbon, despite the title of his book, even though he doesn’t refuse that the name of the empire is not Byzantium but New Rome, is on the side of politics and geography (the West), but not the scientific and spiritual, of the Old Rome, and he talks about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. According to Gibbon, the fall is due to Christianity. His work is memorable and important, but he writes with a certain bias, so you understand his basic drawback. In the perversion of things according to Paparigopoulos, papism did not play a small role. Even though Constantine is considered a saint in Roman Catholicism, especially among the Uniates, he is still hated for having moved the capital to New Rome and led old Rome to insignificance. If something like that happened to us, say if the capital were moved from Athens to Salonika, what would we southerners do?

Now, this is significant: the name Constantine is derived from the Greek language. Konstas means ‘steadfast’, strength of character, from the verbs "istamai" and "istemi", to stand and to erect respectively. Thus the etymology is from the ancient Greek, but the name Constantine came from the West. From the schism onward, neither Pope nor any other political leader in the West ever took the name Constantine. It became the most hated name in direct antithesis with the East where it got to the point where several years ago, every person in leadership, to the previous king, to the current king, and later to the president of the democracy and all the leaders of the opposing political parties had the same name, Constantine. Even Malvina Karali, God rest her soul, told everyone with a little indignation that they should start using ancient Greek names, like Vrassithas and Epameinondas, rather than Constantine. It became our favorite name and even I have a son in law by that name. There are now more Constantines than Georges or Johns. That shows how beloved this name became for our people.

The fourth group that stands against Constantine and his legacy are the western-minded people, who (amongst our people) always follow what the west says, no matter whether it’s right or not.

Biographical Elements

Two or three biographical elements before I continue with some apologetical themes. His name was Imperator Caesar Claudius Valerius Constantinus Augustus—that’s his full name after 324 when he became monocrat. He was born on 22 February circa 280 in Nissa of Serbia. His youth was spent as a hostage at the court of autocrat Diocletian or at the court of co-autocrat Galerios. He was held hostage so that his father, who was Caesar, Constantine the Chloros, would be prevented from revolting against the autocrat. Perhaps he witnessed the martyrdom of St. George and St. George’s miracles in the East, since his love for martyrs must have been caused by a specific event. He was a brave warrior with many other assets, heroism being one of them. In the beginning he married modest Ninevina who gave him Crispus, his first child. For political reasons, as his father had done, he was forced to divorce Ninevina and to marry the daughter of co-autocrat Maximian, Fausta. Vostantzoglou, R.I.P., wrote about Fausta. From Fausta he had three sons - Constantine II, Constantius, and Constans and all three reigned. See how all the names are derived from the same root?

Diocletian was the first Augustus and Caesar, and the second Augustus we might say was Galerius, his helper in the East. Maximian was also a co-Augustus, and his Caesar was Constantius Chloros, the father of Constantine, who was in Nissa. In 305, first of May, Diocletian and Maximian resigned, so Constantius was proclaimed Augustus in the West and Galerius in the East. Constantine then went to the West to be near his father. In 306 Constantine Chloros died and on 25 July of the same year, the army declared Constantine autocrat. We must consider something here. There was no inheritance of a kingdom back then, just the same as during the entire period of the Byzantine Empire, New Rome, meaning Romania, just as there was no inheritance of a kingdom back in Ancient Greece. Inheritance rules did not exist in the case of inheritance of position. The army or the senate or the people might allow the son of an emperor to succeed him, but it’s not because of the right of inheritance. That’s how Greek democracy worked. I have said this many times in this auditorium, the ruler was chosen by the people. That is democracy. Constantine therefore was nominated by the army and the senate to be autocrat. But Maxentios, the son of Maximian, in the same year on October 28 was nominated autocrat as well. In 311 Galarios died and was succeeded by Licinius who married Constantia, Constantine’s step-sister. On 28 October of 312 Constantine defeated Maxentios—we shall see how—on the Milvian Bridge, others spell it Moulvia Bridge. The senate then declared that Constantine is now first Augustus. In 313 Licinius defeted Maximinian. Now only two Augusti remained. Constantine was first and Licinius second. So in 313 the famous declaration of the Mediolanon (Edict of Milan) is given, and we shall see what its significance is. In 321 Licinius brings back the persecutions against the Christians, even though in 313 Constantine first had decided that the persecutions would stop. There is a battle between the two, and Licinius is defeated. In 324, Constantine becomes monocrat and the empire obtains unity despite its large territory, from Thoulin, which may be today’s Iceland, or at least from Ireland up to Persia and India. Thus it became a single country, with one central autocrat. In 325 he calls the First Ecumenical Synod together and in 330he inaugurates the new capital, New Rome. On 22 May 337 he dies at Drepano of Bithynia—in Asia Minor—which was the city of origin for St. Helen and that’s the reason why he named this city Helenoupolis. He was baptized by his friend, Eusebius of Nicomedia, in a white robe as a catechumen, and a little after that he got sick and died at the age of around sixty. His body was transferred and buried in the new capital, New Rome.

