A Critique of the Balamand Agreement
by Fr. John Romanides
1) Representatives of nine Orthodox Churches
signed an agreement with representatives of the Vatican contained
in a document entitled, "Uniatism, method of union of the
past, and the present search for full communion." This was
produced by members of the Orthodox-Vatican Dialogue at their
VIIth Plenary Session 17-24 June 1993 at Balamand, Lebanon.
2) Six Orthodox Churches did not send
representatives. Some boycotted this meeting in protest against
the Vatican's anti-Orthodox and anti-Moslem responsibilities for
the war in Bosnia, and other anti-Orthodox actions in parts of
Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Some Orthodox Churches have
come to realize the Vatican's centuries old "pattern"
or "tactic" of "simultaneous war and
dialogue" which it had transformed in the 1960s into
"simultaneous attacks of Love and dialogue in public"
and "underhanded activities in private."
3) The classic example of this earlier tactic
was the dialogue between the Franco-Latins and the Roman Orthodox
at Bari, Italy, in 1098. The Franco-Latins had just completed the
expulsion of the Roman Orthodox from the Papacy in 1009/12-1046.
This was followed up by William the Conqueror's capture of
England in 1066 and by his appointment of the Lombard Lanfranc as
the first Franco-Latin Archbishop of Canterbury with the
blessings of the Lombard Pope Alexander II in 1070. Lanfranc and
his Franco-Latin bishops got their apostolic succession by
dismissing all their Celtic and Saxon predecessors en masse(1).
They condemned them as heretics and schismatics and sentenced
them to prison for life where they were tortured and starved to
death(2). Lanfranc's successor in 1093 was the Lombard Anselm of
Canterbury who was the chief exponent of the Franco-Latin
positions at the above mentioned 1098 dialogue meeting at Bari.
4) No longer able to use this type of medieval
military power, which it was still using openly up to the French
Revolution, the Vatican learned by the middle of this century to
attack in public by means of "love and dialogue" and
"underhanded activities in reality." Thus the sincerity
of the Vatican's public "love" and
"dialogue," imposed upon it by the modern spread of
democracy, is in need of much more substantiation to become
convincing. Even the Bosnian Moslems have learned this by tragic
experience after their prayer session with the Pope himself.
II. The so-called Schism (3)
5) Behind this agreement are Latin specialists
familiar with modern research on the military, political and
social nature of the schism with the East Romans which the Franks
and their allies deliberately provoked. Doctrine played the role
of the chief Franco-Latin weapon against the East Romans who had
provoked revolts among the West Romans against Teutonic
oppression (4). Of course the Balamand Latins had no need to
touch upon this kind of research.
6) Ignoring the above, the Orthodox at Balamand
accommodated the Latins by joining them in using the context of
medieval Franco-Latin propaganda about the schism with a more or
less Orthodox content, a combination which had been dominating
Orthodox schools for a long time.
7) This agreement thus avoids the implications
of the fact that since the 7th century the Franco-Latins usually
received their apostolic succession by exterminating their West
Roman, Celtic and Saxon predecessors having reduced the West
Romans to serfs and villeins of Frankish Feudalism. This happened
not only in Gaul, but also in North Italy, Germany, England,
South Italy, Spain and Portugal.
8) The birth of Frankish Civilization is
described in a letter of St. Boniface to Pope Zacharias (natione
Graecus(5)) in 741. The Franks had rid the Church in Francia of
all Roman bishops by 661 and had made themselves its bishops and
clerical administrators. They had divided up the Church's
property into fiefs which had been doled out as benefices
according to rank within the pyramid of military vassalage. These
Frankish bishops had no Archbishop and had not met in Synod for
eighty years. They had been meeting as army officers with their
fellow war-lords. They are, in the words of St. Boniface,
"voracious laymen, adulterous clergy and drunkards, who
fight in the army fully armed and who with their own hands kill
both Christians and pagans." (6)
9) Already in 794 and 809 the Franks had
condemned the East Romans as "heretics" and
"Greeks," at the councils of Frankfurt and Aachen, in
other words some 260 years before the so-called schism of 1054.
The Franks had begun calling the East Romans by the names
"Greeks" and "heretics" in order that the
enslaved West Romans may gradually forget their fellow-Romans in
10) The Franks then also split the Greek
speaking and Latin speaking Roman Fathers into so-called Latin
and Greek Fathers and attached themselves to the so-called Latin
ones. They thus created the illusion that their Franco-Latin
tradition is part of an unbroken and continuous tradition with
the Latin speaking Roman Fathers. Because the enslaved West
Romans had become the serfs and villeins of Franco-Latin
feudalism they stopped producing Church leaders and Fathers and
all but a few recorded saints.
