What do we mean by “Fathers of the Church”?

 

Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries 

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ: Τι είναι οι Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας

“Fathers” and “Patricity” in Christian theology

“Fathers and Teachers of the Church” (or, in brief, simply “Fathers of the Church”) is the title used to denote Christian priests of all ranks¹ (but also some who were not priests), who have been acknowledged as spiritual teachers and have also been acknowledged as authors for their formulation, their definition of the boundaries of, and the defending of, the Christian dogma.²

According to Western scholasticism (i.e., the philosophical theology that developed in western Europe following the Schism of 1054 and up until its apex during the Medieval era), the Patristic era ended in the 6^th century A.D. for the Western Church (with the last Western Father being Saint Isidore of Seville) and in the 8^th century for the Eastern Church (with the last Eastern Father being Saint John of Damascus). More recent historical and literary research, which has developed in the West and has adopted the criteria of scholasticism, has likewise adopted the idea of separating “Patristic literature” (=the works of the Fathers up until the 8^th century) from “Byzantine literature” (=the works of Byzantine authors after the 8^th century).

The Orthodox Church however regards Her theology as being always Patristic and only to the extent that it continues to be Patristic, can it also be considered valid and true. Thus, the Church discerns carriers of Her Patristic spirit in every Christian era, from the 2^nd century (=the first century after the generation of Apostles, with Saints like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch the “God-bearer”, e.a..), through to the late Byzantine era (for example, Saints Gregory Palamas 14^th century, Mark of Ephesus 15^th century), but also after the Byzantine era (Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain 18^th – 19^th century, the Russian Saints of the 19^th century: Ignatius Branchianinov and Theophanes the Recluse, Innocent Beniaminov, e.a.), while even in our times there also appear to be several authentic carriers of the Patristic spirit of ecclesiastic theology – some of whom have been recognized officially as Saints (for example Saint Nectarios of Pentapolis, Luke the Physician of Symferoupolis, John of Shanghai (Maximovitch), Nicholas of Ohrid (Velimirovitch), e.a.), while others, albeit not “officially” recognized through an ecclesiastic “decision” of any kind, are nevertheless recognized in practice; for example holy teachers such as Justin Popovic, Sophrony Sacharov, Filotheos Zervakos, e.a..

The Church’s persistence with Patricity in Her theology is attributed to the fact that She regards the Fathers as saints; that is to say, as individuals with an authentic (in the Christian sense) association with uncreated (=divine) reality, and as such, reliable expressers of Her dogmatic teachings, whose validity also includes the element of being “divinely inspired”. The Christian dogma is expressed by means of the “enlightenment of the Holy Spirit” (in other words, through God Himself), and not by means of intellectual cogitations. And this is the determinant difference between philosophy and theology.

Of course, for the Church this difference does not lie in “appealing to a Holy-Spiritual enlightenment” – that is, to a “religious authority” – but to the actual existence of this transcendental element; otherwise, if in both cases we were to have ontological and soteriological systems, fashioned by human intellectual processes that merely invoked a certain contact with the divine Beyond for reasons of prestige, then in essence, there would be no objective difference between philosophy and theology³.

Fathers and philosophy

It should be noted that the Patristic opus does not end with the definition of boundaries of the Christian dogma; it also extends into a multitude of issues that involve the examination of human nature - and especially the soul - as well as Man’s relationship with himself, his fellow-man, the world and God – in other words, it deals with the healing of the consequences of Man’s Fall, for each individual, for mankind, and for Creation overall. The Patristic opus also continues its ceaseless dialogue with Philosophy and Science as they appear in every era. In this context, it makes sense to examine Patristic essays from the philosophical aspect also, inasmuch as they comprise one of the most fruitful chapters of worldwide thought. Unfortunately, the science of Philosophy’s History is ignorant of their contribution, although in recent times, with the endeavours of Greek researchers such as K.D.Georgoulis, Vasilios Tatakis, Bishop John Zizioulas of Pergamon, Christos Yannaras, fr. Nicholas Loudovikos e.a., their contribution is now being brought to light.

«An orthodox mind will stand at the point where all roads meet. He will carefully examine each road and, from his uniquely advantageous position, he will observe the conditions, the dangers, the uses and finally, the destination of each road. He will examine each road from the Patristic point of view, given that his personal convictions will come into a real, not hypothetical, contact with the culture around him» (Ivan Kiriyevski, Orthodox Russian author; quoted from the book by fr. Seraphim Rose "Orthodoxy and the religion of the future).

The Fathers of the ancient Church possess in their arsenal the entirety of Hellenic philosophy; after all, they too are philosophers. The only difference is that they are not concerned with “interpreting the world” or describing the laws of nature and their functions (alas, for our contemporary, materialistic sciences), but instead, they focus on theosis (deification), which they consider an imperative prerequisite for a complete knowledge of the world – in other words, our association with the world. (Of course, to modern science this seems meaningless, because it is a conquering, not a loving science. How can you love that which you seek to conquer? Our entire civilization – the western kind, which has now been imposed worldwide – is a conquering kind. Even the major navigators-“explorers” were followed by invading conquistadors, while the exploration of space is commonly referred to as “the conquest of outer space”).

It should be noted that Basil the Great’s “Hexaemeron” for example, as well as Saint Gregory of Nyssa’s “On the making of Man”, which is the continuation of the “Hexaemeron”, also summarize the scientific knowledge of their time. Saint Gregory specifically uses references to physiology, medicine, psychology, and also makes mention of dreams etc. And yet they all interpret in the most rational manner, rejecting astrology and any other irrational forms of religiosity.

Let us keep in mind that prior to its illicit Medieval distortion Christianity represented logic and progress, whereas idolatry represented irrationalism. Immediately upon its founding, the Church had openly opposed the superstition of the roman world, regarding it to be something irrational: astrology, star-worship, angel-worship, sorcery, divination, submission to fate…

Are the Fathers infallible?