That’s the basic history.

Criticism from Zosimos

Constantine was criticized by Zosimos for killing and eliminating his enemies. What do the sources say? Certain things that his enemies say and especially Zosimos who is the main source of criticism against Constantine will pretty much be left to conjecture. When something cannot be proven, any historian must only mention it, and avoid basing any conclusion on unfounded hypotheses or thoughts.

The Case of Maximian

To remain on a few characteristic examples, here’s the case of Maximian. Maximian wanted to become Augustus, autocrat, and he was persecuted by his own son Maxentios. He received help from his daughter, and he was Constantine’s father-in-law. In 310, however, he organized a conspiracy to overturn Constantine’s reign. That was the situation at that time. You know that every man, no matter how grand he may be, cannot stop being a child of his age. That’s why I told you that when historical anachronism is applied, it is a travesty to historical research. We shall interpret the events of that time, staying in that epoch and not transferring those events to our present conditions. Maximian spread the word that Constantine was killed in action against the Franco-Germans on the northern border, and then he took part of the army to his side and crowned himself autocrat. Constantine returned and Maximian locked himself in the castle of Massalia. Constantine took him prisoner, but then he forgave him through his wife Fausta’s intervention. There was a new plot of Maximian and Fausta herself this time, to kill Constantine. This attempt failed. Fausta then blamed her father. Maximian then hanged himself, because he understood that things would get very difficult for him. Many historians since Zosimos blame Constantine for this. Look, when someone is the highest authority, and not only political and administrative leader, but has total control of his office, he is called Rectus Totius Omnis, meaning governor, ruler of the whole world. Constantine then was Grand Juror. He was Pontifex Maximus. He did not give himself these powers; he received them from the Roman Empire. Every wrongful action had to be judged by the Grand Juror, who was selected by the army but checked by the senate.

Thus it is not possible to hand all the blame to Constantine, just like the president of a democracy who signs the paperwork for a death penalty case that has been handed down by fair trial is obligated to sign it. If the man holding the highest office refuses to sign it, refuses to do what the juridical process decreed, you know what the repercussions will be.

The Case of Bassian

Second is the case of Bassian. I’ll avoid the details, because, in Bassian’s riot, here Constantine showed magnanimity even when the riot was discovered--again there was a plot against the ruler of the world. Is it possible that this might be a cold-hearted murder, as the historians consider Constantine? Every other ‘ruler of the world’ would have to be called a murderer, unless he is acting within the law.

The Roman Empire was able to survive a long time because it acted in this way.

“In This, Be Victorious”: The Case of Maxentios

The case of Maxentios, the brother-in-law of Constantine is typical. Maxentios wanted to be sole autocrat and turned against Constantine, invoking death by murder in his mind, of his father, Maximian. He orders that all statues of Constantine be destroyed. Constantine comes up through the Alps to Italy and the two armies meet at the same bridge of the Tiber River, two kilometers outside Rome. Here appears the well-known sign of the Cross up in the sky, as is described by Eusebius, at noontime. Constantine saw a Cross up in the sky and the letters that said “In this, be victorious,” not “By this, be victorious”. With this symbol you will conquer, you will win. Lactantius mentions this in Latin. And he says that it was a Cross that Constantine saw in his sleep - you see how there are differing versions - and he said that the words were “In Hoc Vincas”; here we see the “In” - "In this you will conquer". St. Artemios and the army, there are other sources, testify that they also saw this sign, thus the entire army saw it, not only Constantine. Whether he saw it in the daytime or in his sleep doesn’t matter, what matters is that Constantine had the symbol of the Cross put on his flag, and the monogram XP, Christos on a crown, and on his soldiers’ shields.