11) During 1009-1046 the Franco-Latins
completed their expulsion of the Orthodox Romans from the Church
of Old Rome and finally replaced them with themselves, thus
inventing today's Papacy.
12) The 8th century Franks began their
anti-Roman heresy hunting on the questions of Icons and the Filioque
when they were illiterate barbarians. The then Roman popes
protested. But they did not yet condemn the Franks. They imagined
that they would eventually prevail upon the Franks like one does
with stubborn children. Little did the Romans of Old and New Rome
suspect that the Franks were deliberately provoking the schism
between themselves and the free Romans as part of their permanent
defensive strategy against the East Roman Empire and their own
plans for world dominion.
13) The Roman popes had no choice but to
tolerate Frankish tyranny in the interest of alleviating their
enslaved fellow West Romans and of guaranteeing their own freedom
and that of the Roman citizens of the Papal States.
14) But Roman Pope John VIII took part in the
8th Ecumenical Council of 879 in New Rome which condemned the
Frankish heresies on icons and the Filioque, without
however naming the heretics for fear of reprisals. (7)
15) With the appearance of the Pseudo-Isidorian
Decretals by 850 the Roman Popes began to feel strong enough to
aggressively demand that the Frankish leadership accept civilized
standards of behavior. But these efforts finally backfired. The
Franco-Latins reacted forcefully to the popularity of these
Decretals by expelling the Romans from their political and Church
leadership in Rome and the Papal States. The Franco-Latins began
their final attack on the freedom and Romanity of the Papacy in
973-1003 and completed the subjugation of the Roman Papacy and
the freedom of the Papal States between 1009 and 1046.(8)
Thereafter the Popes are all members of the Franco-Latin nobility
who use the name Roman Pope and Roman Papacy in order that the
West Romans may continue to believe that they still had a Roman
16) From all the above it should be clear that
the fixing of the date of the schism in 1054, within the
fabricated distinction between "Greek East" and
"Latin West," is not correct. The schism was between
the Franco-Latins and the West and East Romans. 1054 was only one
of the later manifestations of a schism which had already existed
from the time the Franks decided in 794 to provoke the schism
with the so-called "Greeks" for political reasons. The
Church of Old Rome fought heroically to remain united to New Rome
up to 1009.
17) From 809 onward the Franks never deviated
from their position that the East Romans, i.e their Greeks, are
heretics. Up to 1009 the Church of Old Rome vigorously resisted
this deliberate Frankish policy which was finally imposed by
18) That this tradition continued into the
middle of the 20th century was so evident during this writer's
youth. In Latin books on Apologetics the Orthodox were vehemently
described as heretics and without saints. Evidently this was due
to the Filioque controversy which broke out in earnest
prior to the Eight Ecumenical Council of 879. So supposedly the
Orthodox had no Fathers of the Church after St. John of Damascus
(circa 675-749) and St. Theodore of Studium (759-826). (9)
19) But the Franco-Latins and their Papacy
continued their conquests accompanied by the extermination and/or
expulsion of the Orthodox bishops and abbots and the reduction of
the faithful to the status of serfs and villeins by completely
taking over their properties. This the Moslem conquerors, neither
Arab nor Turk, never did.
20) But even up to early part of this 20th
century the Vatican was still doing its thing. In 1923 Italy took
possession of the Dodecanese ( The Twelve) Islands from Turkey.
The Orthodox bishops were re-placed by Tuscano-Frank and Lombard
bishops, who since 1870 were posing as Italians. The Vatican
hoped that the Orthodox faithful would accept clergy ordained by
these Vatican bishops or else be left without sacraments. The
situation changed when Greece took possession of these Islands.
The exiled Orthodox bishops returned under the oversight of the
Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople.
21) But then the Vatican made an about face and
produced Vatican II's unilateral recognition of Orthodox
sacraments. The question remains: Is this transformation from War
to Love real? Or is it still the love of the wolf now dressed up
in sheep's clothing out to catch its traditional prey? The
Vatican's invasion of Orthodox countries with so many clerics
hunting for prey seems to speak for itself.