We need to mention here that the Fathers of the Church, albeit saints, are not considered infallible. However, it is in them that the words of the Lord are realized: “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (John 6:45), therefore their opinion is far more valid than any “scientist” theologian’s (mine, for example) who is not pure in heart. A valid interpreter of this kind (a saint) can quite easily be a humble and illiterate person (man or woman or even child), if their heart is pure enough. The “grand mystery of piety” (1 Tim.3:16) becomes palpable through catharsis of the heart, and not through logic. The heart is not the place of sentiments; it is where the Holy Spirit comes to reside (if the heart is pure), or the evil spirit (God forbid!) if the heart is filled with passions (Gal 4:6, Luke 22:3).

Even though I may not possess a perfect knowledge of Patristic literature and what is more, I am by no means a saint (so that I can speak validly about the saints), I do venture to say the following: There have been certain Fathers who, within the sum of their important writings, have also supported certain teachings that according to Orthodox theology were wrong. The most characteristic example is saint Augustine, however there are other examples also, such as the Syrian Fathers Aphrates and Isaac, who had maintained that Hell is only temporary (this is because they had perceived it as a punishment by God and they were confident that the God of Love would not punish eternally), and others. Thus, it is advisable to read the holy Fathers within the context of the overall teaching of the Church and to not absolutize the viewpoints of one or two of them. We accept something as valid, when it is supported by the sum of the saints of the Church, even if one or two Fathers happen to have another viewpoint. [For an analysis of this problem, see the book by fr. Seraphim Rose (whom I dare to call an American contemporary Father of the Church), “The soul after death – Posthumous experiences in the light of Orthodox teaching”, Myriobiblos Publications]
 

Some of the Fathers

We could briefly list here a number of Fathers of the Church who come to mind:

Apostolic Fathers (1^st century) : Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-bearer, Polycarp of Smyrna.

Apologetes (2^nd century) : Saint Justin the philosopher and martyr, Athenagoras the Athenian philosopher, Kodratus Bishop of Athens, Theophilos of Antioch e.a..

Pursuant Fathers: 2^nd century: Irenaeus of Lyon, 3^rd century: Dionysios or Rome, Dionysios of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage e.a., 4^th century: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, Martin of Tours, 4^th-5^th centuries: John the Chrysostom, the blessed Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria; 6^th century: Dionysus the Areopagite, Leontius the Byzantine; 7^th century: Maximus the Confessor, Isaac of Syria, 8^th century: John of Damascus, Boniface of Germany; 9^th century: Theodore the Studite, Photios the Great… 15^th century: Gregory Palamas, 16^th century: Mark of Ephesus, e.a…..

Particular groups of Fathers

A particular group of Fathers of the Church is one that pertains to those who did not leave any written works behind them, but had contributed towards the formulation of Orthodox theology, through their participation in local Synods, and especially in Ecumenical ones; such were the major saints of the 1^st Ecumenical Synod, Spyridon and Nicholas. The Fathers of Ecumenical Synods are generally honoured “en masse” as saints, given that it was NOT on the basis of political interests and imperial directions that they formulated the terms and the teachings of the Synods, but through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

Then there are the Neptic Fathers (that is, the teachers of “nepsis” – the Orthodox “science of ascetic living” – although all the Fathers are also neptic): Makarius the Egyptian (4^th century, Cassian the Roman, Benedict of Noursia, Diadochus of Fotiki, John of Sinai (author of the ‘Ladder’, 6^th century), Simeon the New Theologian (10^th – 11^th centuries), Gregory of Sinai, Niketas Stethatos (11^th century, Nicholas Kavasilas, Nicephoros the Recluse, etc… (refer to the monumental works “Philokalia of the sacred Neptics”, which the holy Fathers Makarius Notaras and Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain had composed during the Turkish occupation and the Russian Father Paisius Velitkovsky had translated into Russian).

Another particular group of Fathers of the Church are the Hymnography Fathers: for example, saints Romanos the Melodist (the Salutations to the Theotokos e.a. and especially numerous other kontakia), Ephraim the Syrian (in Syrian), Andrew of Crete (the “Major Canon”), John of Damascus (the canon for the night of Easter e.a.), Kosmas the Melodist (the Canon for Christmas e.a.), Joseph the Hymnographer (innumerable canons), Theophanes and Theodore the Branded (they are called thus, because their foreheads were branded with a red-hot iron during the Iconomachy period), Theodore the Studite, Cassiane the Hymnographer (the “troparion of Cassiane” – glorification hymn chanted on Tuesday of Easter Week, also a section of the canon of Good Friday, e.a.) and many others. A contemporary hymnographer-Father was the blessed elder Gerasimos of the Holy Mountain, from the Minor Scete of Saint Anne).

There are also the Fathers of the Desert, who are hermits and monks. Some of them we have already mentioned. Let us note a few more. It should be noted that most of them were simple monks, without any ecclesiastic “rank” – not even priests. Furthermore, many of them did not leave any written texts; however, their verbal teachings as well as their way of life (which was quite possibly even more important than their words) have been recorded by other Fathers in collective works such as the “Lausaikon” by saint Palladius of Helenoupolis, the “Leimonarion” by saint John Moschou, the “Patristic Maxims”, etc…

Older Fathers: Anthony the Great ( the «professor of the desert»), Pachum the Great, Sisoe the Great, Poemen the Great, Arsenius the Great, Pafnut the Great, Nilus, Daniel of the Scete, Pitirum, Zosimas, John the Persian, Ammonius, John Kolovos, Theodore of Ferme, Abraham the Iberian, Moses the Ethiopian «of the robbers» (=a former robber), Sarmatas, Pambo, Biare, Onupher the Egyptian, Pior, Apfy, Mark the Athenian, Theodosios, Head of the Coenobium, and many others.

Recent Fathers:

Russian: Serge of Radonez, Seraphim of Sarov («find peace, and thousands of people will find peace alongside you»), Agapetos the Healer, Alexander of Svir, Cyril of the White Lake, Nicodemus of Lake Koza, John “of many feats”, Job of Potsaev, Nilus of Sorsky, the Elders of Optina (Anatolios, Joseph, Ambrose, Moses, Varsanuf, Nectarios, e.a.), Seraphim of Viritsa and many others (for these, see works such as the “Paterikon of the Caves of Kiev”, “The Thebais of the North” e.a.)