Zosimos leaves this event without mention, and even though he may have been able to prove it wrong, it must be that he could not. He does not mention it – and all the other pagan writers do not refer to it either in their books. But later historians, Philostorgios, the hesychast of the 14th century Nicephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Sozomenos a 5th century historian one century after Constantine, and also Socrates the Scholastic, say that the words “In this be victorious” were in fact Angels, like the star of Bethlehem was, according to St. Chrysostom, or a supernatural event, or the uncreated energy of the Triune God. Sozomenos also interprets it in his own way.

On 28 October 312 there’s a battle. Constantine has 25,000 soldiers, Maxentions 100,000. Maxentios’ army is completely wiped out. One of Tiber’s bridges breaks up and many soldiers fall into the river and drown, and Maxentios is among them. Again Constantine is blamed. In my research, I’m interested in why they call him a “murderer” again. You know what it means to be a killer. If you say that because of the way Constantine attacked the bridge fell and Maxentios fell into the water and drowned, I believe it. But why is he a murderer? Not when there’s a battle for which there is a revolution against the highest authority. Three years after, Constantine built the Triumphant Arch which exists to this day in Rome. Now the contradiction that we give to Constantine’s enemies is that Constantine did not prosecute any of the soldiers of the opposing faction. He did not take any stand against them. Now you see what contradictions exist in the case of Constantine.

Crispus and Fausta

Characteristic among these — to complete all the reports — is the case of the son Crispus and Fausta, the second wife of Constantine. In 316 he was celebrating the tenth anniversary of his ascent to the throne, in the palace. He received the news that Crispus had been arrested and incarcerated in the prison of Polas in Istria—that’s where John Kapodistrias and his family hailed from, Istria. Crispus was a serious and well-disposed young man with many leadership skills and charisma. At seventeen he received a high ranking in the army and was actually the leader of the Navy of the Empire. Don’t think this is impossible. Guarne, son of Josephine and adopted by Napoleon, at sixteen went to conquer the Heptanese with the democratic French. Here we see the hatred of Fausta. Crispus was thought of more highly than her three sons. She took it as his desire to ascend the throne. And another thing, Saint Helen loved Crispus for his talents, he reminded her of her own son in his youth. Then a satanic event takes place. One month before Crispus’ death, Constantine the Great had made a law against adultery. Not simply fornication, but adultery with a married woman. The punishment was death. With some false witnesses Fausta accused Crispus, first for a conspiracy against Constantine, and second with an attack against her, his step-mother, with immoral aims. Zosimos, the idolater historian - attention here - and John Zonaras in the twelfth century, accept that these accusations are baseless, and serious researchers accept that there is no proof to these accusations, only conjecture.

Constantine’s dilemma in this case was analogous to the great lawmaker of Hellenism - Zaleukos. In the seventh century, Zaleukos —“Zaleukos” means “thoroughly white” (meaning very clean, righteous) - who was a contemporary of Hammurabi, gave the first Hellenic code and is more ancient than Solon. He had a law which said: "The accused and arrested for adultery is condemned to losing two eyes". The first person arrested for adultery was Zaleukos’ son. The king came along, like Constantine, to try him in court. What should he do? Should he blind his own son, whom the army wanted to succeed him as well as the people of the city? Thus, Zaleukos wisely asked the participants in court as to how many eyes does the law require in this case as punishment? They told him two. He told them, there you go, one of my son’s eyes, and take one of mine. He was blinded in one eye so that he wouldn’t take both from his son. Constantine did not execute Crispus; he simply put him in jail. The young man was put to death in an unknown way, and no command by Constantine was ever found that condemned him to death, as there should have been. Historians tell us that the only person who could use the emperor’s bull was his wife Fausta, and this execution is attributed to her.

Helen returned from Rome and found out about Fausta’s conspiracy and revealed it to Constantine. Constantine then ordered that Fausta be arrested. Zosimos then tells us that Constantine ordered her death by drowning in her bath with hot water. A few days ago I received an article where an enemy of Christianity repeats what Zosimos wrote, without any other sources, without any reference to this event. This judgment of Constantine remains unproven. Ieronymos disproves this myth of Zosimos. A church historian (366 – 419 A.D.), an excellent Hellenist, he had lived near the Fathers in the east, and especially St. John Chrysostom. He belongs with the Fathers, on the side of Orthodoxy. Ieronymos lived these events, and he gives us the information that Fausta lived on, for three or four years after the death of Crispus. How is it possible for the two events to be tied together? Even the historian Gibbon, in his history, contests this type of death for Fausta. Paparrigopoulos also disputes this theory. The events surrounding the deaths of Crispus and Fausta are again impossible to prove.