22) What the Vatican is doctrinally up to will
depend on what it will do with all its Ecumenical Councils. At
least on the primacy and the infallibility of the pope Vatican II
continues to maintain that it is a matter of divine revelation
and not of cannon law.
23) Neither from the 7th century till 1054, nor
since, have the Franco-Latin bishops and popes have had the
slightest knowledge of, or interest in, the cure of the human
personality via the purification and illumination of the heart
and glorification (theosis). They still have a magical
understanding of apostolic succession which many Orthodox have
also have been accepting since the so-called reforms of Peter the
24) The Balamand agreement is also based on an
interpretation of our Lord's prayer in John 17 which is not part
of the Patristic tradition. Christ prays here that His disciples
and their disciples may in this life become one in the vision of
His glory (which He has by nature from the Father) when they
become members of His Body, the Church, which would be formed on
Pentecost and whose members were to be the illuminated and
glorified in this life. The Old Testament prophets saw in their
own glorification the pre-incarnate Lord of Glory. Likewise the
disciples had seen Christ's uncreated glory which He has by
nature from His Father up to and before Pentecost, but not as
members of His Body. Pentecostal glorification (theosis) was part
of the Old and New Testament Church's becoming the Body of
Christ. Thus this final form of glorification constitutes the
core of the history of the Body of Christ which is the real core
of Church history. Christ's prayer in John 17 is for the
fulfillment of His Old and New Testament prophecies, teachings
and promises, especially those recorded in John's Gospel and
especially in 16:13. This final glorification is what is repeated
in the life of each of the saints in history and which can
neither be added to nor improved upon, especially since this
experience transcends words and concepts, even those of the
Bible. This is how the Fathers understand this prayer.
25) This prayer is not for the union of the
members of the Body of Christ with those who are not in the
states of purification, illumination and glorification (theosis).
Of course this prayer implies the entry into these states of cure
by non-members of the body of Christ, but it is certainly not a
prayer for the union of churches. That John 17 can be applied to
Churches which have not the slightest understanding of
glorification (theosis) and how to arrive at this cure in this
life is very interesting, to say the least.
26) This agreement takes advantage of those
naive Orthodox who have been insisting that they are a
"Sister" Church of a Vatican "Sister" Church,
as though glorification (theosis) can have a sister
otherwise than herself. The Orthodox at Balamand fell into their
own trap since this presupposes the validity of Latin sacraments.
This is a strange phenomenon indeed since the Latins never
believed that glorification in this life is the foundation of
apostolic succession and the mysteries (sacraments) of and within
the Body of Christ. Even today the Latins and the Protestants
translate 1 Cor. 12:26 as "honored" instead of
27) But Vatican II had also set its trap of
unilaterally recognizing Orthodox mysteries (sacraments) into
which the Balamand Orthodox fell according to plan.
28) More important than the validity of
mysteries is the question of who participates in them.
Glorification is God's will for all, both in this life and in the
next life. But God's glory in Christ is eternal life for those
who are properly cured and prepared. But this same uncreated
glory of Christ is eternal fire for those who refuse to be cured.
The one group is glorified and the other becomes forever happy in
their selfishness like the "actus purus god"
they believe in. In other words everyone will be saved. Some will
be saved by their participation in glorification and in all the
Truth. The rest will be saved by knowledge of all the truth which
for them will be the vision of Christ's uncreated glory as
eternal fire and outer darkness. This is the state of actus
purus happiness for which they strived for all their lives.
In other words mysteries can be valid and not participated in at
the same time. Thus, as important as valid mysteries are, one's participation
in these mysteries leading to purification and illumination
of the heart, and glorification in this lifethe central reality
of the mysteriesis also essential. This holds true for
non-Orthodox and Orthodox equally.
29) It would seem that the Orthodox may
legitimately and dutifully wish and hope out of love that Latin
and Protestant mysteries are indeed valid and efficacious, but
leave the matter in the hands of God. But to pronounce them
valid, 1) when the Latins do not accept glorification (theosis)
in this life as the central core of apostolic tradition and
succession and 2) when they believe instead that happiness is
one's final end, is indeed strange. One does not need valid
mysteries in order to become eternally happy.
30) Franco-Latin official teachings on the
mysteries have been historically not only un-Orthodox, but
anti-Orthodox. On this most Protestants agree in principle with
the Orthodox, i.e. that communicated saving grace is uncreated.
The Latin heresy that communicated grace is created has not yet
been rejected by the Vatican.