Holy Mountain: Siluan and fr.Tichon (Russians), Paisios, Anthimos of Saint Anna, Porphyry the “Hut-burner”, Joseph the Hesychast or Spilaiotes (the cave-dweller), Ephraim of Katounakia e.a.

Drama (Nth.Greece): George Karslides

Crete: Evmenios and Parthenios Koudouma (from Heraclion), Joachimaki Koudouma (from Roupes, Mylopotamos), Gennadios of Rethymnon, Evmenios of Roustika and many others

Romania: Cleopas Elie, Arsenios Bokas, Paisios Olaru, John of Hozeva, Enoch the Simple (Holy Mountain) etc…

Mothers of the Church

Icon from here

Aside from the Fathers, there are also the holy Mothers of the Church, who belong mainly to the last mentioned group, i.e. of the teachers who did not write anything themselves but whose way of life and words were recorded and handed down to us by others. Among the hundreds of major women-teachers of Orthodoxy were the following:

• The holy, great martyr Saint Ekaterina who, despite having been imprisoned for her faith, brought 150 idolatrous philosophers to Christianity, as well as 500 soldiers along with their commander (all of them were executed and are saints of our Church).

• Saint Makrina, grandmother of Saint Basil the Great and Saint Gregory of Nyssa,

• Her grand-daughter, also Makrina the Saint, the “theologian, teacher and philosopher” (according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa), who had convinced her mother saint Emmelia, to give equal rights to her maids and servants and to eventually give them their freedom.

• Saint Maria the Egyptian. A rich young woman who lived her life as a prostitute, for the pleasure and not for the money. On a pilgrimage trip to Jerusalem, she seduced the men who were travelling on the same ship. But when she arrived there, an invisible force obstructed her from going near the Precious Cross to worship. Crushed with the realization of her sins, she immediately departed for the depths of the desert taking only some bread with her and she remained there, until she was revealed in a divine vision to saint Zosimas, who found her in the desert, brought Holy Communion to her on his next visit to the desert, and a year later, he returned to find her lifeless body in the desert (still intact) and with the help of a lion, dug a grave and buried her there.

• Saint Melane, who, together with her husband, distributed her fortune in order to free captives, and ended up being the spiritual mother to the monastic sisterhood that the first Saint Melane – her grandmother - had founded in Jerusalem

• Saint Irene “Chrysovalantou”, who was seen to hover above the ground whenever she was in prayer and cypress trees would also lower their branches whenever she passed by them.

• Saint Matrona of Chiopolis, who lived on the island of Chios in the 15^th century and performed innumerable miracles, both while alive as well as after her repose

• The equally important ascetic saints, Syncletiki, Anastasia the former patrician (she lived inside a cave that only Saint Daniel of the Scete knew, in the 6^th century), Theoktiste of Lesvos island, Sarrah and Theodora, Genevieve of Paris, Ursula of Germany, Gulinduch the Persian (Maria when baptized)

• The great saints of philanthropy, Filothei the Athenian (1589) and Elizabeth the Grand Duchess of Russia (1918), who spent all their fortune to build hospitals and philanthropic institutions and finally gave their very life-blood (the former was put to death by Turks and the latter by Communists)

• The saints of Russia Dorothea and Anna of Kasin, Paraskeve of Pinega, Athanasia Logacheva, the “fools for Christ” saints Pelagia Ivanovna, Xeni of Petroupolis, and many others

• Contemporary saints, the holy Mothers Methodia of Kimolos island (1908), Pelagia of Kimolos island, Sophia the “Holy Mother’s ascetic” (1974, Kastoria), Tarso, the “fool for Christ” (Keratea, Attica 1989), Gabriela Papayanni (1993) and many more…

Notes

1 The ‘ranks’ of Christian priesthood are three: Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop. Albeit most of the Fathers of the Church bore the rank of Bishop, there have been Fathers with only the rank of Deacon (e.g. Ephraim the Syrian –he wrote in Syrian- and of Presbyter (e.g. John of Damascus) or even ordinary monks.

2 The definition is by professor G.Zografides, “Byzantine Philosophy” and “Hellenic Philosophy”. For more detail see “Patrologia A” by Stylianos Papadopoulos - Introduction – 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, Athens 1977, Introduction.

3 As above mentioned work by Styl. Papadopoulos, Introduction.

Translation by A.N.

 

Who killed Homer (again)?

 

 

Democratic Patriotic Popular Movement NIKI   

Over the past few days, a major debate has erupted across social media, following rumors that Christopher Nolan’s highly anticipated Odyssey closely follows the queer reinterpretation of classical antiquity. It has leaked, though without any official confirmation yet, that Achilles may be portrayed by Ellen Page (the actor who transitioned and is now known as Elliot Page), while Helen of Troy may be played by Lupita Nyong’o, a Black actress.

These choices, if they are indeed true, are the product of an ideological fixation that wages war against anything connected to tradition, inherited truth, and the fundamental anthropological patterns of Greek (and consequently Western) civilization. The West is essentially choosing to renegotiate its relationship with the past on entirely new terms. Who could forget the uproar caused by the BBC’s Troy series, which cast the Black actor David Gyasi as Achilles? Moving in the same direction is the translation of Emily Wilson on which Nolan reportedly based his adaptation. A translation that aspired to become an ideological “correction” of Homer, “cleansing” him of words and meanings associated with patriarchal and androcentric readings. Humanity, it seems, found in Wilson the moral courage willing to confront the “corruption” of a work that, for 2,700 years, had supposedly corrupted the souls of the young including Alexander the Great himself, who famously kept the Iliad at his bedside.