Constantine’s Stand Against Idolatry

One year after the Synod of Nicaea in 326, Constantine went to Rome to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of his reign. In the Capitol building he was called to offer an idolatrous offering - he refused. You understand that his refusal was felt like a thunderbolt, an emperor refusing to do his duty as leader of a pagan empire. We should also know, I’ll say this parenthetically, why Christianity was persecuted for the first three centuries. These persecutions have not stopped to this day. It was persecuted because it denied any other deities. In the Divine Liturgy, the statement: “One is holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ”, came into the liturgy early, even as early as the first century. “One is Holy” is the answer to the Jews, that there is only one who sanctifies - the Triune God. “One is Lord”, one is king and emperor is directed towards the Romans. One is our king. This is repeated around the year 160 in the West by St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, during his trial. What did Statios Condratios the ruler of Smyrna tell him? "Give offerings to the statue of Caesar." This is because Caesar was revered as a god on earth. The spirit of Caesar and the spirit of Rome were honored with statues and offerings, and they were considered deities. Thus Rome would not have objected if the Christians were to honour one more deity in the existing pantheon of deities. Horatio had said that at the time, there were more gods than people. Thus Rome wouldn’t have objected if the Christians had accepted the deities of Caesar and Rome. This is why the Christians were persecuted. It was considered illegal to them, to repeat the words of Socrates, to accept the gods ‘that the state’ considered to be gods by law. So for the pagans it was rather curious that the emperor, who was honored as a god, and Constantine to that day was considered a god, refused to offer the lawful sacrifice as was imposed by the religion of Rome. After having been present at the Synod of Nicaea, he could no longer accept these things.

Also according to Zosimos, he caused the pagans to hate him, and they, in order to take revenge on him and to embarrass him, they disfigured the face on his statues. That is, they used every possible means to destroy his face, but he, peacefully, when told what had happened, put his hand up to his face and said: “Lucky for me, I don’t see any wounds on my face.” He did not persecute the pagans, however, he also did not try to cultivate a friendship with them. In his letters, he advised the citizens of the country and all the regions where pagans resided to turn to the Christian faith. How could the gentiles love him? The only people that he showed severity towards were the heretics. That’s why he exiled Athanasios the Great, and another time he exiled Arius. Every ruler, in every epoch, is only interested (per the common phrase) in three things - calm, order and safety. He wanted to avoid inopportune conflicts. This is why Athanasios the Great was exiled to the west, (according to many historians) since he was threatened by death from the Arians. Exiled to Rome in 335-6, and to Remida, today’s Prir, birthplace of Karl Marx. That’s where Athanasios the Great was sent, and thereafter had transfused to the West the monasticism of St. Anthony and St. Pachomios, i.e., the coenobium.

Constantine did not do wrong to the pagan religion. According to Zosimos he even supervised the reconstruction of pagan temples. My colleague at the University of Athens in Philosophy, Polymnia Athanasiades, has written a splendid work in which she writes that immediately after Nicaea, Constantine - as emperor of the nation - had funded four temples - two idolatrous and two Christian ones. He wanted to keep the two sides balanced and not show favoritism, and wanted to ensure the equality and unity of his citizens. He also funded the churches that were created by St. Helen - the Ekatopiliani or “100-Portal” one on Paros island, the churches that exist to this day in Jerusalem, in Bethlehem, on the Mount of Calvary, also the monastery where St. Helen transferred a large portion of the True Cross, and many others. Forgive me, I see in this article (which I won’t read in its entirety) that the neo-pagans accuse us that there’s not just one piece of the True Cross, but that there’s an entire forest. Don’t think that whoever has a piece that he calls True Cross that it’s directly from the Cross of Christ. We have what we call phylacteries that have touched the blood of martyrs, or the wood of the Cross of Christ. These phylacteries and pieces of wood are sanctified, and these are called ‘True Wood’ but they are not a part of the Cross. There is a difference here. At the monastery of Xeropotamou and the monastery of Stavrovounion in Cyprus there are large pieces of the Cross. They are not among the little pieces that have been cut, but in this way the little pieces that come in contact with these larger pieces, have created phylacteries that have come into contact with the True Cross. Constantine’s father did not persecute the Christians, like Diocletian. Constantine followed his father’s example.