IV. The raison d' etre of Uniatism ceases to exist
31) The representatives of the Vatican proposed
this captioned position and the Orthodox at Balamand accepted it.
However, the Orthodox at Balamand were supposedly specialists who
knew that this proposal was made within the context of both the
Latin dogma about the pope and officially also within the context
of all the Vatican's Ecumenical Councils. But an Orthodox
position on this question is not evident from this agreement.
Therefore, the impression is created that the Orthodox, at least
implicitly, accepted the Latin dogma about the pope and that of
all the Vatican's Ecumenical Councils.
32) At the time of Vatican II the New York
Times had announced on its title page that the schism
between the Orthodox and the Vatican had supposedly ended. This
was due to the fact that the Latins understood the lifting of the
anathemas of 1054 as a lifting of the excommunication.
Constantinople lifted, as it seems, only anathemas. For the
Latins this was in keeping with Vatican II on the validity of
Orthodox mysteries. This made it possible for Latins to take
communion at Orthodox Churches and, according to the Latins, vice
versa. The Orthodox had difficulties refusing communion to Latins
and the Vatican temporarily suspended the practice.
33) This Balamand agreement has been accepted
by the representatives of nine out of 14 Orthodox Churches but
not yet by their Synods nor by a Pan-Orthodox Council. In the
mean time the Vatican may once again encourage Latins and Uniates
to take communion at Orthodox Churches while encouraging the
Orthodox to do likewise. The very fact that the Orthodox at
Balamand have extended full recognition to Latin mysteries means
that the impression could be easily created that only bigotry
could be the reason for refusing inter-communion and
34) It is also possible that the pope at some
point may desist from appointing a successor to at least one of
his current Uniate Archbishops or even Patriarchs and put his
local Uniate faithful under the spiritual leadership of the local
Orthodox Archbishop or Patriarch as a trial test.
35) Since at least 1975 the WCC has been
carefully and very successfully cultivating the image of the
Orthodox as lacking Christian love for refusing communion to
others. A likely refusal of the Orthodox to accept Uniates under
one of their Archbishops or Patriarchs may become part of a
similar practice of picturing the Orthodox as indeed bigots,
especially since in this case they would be refusing communion to
and con-celebration with clergy whose mysteries they fully
36) Now that the Balamand agreement has become
a candidate to become a sequel to Vatican II and in which case
Uniatism will no longer have any reason for existing, the
Orthodox will be faced with the consequences of their continued
refusal of communion with the Latins and Uniates.
37) What is most interesting is the fact that
according to the Balamand agreement mysteries are valid whether
one accepts 7 or 22 Ecumenical Councils and their teachings and
practices. The impression will be certainly created that only
lack of love could be the reason why the Orthodox may continue to
refuse inter-communion and con-celebration with the Vatican.
V. The Question
38) It seems that the Orthodox at Balamand are
attempting to introduce an innovation in regards to Biblical
mysteries. Up to now the Orthodox Churches usually accepted into
their membership individuals or Churches by means of either
exactitude (akribeia) or economy (oikonomia).
(a) By Exactitude one is accepted by
baptism, chrismation and profession of the Orthodox Faith
accompanied by rejection of former errors.
(b) By Economy one is accepted by
chrismation and profession of the Orthodox faith and the
rejection of former errors.
39) Neither of these two means of entry into
the Church is in itself a judgment on the validity or
non-validity of the sacraments of the Church of origin, since
there are no mysteries outside of the Body of Christ. One is
either a member of the Body of Christ by his baptism of the
Spirit, i.e. illumination and/or glorification in Christ or one
is still in the state of purification by his baptism by water
unto forgiveness of sins and in the process of becoming a member
of the Body of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. One may be
a believer in Christ without belonging to either of these
categories. This holds true for nominal Orthodox also. It is up
to each Synod of Orthodox bishops to decide the status of each
group of those who are seeking communion within the Body of
40) In regard to the cure of purification,
illumination and glorification there is no difference between
Latins and most Protestants since, or if, they are not engaged in
this cure which has nothing to do with mysticism*. This holds
true for nominal Orthodox also. The reason for the increase of
the numbers of the latter (especially since Peter the Great) is
that professors of Orthodox faculties became no longer aware, and
many are still not aware, of this Biblical/Patristic tradition of
cure and are therefore prone to copy from non-patristic or
non-Orthodox works to write their teaching manuals. The result
has been the appearance of large groups of clergy who no longer
see any important difference between the Latin and Orthodox
understandings of the Mysteries within the Body of Christ.