The frenzy of identity politics has flooded public discourse, public space, art, and universities alike, with insatiable expansionist tendencies. But why does it insist on staking its claim on ancient Greek civilization as well? Why does it desire an Achilles stripped of his epic heroism and of the form that once inspired terror in the Trojans? To answer this question, we must understand that Homer belongs to the foundational myths of Western civilization. Through his work, the West reflected upon heroism, glory, honour, death, fate, courage, the historicity of virtue, and the tragic nature of human existence. But once you shift the center of gravity toward sexuality, you deconstruct the founding myth in order to renegotiate your identity, to gain control over the cultural imagination of both the present and the future.

The argument usually made in favor of such interventions is the “freedom of art.” But how free can art truly be when it moves almost exclusively in one direction? When Hollywood, universities, cultural institutions, platforms, and state funding all converge around the same ideological pattern? Could it be that this supposed “nonconformity” has itself become a new form of cultural imperialism? An imperialism in which anything traditional must be branded outdated, morally inferior, and stripped of legitimacy.
We have reached the point where the freedom of Art means freedom only for those who call themselves progressive, whose mission is to “moralize” tradition by reconstructing it according to their own ideological obsessions. And so texts are censored, comedies are silenced, reactions are suppressed, historical truth is forgotten, and a new past is manufactured without the consent of the societies that inherited it.

In the end, the answer to the question posed by the book Who Killed Homer? is simple: those who insist, instead of reading Homer, on reading themselves into him. Those who, rather than engaging through Art with other worlds, transform it into a tool of perpetual self-affirmation.

And Homer is just one more victim. The greatest victim is the new generation, in whose consciousness will be inscribed a genderless, neutered Achilles, severed from the heroic ideal, from the era that he belongs to, from the anthropology he embodies. And he too will be added to the long line of “heroes” desecrated upon the masterpieces of humanity, solely in order to normalize the new kind of human being they are determined, at any cost, to impose upon us

Dr. Ioanna Stergiou
Head of Culture & Sports Thematic Group

The Song “Ferto” and the Voice of a Generation that Grew Up in Crisis

Democratic Patriotic Popular Movement NIKI  

The song “Ferto,” which will represent Greece this year at the Eurovision contest, has sparked a variety of reactions. Yet, beyond a superficial reading of its lyrics and of the overall concept of the work, we ought to approach more deeply the social and existential context within which it was born.

We shall not dwell on the simplicity of its language and music, on the lack of depth and of profound meaning, on the pervasive irony and the constant “trolling,” which essentially amounts to the use of humor as a defense mechanism and as a search for immediate gratification.

In our view, this song is not a hymn to gambling, consumerism, or greed, as it may initially appear. Rather, it is primarily the anguished cry of a generation (to which its creator, Akylas, also belongs) that grew up during the prolonged economic crisis, was deprived of fundamental opportunities, saw its expectations collapse, and today struggles daily for survival, without a clear prospect for the future.

Behind the desire for money, success, and material security lies a deep wound: insecurity, uncertainty, and the fear that life may stagnate or regress. Phrases such as “what we were deprived of in the past,” “so that nothing will be lacking again,” and “I buy to fill the gaps” reveal precisely this lived experience of a generation that grew up watching its parents being tested while its own future was shrinking.

At the same time, the song also reflects a deeper cultural void: the loss of meaning and orientation within our society. When society offers no vision, when education fails to inspire, when the state does not create real prospects, then the youth seek outlets wherever they can find them.

Today, moreover, the anxiety becomes even greater as the world enters a new technological era. Artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics are shaping a future in which many young people fear they may become unnecessary to the system. This uncertainty generates stress, pressure, and at times extreme expressions of desire for success and security.

For this reason, instead of confronting such artistic phenomena with rejection, we ought to read them as social symptoms. The artist expresses—perhaps unconsciously—the anxiety of an entire generation.

The real question, therefore, is not whether we like a song, but what kind of society we are creating for our young people.

Greece needs a new vision of life, hope, and perspective. It needs an education that cultivates persons rather than merely skills, a society that offers meaning, and a state that creates opportunities.

Our youth do not deserve criticism; they deserve a future.

And this future can be born only when we rediscover our roots, our identity, and the civilization of Romeosyne, which sees the human being not as an isolated individual or unit, but as a person endowed with value and destiny.

Ioannis Kon. Neonakis
Member of the Cultural Policy Committee of NIKI
Head of the Romeosyne Policy Committee of NIKI

The Romeoi (Rum) of the Levant: Identity and a Concise Historical Overview

الجمعية الثقافية الرومية Romaian Cultural Society

يشرفني أن أرسلَ إليكم هذه الصورة، أعلاه، والمقالة التي كتبها الدكتور يوانيس نيوناكيس المسؤؤل عن قسم العلاقات مع الروم خارج اليونان في حزب النصر NIKH اليوناني، معتمداً في هذه المقالة على المعلومات التي حصل عليها من مختلف المقالات والفيديوهات التي أصدرتها جمعيتنا خلال السنوات المنصرمة. المقالة هامة جداً، وقد كُتبت باليونانية والإنكليزية، وتوزع داخل اليونان وخارجه.

حزب النصر اليوناني، يؤمن، كما الجمعية الثقافية الرومية، بأممية الروم العابرة للقوميات والدول، ويسعى لمزيدٍ من التضامن والتكامل بين الروم في جميع البلدان.

نشكر الدكتور نيوناكيس وحزب النصر على إهتمامهم بقضايا الروم في بلدان المشرق، ونأمل مزيداً من التعاون يؤدي الى نهضةٍ روميةٍ حقيقية وعميقة تحافظ على وجودنا في وجه التحديات الكثيرة التي نتعرض إليها.

المسيح قام!

 

 

The Romeoi (Rum) of the Levant: Identity and a Concise Historical Overview 

 

Ioannis K. Neonakis
Head of the Romeosyne Policy Department, NIKI 

Democratic Patriotic Popular Movement NIKI 

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we wish to express our heartfelt gratitude to the members of the Romaian Cultural Society, based in Beirut, and in particular to its President, Professor Negib Elias Geahchan, as well as to Mr Nicolas Saba and Mr Gabriel Andrea, for their invaluable assistance.