The Decree of the Mediolanum (Edict of Milan)

The Edict of Milan is spoken of in the work of Lactantius and in Eusebius’ history. What does the edict consist of? It allowed for freedom of worship for any religion. It repealed all laws against Christians and had all churches that were confiscated returned to them, or if that wasn’t possible they were compensated. We spoke of the First Ecumenical Synod. Constantine also elevated Hellenism politically and culturally. Constantine used the language of Romania, the Greek Empire which spread from the West to the far reaches of the East. There were two languages, Latin and Greek. Constantine spoke Greek at the Synod and also at the one in 324 in Antioch. This is where he shows his humility at the Synod in accepting the Synodic institution where he told them this famous quote: “You are the bishops in spiritual matters, in the sacra interna of the Church. I’m the emperor, rendered by God as the person in charge of secular matters.” The Greek work ‘an eie’ means that if he wanted to, he could also be, since he was recognized as such by the other bishops, an administrator of the Church. We may conclude from later sources about the sacra interna of the church. The problem in the relationship between church and state today—is the same as that of Constantine and many other emperors of New Rome. I’ll talk about a couple more things and I’ll conclude.

Works by Constantine the Great

He changed the course of history with his religious policies and urbanization changes that he brought about. One of those was the ability of slaves to become free men. He did not end slavery, since it wasn’t a possibility back then, but as the apostle Paul said in his letter to Philemon, he changes the content of slavery. A slave can also be a brother, or a coworker to his master, since whenever a slave is considered a man, a coworker, he can no longer be an object for his former master. He is the first Roman emperor, or the first Orthodox emperor in history, since he’s the one who built New Rome, the new capital. In 326 he began to look for a new city. He was not satisfied with the Latin-minded environment of the West and he understood that the empire must be moved eastward in order to prosper. That’s where the game began, which lasted a thousand one hundred years and longer, and it is even played up to today. Hellenism has remained intertwined spiritually with New Rome, with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Constantine at first selected Troy to be his capital. That’s where he wanted to build his capital, that’s what the historian Sozomenos wrote. In the end he understood the strategic placement of old Byzantium, which at that time was in ruins. It controlled the passage to the Black Sea, the Straits of Bosporus. Paparrigopoulos, Gibbon, and many other historians attempted to measure the distance from Constantinople to Iceland and from Constantinople to China. The distance is about the same. Constantine figured that Constantinople was the center of the world. When he was telling his generals as to where the city limits ended, they asked him, “Where are you taking us, you are making the city too big.” Constantine said, “I can’t stop because someone else is leading ahead of me.” He’s saying that he is being led by divine intervention, by an angel of the Lord. Whether this is true or not is not our problem. The amazing thing is that he was clear headed enough and sharp enough to see that Constantinople would play a huge role in history being located in this part of the world. He is the one emperor who never lost any battle. He was never defeated, neither from within nor without. He put down the senatorial system, since it was to the point where they were more powerful than the emperor, he stopped putting prisoners to death by crucifixion, he renewed the rights of families, he put a stop to adultery, as we saw, he made laws which raised the position of mothers, he protected the family unit and children from men who abused their patriarchal authority, and young girls from being snatched from their families for forced weddings. He regulated the matters of divorce, inheritance, dowries, etc. His entire policy shows that he acted as a Christian. He wrote laws that punished those who caused the death of their slaves and he limited violence and painful punishment. And something extremely important for the 4th Century - he outlawed branding on the faces of slaves. They used to brand their slaves with a heated sword. He used to say that the face is created in God’s image. How can a person’s face be marred like that?

Constantine contributed in the triumph of Christianity. A terrible mistake by historians — let’s hope that is that it was done in ignorance — is that Constantine the Great proclaimed Christianity as the official religion. This was done on February 28 in 380, not by Constantine, but by the Emperor Theodosios I. Constantine ensured the freedom of all religions, whereby Christians were given the right to worship their God freely. Christianity did not become the State Religion. This is a huge historical mistake and a lie at the same time. Constantine Paparrigopoulos says that “Constantine could have acted otherwise towards Christianity, and he might have persecuted it rather than protected it.” Paparrigopoulos sees a rather unbelievable change of heart in Constantine in his stance towards the Christians. And here is another thing that is very significant. There is no politician ever who bases his views on the minority, but rather always on the majority. He normally strives to gain the majority of votes or get his ways approved. At the time of Constantine the Great, until the First Ecumenical Council where he shows his interest in Christianity, I ask, what was the overall number of Christians in the Empire? Eight to ten percent. That’s testified to by the superb work of Adolf von Harnack, one of the great historians of free ideology in Europe, in Germany, called "The Spread of Christianity in the First Few Centuries”. At eight to ten percent Christianity was a large minority.