41) The basic question before us is clear: Is
dogma 1) a protection from speculating quack doctors and 2) a
guide to the cure of the purification and the illumination of the
heart and glorification (theosis), or not?
42) "Let each person test himself, and
thus eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For one who eats and
drinks not discerning the Body eats and drinks his own judgment.
For this reason many among you are weak and sick and many are
dead" (1 Cor. 11:28-30). In other words one tests himself to
see whether he is a member of the Body of Christ by being in the
state of illumination, i.e. with at least kinds of tongues.
Otherwise one shares in the bread and the cup
"unworthily" (1 Cor. 11:27). In such a case one is
still "weak" or "sick" and even spiritually
"dead" (1 Cor. 11:30), i.e. not sharing in the
resurrection of the inner person and so not yet communicating at
the Eucharist unto life in Christ, but rather unto judgment. One
should not use the Eucharistic gatherings as occasions to simply
eat. This one does at home. "If we examine ourselves, we
will not be judged. Being judged by the Lord we are instructed,
so that we are not condemned with the world" (1 Cor.
11:31-32). In the states of illumination and glorification one is
instructed in his spirit by Christ Himself. This is the cure
which Paul explains in detail in 1 Cor. 12-15:11. (10)
VI. Formulations of dogmas not to be confused with the mystery of God
43) It was only to keep the faithful within
this tradition of cure in Christ that heresies were condemned by
the dogmatic formulations of Ecumenical and Local Councils. These
formulations have nothing to do with the Augustinian and
Franco-Latin analogia fidei and analogia entis,
i.e. with theological and philosophical speculations based on a
supposed similarity between the created and the uncreated. Belief
in such a similarity was the basic characteristic of heresies and
which has become common among some Orthodox also. The only
purpose of dogmatic formulations is to serve as guides to the
cure of the human spirit in and by Christ Himself.
VII. The Mysteries
44) Franco-Latin doctrines on the sacraments
and created grace are based on Augustine's Christology and his
quest for Neo-Platonic happiness. He unknowingly rejected the
First and Second Ecumenical Councils' identity of Christ with the
Old Testament Angel of God, Him Who is, the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush and the Lord
of Glory, the Lord Sabbaoth, the Pantocrator, and the Angel of
Great Council Who appeared to the Old Testament prophets.
Augustine was misled into believing that this identity was the
teaching of the heretical Arians alone. He did not know this was
also the teaching of the Fathers of the First and Second
Ecumenical Councils. Whereas the Arians and Eunomians believed
that this Lord and Angel of Glory was created by God, the
Orthodox Fathers knew from their own glorification in Christ and
from the Bible that He is the uncreated Son of God and
consubstantial with His Father. To his ignorance of this identity
of Christ with the Old Testament Lord of Glory, Augustine also
added his personal quest after Neo-Platonic happiness which has
nothing to do with God's glorification of the apostles and
45) Augustine is the father of the strange
teaching of the Franco-Latins whereby God brings into existence
creatures to be seen and heard by the prophets and the apostles
and which He passes back into non-existence after each specific
revelation. (11) Thus the aforementioned Old Testament Angel of
God and the fire in the burning bush, the pillar of fire and
cloud, the bird at Christ's baptism, the glory and rule of God in
both Testaments, and even the tongues of fire at Pentecost, are
supposed to have been all brought into existence and then passed
out of existence. In other words the linguistic symbols used by
the writers of the Bible to indicate glorifications/revelations
and the action of the grace of God are transformed into temporary
creatures which pass into and out of existence. Indeed for the
Franco-Latins this is supposed to be the lowest form of
revelation which is superseded by God's revelations made directly
to the intellect.
46) This was the teaching of Barlaam the
Calabrian who came from the West having become Orthodox not
knowing the faith of the Church on these matters. After arguing
with Orthodox monks and defending these Franco-Latin positions
his teachings were condemned by the Ninth Ecumenical Council (12)
of Constantinople of 1341. It became known a bit later that his
teachings were the originalities
of Augustine followed by the whole Franco-Latin Church. It was
evidently for this reason, and not only for his Filioque,
that Augustine was put on the sidelines of patristic authority.