Introduction

In modern European terminology, the term Levant denotes the geographical area of the Eastern Mediterranean, and more specifically its eastern shores, that is, the region comprising chiefly Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan. The term derives from the French word levant (“east,” “the place where the sun rises”).
The name Romeoi / Romaioi (Rum) is not merely a historical designation, but a declaration of identity and continuity. It derives from Rome, initially the city in Italy, and thereafter from New Rome, Constantinople, which was founded in 330 AD by Saint Constantine the Great and served as the capital of the Roman Empire, that is, of our homeland Romanía (wrongly and deceitfully termed “Byzantium”).
Greek cities in the region of the Levant are already attested from the seventh century BC onward. Phoenicians (Canaanites) and Arameans, in continual contact and intermixture with the Greek world (populations from Cyprus, the islands of the Aegean, and Asia Minor), gradually formed a unified cultural body. During the age of Alexander the Great and the subsequent Seleucid period, Hellenization was profound and complete, with the Greek language becoming the common tongue of daily life, administration, and education, especially in the western provinces (present-day Lebanon, Palestine, and Western Syria).

Seleucus I Nicator, Alexander’s general, founded Antioch the Great, whose first settlers were chiefly Athenians and Macedonians. Antioch would become a cradle of Greek civilization, and later of Christianity, while the whole region would for hundreds of years constitute a central pillar of Romanía. To this day, Antioch remains the seat of the Orthodox Romeic Patriarchate, bearing witness to an unbroken ecclesiastical and historical continuity.
Nearly all the major cities of the Levant bore Greek names already from antiquity. Some have survived to this day, others were partially Arabized, while some were replaced by Arabic names: Ptolemais (Akko / Acre), Tyre, Sarepta (Sarafand), Sidon (Saida), Porphyreon (Jiyeh), Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Jbeil), Botrys (Batroun), Tripolis (Tripoli), Arcadia (Arqa), Antaradus (Tartus), Aradus (Arwad), Heliopolis (Baalbek), Seleuceia (al-Suqaylabiyah), Paneas (Banias), Caesarea, and others.
When the Levant was incorporated into the Roman Empire, its inhabitants became Roman citizens, yet without losing their linguistic and cultural substratum. Greek remained the living language both of the people and of the state. This is clearly reflected in the New Testament, which was written there in the Greek language.

Christianization

Before 313 AD, Christianity remained chiefly an urban reality, embraced by a relatively small part of the population (10–20%). Yet with the appearance of Saint Constantine the Great and the historic turning point he brought about, a new era began for Romanía. The transfer of the capital to New Rome / Constantinople was not a mere administrative act, but a profound rupture that redefined the course of the Empire. This city emerged as the center of Orthodoxy, and from that point onward Romanía was no longer simply an empire, but a Christian polity, in which the faith largely shaped the identity, society, and very mode of existence of the Romeoi. From the fourth century onward, the population of the Levant, like that of the entire Empire, became almost wholly Christian.

Christian Schisms

Antioch, a metropolis of Romanía with a population that reached 500,000, was a center of theology and intellectual life, but at the same time also a field of multiple tensions. Within this environment arose major heresies, which were not merely doctrinal disagreements, but ruptures that deeply affected the unity of the Romeic body:
• 325: Arianism
• 430: Nestorianism (Church of the East)
• 451: Monophysitism / Miaphysitism (Syriacs – Syriac Orthodox Church; Copts – Coptic Church)
• 685: Monothelitism (Maronites – Maronite Church)
After the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), the Levant was divided not only theologically, but also culturally and linguistically. In the western regions, the majority remained within the Romeic tradition—Orthodox and Greek-speaking. Yet in the east, communities developed that moved away doctrinally (Monophysitism, Syriacs or Jacobites – Syriac Orthodox Church), while also preserving their Aramaic linguistic identity.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was in truth a deep rupture that split the Levant. From that point onward, two distinct worlds took shape: in the west, the Romeic, Chalcedonian, and Orthodox world; in the east, another sphere, marked by an ethnic and linguistic character, expressed through the Syriac Monophysite tradition.
Two centuries later, the Sixth Ecumenical Council (685) brought about yet another division, this time within the western regions of the Levant, where a local ecclesiastical reality arose in the mountains of Lebanon that would eventually culminate in the Maronite Patriarchate.
Thus, the region that had once constituted a single Romeic and ecclesiastical body was fragmented. These schisms shaped new identities and established boundaries between the Romeic world and the seceded communities, with consequences that reach down to the present day.

The great emperors of Romanía—from Constantine and the Theodosians to Justinian, Maurice, and Heraclius—not only organized an immensely powerful state, but fashioned an entire world. In the Levant they gave form to a distinctly Christian polity: they restored and elevated cities (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Damascus, as well as the so-called “forgotten cities” of Apamea), they built monastic centers that became great spiritual hearths (Saint Sabbas, Saint Catherine, Our Lady of Saidnaya), and they raised churches that expressed the faith as a public and collective reality [the Church of the Nativity, the Church of the Resurrection, the Church of Saint John the Baptist in Damascus (now the Umayyad Mosque), and others]. These were not isolated works, but a conscious transformation of space: the entire region was integrated into a unified Romeic and Orthodox civilization, in which city, church, and monastery together formed a single way of life.
Beirut was not merely a city of the Levant, but one of the most important intellectual and institutional centers of Romanía. Its School of Law, equal in stature to that of Constantinople, shaped Roman law and contributed decisively to the formation of Justinian’s Code.
At the same time, the Levant emerged as a womb of sanctity and theology. From it came forth great figures of our Church, such as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Romanos the Melodist, Saint John of Damascus, Saint Sabbas, Saint Barbara, Saint Thekla, Saint Cosmas the Melodist, Bishop of Maiuma, Saint Isaac the Syrian, and many others—saints who left their seal upon the faith, theology, and worship of the Church.
Here it becomes abundantly clear that the Levant was not a mere periphery, but a living core of our homeland, producing law, discourse, and sanctity—in other words, civilization in its fullness.