Constantine the Great is considered great by the Church and a Saint for this reason. To be a Saint means that he has the Grace of God within him, that’s what that means, it doesn’t mean that he’s infallible. He has the Grace of God, a living and perceptible grace. As an emperor, Constantine the Great presented himself as a commoner at the time of the Synod, accepting the most democratic system of history, which is the synod, the synodical system. In 311 and continuing in 313-314 a great conflict broke out, the schism of the Donatists. The Christians who belonged to Donatos and the other Christians who belonged to the regular bishop were fighting against each other as to whom the churches belonged as well as the plots of land belonging to those churches. Constantine, being emperor, should have judged the whole affair, being the “supreme judge”, but he made himself neutral and told Miltiades, a Greek (Hellene)bishop of Old Rome: “You have the synod, judge the affair by the synodic system.” When we say that Constantine the Great was president of the Synod, my colleague, professor Vlasios Feidas, has published a book about his presidency in the First Ecumenical Synod. The sources tell us, analyzed critically by Mr. Feidas and other scientists, that the true president of the Synod was Eustathios of Antioch. There is a difference between the president who coordinates the events of the Synod, and the president who recognizes the need for a Synod. The emperor was the only one who had the right to allow all the bishops to meet, especially since there were bishops from all parts of the empire, and not only to meet at the capital of the empire but in Nicaea of Bithynia. This tenet was in effect from the time of Old Rome and even at the time of Justinian, even during the German occupation. Could anyone travel without getting leave from the German administration? Or how about during the time of the Soviet Union, could anyone say that I’m leaving to go shopping in Europe without a police permit? People were afraid. This was even more so in effect during the Roman Empire. Constantine, however, and the emperors after him, gave their permission for the Synod to meet. Thus he called the Fathers of the Synod together, in excellent Greek - he was fluent in the Greek language - and then he withdrew and the work of the Synod was carried out by the Holy Fathers, among whom were St. Nicholas, St. Spyridon, Alexander of Thessalonica (a deacon still), Athanasios the Great; you can understand what personages we are speaking about. Constantine did not preside over the First Ecumenical Synod; this is what is implied throughout Church history. People may say that emperors did exert their influence. But since there were Saints present in the Ecumenical Synods, ready to sacrifice themselves for the faith, there is nothing and no one that can influence them. That’s the problem that we have today. Can we convene an Ecumenical Synod today? If there are no saintly people left, there cannot be an Ecumenical Synod. If we don’t have bishops that fight for the faith in Christ and follow the Saints of the past, but rather any Synod that does take place in the future but goes against the words and the policies and the praxis of the saintly men of the past, will show itself (and I hope this doesn’t happen) to be a false Synod. From a lover of Greek learning and philosophy, Constantine the Great became truly faithful to the Sun of Righteousness, Jesus Christ. He became an advocate of the Christian faith, as was proven in 313 with the decree of Mediolanum, without, as I said, proclaiming Christianity as the official and unique religion of the empire.

What is His Relationship with Christianity?