In contrast the Church celebrates the feast day of St. Gregory
Palamas on the Second Sunday of Lent as a Second Sunday of
Orthodoxy for the chief role he played against the Franco-Latin
heresies of Barlaam and in order to protect the faithful on their
road to uncreated grace by their purification, illumination and
glorification in Christ. God makes Himself known to His saints by
glorifying them. They thus become gods by grace and see God in
his Logos made flesh and by the Holy Spirit.
*The author kindly sent me this clarifying addendum in response to a
question I had regarding his use of the term
"mysticism". This remark was not in the original text:
"By mysticism is meant the attempt to bypass or transcend
the material aspect of reality by contemplating the immaterial
archetypes in a divine intellect as though God is like an
architect who executes His mental plans. The Neo-Platonic form of
this tradition made its way into the Franco-Latin tradition by
way of Augustine. This became the foundation of Augustinian
monasticism which replaced Orthodox monasticm as represented by
Sts. Patrick, John Cassian and Benedict based on purification and
illumination of the heart and glorification which was not only
for monks but for all laypersons as well.
"From this viewpoint there
is no real difference between Protestants and Latins since
neither of them know the tradition of purification and
illumination of the heart and glorification or theosis. The real
difference between these children of Augustine is that Luther
rejected Augustinian mysticism and the monasticism which derives
therefrom. From this position we have the Latin distinction
between the contemplative and active lives. Protestants choose
the active life and on the whole left the life of contemplation
to the Latins.
"Because they are children
of Augustine both Latins and Protestants have been cut off from
glorification and with them the Orthodox victims of Peter the
"All Latins I know of have
been presenting mysticism as an integral part of the so-called
Greek Fathers since they have reading them by means of their
Augustinian glasses. Because of this St. Diosysius the
Areopagite's Greek chapter on 'Mystike Theologia' is mistakenly
translated 'Mystical Theology' instead of 'Secret Theology.' He
calls this chapter 'Secret Theology' because the uncreated glory
of God in ones glorification cannot be described in words nor
understood with concepts. It is from the glorification of the
saints that we know there is no similarity between the created
and uncreated and that 'it is impossible to express God and even
more impossible to conceive God.' (St. Gregory the Theologian).
Also Vladimir Losky's title of his Book The Mystical Theology
of the Eastern Church has added quite a bit to the
1. For documented sources of the details of the
murder of the Celtic and Saxon Bishops and abbots and their
replacement by nobles from the Frankish realms of Francia, i.e.
Gallia, Germania and Italia see Auguste Thierry, "Histoire
de la Conqute de l'Angleterre par les Normands," Paris
1843, vol. 2. pp. 147 (1071-1072), 215-219 (1075-1076), 284,
313-314, 318 (1087-1094);vol. 3, pp. 35 (1110-1138), 214-215
2. Ibid., vol. 2, pp.55, 66 (1068), 111, 145,
184 (1070-1072),215 (1075-1076), 240-242 (1082), 313-316
(1088-1089); vol. 3, pp. 35, 44, 47 (1110-1140).See also J. S.
Romanides, "Church Synods and Civilization," in
Theologia, Athens, vol. 63, issue 3, 1992,p. 427-428.
3. In addition to the work mentioned in note 1
see J. S. Romanides, "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and
Doctrine, an interplay between theology and society," Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline, Massachusetts 1982.
4. Ibid., pp. 11-14.
5. I.e. a native of the Roman province Magna
Graecia in Southern Italy
6. Migne P L, 89, 744; Mansi 12, 313-314.
7. J. S. Romanides, "Franks, Romans,
Feudalism and Doctrine," pp. 19-20.
8. Ibid., pp. 20-38.
9. See for example vol. 2, pp. 314-349, of F.
Cayr, A. A. Manual of Patrology and History of Theology,
(English version), Tournai vol 1, 1935, vol 2, 1940. Beginning
from p. 351 of vol. 2 and onward we are told about the Scholastic
Successors of the Fathers and then the Great Successors of the
Fathers and finally beginning on page 661 we are told about the
"General Decadence of Scholasticism.
10. See study referred to in note 1.
11. See for example his De Trinitate Books
II and III.
12. According to Roman Law.
Published in Theologia, the periodical of the Church of
Greece, Vol. VI 1993, Issue no. 4, pages 570-580.
For those interested in reading more about the historical and
theological background for Fr. John's critique I highly recommend
his book Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An
Interplay Between Theology and Society (Brookline, MA: Holy
Cross Press, 1981). It is indispensable for a proper
understanding of the so-called Great Schism and its aftermath.