Islam in the Levant

In the seventh century, the Levant underwent a radical rupture: the Arab Islamic invasion. This new power, emerging from the Arabian Peninsula, appeared precisely at the borders of Romanía and soon conquered the provinces of the Levant.
Islam did not arise in a vacuum, but within an environment already marked by various Christian and Jewish currents. It was influenced, among other things, by movements denying the divinity of Christ, such as Arianism, as well as by Judaeo-Christian communities such as the Nazarenes, who regarded Christ as one sent by God, but not as God.
The arrival of the Muslims was not received uniformly: the Monophysites, already estranged from Romanía, often viewed them favorably, whereas the Orthodox perceived them as a new heresy, as Saint John of Damascus characteristically formulates it in his writings. Thus, the Islamic conquest was not merely a political change, but a profound alteration of the religious and cultural map of the Levant.
The Treatment of Christians by the Muslims – The Status of the Dhimmi
Dhimmi were the non-Muslims who were permitted to live under Muslim rule, but in a condition of inferiority. The status of the dhimmi did not constitute civic equality, but rather an institutionalized form of tolerated subordination. Non-Muslim populations, and especially the Romeoi, were allowed to retain their faith, but only on condition that they would not display it publicly and would not challenge the supremacy of Islam.

The dhimmi had:
• the right to perform religious services, provided they did not disturb Muslims,
• the right to own property and work, with the exception of professions reserved exclusively for Muslims (politics, the judiciary, teaching),
• the obligation to pay the jizya (poll tax) in exchange for protection, along with a prohibition on participating in military action against Muslims,
• a prohibition on displaying religious symbols (crosses, icons), on wearing distinctively Christian dress, and on publicly exhibiting places of worship,
• a prohibition on audible prayer outside churches,
• a prohibition on bell-ringing,
• a prohibition on building or repairing churches without Muslim permission,
• a prohibition on the “proselytizing” of Muslims (that is, evangelization),
• a prohibition on marrying a Muslim woman,
• a prohibition on inheriting from Muslims,
• and, in certain historical periods, an obligation to wear distinguishing Christian clothing, a ban on riding horses and camels, and an obligation to walk to the left of a Muslim in public spaces.
The so-called “protected” communities possessed rights only within predetermined limits, and their position always depended on the will of the authorities and on historical circumstances. Thus, the system’s “tolerance” was not equality, but a regulated and revocable concession.

What Happened after the Arab-Muslim Occupation of the Levant?

• 630–640: Arab Islamic invasion of the Levant.
• 640–1920: A succession of invasions and manifold alienation through foreign cultural influences:
o Intense Arabization and Islamization (Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Mamluks): the Greek language was replaced by Arabic; the dhimmi system was enforced.
o Crusades: Latinization.
o Ottomans (after 1516): the Millet system.
After the Arab conquest of the seventh century, the Levant entered a long period of transformations and successive impositions, which deeply altered its original Romeic identity.
Gradually, Arabization and Islamization prevailed: Greek, which had been the language of civilization and faith, gave way to Arabic, and the Romeoi were reduced to the status of dhimmi. This was not merely political domination, but a profound cultural mutation.
Subsequently, the Crusades brought about a new external intervention with strongly Latin characteristics, seeking to redefine the region in Western terms foreign to the Romeic tradition.
Finally, under Ottoman rule, an administrative system was consolidated which did recognize the Romeoi as a religious community, but definitively incorporated them into a framework of subordination and separation (Rum milleti).
During the Ottoman occupation, the condition of the Romeoi of the Levant improved in part:
• they re-established contact with the other Romeoi of Asia Minor and the Balkans,
• they were integrated into the millet system under the guarantee of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and
• they were allowed to repair or erect new churches, maintain certain schools, and so forth.

The Major Consequences of Long Muslim Rule (13 Centuries)

The age-long occupation of the Levant led to a deep and gradual alteration of identity.
Arabization distanced the Romeoi from their natural body. Their living bond with Constantinople weakened, the Greek language receded from daily life and was largely confined to worship, while even personal names were gradually replaced by Arabic ones, marking a deeper cultural displacement.
At the same time, Islamization was extensive. Through the social and institutional pressures of the dhimmi system, many were driven en masse to change their faith, especially in urban centers. Churches were converted into mosques, public Christian presence was curtailed, and education was weakened, since Christians generally had no schools of their own.

Western Intervention and the Russian Role

During the Ottoman period, the Levant became a field of rivalry among foreign powers. The state alliances of Ottomans and Franks gave the Papal Church a privileged position, and it undertook systematic penetration through its notorious instrument, the Propaganda Fide (Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide). This was a mechanism of Rome for the worldwide expansion of Papism, coordinating missionaries, schools, printing presses, and every possible means.
Thus, the Holy Places were placed under French “protection” (for roughly one hundred years); the Maronites became Catholic (1580); and, tragically, fractures appeared even within the Romeic body itself, as happened in the schism of 1724. At that point the Romeic body was divided between those who remained Orthodox Romeoi and the Unionists (Melkite Catholics, also called Uniates, from Unia, “Union”), who entered into communion with Rome.
From the beginning of the nineteenth century onward, a strong Protestant factor was also added, with missions from Prussia, England, and America seeking to reshape the identity of the local populations, through agencies such as the Church Missionary Society (London) and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (New England).
In addition, nationalism was imported from the West as a tool for weakening and fragmenting the Ottoman Empire (many Romeoi adopted Arab or Syrian nationalism).
Within this framework, Russia also appeared many times as a counterweight. From the seventeenth century onward, it developed relations with the Patriarchates and intervened in pursuit of the protection of the Orthodox. Although its policy did not avoid mistakes—indeed, serious ones—Russia, through its wars with the Ottoman Empire, its diplomatic activity, and its broader involvement, contributed to ending French protection over the Holy Places, to the relaxation of the restrictions of the dhimmi system, and in large measure supported the reconstruction of the ecclesiastical and educational life of the Romeoi of the Levant.
Thus, the region was transformed into a field of conflict between West and East, with the Romeoi standing at the center of this geopolitical and spiritual confrontation.
Today, after the schism of 1724, the Romeoi are divided into two religious communities: the Orthodox and the Catholics (Papists). Correspondingly, there are two Orthodox Patriarchates (Antioch and Jerusalem) and one Catholic Patriarchate, whose jurisdiction covers the territories of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
After all this, it is a great historical wonder that the hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Romeoi of the Levant endured and continue to this day proudly and luminously to declare and defend their identity. We all owe them much, and above all our undivided respect and support.
We shall, however, return to the Romeoi of the Levant.

See also

The Pious Genos of the Romeoi 

Book: My Sun Shall Not Fade – A Journey in the Romaian Legacy 

New Massacre of Romeoi in Damascus

Greek Orthodox (Romeoi/Rum) continue to be murdered in Syria! NIKI denounces the killing of two Romeoi in the Valley of the Christians and demands justice and protection for the Romeoi.  

When the Romeoi (Rum) are persecuted, does Greece merely “follow the situation”?

Greek MEP Aims to Break EU Silence Regarding Christian Persecution in Syria

Post-Liberalism: The West in Search of Romeosyne

THE ORTHODOX ROOTS OF THE WEST: A FACTOR FOR PAN-EUROPEAN UNITY

“The targeting of Christian liberty stems from a desire to erase distinct identities”—Christodoulos Molyvas, Greek NIKI Party

From Ancient Hellenic to Romeiko Civilization

 

Thomas Sunday: John 20:19–31 (not simply a “story of doubt,” but a concise revelation)

 

Nektarios, Orthodox Metropolitan of Hong Kong and South East Asia

 

The passage John 20:19–31, read at the Divine Liturgy on Thomas Sunday, is not simply a “story of doubt,” but a concise revelation of how the Risen Christ constitutes the Church as a body of living communion, faith, and mission. Orthodox tradition sees here the passage out of fear, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the healing of human unbelief, and the witness that Jesus is truly God and truly man.

The text begins “on the first day of the week” and with “the doors being shut where the disciples were gathered, for fear of the Jews.” The disciples have heard the news of the Resurrection, yet their inner world remains wounded: fear, confusion, insecurity. Christ, however, comes and “stood in the midst.” In the Church’s liturgical experience, the One who “stands in the midst” is the Lord who makes the community an ecclesial assembly: it is not an ideology that unites, but a Person who is present. His entrance, despite the closed doors, shows that His risen body is a true body, now freed from the limitations of corruption; it is not a ghost, but the same Jesus in a new, incorruptible mode of life.

 

The greeting “Peace be with you” is not a conventional wish. Here peace is the fruit of reconciliation between man and God, the end of the enmity generated by sin. At once “He showed them His hands and His side.” The marks of the nails and the wounded side reveal that the Resurrection does not abolish the Cross, but glorifies it. In Orthodox theology, salvation is not the erasure of the history of suffering, but its transfiguration into glory: Christ bears His wounds as an eternal testimony of His love.

Then Christ “breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” The act of breathing recalls Genesis, where God breathes into Adam the breath of life. Here a new creation begins: the renewed human being now lives “in the Spirit.” The gift is linked to mission and the forgiveness of sins: “if you forgive the sins of any….” 

 

The Church does not merely proclaim general “ideas about forgiveness,” but serves reconciliation sacramentally, as the fruit of the Passion and the Resurrection. This authority is not human domination, but a ministry of healing, which presupposes repentance and incorporation into the ecclesial community.

Thomas is absent and declares that he needs to see and to touch. 

Orthodox tradition does not present him as a “denier,” but as a person who desires the certainty of a personal relationship. After eight days Christ returns, again “in the midst,” and invites Thomas to touch. He does not humiliate him; He does not reject him. He condescends pedagogically, so that faith may become experience. The summons, “Do not be unbelieving, but believing,” does not condemn honest searching, but heals the distrust that closes the person in upon himself.

 

Thomas’s confession, “My Lord and my God,” is the climax of the Gospel of John: Jesus is explicitly acknowledged as God. And yet Christ’s beatitude—“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”—does not praise blind acceptance, but a faith born from the Church’s witness, the Mysteries (Sacraments), and the energy of the Spirit. 

In the Divine Liturgy the Church lives this reality: it “sees” and communes with the Risen One as a true presence.

The epilogue of the passage reveals the purpose of Scripture: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” Faith is not psychological consolation, but entry into new life—namely, communion with the Triune God. Thus Thomas Sunday becomes a feast of certainty that the Risen One is not a memory, but the Lord who is present within His Church and communicates peace, the Holy Spirit, and life.

 

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!

Πέρα από το άτομο 

XΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ! ΑΛΗΘΩΣ ΑΝΕΣΤΗ!

English - Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!

Old English (Anglo-Saxon) - Crist aras! Crist sodhlice aras! (Lit: Christ arose! Christ surely arose!)

Middle English - Crist is arisen! Arisen he sothe!

Iyaric Patwa - Krestos a uprisin! Seen, him a uprisin fe tru!

Frisian - Kristus is opstien! Wis is er opstien!

High German

German - Christus ist auferstanden! Er ist wahrhaftig auferstanden!

Yiddish - Der Meschiache undzer iz geshtanen! Avade er iz ufgeshtanen!

Low German

Dutch - Christus is opgestaan! Hij is waarlijk opgestaan!

Afrikaans - Kristus het opgestaan! Hom het waarlik opgestaan!

North Germanic languages

Danish - Kristus er opstanden! Sandelig Han er Opstanden!

Icelandic - Kristur er upprisinn! Hann er vissulega upprisinn!

Norwegian - Kristus er oppstanden! Han er sannelig oppstanden!

Swedish - Kristus är uppstånden! Ja, Han är verkligen uppstånden!

Italic languages

Latin - Christus resurrexit! Resurrexit vere!

Romance languages

Italian - Cristo è risorto! È veramente risorto!

Catalan - Crist ha ressuscitat! Veritablement ha ressuscitat!

French - Le Christ est ressuscité! Vraiment Il est ressuscité!

Portuguese - Cristo ressuscitou! Verdadeiramente ressuscitou!

Romanian - Hristos a înviat! Adevărat a înviat!

Spanish - Cristo ha resucitado! Verdaderamente, ha resucitado!

Slavic languages

Church Slavonic - (Christos Voskrese! Voistinu Voskrese!)

East

Russian - Христос Воскресе! Воистину Воскресе! (Christos Voskrese! Voistinu Voskrese!)

Belarusian - Хрыстос уваскрос! Сапраўды ўваскрос! (Khrystos Uvaskros! Saprawdy Wvaskros!)

Ukrainian - Христос Воскрес! Воістину Воскрес! (Christos Voskres! Voistinu Voskres!)

South

Bulgarian - Христос Возкресе! Воистина Возкресе! (Christos Vozkrese! Voistina Vozkrese!)

Serbian - Христос Воскресе! Ваистину Воскресе! (Christos Voskrese! Vaistinu Voskrese!)

West

Czech - Kristus Vstal A Mrtvych! Opravdi Vstoupil!

Slovak - Kristus vstal zmŕtvych! Skutočne vstal!

Polish - Chrystus Zmartwychwstał! Prawdziwie Zmartwychwstał!

Baltic languages

Lithuanian - Kristus prisikėlė! Tikrai prisikėlė!

Celtic languages

Goidelic languages

Old Irish - Asréracht Críst! Asréracht Hé-som co dearb!

Irish - Tá Críost éirithe! Go deimhin, tá sé éirithe!

Manx - Taw Creest Ereen! Taw Shay Ereen Guhdyne!

Scots Gaelic - Tha Crìosd air èiridh! Gu dearbh, tha e air èiridh!

Brythonic languages

Breton - Dassoret eo Krist! E wirionez dassoret eo!

Welsh - Atgyfododd Crist! Yn wir atgyfododd!

Indo-Iranian languages

Indic languages

Sanskrit - (Kristo’pastitaha! Satvam Upastitaha!)

Southern Zone

Marathi - (Yeshu Khrist uthla ahe! Kharokhar uthla ahe!)

Albanian (Tosk) - Krishti u ngjall! Vërtet u ngjall!

Armenian - Քրիստոս յարեաւ ի մեռելոց՜ Օրհնեալ է յայտնութիւնն Քրիստոսի՜ (Christos harjav i merelotz! Orhniale harutjun Christosi! — Christ is risen! Blessed is the resurrection of Christ!)

Greek - Χριστος Aνεστη! Aληθως Aνεστη! (Christos Anesti! Aleithos Anesti!)

Altaic languages

Turkish - Hristós diril-Dí! Hakíkatén diril-Dí!

Austronesian languages

Malayo-Polynesian

Western

Chamorro - La’la’i i Kristo! Magahet na luma’la’ i Kristo!

Filipino (Tagalog) - Si Cristo ay nabuhay! Siya nga ay nabuhay!

Indonesian - KrÍstus tÉlah Bangkit! Benár día têlah Bángkit!

Central-Eastern

Carolinian - Lios a melau sefal! Meipung, a mahan sefal!

Hawaiian - Ua ala hou ´o kristo! Ua ala ´i ´o no ´oia!

Basque - Cristo Berbistua! Benatan Berbistua!

Dravidian languages

Malayalam - (Christu uyirthezhunnettu! Theerchayayum uyirthezhunnettu!)

Eskimo-Aleut languages

Aleut - Kristus aq ungwektaq! Pichinuq ungwektaq!

Yupik - Xris-tusaq Ung-uixtuq! Iluumun Ung-uixtuq!

Japanese - ハリストス復活！実に復活！ (Harisutosu fukkatsu! Jitsu ni fukkatsu!)

Korean - (Kristo Gesso! Buhar ha sho Nay!)

Na-Dené languages

Athabaskan languages

Navajo - Christ daaztsáádéé’ náádiidzáá! T’áá aaníí, daaztsáádéé’ náádiidzáá!

Tlingit - Xristos Kuxwoo-digoot! Xegaa-kux Kuxwoo-digoot!

Niger-Congo languages

Luganda Kristo Ajukkide! Kweli Ajukkide!

Swahili - Kristo Amefufukka! Kweli Amefufukka!

Quechuan Languages

Quechua - Cristo causarimpunña! Ciertopuni causarimpunña!

Afro-Asiatic languages

Semitic languages

Central Semitic languages

Aramaic languages

Syriac - (Meshiha qam! Bashrira qam!)

South Central Semitic languages

Arabic languages

Arabic (Fus’hah, i.e., “standard” ) - (Al-Masih-Qam! Hakkan Qam!)

Maltese - Kristu qam! Huwa qam tassew!

Canaanite languages

Hebrew (modern) - (Ha Masheeha houh kam! A ken kam!)

South Semitic languages

Ethiopian languages

North Ethiopian languages

Tigrigna - (Christos tensiou! Bahake tensiou!)

South Ethiopian languages

Amharic - (Kristos Tenestwal! Bergit Tenestwal!)

Sino-Tibetan languages

Mandarin - 基督復活了 他確實復活了 (Jidu fuhuo-le! Ta queshi fuhuo-le!)

South Caucasian languages

Georgian - ქრისტე აღსდგა! ჭეშმარიტად აღსდგა!(Kriste aghsdga! Cheshmaritad aghsdga!)

Uralic languages

Estonian - Kristus on ülestõusnud! Tõesti on ülestõusnud!

Finnish - Kristus nousi kuolleista! Totisesti nousi!

Hungarian - Krisztus feltámadt! Valóban feltámadt!

Unclassified

A Nigerian language (of many spoken there) - Jésu Krísti Ébilíwõ! Ézia õ´ Bilíwõ!

Constructed languages

Esperanto - Kristo leviĝis! Vere Li leviĝis!

Quenya - (Ortanne Laivino! Anwa ortanne Laivino!)

http://anestixristos.blogspot.gr/2009/04/blog-post_19.html