Many things have been written about this, hundreds of articles, if not thousands. They talk about expediency, but I’ve already told you that Christianity was a minority among the religions. Our teacher, may he rest in peace, Andreas Fytrakis, in 1945 wrote his doctoral dissertation titled The Faith of Constantine the Great and the Last Years of his Life. Having studied the ancient sources and some of the newer ones, he tells of the honor that Constantine bestowed upon the martyrs of the faith. He fully accepted the theology of the Church regarding martyrdom, and that of the simple people of God. He prayed on his knees at the places of martyrdom of many early martyrs, he built a ‘Martyrion’ a place where he wanted the bones of martyrs collected, and he wanted to get all the bodies of the apostles collected and placed in one temple. In this Constantius, his son who succeeded him, did find the relics of six apostles. Another characteristic is that he desired to be baptized in the Jordan, when he learned that the Jordan’s waters have been sanctified due to the baptism there of Jesus Christ. Be careful with this: even though he was baptized at the end of his life, and didn’t know when that would be, as none of us knows when the last moment of his life will be, Constantine acted as the Christians of his era did. He is a child of his era. I want to ask you where did Basil and Gregory the Theologian commune when they lived in Athens? They did not commune. They went to church at St. Isidore’s church there at Lykavetos, but they were baptized around 32 years of age. People back then would visit the most spiritual people of their locale, and if they weren’t told that they have been purified in heart, they did not get baptized. You understand, that was common practice at that time. Who was Constantine’s spiritual father? Was it not Eusebius of Nicomedia? They were friends; they knew each other from idololatrous times. That’s why he asked at the end of his life from the bishop of Nicomedia, who lived between Old and New Rome, to be baptized. They say that he received the baptism of an idolater. Maybe, but God did what God wanted. If the man was an idolater, Constantine did not know it. Constantine simply had a great ascetic as another spiritual director, St. Kordoui from Cordoba of Spain. The Church honors Constantine not for the things they say about him, but because he helped the church in many ways. So that you may understand why we honor him open the Minaion (Book of Months) to see the services, and the troparia hymns that are mentioned in honor of St. Constantine and St. Helen. The first one: “…like Paul, your calling was shown forth from above…” When the apostle Peter went to Cornelius, he was saying to Christ: “Where am I going?” when He appeared to him in a vision. And he was told, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common”, don’t defile the things God has cleansed. When he went to Cornelius the Centurion, the Roman, he found in him with the experience of having seen God. Thus God had made all things ready! And Peter gave in and did what he must do; he baptized Cornelius who had much time in front of him to be baptized. Consequently, in this case, Constantine the Great, ‘received the calling from heaven’, as had the apostle Peter. This is very significant. Of course, someone told me, that is this for certain? Since it reaches the bounds of folklore, despite our having ancient sources which testify as to the vision or Constantine the Great’s life in God. What matters to me are the criteria of the Church in proclaiming him a Saint. Where do we stand? He did not only help, but he gave. He built churches, bell towers and other things. You know that Orthodoxy, in direct antithesis with Papism, does not make anyone a Saint. I ask that you forget about beatification. This is a blasphemy. There is no beatification in Orthodoxy or in the Holy Fathers. What happens in the Orthodox Church? It is the acknowledgement of holiness. God, through many manifestations such as myrrh-bearing relics which work miracles, and with other signs from above, proves that the person has indeed reached holiness. That’s when we honor him whom God has honored and shown to us.

The second thing is that in Constantinople, the locals would say and also chant that the grave of Constantine the Great heals people with illnesses. When anybody goes to Corfu and says that the grave of Metallinos heals people, everyone will laugh. Not because I haven’t died yet, but because I’m not worthy enough so that my grave will exude holiness. In order for the locals to say this about Constantine, they must have been certain. The historian Sozomenos says this about St. Constantine, “…his miracles are like those of St. Spyridon.”

The third is that Constantine “kept the faith of Nicaea” in allowing the Synod to be convened and to decide things with God’s grace. This shows that he brought about the faith of the Orthodox Fathers of the Church. As for St. Spyridon, it is said characteristically that He reportedly converted a pagan philosopher to Christianity by using a fragment of pottery to illustrate how one single entity (the piece of pottery) could be composed of three unique entities (fire, water and clay); a metaphor for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. As soon as Spyridon finished speaking, the fragment is said to have miraculously burst into flame, water dripped to the ground, and only the soil remained in his hand (other accounts of this event say that it was a brick he held in his hand). With this miracle St. Spyridon gives status to the Symbol of Faith. Constantine simply keeps the Orthodox faith, since he was inspired to self-abase and to submit himself to the Synodic institution.

One last conclusion, a few words from Constantine Paparrigopoulos.

I have studied Paparrigopoulos and that’s the reason I refer to him so often. He says: “Even if Constantine committed certain lawless acts, this is not due to ferocity of the soul, but because he was born and lived in times that had already established certain terrible customs and traditions. His predecessors and contemporaries did not respect any sacred or human laws. It is rather worthy of wonder that in defeating all these great temptations, he was able to comprehend and allow for the onset of the Gospel news." This is what Constantine Paparrigopoulos says.

Emperor Constantine I

Source.*

*I have made many corrections from the original source of this translation.


Tweet
Share on Tumblr
Posted by J.Sanidopoulos at 1:41 AM 2 comments: Links to this post
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Labels: Church History, Roman (Byzantine) Empire, Saints
Reactions: 
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
View mobile version
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails