Sunday's Thoughts
by Alice-Alexandra-Sofia





…there were false prophets among the people

as also false teachers will be among you,

who will secretly bring in destructive heresies…

And many will follow their destructive ways,

by whom the way of truth will be blasphemed…

{2 Peter 2:1, 2}




The Foundation of Augustine’s Reasoning

Augustine’s Legacy

Compelle Intrare

“Wise Judge” Concept

Justice, State, and Slavery

Augustine’s Imagination


Conclusive Remarks




Supplement 1

Concept of Slavery








Augustine (AD 354–430) the Bishop of Hippo, initially, adhered to the Manichean doctrineΣ1; in 387, he converted into Christianity, and then, became the Bishop of Hippo (396–430). Augustine follows OrigenΣ2 in the line of the philosophizing theologians who assembled the theoretical foundation for the papal church of Rome.

In the Middle Ages, Augustine of Hippo was recognized as the Doctor of the papal church of Rome and canonized by the Roman pope. For the Western theologians, Augustine became one of the most revered “church fathers.”

For instance, Matthew of Aquasparta refers to Augustine as to “the doctor extraordinary” to whom catholic doctors and theologians must follow [The Disputed Questions on Knowledge 281]; and so they did.

Catholic philosophers/theologians Dr. Huber (1859), A. Günther, and TH. Gangauf discern in Augustine “the Spirit of God for the instruction of all ages” and recognize him as “the first and universal church father” who resembles St. Paul the Apostle.

Philip Schaff attributes to Augustine creation of “the Latin–Catholic system as distinct from the Greek Catholicism” and names him “the father of scholasticism” (because of Augustine’s “dialectic mind”) and “father of mysticism” (because of Augustine’s “devoted heart”).

Pro–Lutheran theologian C. Bindemann (19th century) compares Dr. Martin Luther with Augustine, to whom he refers as “one of the strongest pillars of the Roman Catholicism” [[so, according to C. Bindemann, it looks like one “Augustine” – Augustine the bishop of Hippo – laid the foundation for transformation of the Roman Catholic Church into the papal church of Rome, and another “Augustine”– Dr. Martin Luther – exposed the fruits of transformation]].

Dr. Baur suggests that “in intellect and grandeur and consistency of view” there is no other “church teacher” who might be equated to Origen more justly than Augustine and who “so closely resembles” Origen. The difference between them is that “what in Origen still wears a heathen garb, puts on in Augustine a purely Old Testament form” [Günther, Gangauf, and Huber ref. and qtd. in: Schaff 9, 10, 19; Bindemann ref. and qtd. in: Schaff 9; Dr. Baur ref. and qtd. in: Schaff 8].

Plainly speaking, whatever Origen openly borrowed from the heathens, Augustine covered with the Old Testament’s terminology.

Hence, Augustine’s writings became the foundation of Western theological thought; in due time, they were summarized in political theology of Thomas AquinasΣ3, which is recognized as the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome.

The Augustine’s book The City of God against the Pagans began the process of establishment of the “Republic of Christ,” which ultimately developed into the Vatican.

Opinions of the Eastern theologians concerning the Augustine’s inheritance vary from reverence to the canonized saint to condemnation of a heretic.

For instance, Dr. Romanides asserts that Augustine is the source of all Western heresies and distortion of the Christian dogma; Michael Azkoul infers that the Augustine’s writings “lie at the basis of every heresy, which now afflicts the religion of the West.”

Another group of theologians (including St. Photios and Dositheos) suggests that the writings of Augustine had been distorted to support the “false teachings” of the Latins. Nicodemos the Hagiorite lists the name of Augustine in the book of the saints [St. Photius, Dositheos, Nicodemos the Hagiorite, Joannes Romanides, and Michael Azkoul ref. and qtd. in: Papademetriou 143–145, 149–151].

The difference of opinions indicates that the theologians still are not able to answer the very old question – is the same tree able to bring good and bad fruits, or can poison and pure water flow together from the same spring? The positive answer is the foundation of all heresies, which could be easily prevented, if to recall that Lord God Jesus Christ warns His followers to judge by the fruits: there is no possibility to gather good fruits from the bad tree {Matthew 7:15–20; Luke 6:43–44}.

Similarly, if a theologian is not able to discern misinterpretation of the words of God, foresee the evil resulting from the doctrine Compelle Intrare, and diagnose the Manichean and Origen’s heresy sustaining other Augustine’s assertions, he might start with reverence to Augustine as the saint and then, complete his spiritual quest with acceptance of the Catholicism as the legitimate modification of the Christian dogma. Perhaps, he even would express the all–forgiving attitude as it happened with some of theologians and canonized saints [e.g., St. Gennadios Scholarios and St. Photius ref. and qtd. in: Papademetriou 145, 147]:

1. One must “be silent about their weaknesses” because of respect to the “pious... holy men” (including Augustine) and because they are dead and cannot defend themselves.

However, silence because of reverence to the deceased heretics, or because they were revered as “holy” men in the Past, maintains existence of the uninterrupted cycles of the same errors and their consequences – crimes against God and His creations – in the Present and in the Future. As St. Paul the Apostle warns, the heretics, unbelievers, who are the temples of idols and “the sons of disobedience” deceived with “empty words,” must be avoided, their unfruitful and useless works of darkness must be exposed, and the faithful ones must separate themselves of their uncleanness and destructive influence {Titus 3:9–11; 2 Corinthians 6:14–18; Ephesians 5:6–11}.

Those who pretend to teach the knowledge of God and interpret His word have no right to reverent silence if they errΣ4: when they propagate the false knowledge of God, they lead their followers to the ruin and death; therefore, they commit the crime against God and against His creations, and they should be exposed as the criminals. The demand of such reverend silence might be likened to the prohibition to provide children in schools and students in colleges with knowledge of the deadly consequences of Bolshevism, Communism, and Fascism, because their founders are dead and at their time, they were recognized as prophets and charismatic leaders of the ecstatic mobs. Yet, not many dare to assert that the deeds of Bolsheviks, Communists, and Nazis must be covered with reverent silence; to the contrary, some of them received their share of fame at Nuremberg; in the East European countries, the names of some of them became shortcuts of the arc–evil.

To recognize the right of Augustine on reverent silence means to silently accept perversion of the Christian teachings and to acknowledge the rights of the Inquisition to burn human beings alive for the sake of the papal “good.”

Evidently, for the Christians, such reverence to the dead heretics is the blasphemy against living God.

2. The saints, although guided by the Holy Spirit, still can err as any human does, and they can have the thoughts and commit actions, which may contradict the teachings of God as any human being can.

To the contrary, the Holy Spirit – the Spirit of Truth, teaches the truth, grants true knowledge of God, and speaks through the disciples of God; those who have the anointing of the Holy Spirit and became the dwelling–temple of the living God, know everything they should know to complete their work: God teaches them. The children of God do not sin: they are born of God and are the God’s dwelling {John 1:9–13; 14:16–17, 23, 26; 16:13; 17:3, 17; 1 John 2:20–21, 27; 3:9–10}.

The truth is that those in whom the Holy Spirit of God dwells are not able to propagate the false knowledge of God and falsify the word of God; as St. Maximus the Confessor noticed, the mind never ceases the movement toward the truth that is toward God [The Church’s Mystagogy 192]. Besides, the mind of a true saint or a disciple of God exists in the eternal God–centered world, where the only source of life, power, and wisdom is God, life is God, and the only way of life is the life in God. In this world, truth is life, and false, which is death, does not exist.

It is not consistent with the Christian faith to assert that any person, in whom God – the Perfect Love – established His dwelling {John 14:16–26}, could ever be able either to accept or generate the false knowledge of God. The Love of God is the purifying and sanctifying Fire that annihilates evil and cleanses the soul: in the presence of God, false knowledge, as well as any evil, ceases to exist. Any mind, in which God dwells, becomes unable to create false knowledge; it enters the state that people call holiness – the state of perfection and unity with God: the true saints do not err.

Then, any contradiction to God is not possible without preliminary rejection of God as the only and Absolute Truth; it means that God’s saints do not contradict God – they live by God and accomplish His will: the will of God is the AbsoluteΣ5, the all and everything for them. Only God recognizes a human being as His Own child (or saint). Neither title nor position at the top of any hierarchy – would it be “the divine” hierarchy of the papal church of Rome, or any other human establishment – transforms a human being into a saint with unerring and infallible judgment: the doctrine of the infallibility of the popes belongs to the same heathen reality based on the heathen framework [[the false knowledge]], which accommodates the “right” and the “grave duty” of the papal InquisitionΣ6 to burn people alive for their beliefs and convictions.  

So, in order to discern the still small voice of wisdom behind the thunder of praises, some preliminary notes might be helpful:

1/ according to the words of Lord God Jesus Christ, the grandeur of man is observance of the commandments of God and the ability to teach people how to observe them {Matthew 5:19}. As soon as candidates for the great “church teachers” put their own fantasies at the place of commandments of God, their followers have another meaning of greatness, which evidently is different from the definition given by God

2/ with such indestructible and unwavering foundation as the Holy Scriptures, which convey the words of God, everything is possible, including finding of the true meaning of any doctrine camouflaged with idolization and flattery. From such a point of view, the proper criteria to evaluate the Augustine’s theological doctrine should include

a/ conformity with the words of God

b/ the consequences – the “fruits,” for instance, the deeds of the Augustine’s followers




The Foundation of Augustine’s Reasoning


Many researchers established the link between the works of Philo of AlexandriaΣ7 and Augustine and traced the Plato and Origen’s influence in the writings of Augustine [e.g., Deane 15, 40; Runia 21, 192, 217; Sinnige 9091; van Winden 133–134]. For instance, after reading Augustine’s The Confessions (books VII, XI), Prosper Alfaric concludes that Augustine converted not in Christianity: Augustine converted “from Manichaeism to Platonism” [Prosper Alfaric ref. and qtd. in: Sinnige 91].

Indeed, according to Augustine’s own confession, he, during reading of the Neo–Platonic books, had “spiritual, perhaps even a mystical, experience,” which he was not able to obtain during his Manichean years. In the Platonist books, Augustine discerned “the same spirit” and “the same truth,” which – as he assumed – he has found in the Scriptures [Augustine Confessions VII. 20–21; New Catholic Encyclopedia 1:1041, 1043]. To substantiate his adherence to Plato’s philosophical dreams, Augustine asserts that Plato could learn teaching of the Hebrew Prophets during his journey to Egypt and the Mediterranean [The City of God VIII, XI  3:51–55]. This Augustine’s argument is in compliance with the popular in his time conviction that the heathen philosophy, with which Philo of Alexandria transformed classical Judaism into heathen philosophical treatiseΣ7, has its roots in the Books of Moses. For example, Alexandrian Jewish exegete Aristobulus (100 B.C.) writes that Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Orpheus, Hesiod, Homer, and other Greek philosophers and poets derived their knowledge from the Books of Moses [Aristobulus ref. in: Mansfeld 71–72].

The Augustine’s conviction that Plato’s philosophy is a “precursor” of Christianity prepared the Western theological thought for unreserved acceptance of Platonism.

[[For instance, when after death of Thomas Aquinas, some Catholic theologians and members of the papal hierarchy unsuccessfully attempted to condemn Thomism, at least indirectly, they expected to make their point with the philosophical concepts; in particular, according to Michael A. Fahey, Professor of Systematic Theology, the Aquinas’ departure from traditional Platonism and acceptance of the Aristotle’s rational analysis “shocked” many of his contemporaries [Fahey 9].

However, it does not look that Aquinas completely abandoned Platonism: as Aristotle before him, he took from it all what he needed, as well as from Avicenna’s books and from other available sources: the Plato’s Nocturnal Council provided Aquinas with blueprint and justification for the papal Inquisition and its methods; then, Aquinas accepted the core of the polytheistic part of Plato’s doctrine – the concept of Forms/Ideas.]]

So, in the best Philo–Origen’s traditions, Augustine devotes Book XIII of The Confessions exclusively to allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, and infers that for Plato to philosophize means to love God [Confessions XIII; The City of God VIII.viii].

Either ignorance or unguarded imagination prevents Augustine from understanding that Plato’s “god” is the OrphicΣ8 arch–serpent/”absolute divine animal”/beast – the serpent of Genesis and the arch–enemy of men {John 8:44; Genesis 3}.

Augustine frequently reiterates his assertions concerning the value of heathen – especially Plato’s – philosophy for interpretation of the Scriptures; in his dream world, whatever is consistent with “the faith” has to be utilized, moreover, claimed from the “unlawful possession” of the heathen philosophers. To support his recommendations, he refers to Moses who learned the “wisdom” of the Egyptians and to the people of Israel who “borrowed” from the Egyptians jewelry and garments before the Exodus [On Christian Doctrine II.xix.29; II.xl.6061].

Augustine asserts that a perfect man, who lives in faith, hope, and love, does not need the Scriptures for himself, only for instructing the others [On Christian Doctrine I.xxxix.43]. This assertion not only indicates Augustine’s disregard for the words of God; it resembles Plato’s divine philosopher who exclusively possesses the knowledge because he penetrates the thoughts of deities, while the mob does not know – it believes.

Disregard for the words of God explains why Augustine either is unable to comprehend or intentionally discards the facts that

a/ nothing in heathen philosophy is consistent with the Christian faith: the source of heathen philosophy is human imagination, and its framework is the Orphic doctrine founded upon the concept of “divine absolute animal“ –  the dragon–serpent–beast [[obviously, the symbol of the ancient creature, which tempted and deceived Eve]]. According to the Orphic myth, this arch–beast contains all forms of the living creatures, changes its own form according to some “laws,” which the heathen myth–makers invented for explanation of the Cosmos, and possesses the absolute power over the worlds of gods, humans, animals, plants, as well as over the Hades – the world of the dead. Invention of the deified universal serpent–beast made possible numerous cults of animals of all kinds and justified sacrifice of human beings to the beasts, because the human nature was recognized as the inferior to the bestiality of animal “gods”

b/ the unclean “wisdom” of the Egyptian idol–worshippers has nothing in common with the Law of God. Otherwise, it would be no reason for the Exodus, for The Ten Commandments, and for the Moses’ numerous warnings concerning communications with idol–worshippers and contamination with the knowledge of diviners and idol–worshippers

c/ anything that belongs to the heathens brings nothing good: the borrowed gold [[in fact, stolen or “claimed” from the Egyptians who expropriated the fruits of labor of the enslaved Israelites and kept their slaves in povertyΣ9]] and the heathen knowledge were the means to test the steadfastness and loyalty to God. In particular, from Egyptian gold, the people of Israel made an idol – the golden calf similar to Egyptian idol; with “wisdom” of the Egyptians, especially, with their method of symbolic interpretation of the sacred for them myths, Philo of AlexandriaΣ7 transformed the Books of Moses into the heathen philosophical treatise.

Following Philo of AlexandriaΣ7 and OrigenΣ2, who placed the Plato’s Forms/Ideas into the Logos–Wisdom of God, Augustine declares:

1/ there were “eternal immutable models in the divine mind,” ideas of all God’s creations, which He “embraced in His eternal intelligence”; the formless matter–earth is “a rudimentary beginning of things... capable of receiving forms”. This Augustine’s assertion literally follows the Plato’s concept, which transfers the forms accommodated by the “divine absolute” animal of the Orphic mythical serpentine theology into the realm of philosophy

In fact, with this assertion, Augustine transforms Λογος – the Word–God – into the container of the forms invented by the Orphic doctrine, which places the forms of all living things into the arch–serpent, their main deity; therefore, he substitutes the Orphic “divine animal”/arch–evil for the Word–God

2/ there is a direct parallel between Plato’s Timaeus and Genesis, and those whom “Platonists prefer to call gods” are angels. Plato’s two worlds originate the Augustine’s spiritual heaven (the Plato’s invisible intelligible and unchangeable model) and corporeal Earth (the Plato’s visible and changeable copy) [Augustine Quaestio 46: De Ideis ref. and qtd. in: van Winden 133–134; Augustine The City of God VIII.xi; XII.xxiv, xxvi; The Confessions XII.17; Plato Timaeus 48; 51b, 52b].

These declarations indicate that by the means of Platonic philosophy, Augustine reconciled his imaginary world, which he identifies with Christianity, with the multi–deity theological doctrine.



Augustine’s Legacy


The first part of Augustine’s legacy is that, through his works, the Plato’s doctrines, especially, the concept of ideas/forms, became the approved and most widely used source of heretical fantasies for medieval theologians.

For example,

1/ William de Rothwell and Peter of Tarentaise both quote the Augustine’s declaration, in which Augustine links denial of the Plato’s ideas with denial of “the existence of the Son of God”

It means that Augustine has transformed Λογος – the Word–God – into the container of the forms invented by the Orphic doctrine, which places the forms of all living things into the arch–serpent, their main deity; therefore, he substituted the Orphic “divine animal” for the Word–God, and therefore, according to Mani’s techniquesΣ1, “reconciled” Orphism with Christianity.

2/ Bonaventure (Catholic saint) refers to the Plato’s ideas as to the synonym of the Christian wisdom [William de Rothwell, Peter of Tarentaise, and Bonaventure ref. and qtd. in: Emery II:81–82]

3/ Thomas Aquinas (AD 1225?–1274)  re–iterates the Augustine’s recommendation to take from the philosophers the truth they discovered by chance as from the “unjust possessors” [Augustine On Christian Doctrine II.XL; also qtd. in: Aquinas The Trinity Q.2 a3]; Aquinas seeks the philosophical proof of the “truths about God” and better understanding by employing “certain similitudes” in resemblance of Augustine who utilized heathen philosophy to “aid understanding of the Trinity” [Aquinas The Trinity Q.2 a2 r3].

However, for a Christian, any assertion of any analogy between God’s revelations and heathen fantasies is sacrilegious; only for this assertion Augustine and his followers should be excommunicated as heretics.

The Apostles forewarned against those who abandoned the knowledge, righteousness, and the commandments of God, who became entangled in uncleanness again, and who turned from the truth. The Apostles advised the Christians about empty words of deceitful philosophies heresies and irrelevant philosophies of those who are ignorant in faith and who are ignorant in the teachings of God, who carry “poison of asps under their lips”; they also wrote about the brethren and strangers who come for the sake of the Lord God Jesus Christ’s name and take nothing from the Gentiles {3 John 5–7; 2 Peter 2:12–22; Romans 1:18–25; 3:11–18; Colossians 2:8}.

For any unbiased mind, incompatibility of the Christian dogma and the Plato’s doctrineΣ10 becomes evident instantly after comprehension of the meaning of such Plato’s constructions as, for instance (1 through 6),

1/ the deified ideas/forms as the acting deities of the Plato’s set of gods (that is polytheism, while Judaism and Christianity are founded on monotheism)

2/ the human nature as the irrational mixture of the soul, which contracts a body as disease, with the body, which contaminates the soul with evil

To the contrary, a human being is created by God into His image and after His likeness; human being – as the unity of a body–flesh/matter and soul/spirit – exists to accomplish the will of God at the particular set of conditions – the world of the matter measured by time–space–complexity parameters. Only perverted perception of the mind, which became incapable of comprehension of the actuality, is able of finding flaw or imperfection in human nature or in other creations of God. God creates everything for the purposes, which the mind within the world of the matters identifies as the will of God. Any of His creations serves His will – would it be creation of the good or destruction of the evil existing within this world because of free choice of men. As soon as the mind is not capable of knowing the purposes of God, the mind is not able of evaluating those who accomplish the purposes of God.

For instance, concerning humans, it was told: do not judge {Matthew 7:1–2; James 4:11–12}. Indeed, if the same measure of incompetent judgment is applied to those who in their ignorance and without complete knowledge of the purposes of God assume the right to judge (that mostly, to condemn) the others, none of the living would ever have any chance of survival and salvation

3/ the divine consummated philosopher who is connected with the realm of deities, knows thoughts and nature of his gods, thus, himself becomes the kind of earthly deity elevated over the ignorant mob, as well as over his deities whose thoughts and natures he had learnt and whose actions he judges

To the contrary, the human mind is not able of comprehension of the “thoughts of God” {Isaiah 55:8–9; Micah 4:12} and the ways through which they become the actuality of the world of men. To comprehend someone’s thought means to belong to the level of complexity that is higher than the one at which the subject of observation (that creates thoughts) exists.  

For instance, St. John the Apostle wrote that Lord Jesus Christ – the Word–God – had no need that anyone should tell Him concerning other man: He knew what was within man; He knew thoughts of men {John 2:25; 6:61, 64}.

Only God knows thoughts and intentions of His creation – man, while man is not able to comprehend thoughts or ways of God. It means that the mind asserting own ability to know thoughts and nature of “gods” must be above the “gods.” In fact, it means that the mind is the creator of the “gods” whose thoughts it claims to know.

There is one mentioning of the ability of man to comprehend reasoning (or penetrate thoughts) of other man – creations of the same level of complexity: Solomon the king in JerusalemΣ11 could do that, yet, he was able to understand the reasoning of men only because of the gift of exceptional abilities from God {3 Kings 3:9–14; Proverbs 20:5}.

4/ the ignorant mob–beast from which the true knowledge must be concealed and which must be kept under constant surveillance and total control, including control of the conscience and of reproduction: through elimination of newborn children born without permission of the rulers, and abortions forced on the women who conceived without permission of the rulers

To the contrary, Christianity proclaims the divine nature of man–child of God created in image and likeness of God and re–created into the dwelling of the Living God, into the temple of the Holy Spirit of God. One of the reasons of fierce unquenchable hatred to Christianity is that Christianity is the religion of love, freedom, wisdom, and human dignity of children of God. Recognition and acknowledgment of human dignity, unalienable rights on freedom of conscience and thinking are not acceptable for those  

a/ who themselves are similar to animals/beasts and perceives all the others as animals/beasts

b/ who need to enslave the others and make them serve own bodily needs

c/ who admit a possibility to become a slave and sell themselves into subservience of the evil and lusts of their masters

5/ the perfect Republic – a model of the slavery–based society with the class of guardians–protectors of the society, mainly, the ruling elite of the slave–owners; in order to perform their duties without any pains of conscience and without any moral and humane conflict, the guardians are deprived of all natural family connections, have commonality of women and children, exterminate surplus of the newborn children, and for their service are rewarded – during their life with onetime sexual partners (including own sisters) distributed through the lottery, and after their death, with recognition as some kind of semi–deities

The examples of the complete embodiment of the ideals of Plato’s “guardians” include the inquisitors, militants of the papal church, and the human weapon of terrorist organizations.

6/ Nocturnal Council with its task of forceful “reeducation” and condemnation of heretics; Plato’s Nocturnal Council inspired Augustine’s Compelle Intrare and the papal Inquisition.

The very idea of the forceful conversion – or suitability of the material factors (e.g., pain, profit) and fear for own life and physical safety for manipulating the faith, conscience, and thinking of a human being – is incompatible with Christianity. These methods of persuasion are invented by slave–owners for dealing with slaves. Only those who live as flesh devoid of faculty of deliberation are able to assume that a human being is only flesh that must be managed by physical pain and sensual pleasures. Hence, only the creatures of flesh (the animated matter) can elevate to the rank of the summit of human philosophy the speculations of slave–owner/consummated “divine philosopher” – Plato, which are devoted to the purposes of physical safety of the slave–owner and efficient running of the slave–house.

Therefore, it should be inferred that only the non–Christian/heathen or ignorant in Christian teachings mind could interpret the Christian teachings as the reflection of Plato’s doctrine. Such an inference focuses the attention on the Augustine’s Manichean Past.

The Manichean and Plato’s doctrines represent different levels of imaginary constructions. Plato’s imagination produced the fiction that is more sophisticated and embellished with the philosophizing concerning ideals of humanity, thus, is more attractive; therefore, the Augustine the Manichean’s conversion into the Platonism might be seen as the rational choice. Yet, there is no possibility to understand how any intelligent mind could come even to comparison of the Plato’s inhumane utopiaΣ10 with Christianity: Plato’s social and political concepts consistently oppose the main commandments of God and contradict the Christian morality and the very meaning of normal life (according to the human nature). Before the mind would be capable of making the slightest assertion of any similarity between Platonism and Christianity, the mind should completely lose any ability of logical thinking; only then the mind would became able to misinterpret either Christianity (substituting Platonism for Christianity) or Platonism (re–telling Plato’s fantasies with the terms borrowed from the Holy Scriptures) in the Augustine’s fashion.

Hence, if, for Augustine, the Platonism provides excitement and insight into the Christian teachings, it means that Augustine already has lost the ability to discern the good and the evil. Consequently, the Augustine’s attempts to explicate the truth of the Scriptures with the contaminated knowledge of heathens can produce [[and had produced]] only falsifications and misinterpretations of the words of God.

The ManichaeismΣ1Σ is the most dangerous heresy threatening to deceive the mind that seeks understanding of the Christian faith, because the Manicheans mimic the Christian terminology, with which they cover their teachings, which consists of dualism, Gnosticism, myths, and other doctrines and assertions, some of which are incompatible by their very essence. Furthermore, the Manichaeism has the potency to destroy foundation of any social and political system and deprive any human establishment of any chance of survival.

The Manichaeism offers specific interpretation of the human abilities and many things sought after by the proud mind that rejects the essence of the Christian dogma and attempts to reach salvation through own efforts and perversion [[perversion, which the Manicheans consider as perfection]] of the human nature; yet, this interpretation is compatible neither with the Christian teachings nor with the human nature.

In general, Manichaeism might be defined as the apotheosis of death: it destroys mind with the false knowledge, propagates that normal human procreation is the sin incompatible with the perfection, and exalts suicide through self–inflicted starvations and suffering as the ideal end of a human being. Only the mind nurtured by Manichean “universalism” could

a/ find in the Platonist books “the same spirit” and the same truth, which is in the Scriptures [Augustine Confessions VII. 20–21; New Catholic Encyclopedia 1:1041, 1043]

b/ infer that for Plato to philosophize means to love God [Confessions XIII; The City of God VIII.viii]

c/ conceive Compelle Intrare and the “wise judge” concept.

Some Augustine’s notions became especially influential: they prepared the ground for the political theology – official doctrine of the papal church of Rome; among them

– Compelle Intrare [[as justification by the Church of the use of force and coercion]] and the concept of “wise judge” [[whose ignorance and sins against humanity are justified by the needs of the society]], which became the foundation for the Inquisition

– the ideas of primacy of the laws of society/city over the laws and of a Christian family along with Manichaean–inspired ideals of “the Perfected” and unhealthy lust for control of human reproduction introduced the papacy as the supreme authority over the family’s life, sustained the mandatory deprivation of marriage for the papal priests, and justified intrusion of the papal clergy into the intimate life of the papal subjects.


Compelle Intrare


The Augustine’s doctrine Compelle Intrare (Compel Them To Come In) reveals how Augustine misinterprets the Gospels according to his needs, when he pretends to prove that the Gospels justify coercion by the church and church’s use of the force of the state oppressive structures, if it is needed to return heretics and schismatics into possession of the church.

In the commentary to the parable of the Great Dinner {Luke 14:16–24}, when the master of household sends his servants to gather into his house all whom they find instead of the guests who rejected the master’s invitation, Augustine compares those whom the servants gathered from “the highways and hedges” with heretics. Augustine makes the following assertions [Political Writings 190–193, 196–199, 203–207, 217–219, etc.; also ref. and qt. from different Augustine’s works in: Deane 195–215]:

1/ the people from “the highways and hedges” had been compelled to enter the master’s house; therefore, the Church has the responsibilities “received by divine appointment” to conduct the “righteous persecution... carried on in the spirit of love” to compel heretics to return to the Church

2/ the state and its rulers have the “obligation” to support Church in her struggle against heresies and schisms; they must use the power of state to punish heretics, and the civil ruler–servant of God must become the servant of Church.

Augustine justifies his assertions with the example of successful coercion of the Donatists – heretics who became Catholics under the fear of penalties.

However, even if fear transforms the heretics into the Catholics, it does not make them the Christians, because as it follows from the Gospels {Matthew 5:43–48; Luke 17:20–21; John 1:12–13; 14:23; 15:12–17; 1 John 4:7–18}

a/ the human power of coercion cannot force the Holy Spirit of God to come and to dwell within the apparently obedient victim of coercion and to make anyone into the temple of God, yet the meaning of Christianity is presence of God within a human heart–soul–mind, when a human being becomes the child of God, the carrier of the Holy Spirit of God

b/ the Christians do not coerce men to change their beliefs and do not punish people for their beliefs – they imitate the perfection of God and love all creations of God irrespective of the convictions and manner of life; for the Christian, only God is the ultimate and Supreme Judge of all

c/ God of the Christians is the Perfect Love Who has neither fear nor suffering: the Christians have no fear, only love [[the only mention of fear in the Christian dogma is the reference to the “fear of God” as the fear to violate the commandment of God and pervert own nature, yet even this fear vanishes when a human being advances in love and reverence to God until such a degree when any violation of the commandments of God simply becomes impossible]]

d/ such earthly criteria as number of believers/subjects/followers, public rituals assumed to be an evidence of the righteousness, public confessions and prayers, apparent sanctity, force of coercion, power of the ruler/state, etc. do not identify those who belong to the Kingdom of God. Faith, love to God, love to one another, and freedom are the attributes of the one who carries the Kingdom of God within  

Two Apostles – St. Matthew and St. Luke – convey the parable about invitation to the Master/King’s great supper–wedding feast. The servants of the Master/King receive the command to call or to try to convince those from crossroads, ways, and hedges come to the house of the Lord, and in both texts, the end of parable is clear: God speaks about calling, inviting, and choosing, not coercing – “For many are called, yet, few are chosen” {Matthew 22:9–14; Luke 14:23–24}.

In the English versions of the Bible, the end of the verse Luke 14:24 “For many are called, yet, few are chosen” is absent; however, the verse in Matthew 22:14 – “many are invited, but few are chosen” – provides the necessary clarification of the meaning of the parables {Matthew 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24}. Even if the conclusion of the parable in the English versions of the Gospels was dropped unintentionally, it is obvious that the Augustine’s doctrine misrepresents the meaning of the parable. Each Christian who knows the Scriptures knows also that God does not coerce anyone. ManichaeismΣ1 deprives a human being of free will, making coercion justified and helpful tool for managing the beings without will, who, nevertheless, must obediently execute the will of their owners, teachers, superiors.

God does not coerce anyone, yet without His will no one comes to Him, and no one is able to snatch anyone out of God’s hand {John 6:65–68; 10:27–29}. Even for admirers of the heathen (classic) logic it should be clear that if God created a human being in His Own image and after His likeness and granted His creation with the free will, only perversion of the human nature and misinterpretation of the commandments of God might unify the human being and coercion.

To corroborate his doctrine of coercion, Augustine refers to the different passages from the Scriptures (e.g., Abraham’s wife Sarah afflicted her slave Hagar, and Elijah the Prophet slew the false prophets); then, he equates God with men when he writes “the Jews scourged Christ; Christ also scourged the Jews” [Augustine Epistle XCIII in: The Political Writings 197–198]. This particular reference reveals how Augustine misinterprets the Scriptures to support his own point of view: in Augustine’s interpretation, either God scourged His creations in revenge for what they done to Him or the Jews took their revenge for the previous actions of God. In any case, Augustine’s point is that the actions of God justify revenge and coercion by men.

However, the Gospels say that

 – God “making a whip of cords” drove sellers and money–changers from the temple because they transformed the House of prayer–House of God into “a den of robbers” {John 2:13–16; Matthew 21:12–13}

– before the crucifixion, a Roman soldier/Pilate scourged Jesus Christ {Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1}, because this torture was the initial part of the execution by crucifixion.

So, it is evident that the texts from the Gospels have the meaning incompatible with the Augustine’s interpretation.

In the same fashion, Augustine

1/ mentions the clear instructions of the Apostle: evil must not be repaid with evil; the evil must be overcome or conquered with good {Matthew 26:51–53; Romans 12:17–21}

2/ discards them

3/ instantly disputes the meaning of the prohibition to use force even to defend God, because his highest truth is his own opinion: “always both the bad have persecuted the good, and the good have persecuted the bad”; thus, the bad should be compelled to become the good through fear of suffering [Augustine The Political Writings 192–193, 202–203].

To the contrary, Christianity is the universal doctrine of love: God is the Perfect Love; fulfillment of His main commandments – to love God and to love one another as God loves each human being – enables each human being to find the road to God, to dwell with God, to receive the knowledge of God, and to be sanctified with the truth of God {cf.: John 13:34–35; 14:23; 15:9–17; 17:14–23}. The hymns to love written by St. John and St. Paul the Apostles {1 John 3:14–23; 4:7–21; 1 Corinthians 13:1–13} make understandable that love and coercion are not compatible: love does not asserts its own way; love is not arrogant, it is above everything, even above faith and hope. Any attempt to impose alien opinions or to coerce a human being to act in accordance with somebody else’s beliefs signifies the lack of love, thus, incompatibility with Christianity.

Another revealing detail: the Augustine’s references to the state and to the rulers/emperors undergo interesting evolution – from the empire as the “great robber bands” and Alexander of Macedonia as a “pirate,” to the servants of the Church [The City of God VI.iv. 2:17; Epistle XCIII in: The Political Writings 192]. So, when Augustine needs service and protection, he becomes a politician: even criminals could be made useful and serve his purposes.

For instance, in an attempt to justify coercion in the religious matters, Augustine writes about the Roman emperors as members and protectors of the Church and “the ministers of God to execute wrath” upon the evildoers. He argues: no one should “wound the Church by schism” with an appeal to the example of St. Paul the Apostle, whom – according Augustine – “Christ coerced” by “the great violence” to become a “member of the Holy Church.” Then, according to Augustine, Lord God Jesus Christ also becomes the victim of coercion because “God spared not His Own Son” [Augustine The Political Writings 190–196].

At first, there is no such thing as schism in the Church–body of Christ: schism is separation of heretics from the Church of God, and at the very moment they become heretics, they cease to be the members of the Church of Lord God Jesus Christ. Besides, the Church, as the body of God, cannot be wounded, because God is out of people’s reach, and humans without God and with all their worldly power are nothing more than dust: people wound themselves and activate own annihilation when they leave God.

Augustine’s uncontrollable imagination made him unable to comprehend the Gospels, in particular, the words of God: “No one takes My soul from Me, but I lay it down from Myself: I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to accept it again” {John 10:17–18}.

Then, there was no violence in conversion of Saul (who by the mercy of God would become St. Paul the Apostle): man who was breathing with violence and murder encountered the Light and comprehended the evil he committed. This comprehension made him his own executor: his own darkness came upon him (when he lost sight after seeing the Light of God), and only God saved him from his own judgment {cf.: Acts 9:1–19; 22:6–14}.

The Augustine’s attempts to justify coercion vividly illustrate how he misinterprets the Scriptures’ texts and discards their actual meaning. He utilizes any text (even irrelevant or contradictory to his point of view) to corroborate own assertions.

Augustine’s profane references to God not only remind the myths of Greek pagan poets who fashioned the manner of life of their listeners with the tales of behavior and thoughts of gods [e.g., Zeus scourged his wife – in: Graves 1:53]; it discloses the misconception of the mind, which because of contamination with heathen philosophy became corrupted until such a degree that it became able to discard the main law and the very foundation of Christianity: to love God and to love one another.

Consequently, such a mind became unable to understand that revenge and Christianity are not compatible – it is not able to comprehend the nature of the good: the good does not revenge or fight; it fills in the void of love and it annihilates evil. Augustine does not realize that if the mind uses the methods of evil to win, it fails because the use of evil transforms the mind into the very same evil, which it initially attempted to overpower. Probably, the Manichean roots – for instance, recognition of the evil as the omnipotence force and multi–deity arrangement – deprived Augustine’s mind of reverence to the Word–God and thus, of the right discernment.

Many Augustine’s theological assertions can be traced directly to the heathen philosophy.

For instance, Plato asserts that only gods and a few of men have understanding, which cannot be changed through persuasion, and although all people could have true beliefs, the people come to true beliefs through persuasion [Plato Timaeus 51e]. Thus, Plato divides mankind on two non–equal parts: those who, as gods, have understanding, and those who have beliefs. Logically, the smallest part of mankind, which is similar to gods, assumes as the natural the right to persuade the ignorant majority – the mass population. The Plato’s doctrine is consistent with his utopia of the perfect Republic, yet it has nothing in common with Christianity. 

Furthermore, Aristotle asserts that freedom of actions might exist under the power of persuasion because persuasion is “the opposite of force and necessity”: man who is under persuasion acts voluntarily because his actions conform his own thinking, and “voluntariness consists in acting with some kind of thought.” For instance, if man is faced with threat of flogging, imprisonment, or execution and he acts according to demands of those who can impose on him these penalties, he acts with knowledge and makes his choice – to obey and avoid pain vs. to act according own conscience and to suffer or die; therefore, he acts voluntarily, although it might look as he acts under compulsion [Aristotle Eudemian Ethics II.vii.1–11; II.viii.1–18, 18; II.ix.2–4, II.x.15–17].

The perverted thinking of the philosophizing slave–owner sustains the Augustine’s doctrine: as soon as any act committed under persuasion is the voluntary action, persuasion as the policy becomes consistent with the freedom in the Augustine’s understanding.

[[Later, the slogan “freedom is the comprehended necessity” became a part of the bolshevist propaganda, which was intended to cover the actual slavery of the communist subjects with deceit and loud phrases about freedom.]]

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the Augustine’s “right of coercion,” which he ascribes to the Church, has the roots in the heathen philosophy of slave–owning society and cannot be compatible with the teachings of Lord God Jesus Christ; furthermore, it makes meaningless suffering of the Christians who preferred death to betrayal of their faith. Then, the apparently Christian church assumes the methods of heathens and terminates the freedom and love [[because there is no love in those who are able to torture the others or force them to convert into another religion]], which are the distinctive features of Christianity. Through the Augustine’s doctrine Compelle Intrare, slavery of the heathenism became the reality for the papal subjects. Such conclusion has the following basis:

1/ Christianity is the universal doctrine of love – God is love; His main commandments – to love God and to love one another as God loves each human being – make each human being able to be in God, to dwell with God, to receive the knowledge of God, and to be sanctified with the truth of God {cf.: John 13:34–35; 14; 15; 16; 17}

2/ the Apostles’ hymns to love {1 John 3:14–24; 4:7–21; 1 Corinthians 13:1–13} make perfectly understandable for anyone with the unbiased mind that love and coercion are not compatible: love does not asserts its own way; love is not arrogant, it is above everything, even above faith and hope. Any attempt to impose alien opinions or to coerce a human being to act in accordance with somebody else’s belief signifies the lack of love, thus, incompatibility with Christianity. Therefore, the multitudes of the papal inquisitors, preaching robbers, assassins, popes–prefects of the Inquisition, etc. marching through the history of human suffering – all the beings who misleadingly identified themselves as “the Christians” – should bear another name [[Platonian–Augustinians, or Aristotelian–Aquinaseans, etc.]] because

a/ they propagated with the fire and sword their faith, which is incompatible with Christianity, and especially, incompatible because it was imposed on the people with coercion, power of weapon, and fear of death and suffering

b/ they murdered, robbed, enslaved people and perverted the human nature in the name of their god who has nothing in common with God of Christians

c/ they justified their crimes against humanity with the falsification of the Gospels and covered their atrocities with the name of Christianity.

In summary, the contradiction of the main commandments of Christian God – the commandments of love, makes Augustine theoretical speculations incompatible with the Christian teachings.

Augustine’s Compelle Intrare became only an initial stage – a seed of the consequent evil: it designates the restricted use of force, only for infliction of bodily pain and fear. In the letters to Proconsul Donatus and to Marcellinus, Augustine asks to spare the sinners, because it is not their death but their “deliverance from error” and from the eternal punishment that the Christian community seeks to accomplish with the “help of terror of judges and of laws.” He does not intend “to deviate from a fixed purpose of overcoming evil with good”: he implores the secular rulers by the faith and mercy of Lord God Jesus Christ to spare life of those Donatists from Hippo (where Augustine was a Bishop) who violently killed Catholic presbyters, and to satisfy justice without taking lives. He solemnly declares that his (the Bishop’s) recommendations to show mercy and apostolic moderation serve the interest and good of the Catholic Church [Epistles C and CXXXIII (No.100, 133) in: Political Writings 241–245, 247].

Although Augustine already approved use of force for infliction of bodily pain in attempt to influence the mind, still, he seeks “deliverance of error” and appeals for mercy and forgiveness of murderers. Augustine did not declare the right of the Church over the life and death of heretics yet; he made only the first step on the road, which has led to the Inquisition: by the authority of the Bishop of the Christian Church, Augustine asserts the right of the Church to apply the physical force toward a body with the purpose to forcefully change the mind.

The creation and acceptance of Augustine’s doctrine Compelle Intrare became possible only because of the specific framework of thought based on the heathen philosophy and, especially, on simplified logic of Plato–Aristotle’s utopia.

In the end of the fourth century, the discord between two main theological schools deepened: the theological school of Antioch concentrated on the literal reading of the Scriptures; the Alexandrian theological school continued the Philo–Origen’s tradition of allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. The struggle between theologians and philosophers became the subject of concern: the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus (431), of Chalcedon (451), and Second of Constantinople (553) condemned allegorical interpretations, which falsify the Scriptures and produce different heresies [Conway 30–31, 67; Decrees of Ecumenical Councils 114–120, 124–125, 135]. Yet, acceptance of the heathen philosophical doctrines as the foundation for interpretation of the Scriptures and as the source of the Christian theological thought [[“philosophizingΣ12 in the temple”]] took the irreversible turn, and some of the so–called “fathers of the Church” began to spread the corruptive heresies.

Consequently, the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare, which justifies coercion by the Church, was accepted as the method to restrain spread of heresies. The papal church of Rome made Compelle Intrare the basis for own policies and assumed the rights to decide, which religious beliefs are acceptable for all and everyone, and to coerce and punish the disobedient and different–minded as the master coerces and punishes his slaves – by pain, suffering, and death.

However, assertion of the right of the Church to act with the power of coercion was the worst kind of heresy and misinterpretation of the Christian teachings – the teachings of love and freedom that recognizes the rights of any human being to make his own free choice between good and evil, life and death, and to follow his own path. The Christian Church offers the knowledge of God – the Gospels of Lord Jesus Christ, the only path leading into the Kingdom of God, and offers this gift of immortality free and with love to everyone who wants to accept. There is no place for coercion, violence, weapons, and other evils in the Christian Church.

The essence and consequences of Augustine’s Compelle Intrare could lead the one to the following conclusions:

1/ the source of the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare cannot be found in the Holy Scriptures: the Plato’s Orphic–inspired speculations imposed unto the acquainted with Manichaeism mind produced the Augustine’s doctrine of coercion

2/ although intended to protect the purity of Christian dogma, the Compelle Intrare – Augustine’s idea of coercion by Church – became the first significant attack in the hidden war against the Christian teachings given by God; this war was waged by the theologians armed with heathen philosophy, yet who, nevertheless, identified themselves as Christians

3/ use of coercion and earthly authority sustained transformation of the papal church of Rome into the quasi–religious political establishment in a quest for the world–wide domination; this process was completed with substitution of Aristotle–Aquinas’ heathen political theology for the Christian teachings

4/ Augustine’s Compelle Intrare as apparently benevolent “paternal” care of the Church, which uses force of coercion and bodily pain and fear in the similar fashion as parents punish their children for the sake of children’s own good, became the foundation for justification of the inquisition, which transformed it into the right of slave–owner over life and death of the human chattel

5/ only irrational inhumanity of the Plato–Aristotle’s social doctrine and anti–Christian concepts of Manichaeism could produce such doctrine as the Compelle Intrare, which became the seed–core of the Inquisition. Figuratively speaking, the Inquisition had been conceived at the desk of Augustine, and it is a deep historical irony in the fact that Augustine – the former Manichean and devoted Platonist – began to build the theoretical foundation of the Inquisition, which was established mainly for suppression of the ManicheansΣ1

6/ the history of Compelle Intrare illustrates the pattern of development of any thought, which contains the core of inhumane heathen philosophy:


it starts with the seemingly benevolent assumptions that some “fathers” and “teachers” are wiser–better–smarter,

so that is good enough to endow them with the authority to deprive the others – for the sake of the others’ own good –

of freedom of judgment, thinking and choice granted by God to all human beings

it continues with proclamation of necessity of coercion for the sake of some particular good

it reaches full potency, when it begins inflict death on some for the sake of some particular good of the others.




“Wise Judge” Concept


Another Augustine’s idea makes clear that the Compelle Intrare is neither an accidental finding nor mistake of judgment: the “wise judge” concept reveals permanent pattern of Augustine’s thinking.

In a process of compilation of his assertions, which are known as the “wise judge” concept, Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo and Catholic saint,  

1/ considers the moral responsibility of the judge who has to torture a man to prove his guilt or innocence

2/ evaluates the risk that the innocent man prefers to admit false accusation better than to suffer the pain of torture, and concludes that, as soon as men “often die under torture or as a consequence of torture,” the allegations would not be proved and the crime would not be punished in accordance with the society’s laws. In such cases, the judge “has both tortured an innocent man in order to learn the truth and put him to death without learning it," that is in his ignorance, the judge committed “many great evils”

3/ asks the question: would a wise judge perform his duty [[therefore, would he accept the risk to sin by torturing and putting to death an innocent man]]

4/ replies: “Clearly he will... for to desert his duty to society he counts abominable,” besides, his ignorance and sins are “determined by the binding claim of society,” which needs his service, therefore, justifies his ignorance [The City of God VI:145–147].

Plainly speaking,

1/ the Augustine’s logic is based on the Manichean assumptionΣ1 that the free will does not exist and that everything is pre–determined by the power, to which man is submitted. Therefore, it is the necessity for the innocent man to die and it is impossibility for the innocent man to be saved; as a result, the “wise judge” simply accomplishes the will of one of the dominant forces; in this case, obviously, the force of the evil

2/ evidently, for Augustine the Bishop of Hippo who was made the Catholic saint, the due punishment is the greater concern than death of innocent man, and the service to the society justifies ignorance, inhumanity, and such crimes as torture and execution of innocent men. Augustine thinks in accordance with the Aristotelian concept of man–property–part of the polis–community–state, in which “the common good” prevails over the good of a person, therefore, innocent man might have no value for the society, if the common good of the society is jeopardized; hence, Augustine re–iterates the Aristotelian concept of man–property–part of the polis–community–whole.

Thus, Augustine introduced into the life of the Church the Aristotle’s assertion that the good of the society is the good of man [[that is substitution of the abstract common good for the definite good of an individual]]. With this concept, the papal theologians starting with Thomas AquinasΣ3, began to justify inhumanity and coercion with the common good of the community of believers/papal subjects.

The Augustine’s “wise judge” concept contradicts the commandments of God and Christian teachings; it eliminates love to the neighbor as the main principle of arrangement of the Christian society: the Augustine’s society has the “binding claim” on “many great evils” including a possibility of torturous death of an innocent man.  Such “binding claim” on “many great evils” incorporates the main patterns of political and social arrangements of the heathen communities/states into the papal church, which originally, supposed to be the Christian Church. 

Each written or spoken word contains the seed of the possible Future, which might be realized even without knowledge or approval of man who uttered or wrote the word. Perhaps that is why at the end of times, everyone will discover the grave responsibility for own words {Matthew 12:36–37}.

The history illustrates the influence of the wise judge concept created by Augustine: it became the threshold through which inhumanity entered the papal church’s policies and then, spread into the all levels of the states and societies. Indeed, if Augustine (the saint, theologian, and the Bishop who presumably has the authority to speak on behalf of God) justifies death of innocent man with the good of the establishment, the simple mortals simply are obliged to follow directives of the saint and discard the commandments of God and the human ideals.

In resemblance of the Aristotle’sΣ13 concept of the dominance of the state/society as the whole over a citizen as a part of the whole, the Augustine’s assertions have grown up into the concept of supremacy of responsibilities before the papal hierarchy, which the popes equated with the Church of Rome, over the person’s good. Then, the next step was an idea of absolution of the sins of inhumanityΣ6, if they were committed for the good of the papal community; it


prepared the basis for the pope’s decision to apply torture

as an interrogative technique for the suspected heretics

asserted the duty of the inquisitors to discard any mercy to the heretics

justified use of the criminal methods for the service of the papacy



In continuation of the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare, the Second Lateral Council (1139) prescribed that the condemned heretics must “be constrained by the secular powers” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 202, 244], while the Council still prohibited clergy to pronounce sentences involving “the shedding of blood,” to execute such punishment, or even to be present when it is carried out. Then, the pope Alexander IV in 1260 and the pope Urban IV in 1262 permitted the inquisitors “to assist at the questionings under torture” and to grant “dispensation” to one another from “the irregularity” in the chamber of torture. In elaboration of the Augustine’s wise judge concept, the main papal theologian defined irregularity as the sinless act of taking human life, e.g., “in the case of a judge who justly condemns a man to death” [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.64 a7 ro3]. According to William H. Rule, the term “irregularity” designates death of the accused, which is the result of tortures, applied by the inquisitors themselves. The inquisitors began to torture their victims themselves under the assertion that when secular judges put heretics to torture, it produces unwanted publicity or even complaints of the civil authorities concerning inhumane severity of tortures used by the inquisitors [in: Durant 782; Rule 57]. Thus, for the members of the papal hierarchy the very fact of inflicting death by torturing the alleged heretics was neither sin nor crime; it was just the “irregularity.”

Then, the Jesuit Marianna’s doctrine of murder of the kings became the part of the policies of the papal hierarchy, because of which the French kings who were not compliant with the papal will were assassinated: in 1589 – Henry III, by Dominican monk, in 1610 – Henry IV (who defeated the Catholic League in 1590, was excommunicated by the pope Gregory XIV in 1591), by a Catholic extremist [in: Grun 262; Lacouture 362; Trager 204, 205,218].

The post–Augustine’s history of the European nations was made by the multitudes of the papal inquisitors, preaching robbers, assassins, popes–prefects of the Inquisition, etc., who misleadingly identified themselves as “the Christians.” In fact, they should bear another name – Platonian–Augustinians, or Aristotelian–Aquinasians, etc., which would reflect their actual convictions, because they

a/ hijacked Christianity, murdered, robbed, enslaved people and perverted the human nature in the name of their god that is not God of Christians

b/ in a pursuit of the absolute worldly power, justified their crimes against humanity with the falsification of the Gospels and blasphemously covered their atrocities with the Name of Lord Jesus Christ

c/ with the fire and sword, propagated their faith, which is incompatible with Christianity, and especially, incompatible because it was imposed on the people with coercion, power of weapon, and fear of death and suffering.  

Almost sixteen centuries later, another Catholic illustrated the ultimate version of the wise judge concept: the model of actions justified by Augustine and realized by the papacy during the centuries after Augustine’s death, had found its complete embodiment in the Adolf Hitler’s directives.

In December 1942, during discussion of the anti–guerrilla operations, Adolf Hitler proclaimed the goal and the “supreme duty” of the Germans to annihilate the opposition and to restore the order at the occupied eastern territories by any means: everything that helps to wipe out the military gangs “will ultimately be considered justified.” For instance, if the guerillas cover themselves with women and children, the German troops must use weapon regardless and set fire in houses where the guerillas barricade themselves in along with women and children. The Führer’s explanation was supplemented with the secret order [Hitler Directs… 5–7; Note 5 at page 5], which sanctioned use of “any and unlimited means, even against women and children,” including burning down of villages from which the guerrillas came from or where they found shelter and food, along with all their population and extermination of families of guerrillas as the reprisal.

Hence, the model of actions justified by Augustine and realized by the papacy had found the next embodiment in the Adolf Hitler’s directive:  for the sake of the good of the establishment, in this case – the Great Germany, the rebellion must be stopped even if innocent beings have to be killed.

Later, the executioners of the referred above and other Hitler’s directives were tried by the Nuremberg Tribunal and condemned as the war criminals. Yet, nobody ever asserted the responsibility of Augustine for his concept of the “wise judge” who does not hesitate to condemn to death the innocent for the sake of the establishment he serves and for the consequent inferences from his writings, for instance, such as the “wise” inquisitors, the St. Bartholomew Night’s massacre, and military criminals, including the Nazi troops blessed by the Catholic Bishop Σ14.



Justice, State, and Slavery


The Augustine’s assertions of 1/ possibility of justification of crimes with the needs of the society and 2/ the good nature of men as the source of evil attract attention to the Augustine’s concept of justice. The one could assume that the Augustine’s vision of justice is the direct inference from the wise judge concept.

Since the beginning, God, righteousness, and justice are inseparable: God is just and right; God is just in all His ways, and He will bring justice to all nations – to Gentiles and to His Own people. God does not exclude anyone of His creations from justice and mercy; in His perfection, He transforms the sinner into His messenger, sends rain and makes sun rise for the righteous and for the wicked; and the Christians must imitate His perfection and His mercy {Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 144(145):17; Daniel 7:9–10; Matthew 5:43–48; 12:11–12; Luke 6:27–36; John 5:22; 9:39; Acts 22:14–16; Revelation 15:3}.

So far, Augustine has another attitude, which can be inferred from his analysis of the Cicero’s definition of the state as a people’s estate, where the word “people” refers to the group unified by the meaning of good/right and by the common interests. Cicero (106–43 B.C.) wrote for the heathen empire, yet Augustine applies his work toward the state, which includes the Christians. The line of his arguments includes the statements [Augustine The City of God XIX.xxi  VI:207–211]:

1/ the right does not exist, if there is no justice [[the Augustine’s justice is similar to the Aristotle’s definition: justice is the virtue, which assigns to every man his due]]

2/ unjust actions cannot be the right actions

3/ if there is no true justice, there is no community of men unified with the common meaning of right, and Cicero’s people, as well as their estate–state, do not exist; what does exist is “a nondescript mob unworthy of the name of people,” which does not have the state, because no state exists without justice

4/ there cannot be justice in a man who does not serve God; therefore, a gathering of those who do not serve God has no justice

5/ the “common sense of right” does not transform “a multitude of men into a people” with the state as their estate

6/ men with other beliefs compose “a nondescript mob unworthy of the name of people” [The City of God XIX.xxi VI:209], which is not eligible to participate in the state’s dispensation of right–justice.

These Augustine’s statements reveal the logic, with which he constructs his concept of the state:


the state does not have such a foundation as the common meaning of the “right” and mutuality of interests

the state is the dispensation of right due to each citizen, and this dispensation itself is justice

If the people have no justice, they do not have a state

there is no common meaning of right for the heathens and the Christians

the heathens do not have justice

(the Christian state does not owe justice to the heathens)


According to Augustine, some groups of people with the beliefs, which are different from the officially recognized by the state/structures of power, can be deprived of justice: the beliefs became the criterion of eligibility for participation in consuming the goods and privileges distributed by the state/structures of power. It means that the state/structures of power might assume the right to control the beliefs of man or the master slave pattern might be applied toward relation


the state/establishment person’s conscience


This Augustine’s notion also was embodied into the policies of religious and political establishments. For instance,

                        – in 1542, after establishment of the Universal Inquisition to suppress the Reformation, when the Dominicans conducted their trials of heretics, the accused were deprived of right for legal counsel [Trager 182]

                        – in the Thomas Aquinas’ papal “perfect community,” the unbelievers became the unjust possessors of property, which could be violently taken from them by the believers

                        – in post–1917 Russia, Bolsheviks expropriated property of numerous groups of the population and exterminated the owners, because of their religious beliefs and rejection of bolshevist–communist ideology.

Another noticeable component of the Augustine’s legacy is his vision of slavery.

Although Augustine writes that man by nature is neither slave of another man nor slave of sin, the reference to slavery as to the God’s punishment, in fact, validates slavery as the natural order for the sinful men. Indeed, as soon as everybody is a sinner, everybody can become slave and, then, must accept slavery as the God’s judgment. Besides, the reference to “the peaceful order in which some men are subjected to others,” in which humility is beneficial to servants, resembles the Aristotle’s praise to the “natural merit” of  master ←→ slave  pattern as beneficial and just [Augustine The City of God XIX.xv VI:187–191; Aristotle Politics I.5.1254b; I.6.1255b].

God created freeman, brought His people out of the house of slavery (the land of the idol–worshiping Egypt), redeemed men from the slavery of sin: where the Spirit of God is, there is freedom {Exodus 20:1; John 8:31–32, 34–36; 2 Corinthians 3:17–18}: people by becoming slaves of sin admit the evil of slaveryΣ15 into own life. The very existence of the heathenismΣ16 is not possible without slavery: slavery of the mind kept in darkness by the false knowledge and slavery of a body that must participate in the idol–worshiping rituals and abide by the rules/norms/ethics/etc. of the idol–worshiping establishments.

In the Augustine’s interpretation, the Aristotelian concept of the slavery as the natural foundation of the society becomes the consequence of the sins of men. As the God’s judgment, slavery must be an acceptable arrangement of the society of sinful men. Therefore, by asserting that God is the author of slavery [[which since the antiquity, even before SocratesΣ17, is known as the death of human reason]], Augustine

1/ by ascribing to God evil of men, commits blasphemy against God

2/ falsifies the basic concepts of Christianity – freedom, absolute good, and love

3/ following Manichaean doctrine, asserts that God is the source of the evil and consequently, incorporates the evil of slavery into life of men as the pre–determined by the evil necessity

4/ following Aristotle, accepts slavery as the universal foundation.

In this case, Augustine also does not see the root of slavery predicted by Moses and revealed by Jeremiah the Prophet, when he explained the consequences of disloyalty to God: those who had abandoned God and served other gods in their land, they would serve strangers in alien land {Deuteronomy 28:47–48; Jeremiah 5:19}. In particular, after men had rejected God, produced the evil – sin and slavery, and elevated their creations higher than the Law of God, God leaves them to their own choice: to follow their own path, to taste their own deeds, and to serve those who have the power of coercion. Thus, it is blasphemy to portray God as the author of the evil of men, and it is unjust and irrational to elevate the evil of men to the natural order sanctioned by God.

Some theologians consider the Augustine’s speculations concerning humility and acceptance of the slavery as the punishment of God, thus as the natural order of the sinful societies of the sinful men, as the model consistent with the Apostles’ commandments concerning the manner of life for Christians {e.g., in: Titus 2:9–10, 3:1–2}. However, the fundamental concept of Christianity is freedom: man was created free and for freedom – in the image and likeness of the omnipotent and free God; slavery is the evil originated by men and should be treated as the evil of men inconsistent with the human nature. Therefore, slavery must not be incorporated into the arrangement of any good–oriented social or political system accommodated within the Christian framework.  

Then, Christianity was not established as the earthly empire, state, or kingdom, whose servants would fight with men even for the very life of their King {cf.: John 18:36}. The purposes of Christianity belong to another realm, and it is not in a power of the mind to imagine the grandeur of the Kingdom of God {1 Corinthians 2:9}. Even in a conditional comparison of this realm with all establishments during all history of mankind, – all empires, societies, state and social hierarchies of power, the very meanings of prestige, values, status, wealth, etc. become what they really are: the child’s drawings on the sand instantly washed away by the ocean of Eternity. For the main purposes of Christianity, the social status or any earthly establishment is irrelevant unless the establishment attempts to intervene in the inner freedom of conscience and freedom of choice. Only if the secular rulers or their laws demand to betray the Christian faith, the Christians have to discard the usual obedience and to face death in the way shown by many including the prophets {e.g., Daniel 6:1–17} and the countless Christian martyrs.

Consequently, the objective of the Apostles is the protection of the believers: the temporary establishments – would it be the heathen Roman Empire, physical slavery, or any other human invention – have to be deterred from any influence on the main purposes of the Christians. The apparent (physical) submission of the Christians to the civil rulers must re–direct the state authorities in their search for the source of social instability.

However, within the Christian Church, the rules of oppressive and godless establishments are not acceptable.

After recognition of the slavery as the common order of the society, Augustine makes the next step consistent with the logic of a slave–owner: he introduces inhumanity of task–masters into the life of the Christian community. In particular, he mentions the methods to keep the members of household and slaves obedient, including “blow” or other permitted by society punishment as the means to join the “offender” to the peace from which “he broke away.” Then, from the family, Augustine proceeds to the city and concludes: the laws of the city should be the source for the rules of the household and the head of family must rule his household “in harmony with the peace of the city” [Augustine The City of God XIX.xvi  VI:191–193].

As soon as Augustine already made known his opinion concerning justification of sin and evil committed for the sake of the society, it is possible to decipher the meaning of Augustine’s “harmony with the peace of the city”: for the sake of the good of the society, the household must comply with any law of the city. Two assumptions sustain the Augustine’s logic of reasoning:

1/ Manichaean denial of existence of free will and predetermination of all actions of men

2/ perverted thinking of the philosophizing slave–owner – Aristotle: as soon as any act committed under persuasion is the voluntary action, persuasion as the policy becomes consistent with the freedom in the Augustine’s understanding. Later, the slogan “freedom is the comprehended necessity,” which generalizes Aristotle and Augustine’s vision of freedom, became a part of the bolshevist propaganda intended to cover the actual slavery of the communist subjects with deceit and loud phrases about freedom.

In summary, the Augustine’s doctrines embodied Plato and Aristotle’s disrespect of the human right of freedom. The “right of coercion,” which he attributes to the Church, has the roots in the heathen philosophy of slave–owning society, which is incompatible with the teachings of Lord God Jesus Christ. If the Christian church assumes the methods of heathens and rejects the freedom and love [[there cannot be love in those who are able to torture the others even if they are criminals or to force anyone to convert into another religion with the pain of suffering and death]], which are the distinctive features of Christianity, it ceases to be the Christian Church and becomes the heathen establishment. Through Augustine’s theological speculations, slavery of the heathenism became the actuality for the subjects of the religious establishments, which lost the right to identify themselves as “Christian Church.”

In fact, the Augustine’s social and political doctrines pursue invalidation of the main law and distinction of the Christians – the love to one another {John 13:34–35; 1 Corinthians 13:1–13}. Coercion and persecutions for heresy existed during all history of all religions, and, for the heathen world, there was nothing new in the idea of using the force as the means to reconcile religious differences. The Christian love does not include coercion, selective justice, and torture or infliction of pain and suffering for the sake of good of a society – these concepts, which sustain heathen slavery–based establishments, are incompatible with the commandments of God: each man has the freedom of conscience and freedom of choice granted by God Himself. The Christians imitate God in their love to all (because God loves all men equally and wills that they all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth) and especially to the wicked ones, because of compassion for their ignorance. The main law of Christian teachings – love – exposes the essence of the doctrine of Compelle Intrare: it is heresy inconsistent with the very foundation and the very nature of the Christian Church.

Ignorance of the soul and ignorance of the mind make man able to sin; insufficient love and insufficient knowledge of the truth are the roots of every sin and every evil. Ignorance itself is the greatest disadvantage, disease, and misfortune – it needs help not punishment; thus, the Christians should assist the ignorant if they are willing to listen, think, and learn. Besides, the Christians do not harm or murder a human being – the holy temple of God; they lay down their lives for their brethren and friends as Lord God Jesus Christ did {John 13:34–35; 15:13; 1 John 3:15–17; 1 Corinthians 3:16–17; 13:1–13} [see also in: St. Maximus the Confessor The Four Hundred Chapters on Love 25, 61 38, 41}.

Any community, which believes into the Church’s right of coercion propagated by Augustine, already has separated itself from Christianity, even if it still apparently professes the Christian faith and use the Name of Lord Jesus Christ. As the history of papal church of Rome (the crusades, the inquisition, religious wars and persecutions of the different–minded) illustrates, the next step for such communities is belief in their responsibility to assassinate enemies of faith and to make their faith mandatory for the population of the entire world. For embodiment of their belief in the actuality, they utilize any methods to suppress freedom and rights of people: everything from the arsenal of the heathens (beginning with arrangement of the specially designated oppressive structures) becomes permissible for the sake of expansion of their world–wide influence and enslaving of all.




Augustine’s Imagination


The next part of Augustine’s legacy is advanced use of imagination. Condemnation of Origen took place after the Augustine’s death, so, Augustine considered Origen’s allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures as the proper source of the theological insights. Moreover, to direct the wild imagination of his contemporaries who fervently produced their versions of the Christianity, Augustine elaborated the rules for interpretation of the Scriptures; these rules formed the foundation for the scholastic exercises of the medieval theologians [[probably, that is why Philip Schaff refers to Augustine as the father of scholasticism]].

For instance, with the reference to the text of the Catholic saint Augustine, John Duns Scotus (AD 1266/1274?–1308), declares: things learned through senses are true because with them people learn the heaven and the earth. With the reference to Aristotle, he concludes: imagination interprets the phantasms that are “sensible impressions or images” as the true reflection of reality [Duns Scotus 322, 350; Augustine On The Trinity  XV:12 – ref. and qtd. in: Duns Scotus 322]. That is how theologians began to recognize phantasms and imagination as the true reflection of reality.

Senses serve those who live at the Earth and have to learn the visible, discernible, perceivable Earth – the world of the matter. Although it is irrational to assume that senses can perceive the invisible immaterial realm, which people traditionally refer to as “the heaven,” the senses did become the main source of knowledge about the reality of the Spirit (the heaven) and the first authority for the authors of imaginary interactive theology.

Yet, in all times, some thinkers recognized the danger of the philosophizing imagination. For instance, Cicero (106–43 B.C.) refers to the opinions of philosophers as to “the dreams of madmen,” and describes the outpourings of theologizing poets as “absurd.” In his understanding, the Egypt mythology is “insane” and the popular beliefs [[that is the mythical–political–civil theology referred by Augustine [The City of God VI.v–viii, xi]]] are “a mere mass of inconsistencies sprung from ignorance” [Cicero I.xiii.34, xvi.42–43]. Now the one could only guess what would happen if Philo of Alexandria and his followers – Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and other Western theologians who embraced the methods and concepts of heathen philosophy as the means to search for the true knowledge of God, took into consideration the Cicero’s opinion.      

In one of his book, Augustine discusses Book of Rules by Tichonius the Donatist, who provided seven “keys to open the secrets of Scriptures.” While the misconception of the Donatists was the subject of many Augustine’s concerns and influenced his doctrine Compelle Intrare, he accepted (as he remarked, with some reservations but “without jealousy”) the obvious heresy of Tichonius as the means to “render visible the treasure of truth” invisible for many [Augustine On Christian Doctrine–43]. It means that he recognized false knowledge of the heretic as the knowledge that can be applied for understanding of Christian theology. The Augustine’s reference discloses that he did not accept the main criterion, by which God advised to discern good and evil: to judge by fruits and do not expect a good fruit from a bad tree {Matthew 7:15–20; 12:33–35; Luke 6:43–45}. 

Following the Philo’s methodsΣ7, Augustine employs the Pythagorean theory of numbers for interpretation of the Scriptures and discoveries in the field of theology; he makes the following assertions:

a/ “the science of numbers” was not created by men

b/ “ignorance of numbers” does not allow comprehension of “things,” which are mentioned in the Scriptures, “in a figurative and mystical way.”

Consequently, application of the Pythagorean “science” serves Augustine as an additional channel for contamination of the Christian theology with Pythagorean–Gnostic concepts. For instance, he supplements the Philo of Alexandria’s mathematical discovery that number seven is “completeness,” which expresses the likeness to “the Elder Ruler, and Lord of the Universe” with some additional arithmetic computations, makes the inference that “number ten signifies the knowledge of the Creator and the creature,” and correlates this number with [Augustine On Christian Doctrine II.xvi.25–26, xvii, xxviii.42, xxxviii.56; xxxix.59]

1/ The Ten Commandments

2/ the Prophets

3/ the Body and years of the earthly life of Lord Jesus Christ

4/ the Holy Trinity

5/ the Pentecost

6/ the fishes in the net of the disciples

7/ music and the nine Muses – daughters of Jupiter.

If Augustine was able to connect through one number all the listed above, his imagination is extraordinary indeed. From another angle of consideration, such flight of imagination on the Holy Scriptures, which are sacred for any Christian, signifies the absence of reverence to the words of God; it also reveals the roots of tolerance to the “Christian” cabbala, which was almost openly practiced in Spain and some other countries under supervision of the Inquisition.

There is an interesting correlation between specific manners of interpretation employed by Augustine and Origen. For instance, Origen asserts that the miracles of multiplied loaves were connected with the action of breaking them into small pieces by disciples. He also interprets it as an indication that “the crowds” would be able to understand at least something only after “the letter” (the Scriptures) is broken down and discussed [Origen Word II.203 100].  In the same texts from the Gospel, Augustine reads the indication that as soon as he – Augustine – begins to impart his thoughts, which God “has already vouchsafed” to him, to the others, God by His grace will multiply his thoughts so he will “be made to rejoice in a marvelous increase of wealth” [Augustine On Christian Doctrine I.i.1].

However, according to the Gospels, God Himself broke the loaves and gave to His disciples to distribute to the crowds {Matthew 14:14–21; 15:32–38; Mark 6:34–44; 8:1–9; Luke 9:11–17}; therefore, both (Origen and Augustine) either misread and misinterpret or intentionally falsify the Holy Scriptures; they position themselves above “the crowds.”

Imitating Origen’s disordered talkativeness, Augustine writes that God answered him, and he heard the answer of God, with which he understood why some men do not understand how God created the world. The very wording implies that Augustine comprehends everything and even has the direct explanation of God Himself. Moreover, even the God’s “high majesty” is the measure of Augustine’s “lowliness” [Augustine The Confessions XII.26; XIII.29]. Obviously, Augustine believes in own exclusive status within the Universe. Since, the arrogant addresses to God, gushing confessions, and pouring–outs of unclean imagination presented as the revelations of God or own exceptional wisdom became the distinctive mark of the Augustine’s followers.

Augustine ascribes to Moses understanding that he wrote for the primitive people, who were able to comprehend only the visible works of God, and that is why Moses did not define the process of creation of the invisible world. Augustine recommends his opponents do not “irritate” him with providing other interpretations of Moses’ writings; he pretends to have the only correct understanding, what Moses did intend to say. In Origen’s gushing style, he asks God to provide “the rain of forbearance for his heart,” so he would be patient to the people, who argue with him – Augustine – because they are proud and love their opinion more than truth, while their presumption is “the child of arrogance” [Augustine The Confessions XII. 17, 25].

However, do the Augustine’s own opinions and interpretations reflect true understanding of the Spirit and the truth of the Scriptures? Is Augustine’s mind enabled to comprehend the meaning of the word of God?

The Augustine’s own writings provide the answer on these questions. For instance, in the comments on the king David’s sin against Uriah, Augustine asserts that “in this parable it was adultery only” that the Prophet referred to the poor man’s ewe lamb; nothing was said about the murder of Uriah, and the God’s sentence was pronounced “against the adultery alone” [Augustine On Christian Doctrine III.xxi.31].  

However, according to the Scriptures, Nathan the Prophet compares the destinies of the king and of his subject {2 Kings 12:1–12}:

1/ the poor man’s “ewe lamb” refers to the whole lot of Uriah, to all his possession – his wife and his life

2/ the rich man’s “flock” refers to the lot of David – the kingship, the Saul’s house and wives, and the house of Israel and of Judah inherited by David after death of Saul who was the first king of Israel.

At first, Augustine discards the fact that Nathan the prophet did not mention adultery at all; he twice explicitly refers to murder {2 Kings 12:9}:

1/ David had “smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword” and had taken Uriah’s wife to be his wife

2/ David had murdered Uriah with the sword of Ammonites.

According to the custom, which began in the days of Saul the ling, the Israelites who left their households to participate in wars, provided their wives with the letter of divorce [cf.: V. II Samuel Commentary 288]. So, in the case of “missed in action,” their wives would be free to merry the next of kin to continue life of the family and to preserve names of the missed or deceased warriors. Even if Augustine was not aware of this custom, his supplement to the words of the prophet discloses the Philo–Origen’s frivolous approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures. Something (perhaps lack of reverence and love to God) prevents Augustine from understanding that the roots of the family, which accommodated the earthly life of the Messiah, had not to be contaminated with adultery. Besides, ordinary human logic is also missed because if God Himself refers to the unfaithful and unworthy ones as to an “adulterous generation” {Matthew 12:39}, it is evident that no one who serves Him might be tainted with this sin.

At second, the actions of David reveal that he exceeded the limits of king’s authority and discarded the law of God: he killed the innocent man because of the innocent man’s wife, while The Ten Commandments include such explicit instructions as “you shall not kill” and “you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” {Exodus 20:15–17}. The covenant with God embraced the wholeness of all The Ten Commandments (“words”), and Moses especially warned do not add and do not take from the words of God {Deuteronomy 4:1–2, 13}. Therefore, David the King sinned before God by unlawful misappropriation of the other man’s lot [[1/by taking the woman who would be again other man’s wife and 2/ by depriving other man of his life]] and by using the power of king to deprive man of his lawful possessionΣ18.

The question is why Augustine so obviously misinterprets the Scriptures: he disregards murder of innocent man, the exceeding of the authority of king and the unlawful possession as unnoticeable sins, and in the same time, he elevates adultery at the level of the greatest sin?

In the Augustine’s interpretation, the crime of inhumanity and exceeding of the ruler’s authority lose their significance in the best traditions of the Plato’s Republic, and – in the best traditions of the Manichean “Perfected” – sexual transgression rises to the top of the hierarchy of sins.

The flights of imagination bent on the evil often reveal very practical earthly purposes. For instance, the letter to Nectarius, written in 408, contains some additional hints concerning the Augustine’s attitude toward misappropriation of property: the Christians can punish “evil men” with “profit and improvement to themselves.” Even if the evil men’s life and health should remain untouched, the “means of sustaining” their life might be taken away if it be the God’s will [Augustine Epistle XCI.9 in: Select Letters 167–169].

Whichever intentions Augustine had, the actual history confirms that the Augustine’ assertions became the roots of the following 

1/ the actions of the Roman popes who initiated the Crusades and compelled the state rulers to punish (to imprison, to execute) and to confiscate property of those whom the papal church condemned as heretics, to expel the unbelievers and to deprive them from their rights and their property

2/ the assumed by the papacy authority to deprive of property condemned heretics and the Jews who did not wish to convert into the Catholicism

3/ Aquinas’ political theology, which justified the habit of the papal hierarchy to discard commandments of God – do not kill and do not covet another’s propertyΣ19 and refuted two main commandments of God on which all the laws and the prophets hang {in: Matthew 22:36–40}; love to God, and love to the others

4/ the article of ideological “faith” of communists that proclaimed the right to expropriate the property of the wealthy citizens – “evil men,” who enriched themselves with the misappropriation of their servants’ labor, for the common good of the poor – “the true believers” in the communist ideals of equality and brotherhood.

TH. G. Sinnige notices other distortions in the Augustine’s writings, in particular, his contradiction of the St. Paul’s statement that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of truth.” St. Paul the Apostle means precisely salvation of all men because he continues by saying that God is “the Savior of all men, especially of the believers” {1 Timothy 2:1–6; 4:10}. In compliance with the Manichean assertion that salvation for the vast majority of the population is impossibleΣ1Σ, Augustine disagrees with the Apostle: “not all, nor even a majority, are saved” [Augustine Enchiridion XCVII 110–111].

Logically, G. Sinnige infers that the remnants of the Gnosticism and Manichaeism underlie the Augustine’s personal system of beliefs [Sinnige 96–97; Augustine Enchiridion also ref. in: Sinnige 96–97].

Indeed, Mani excluded the possibility of salvation for the vast majority of the population, including majority of own followersΣ1.

The Augustine’s concept of evil also reveals influence of the Manichaeism. Augustine defines “imperfect good” as the good, which contains the evil. While he recognizes evil and good as the contraries, he asserts that only something good can be evil (e.g., an evil man is an evil good), the evil arises from the good, thus, existence of the evil is good; a search for the causes of the evil might be compared with an attempt “to see darkness or to hear silence”: “evil is that which is contrary to nature,” yet, the good nature of man originates the good and the evil and justifies his assertion with “strictness of reasoning” [Augustine Enchiridion XIII–XV 13–17; The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life VIII.11. 73; also Augustine ref. and qtd. in: O’Donnell 52–53].

The Augustine’s references to seeing “darkness” could be an implicit reference to “the darkness” (translations of γνοφον – gloom, storm) and “cloud” (νεφελη, νεφος) – the protective barrier that covered the place (therefore separated/prevented annihilation of the world of the matter, which is not capable of withstanding the presence of God) when the Glory of God was manifested as the Consuming Fire. Probably, it also refers to φοβος σκοτεινος μεγας – perception of dark and great horror, which felt upon Abraham, when God came to make His covenant with him {Genesis 15:12; Exodus 20:21; 24:16–18; 33:18–23; 34:5; 40:34–38}. This “darkness” is definition of the end of the human perception and indication of the insurmountable boundary (the protective energy field) between the realm of the spirit and the realm of the matter – the derivative of the spirit, which protects the matter from annihilation. This “darkness” might not be “dark” at all, and it cannot be correlated with evil, although human mind perceived it in horror because it denotes the limit of the world – the threshold, behind which there is no matter and flesh.

Then, to consider the evil as the opposite of the nature means to acknowledge that the evil exists at the same ground with the Absolute Good – such assumption is not compatible with the Christian theology and re–iterates the ancient Persian concept of dualism, which the Manicheans made the foundation of their cosmic vision. Besides, the Augustine’s “strictness of reasoning” and the good nature as the source of the evil are not consistent with the words of God: a good tree does not bring bad fruits, evil man brings forth the evil, and evil man cannot speak the good {Matthew 7:15–20; 12:33–35; Luke 6:43–45}. The Creator of man explained that the good cannot originate the evil (or be the source of the evil) and the evil is not able to originate the good.

Consequently, the “wisdom” of man, which attempts to reconcile the good and the evil and to make them flow from the same source, is folly, and the Augustine’s assertions are contradiction of the word of God.

Later, Thomas Aquinas confirmed the Mani–Augustine’s concept of the evil with his assertion that the good, as well as God, is the source of evilΣ20.

Augustine believes in own exclusive mission to make visible “the treasure of truth” invisible for many among “obscurities” of “the “canonical Scriptures,” in which “the words taken literally give an absurd meaning” [Augustine On Christian Doctrine III.xxix.41–xxx.43]. In another text, Augustine flatters God: “How wonderful are your Scriptures! How profound!” Then, he writes that the Scriptures inspire in him both “the awe of reverence and the thrill of love” [Augustine The Confessions XII.14].

So, the question is: in which one of two referred above references [[“absurd”; “wonderful”]] Augustine tells truth concerning his perception of the Holy Scriptures?

Yet, whatever the answer might be, the Augustine’s references to the Holy Scriptures evoke serious doubts in his ability to comprehend the words of God, therefore to make visible “the treasure of truth” to the others. For a Christian, there is no one word in the Holy Scriptures and especially in the New Testament, which has “absurd meaning” or which is obscure. The Holy Scriptures are inspired by God and intended for instruction of human beings: God Himself is the only Teacher of His creations {Matthew 23:8–12; John 14; 15; 16; 17}. However, the truth of the words of God is veiled (covered) {2 Corinthians 4:3–4} for those who are obsessed with the worldly affairs and for those who are not enlightened by the Holy Spirit yet. Those who desire the knowledge of God and understanding should ask God for wisdom and seek God with all heart–mind {James 1:5–8; Proverbs 2:1–15}. Until they receive the gift of reasoning/intelligence, they should not attempt to teach the others, because the source of their knowledge in their present condition is their own imagination.

Robert J. O’Connell, S.J., notices the special feature of the Augustine’s manner of thinking: Augustine uses the Holy Scripture as the source of images and begins with quotation of the complete Biblical passage, which provides him with inspiration. Afterward, his imagination flies and he begin to “feel free merely to paraphrase” the text from the Bible [O’Connell 10].

Such flights of imagination might have very definite real consequences; some of them are arrogance and disrespect of inviolability of the word of God. With his imagination, Augustine combined the Philo–Origen’s practice to misinterpret the word of God with the Mani’s manner of frivolous approach to the sacred truth. From a disagreement with the Apostle and correction of the Apostle’s words, Augustine progressed to contradiction of the word of God. The following facts illustrate some results of Augustine’s inspirational flights of imagination.

During His last supper, Lord God Jesus Christ promised to send “from the Father... the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father” {John 15:26; also in: John 14:26; 16:7, 13–15}. Each word of God is the complete and absolute truth for His creations within the created by Him world; it does not need corrections or additions of men. If God wanted men to know that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father, He would explicitly tell so His disciples, for example, in the same fashion as He told: “All authority in heaven and on earth was given to Me” {Matthew 28:18}. The Gospels and the Epistles of Apostles do not contain any indication or the word of God that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Consequently, the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381) derived The Nicean Creed [[Nicene Credo]] directly from the Gospels, and accepted as the axiom, as the unchangeable dogma of the Christian faith that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 24].

Nevertheless, contrary to the dogma of the Universal Christian Church postulated by the Ecumenical Council, Augustine made his own addition to the words of God: the Holy Spirit “proceedeth also from the Son... even as He proceedeth from the Father... He proceedeth at the same time from both” [Augustine Homilies on the Gospel of St. John XCIX.6–9, 383–384].

The Augustine’s assumption of correlation of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is contradiction of the words of God and misinterpretation of the Christian dogma; as any addition to the words of God produced by human imagination, the Augustine’s assertion is the heresy incompatible with Christianity, yet, later, the Filioque was used to justify the papal claim on supremacy over the Christendom.

The history of Filioque and the consequences of Augustine’s imaginationΣ21 illustrate the danger of uncontrolled imagination in the matter of the faith.





So, during one of the flights of his imagination, Augustine made some peculiar addition to the words of God: the Holy Spirit “proceedeth also from the Son... even as He proceedeth from the Father... He proceedeth at the same time from both” [Homilies on the Gospel of St. John XCIX.6–9]; this Augustine’s notion received the name of Filioque.

However, during the period from the fifth through the ninth centuries, the Ecumenical Councils issued the special decrees concerning The Nicean Creed – the main profession of the Christian faith. With these decrees, the Christian Church intended to stop in the Present and to prevent in the Future any misinterpretation or modification of the main symbol of the Christian faith, and therefore, to avert heresies and preclude their influence onto the Christian theology.

In particular, the Ecumenical Councils issued the special decrees concerning The Nicean Creed with intention to prevent heretical misinterpretation or modification of the main symbol of the Christian faith [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 65, 84–85, 87, 138–139; Romanides 66]:

1/ Council of Ephesus (431) decreed that it is forbidden to compile the creed different from The Nicean Creed and threatened with “anathema” (excommunication) those who would violate the Council’s decree

2/ Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that The Nicean Creed is sufficient for “a perfect understanding and establishment of religion”: the teaching about the Holy Trinity is compete because the Fathers of Church made the clarification about the Holy Spirit with the Scriptures; therefore, The Nicean Creed must “remain inviolate”

3/ Council of Chalcedon and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (the Eighth Ecumenical Council; 869–870) condemned as the heretics those who compose, promulgate, and teach another creed, or make either any addition to The Nicean Creed or any subtraction from The Nicean Creed

4/ with the references to Psalm 119, the Moses’ prohibition of additions to or subtractions from the word of God {Deuteronomy 12:32}, and to the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle {Galatians 1:9}, the Second Council of Nicea (787) ordered that for those with the “priestly dignity” the regulations of the sacred canons of the Ecumenical Synods (Ecumenical Councils) must “remain unshakeable and immoveable,” because they (the sacred canons) are enlightened by the Spirit of God.

In violation of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, in 1014, the Roman pope Benedict VII included the Augustine’s addition that the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son” (“Filioque”) in The Creed of the Roman Catholic Church, which the Eastern and Greek Orthodox Churches rejected.

The decree with anathema (excommunication of heretics), which the papacy issued against the Constantinople’s Church and Patriarch in 1054, contains direct accusation in heresy because of rejection of the Filioque; this decree of the papal church of Rome had sealed separation of the West and East Churches and put the finishing touch on the catastrophe of the Great Schism.

About two centuries after the beginning of the Great Schism, the Fourth Lateran Council of the papal church of Rome (1215) officially recognized The Creed of the Roman Catholic Church with the Augustine–Benedict VII’s addition [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 232]. 

Hence, ultimately, the Augustine’s heretical assertion became the papal dogma, the Catholic addition to The Nicean Creed, and one of the main footholds for the claim of the Bishop of Rome on the supreme authority over all Christendom.

Filioque became the deadliest component of Augustine’s legacy, because it is heresy directed against God the Father; it also triggered the Great Schism. Besides, Augustine’s Filioque conveys different understanding of the mission of Lord God Jesus Christ.

For a Christian, the mission of Lord God Jesus Christ is salvation of man through restoration of the perfection of the human nature, so the Holy Spirit of God would descent onto a human being and transform human clay into the immortal child and dwelling of the Spirit of God. The meaning of salvation is the ability to obtain immortality and to return into the Kingdom of God the Father and Creator.

For accomplishment of salvation of the world, the Word–God was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and unified the divine with the human creating a new man: He reconciled man to God and enabled man to receive the Holy Spirit of God, so, by the Spirit a human being would be empowered to access God the Father {Ephesians 2:14–22}.

St. John the Apostle conveys the words of God with the explicit explanation of His mission {John 1:1–5, 9–14; 3:14–18; 4:34–38; 7:37–39; 10:7–18; 14:12, 15–28; 15:1–7; 16:7–16; 17:3–8, 14, 17–26; 1 John 2:20, 27–29; 3:1–2; 4:4–21; 5:11-12, 20}:


Lord God Jesus Christ, the Word–God, came

to purify men and to set them free with the knowledge and truth of the Word–God

to sanctify human beings by Himself:

to let them

be consecrated by the Truth, and so to empower and to enable them

to receive the salvation and eternal life,

which is the love and knowledge of God,

to dwell in God, because without God,

a human being is not able to make the works of God

and to carry the Truth – knowledge of God into the world

to reveal the knowledge of God–Father –

the knowledge that is the eternal life of man

to send the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father

to teach the sanctified men the Truth–Love of God

that gives them the eternal life, perfect knowledge, and freedom

that makes them the children of God who are able to discern the presence of God,

to dwell in the perfect love of God,

to become the dwelling of God – the fruits of His harvest –

that will live forever in the presence of God


Before the spiritual descendents of Cain could become the children of God and dwell with God in His kingdom, they had to be purified, cleansed from the curse, which their deeds brought unto the Earth, forgiven, and sanctified: they must be born of the Spirit that would enable them to enter the realm of God–Spirit. Only by His Own free will, the Son of Man – the incarnated Word–God – took on Himself all sins of the entire world and redeemed them by His Blood and His death on the cross: He came to bring the fire on the earth – the Holy Spirit of God that annihilates the evil and restores the human nature.

Therefore, three things had to happen as the result of the mission of Lord God Jesus Christ:


the purification and sanctification of man with the words of Lord God Jesus Christ

coming of the Holy Spirit to man – the birth from the Spirit

coming of man to the unity in the perfect love of God the Father


Lord God Jesus Christ explained His disciples that they already are purified with His words and it is better for them let Him go His way because otherwise “the Paraclete, the Spirit or Truth Who proceeds from the Father would not come.” God the Father would send the Spirit of Truth Who would dwell with them and in them, and this would be done because God the Son would implore His Father {Deuteronomy 4:12, 24; Luke 12:49; John 3:5–6; 4:24; 10:17–18; 14:16–17; 15:1–6, 26; 16:4–7}.

Either the absence of attention to texts of the Gospels or intentional disregard of the texts of the Gospels could make possible the Augustine’s – and then, papal – assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father, because this assertion evidently contradicts the words of Lord Jesus Christ:


I will implore the Father and He will send you the Spirit of Truth, to dwell with you eternally

{John 14:16–17}

the Paraclete – the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send for My Name sake

{John 14:26}

the Paraclete Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth Who proceeds from the Father

{John 15:26}


The Augustine’s contradiction of the words of God means that Augustine makes the false statement about God, and especially, about the Holy Spirit of God. Any distortion of the main dogma of Christianity is heresy.

In particular, the Augustine’s addition makes the mission of Lord God Jesus Christ unnecessary: would the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son, there would not be need for incarnation, because there would not be the necessity

– to take on Himself the sin of the world

– to go through the crucifixion and give His Body and Blood for the life of the world that is for the restoration and sanctification of the human nature

– to consecrate man with the Blood of Lord God Jesus Christ and as a result, to make him ready to receive the Holy Spirit of God, to become the dwelling of God, and to enter the kingdom of God

and only after that

– to implore the Father to send the Holy Spirit to dwell in those who believe in Him {John 1:29; 3:14–18; 6:51–58; 7:33–34, 37–39; 10:11, 15, 17–18; 14:16–17; 15:26; 16:33; 19:28–30; 1 John 2:1–2, 12; 3:1–2, 5–6; 4:9–10, 14; Ephesians 2:14–18}.

Furthermore, with the assertion that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth also from the Son... even as He proceedeth from the Father... He proceedeth at the same time from both” [Homilies on the Gospel of St. John XCIX.6–9], introduces the multi–deity arrangement, which is incompatible with the monotheistic theology – the Christianity, and which contradicts to The Nicean Creed – the Confession of the Christian Faith. The Nicean Creed was accepted by the ancient Christian Church as the permanent unchangeable confession of the Christian Faith, which cannot be altered until the Christian Church exists: The Nicean Creed cannot be changed – not by any Church’s authority nor by any cleric nor by any layman nor by anyone who identifies himself as a Christian. For an attempt to compose, write, or produce another creed – that is for any change, addition, or discarding any word of The Nicean Creed, bishops and clerics should be deposed and monks and laymen should be anathematized [[“anathematized” means excluded from the Christian church and from community of the Christians]]: they are heretics – the ones who do not confess the true essence of the Christian Faith and who, therefore, are not Christians.

Consequently, according to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which have established the foundation of the Christian Church within the world of men as the universal unchangeable system based solely on the words of God

a/ Augustine of Hippo, who invented the Filioque that modified The Creed, is a heretic

b/ the Roman pope Benedict VII who, in 1014, accepted the Filioque as the foundation of his establishment and made the Great Schism irreconcilable has to be anathematized

c/ the papal church of Rome, which was the Christian Church before it accepted the Filioque, committed apostasy, because it recognizes the multi–deity religion as the monotheist Christianity; thus, it ceased to be a Christian Church.

Augustine’s Filioque began the long history of the manifest discord between the East – the Byzantine Christian Church, the Greeks, and the West – the papal church of Rome, the Latins.   

The Latins discarded the dogma postulated by the Catholic/Universal (before the Great Schism) Christian Church, and discarded it intentionally, because there is no possibility to assume that ignorance of the Roman popes had reached such a degree that they had no knowledge about the main decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which postulated and defined the main Christian dogma.

It cannot be concluded that Augustine, at his time, realized the consequences of his fantasies and additions to the words of God, and especially, the consequences of his Filioque. The unguarded imagination usually does not leave any place for the logic that defines the actuality.

However, the Augustine’s assertion became the lucky finding for substantiation of the claim of the Bishop of Rome on the supreme authority over all Christendom because the leaps of imagination of the Plato–Manichean dreamer were evaluated from the position of the worldly power: the Filioque connects the papal authority with the authority of God the Father; in theological sense, it provides the ground for deification of the pope who pretend to be a substitute of the Son of God and to have the place of Lord Jesus Christ at the earth, and therefore,

1/ might elevate the pope from the modest position of the bishop–vicar of the crucified Son of Man to the divine status of the representative of the Almighty Omnipotent Trinity

2/ might substantiate any papal assertion, even such as the pope’s infallibility and ability to stand at the place of God and have the share of dignity of God. For instance, in 1264, Thomas Aquinas referred to the rejection of supremacy of the Roman pope as to “analogous” to denial “that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son” [Thomas Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum qtd. in: Likoudis 74–75].

Any suggestion of any possibility of any analogy between the attributes of God and the properties of man is blasphemy whoever and whatever such a man is or aspired to be.

The human thought does not disappear without a trace; is it good or is it evil, it inevitably finds an embodiment in the deeds of men at its time and under the favorable for it conditions. Two conditions – corruption of faith and misinterpretation of the Scriptures – explain how the Aquinas’ sacrilegious analogy became possible and why his superiors headed with the pope–prefect of the inquisition digested it without releasing Aquinas to the civil authorities to be executed for blasphemy and heresy:

1/ the Origen–Augustine’s practice to misinterpret the word of God almost eight centuries corrupted the minds of Catholic theologians and members of the papal hierarchy, and for the corrupted minds, the sacred knowledge of God became just a starting point for leaps into the shared imaginary world of political theology

2/ Thomas Aquinas was the Aristotle–Origen–Augustine’s follower with the particular affinity to the Aristotle’s pragmatism. As a circus artist, he balanced on the razor’s edge, at the very boundary between the open heresy and official teaching of the papal church of Rome; with the Aristotelian methods, with the Origen–Augustine’s techniques, with elaborated falsifications of the Holy Scriptures, misrepresentation of decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, and through impudent flattery to the pope, he pushed the boundary in the desirable for him direction as often as he neededΣ22.

Understandably, the papacy eagerly accepted the Augustine’s heresy: from the earthly point of view (the strategy of achievement of the absolute power), the Augustine’s assertion of equality of the Son to the Father through making the Son the same source of the Holy Spirit as the Father is, allowed transforming the pope – self–proclaimed “vicar of Christ in the Earth” and “head of the Church” – into the representative of God the Father and therefore, the Omnipotent Almighty Absoluteness: the Holy Trinity.

Indeed, the pope Innocent III (1198–1216) asserted the pope acts on behalf of the Holy Trinity, “by the authority of SS Peter and Paul, and by... own authority” [Innocent III ref. and qtd. in: Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy 213–214; La Due 118, 124; Willett 11].

The Innocent III’s self–deification had opened the gate for the flow of similar assertions, which ultimately formed the meaning of deification of the Roman pope. In particular, the pope Boniface VIII made two statements:

1/ the papal authority is divine

2/ for the sake of eternal salvation it is necessary “for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Then, such a representative – the pope – can claim a position of the absolute ruler that is the infallible source of the laws, which supersede the commandments and words of God, and whose definition of the vice and virtue is the binding law for the papal church and for his subjects who are his unreserved slaves and whose conscience he can re–program with own meanings of good and evil: through the Filioque, the papacy attempted to connect its authority with the authority of God the Father.

The Roman popes (who elevated themselves to the position of the vicar of Christ and the earthly substitute of God) legalized the Augustine’s Filioque, because it serves the pope’s self–deificationΣ23 and provides an appearance of justification of the papal claims on

1/ the absolute authority

2/ possession of the share of dignity of God

3/ loyalty to the pope as the necessary condition of eternal life and salvation

4/ such a power to influence the post–mortem destiny of human soul that even God has to obey the pope’s decisions [[that is plainly speaking, not only self–deification; it is self–positioning above God]].

Indeed, the seed sown with the Filioque has grown into another – papal – religion incompatible with Christianity.

From a practical point of view, with the referred above claims, the papacy usurped the right to define what is the good and what is the evil, therefore, interfered with the authority of God: the papacy asserted own “divine authority” and began to claim the absolute power over souls and bodies of the papal subjects. The summary of definitions of the papal theologians derived from the Filioque defines the pope as the absolute ruler who is the infallible source of the laws, which supersede the commandments and words of God, and whose definition of the vice and virtue is the binding law for the papal church and for the papal subjects who are papal unreserved slaves and whose conscience the pope can re–program with own meanings of good and evil.

With legalization of the Augustine’s Filioque by the pope and by the councils of the papal church of Rome, the heathen practice of modification of deities was admitted to the Western theological studies: the papal church of Rome accepted the permissibility of modification of the knowledge of God according to the words of man and for the purposes of men.

The papal Council of Trent accepted The Creed of the Roman Catholic Church with the addition of Filioque as “the shield against all heresies” (4 February 1546, at Session 3) [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 662] – obviously, the Council considered heresy from the papal point of view, which defines heresy as any contradiction of the papal assertions.

Some people perceive the dispute around the Filioque as the scholastic subtlety without any practical influence on life of the Christians, especially, now. Some researchers attempt to assert the mutuality of the main papal and Christian dogmas and to prove that theological disagreement might be reconciled or even disregarded [e.g., Likoudis 9a–9b]. Usually, the papal hierarchy presents such a reconciliation as the unconditional submission of the Christians to the “absolute authority” of the Roman pope along with their conversion into the Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology/Catholicism.

However, the irreconcilable difference between two attitudes to the words of God defines the essence of the dispute concerning Filioque.

For the Christians, the words of God are the absolute truth that does not need any additions or modifications by men: the Christians do not misinterpret the God’s words, and the words of Lord God Jesus Christ that the Spirit of Truth – the Holy Spirit – proceeds from the Father {John 15:26} are the absolute and eternal truth, which all augustines, aquinas, and roman popes are unable to refute.

As soon as the papal church of Rome has accepted the Augustine’s Filioque, it evidently has another point of view, which is not compatible with the Christian dogma.

Some people perceive the dispute around the Filioque as the purely theoretical or scholastic subtlety without any practical influence on life of mankind. However, acceptance of the Filioque reveals the destructive work of the heathenism within the establishment, which initially was the Christian Church of Rome: since acceptance of the Filioque, the heathen interactive theology, which allows modification of images of gods/idols, has been sustaining the papal struggle for the absolute power and world dominion; it triggered the Crusades, established the Inquisition, and transformed the history of European civilization into the list of massacres, religious wars, and atrocities.

Therefore, the Augustine’ Filioque had influenced lives of the billions, because in the past, it fueled the papal pretense on the absolute power; in the present, it provides the ground for the papacy to continue the Manichean quest for domination over the world as the struggle for “promoting of Christianity,” as the contemporary crusade for the ecumenical unity, which in fact, is the war for the absolute power of the papacy over souls, body, and minds of the world populationΣ24.




Conclusive Remarks


It might be inferred that the interpretations of the Scriptures and assertions of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo and Catholic saint, which are referred above, disclose his understanding of the good and his personal system of beliefs, which are not consistent with the Christianity.

Augustine’s approach to interpretation of the Scriptures reveals that his mind still is caged within his Manichean past.

For instance, the Augustine’s inference, that the wicked repeat the “way of their false doctrine” or “present deviation” again and again re–iterates the Manichaean concept of pre–destination of everything without possibility of change, and Orphic–Manichean concept of transmigration of the souls of the sinners and ordinary believers [w2; w5; w6] chained to the wheel of reincarnation. Although Augustine links his conclusion with the text “the wicked shall walk around in circles,” which he ascribes to Psalm 12:8 [Augustine The City of God against...XII.xiv–xv, xviii IV:65–67,85], in fact, Augustine re–states the Socrates’ notion of the pointless repetitive discussion as “running round and round in circles, always returning to the same spot, and getting nowhere” [in: Plato Theaetetus 200c].

However, Psalm 12:8 in old Latin translation, which Augustine could read, and contemporary English translations refers to the wicked ones who scatter (prowl/strut/parade about) on every side (in every direction) when men/society extols/exalts depravity (shamelessness/vileness) [The Complete Parallel Bible 1147; The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible 515]; this translation is apparently linked to the “When the wicked are in authority, transgression increases (or sin multiplies)” {Proverbs 29:16 in: The Complete Parallel Bible 1425}. In the Septuagint, Psalm 11(12):8 is different; however, in both sources, the Psalm’s text cannot be connected with the Socrates–Augustine’s concept.

Possibly, Augustine forgot the place from where his imagination took off: was it the Manichean doctrine, the Plato’s doctrine, or the Holy Scriptures?

From another angle of consideration, the Augustine’s conclusion reflects the actuality: indeed, false doctrines, ideas, or inappropriate methods of reasoning might constantly re–produce themselves in different minds keeping them within the same logical trap (Orphic “coil of the serpent”), from which there is no exit.

The Socrates’ thought belongs to the Orphic framework, which includes the concept of reincarnation; Socrates evokes the Orphic–Pythagorean concept of the wheel or the “coil of the serpent” from which there is no exit. Similar notion sustains the Mani’s postulate of predetermination and non–existence of the free will.

The referred Augustine’s notion might be traced to the next “coil of the serpent”: the Aquinas’ attempt to justify the mandatory death sentence for relapsed heretics. Could not the Aquinas’ dictum that the Church cannot imitate God in His mercy to the relapsed sinners [Summa Theologica II–II Q.11 a4 ro2] and his justification of the mandatory death penalty for the relapsed heretics so they should be uprooted by death [Summa Theologica II–II Q.11 a3, a4] be the consequence of the deadly combination of the Mani–Augustine’s outlook sustained with Plato’s political utopia [Plato Laws 908d–909a] that provided Aquinas with the blueprint for his concept of justice, which includes the mandatory death penalty for relapsed heretics for the sake of “ideal” stability of the “ideal” society?

This particular example illustrates how easily one framework of knowledge might take the place of another body of knowledge within the mind that does not have the constant focusΣ25 on true knowledge of God. In particular, Augustine obviously does not consider the heathen philosophy and the Philo and Origen’s allegorical interpretations of the texts from the Holy Scriptures, with which his logic and reasoning are fed and on which his imagination flies, as inconsistent with the true knowledge given by the Word–God.

Perhaps, the false ideas might be seen as the kind of deadly virus or the immunity test for human minds and, as it might be inferred from the history, each type of the false doctrines coincides with the particular type of the destructive processes: some minds have “immunity” and reject the deceptive ideas [[for instance, such as a heretical assertion of the right of a philosopher to misinterpret the word of God]]; some minds accept the false concept as the truth and destroy themselves and the establishment (state, society, religion, group), which has acknowledged them as the messengers of the truth. 

Catholic saint and theologian Augustine the Manichean convert began with recognition of Platonism as the pre–cursor and likeness of Christianity and finished with Compelle Intrare.

The acceptance of Augustine doctrines by the papal church of Rome made possible the Dark Ages, when the European civilization collapsed into the heathenism – the reality of anti–evolution, which consumed the multitudes of people who were deprived of true knowledge of God and who were deceived by heresy of their “guardians” – the philosophizing theologians armed with the heathen philosophy and the methods of such false teachers, for instance, as PhiloΣ7, OrigenΣ8, and Augustine.

After acceptance of the Filioque and Compelle Intrare, the papal Church of Rome embraced the Aquinas’ political theology, which superseded the Christian teachings, and justified forceful conversion, deprivation of the priests of marriage [[similarly to the Plato’s guardians and Mani’s Perfected]], the Inquisition, the Crusades, religious wars and persecutions, and other methods of creation of the “perfect members” of the “perfect community.”

Could all these disasters be a consequence of an intentional misinterpretation of the words of God by philosophers and theologians?

The very idea of intentional misinterpretation is not compatible with philosophy, theology, or any field of study, which presupposes dignity of thinking. In the Augustine’s case, intentional misinterpretation as the deliberate act does not look probable. Therefore, the reason for the initial misinterpretation should have the root in an inability to comprehend the truth, so, the mind accepts alien ideas, heresy, and fantasies as the truth.

Only the mind, which is not focusedΣ25 on God, yet which is trained in the methods of the heathen philosophers who created their imaginary worlds of multi–deity mythological theology, becomes capable of accepting the fruits of imagination as the truth.

Consequently, such mind acquires the ability to misinterpret truth in accordance with own desires and to present figments of own imagination as the real meaning of things. If such a mind belongs to someone at a position of any – religious, political, other – authority, the consequences are suffering and death of the many.

Augustine discarded the warning of St. Paul the Apostle {Colossians 2:2–18; 3:1–17} that the Christians do not need “philosophy and empty deceit according to the human tradition” of a self–proclaimed visionaries with irrational arrogance of the mind controlled by the flesh, because the Christians have all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, love that is completeness of perfection, and eternal life in Lord God Jesus Christ.

Consequently, Augustine continued the heretical Philo–Origen’s traditions of application of the methods of heathen philosophy toward “elaboration” of the word of God, frivolous interpretation and misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and additions of the figments of imagination to the words of God; such Augustine’s practices resulted in heresy and falsification of the Christian teaching. Perhaps it was the special ability to pervert the Holy Scriptures according to own needs, which prompted Friedrich Meinecke’s reference to Augustine as to a “precursor of Machiavelli” [Meinecke ref. and qtd. in: Paolucci vii].

Misinterpretations of the Scriptures produced such Augustine’s idea as the right of the Church on “righteous persecution” and “coercion in the name of love” embodied in Compelle Intrare. The way, which this idea made through the centuries, started with the admittance of the evil as the means to deal with man, resulted in the evil, and led


from the Roman Catholic Church that consented to the Compelle Intrare of Augustine Bishop of Hippo

and began to compel the heretics by persecution and coercion

through the Schisms, the Inquisition, religious wars, persecutions of the different–minded, and revolutions

to the prisons and concentration/forced labor camps of the twentieth century,

where people had to learn ideals of selective justice and supremacy of the common good over the good of a person

and to submit themselves to the power of coercion, or to die as “enemies of the state (nation)”



Three Augustine’s notions became especially influential: they prepared the ground for the Aquinas’ political theology – official doctrine of the papal church of Rome. Compelle Intrare or justification by the Church of the use of force and coercion and the concept of the “wise judge” whose ignorance and sins against humanity are justified by the needs of the society became the foundation for the Inquisition. The ides of primacy of the laws of society/city over the laws of a Christian family introduced the papacy as the supreme authority over the family’s life and justified intrusion of the papal clergy into the intimate life of the papal subjects.

The history discloses the actual significance of the Augustine’s heretical additions to the Christian dogma and reveals the fruits, which the Augustine’s philosophizing imagination had brought upon his church and upon those who this church persecuted “in the name of love”:

1/ the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare and “wise judge concept” laid the foundation on which the papal church of Rome grown up into the worldly institute of coercion that uses the weapons, the powers, and the means of the material world to gain the secular power and world dominion and to transform free people into unreservedly obedient papal subjects [[e.g., such as the human weaponΣ6 manufactured with the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola]]. The papal Inquisition, which was established in 1227, impeccably embodied the Augustine’s concept of “wise judge”; the inquisitorial literature, including the manuals of the inquisitors, contains Augustine’s Compelle Intrare as the justification of the right to persecute and to exterminate heretics

2/ the Filioque empowered the Roman popes to assert their “divine authority” as the foundation for self–deification/idolization, as the claim on the absolute – secular and spiritual authority over the entire mankind, and as the basis for their struggle for the absolute power over souls and bodies of their subjects world–wide

3/ the sack of Constantinople by the Catholic CrusadersΣ26 in 1204, in fact, became the ultimate embodiment of the Augustine’s vision of the “coercion in the name of love” and the “conquests of the Lord” [Augustine qtd. in: Deane 220].

Therefore, the most significant purpose of the freedom–oriented mind should be development of the right discernmentΣ27, including cultivation of an ability to discern and indentify instantly the slightest sign of inhumane perversion in each philosophical and theological concept. Would this ability become the vital part of education, the heathen philosophy would receive its proper place as an illustration of the deadly disease of mind.

Evidently, in some crucial moments of the Past, which determined development of the current civilization, such ability was suppressed, or did not exist. Otherwise, such creations of Augustine’s mind as the Compelle Intrare, the “wise judge,” and Filioque would never make the way into the history of mankind.

The Augustine’s doctrine is based upon misinterpretation and falsification of the word of God incompatible with Christian dogma.

Through the Augustine’s works, the Plato’s utopia and the heresy of Mani were incorporated into the Western theology, which became the basis for the Western civilization.

The overall legacy of Augustine includes

a/ application of heathen philosophy toward interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, that were obscure for him

b/ the “useless” knowledge” of heretic, which has brought forth nothing good, and which, after its embodiment into the structures endowed with the power of coercion, took life and happiness of the many.

In one of his books, Augustine asks his readers to thank God for his conversion from the Manichaeism [The Confessions X.xx]. All false prophets have their role in the process of evolution; however, can mankind be sincerely grateful for the Filioque, Compelle Intrare, the wise judge concept, and their consequences, which the Manichaean convert imposed onto the Western theological thought and through it, onto the Western civilization?



The sign denotes my opinions and notes placed within the main text.


The text includes excerpts from

– The Invincible Empire, Chapter 5 (edited),

– the post  [October 12, 2008] @ my website,

– my other works



Σημειωσεις –  Notes



with Supplements, Reprints, Excerpts, Notes, and References are offered for download @ Library Pages of my websites

Systems Logic –

Christian’s Mind & the World –

Sunday’s Thoughts_2  –

The files pointed to Archive Folders can be read and copied @ website Sunday’s Thoughts –

References and cross–references in the reprints/excerpts from the Archive files are updated to include newest postings.

Sign denotes my opinions, inferences, and assumptions



Σ1 The survived manuscripts of Manichaean origin and the works of those who criticized and attempted to disprove the Manichean articles of faith [w1; w2; w3; w4; w5; w6; and the others] make possible reconstruction of the essence of Manichaean doctrine.

Mani or Manichæus (A.D. third century, Persia) asserted that he is an “apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father,” and claimed that he was so taken by the Holy Spirit that he himself became “the Paraclite” promised by Jesus Christ to His followers. Mani also claimed to be the last prophet in the line, into which he included Adam, Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus.

So, Mani chose own twelve “apostles,” promulgated own “ten commandments” (which forbade idolatry, mendacity, avarice, murder, fornication, theft, deceit, magic, hypocrisy, and religious indifference), and wrote for his followers Fundamental Epistle – substitute for the Bible [existence of Mani’s “apostles” also confirmed in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 120].

The followers had to pray four times a day to different divinities “of the realm of light,” starting with “the father of majesty/greatness,” the first man – Ohrmizd, similar to Egyptian Osiris and Greek Dionysus [w4], “the Paraclite” – that is to Mani himself, the five elements/aeons/sons of “the father of majesty/greatness”  (one of which – the light/nous: Νοος  as Greek Intelligence/Reason – Mani named “Jesus Christ”). Pantheon of Mani’s deities included also deities of seven planets (Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Moon, etc.) and the others.

Mani established the ritual, which imitated the ancient rites of the Zoroastrians and was named “the communion,” yet, it was the communion with one element – bread – only.

Mani aspired to create the universal religion, which would accommodate religious needs of the believers of the entire world; thus, Manichaeism incorporates parts of many theological doctrines and references to deities of many religions, including references to Lord Jesus Christ as to a personification of the Light, one of the aeons – sons of the good god. Mani also referred to Lord Jesus Christ and covered his fantasies with the Name of Christ, similar to the warning left by the Apostles {Acts 20:29; 2 Peter 2:13, 17–19; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Timothy 4:1–7}.

The core of Manichaeism consists of

a/ the Persian doctrine of dualism (the good and the evil are two primeval independent forces)

b/ Gnosticism (for instance, the concept of “evil mater” and similar deities: Mani’s “father of majesty/greatness” with five elements/light limbs/aeons/sons are similar to those in Gnosticism – the parent of the eternity with five aeons/sons [w4])

c/ heathenism (the multi–deity arrangement).

Comparison of Gnosticism and Manichaeism illustrates the work of Mani’s mind, how it adjusted–incorporated the concepts borrowed from other theological–philosophical doctrines.

Gnosticism is the specific philosophical–theological systems of thought focused on knowledge as the life of the mind and composed of the concepts adopted from heathen philosophy and myths, Hellenic Judaism produced by Philo of Alexandria from the books of Moses and heathen Greek philosophy, and the ancient secret doctrines of magi of Persia and Babylon.

All theological, philosophical, and political doctrines, which had their root in Gnosticism, may be identified by one distinctive mark: the prohibition to make knowledge available for all population.

In particular, the Gnostics divided mankind into three classes:

– a few of the illuminated – the elite which has access to the secret sacred knowledge

– the inferior souls, who are satisfied with the knowledge they already have

– all the others who are not able to cognize the secret knowledge, therefore are doomed to remain the subject of the matter – or the mortal flesh, for instance, the subjects of the rulers and idols, which they worship as deities.

Mani simplified the Gnostic classification; his sect consists of

1/ the Initiated–Enlightened–Illuminated–Perfected elite in a possession of the special secret–mystical–divine–forbidden knowledge of God

2/ all the others deprived of this knowledge (the Hearers–Believers–Brothers or the simple–small–ordinary souls, the laity, etc.), therefore, unworthy to be something more than ordinary laborers – in fact, slaves – destined to sustain the privileged existence of the Perfected–Illuminated–Initiated–etc. elite.  Only the small part of the Hearers–Believers–Brothers might ascend to the rank of the Perfected.

The roots of Gnostic and Manichaean classification of men stem from the Dionysian cult of death with its division of the followers on the elite and the ordinary members who were destined to serve as the human weapon [[concerning Dionysian cult, see Divination in Ancient Civilizations: Legacy Overview]].

Hence, Mani arranged his sect into a simplified democracy according to the Aristotle’s universal master slave pattern, or main organizational principle of Aristotle’s Polis: the mob (the Hearers–Believers) exists to support life of the elite (the Perfected), yet the mob also serves as the pool, from which the members of the elite are chosen.

In brief, the following assertions, which Mani attempted to confirm with misinterpretation of the passages from the Holy Scriptures and covered with the terminology of the Holy Scriptures, convey the essence of the Manichaeism, which was practiced in Byzantine Empire, North Africa, Asia, and Europe [in: w1; w2; w3; w4; w5; Baybrook; Pilkington; The Sunset Knowledge; Vacandard; and the others].

1/ The dogmatic foundation of Manichaeism is dualism: existence of two principles – the good that created the spiritual realm, and the bad/the evil that created the material realm with all wickedness, unbelief, and all bad things accommodated and contained within the material world.

As the creation of the evil, the human flesh is a manifestation of the evil, which had to be suppressed; only the Perfected can achieve personal salvation by own efforts, through repentance, mystical knowledge, and severe suppression of the human nature.

2/ The evil has the power at least equal to the power of the good god, because it moves the good god against his creations and causes the good god to desire and to wish that which is not desirable for him; the good god is not mighty in evil. As soon as the power of the evil is not from the good and exceeds the good, nothing can be snatched from the power of darkness, and there is no way and no means by which the one can be converted from the power of the evil god (Satan in Mani’s terminology) to the power of the good god.

Thus, Mani asserts that the evil is the omnipotent force that has prevalence even over the good god; in other words, he establishes the arch–evil as the omnipotent god that is more powerful that the good god, transfers the entire world of the material things into authority of the arch–evil, and introduces multi–deity heathen arrangement.

2/ The free will does not exist: a human being does not have power over himself; he is not capable to choose/do/think anything that was not allotted to him by the power, to which he is submitted (either the good or the evil). Therefore, some people have potency for salvation, and some people have no potency for salvation: they cannot be saved; otherwise, demons could become angels, angels could become demons, and so on. All is pre–determined: the pre–existence of the necessity and the impossibility to override the necessity, the necessity of being and the impossibility of not–being, and so on. God that is the first cause that is the intelligence to which, as Aristotle says, all things are in the present, knows all whatever is to happen in the future, and creates imperfect things, because of necessity for angels to become demons and impossibility for them do not become demons.

The theoretical foundation is the ancient Greek concept of pre–determination, which submitted gods as well as men to the omnipotent power of the fate and postulated that nothing can ever be changed or accomplished or undone if it is not determined by the fate. The practical inference is doctrine of the unreserved obedience, which, by the very nature, the subordinate ones owe to those who are their natural masters, owners, teachers, who all act because their god pre–determined them to act and therefore, the masters/owners/etc. must be obeyed as gods are to be obeyed [[see Aquinas’ doctrine of the unreserved obedience – in Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas – Folder Heathen Philosophy]].

3/ Salvation for the vast majority of the population, including majority of the Mani’s followers, is impossible: only insignificant part of mankind – the Manichaean elite, “the Perfected” – will achieve the salvation, which Mani envisioned as the union with the pure light. Other members of the sect (“the Hearers” or “the Believers” who were allowed to marry, to work, and even to wage wars) have to go through the cycles of reincarnation. Their souls transmigrate into the plants (from which they might be freed by the Perfected) or somewhere else or into the Perfected. The only way to reach “the light” and to be freed from the necessity to go through the cycles of reincarnation is becoming the Perfected [in: Baybrook 310–311; Pilkington 66; Vacandard 59, 73].

3/ God did not wish to create the perfect things, but such that they would be able to do the good and the evil. Therefore, as soon as god knows the future, the destiny of everyone and everything is pre–determined.

This assertion transforms the world into the place of stagnation and hopelessness, the prison, in which nothing is determined by human will and nothing can be achieved by man.

4/ Everything that was created was created from the pre–existing matter.

This assertion links Mani’s doctrine with the ancient materialism, which admitted no gods but one – pre–existing eternal matter.

5/ God cannot make another god like unto himself; the evil power and the good power are in constant struggle: the good god attempts to assail the power of the evil daily. 

Although Mani’s good god is in a constant state of war with the evil one [[this concept – the continuous struggle of Ormazd (the good) with the Ahriman (the evil) – was borrowed from Zoroastrianism; Zoroastrians believe that eventually, the good will prevail over the evil]], Mani attributed to the evil god the omnipotent force; it means that Mani’s good one is powerless: he is incapable to defeat the evil, which therefore, should be irresistible and eternal.

5/ Another – evil – god and creator causes adultery, fornication, murders, plundering, thievery, falsehood, and other evils; it cursed Lord Jesus Christ. This assertion in Manichaean writings is supplied with explanation that as soon as God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are “one and the same,” the curse confirms existence of another eternal god of all evils, and this god was seen in the visible world, face to face.  The evidence of its existence can be derived from the Holy Scriptures; for instance, the vision of Habakkuk the prophet refers to “the eternity of devil,” describes it as “god,” and states that “death shall go before its face” [w2].

1/ God the Father and Word–God, the Son of God, are One as Lord Jesus Christ, the Word–God, said {John 10:30}.

However, to assert that “God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same” means to establish existence of three equal similar gods. This Mani’s assertion explains why Augustine invented his “Filioque”: the Augustine’s declaration that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father” is rooted in Manichean multi–deity arrangement and inability to comprehend the Christian teachings.

2/In fact, the referred prophet {Habakkuk 3:3–6} describes his vision of God, the Holy One, Whose excellence covers the heavens, and the earth is full of His praise. His brilliancy is as the light. In His hands is the horn {κερατα   – horn as trumpet or as vessel for water; the Horn of salvation –  κερας  σωτηριας  – in reference to Lord Jesus Christ  – in: Luke 1:69}, and He has placed/committed to love His mighty strength (εθετο  αγαπησιν   κραταιαν  ισχυος  αυτου where εθετο  is a derivative of τιθημι  – put, place, offer, commit; the primary word is either ancient θεω – to run or θεο – complete, as the root of words defining Θεος – God); before His face, the Word – Λογος – shall go.

There is no one mentioning of “devil” and “death.”

This example [[with reference to Habakkuk the prophet]] illustrates typical distortion of the texts of the Holy Scriptures by Manicheans and reveals the pattern, which describes propagations of heresies:


1/ the one who seeks to enslave the others with heresy/false knowledge, expresses own opinion/assertions stated as the interpretation

(frivolous and intended to confirm own assertions, not to convey the true meaning)

2/ although frivolous and false, nevertheless, for verisimilitude,

the assertion with misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures is supplemented with the reference to the text of the Holy Scriptures

3/ if the interlocutor does not know the Scriptures, he might accept the lies as truth, and such deceit becomes the core of corruption,

which is exactly what the hunter for the souls needs for the beginning

4/ with each additional untruth, the defrauded mind moves itself further and further from truth,

until it completely loses an ability to differentiate between false and true knowledge, and between good and evil


Definitely, ignorance of the targeted ones increases chances of success for those who seek to enslave the targets with heresy/false knowledge and to trap them into the inferno of the false religion.

One interesting historic event gives the ample food for thoughts: in 1229, the Inquisition in Toulouse announced prohibition of reading of the Bible by the papal laity, making therefore, the Bible the forbidden book for the ordinary papal subjects.

Consequently, during many centuries, the knowledge of the words of God was forbidden for the vast majority of the Catholics who had to be fed with the images produced by the papal theologians – “guardians” of their souls, and had to accept as “the divine truth” any assertion, which the papal hierarchy considered beneficial for own purposes. In addition, translations of the Bible onto the European and other languages were also forbidden. Both prohibitions, which deprived the papal subjects of knowledge of the words of God, were supported with the drastic measures; for example, in 1536, William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translation of the Bible into English (published in 1526) [in: Trager 174, 179, Baybrook 603; The Bible. “Preface.” iii].

5/ There are many gods, lords, and princes of the world in enmity to the good god and to Jesus Christ. First men – Adam and Eve – are the offspring of male and female demons.

This assertion indicates the multi–deity arrangements of the heathen religion, similar to the ancient Greek cults, which populated the entire universe and all its levels with multitudes of gods.

The inferences [[1 through 7]] from the referred above postulates of the Mani’s doctrine

1. Manichaeism denigrates the power of God the Creator and asserts the arch–evil as the omnipotent deity – that is the worst heresy of all heresies ever devised by human corrupted imagination, which is continually intently bent to the evil {Genesis 8:21}.

2. Manichaeism denigrates the human mind; for Mani, man is a powerless toy of the arch–evil, which performs the works and commits crimes that were appointed for him by god (either the good or the evil one) that created him and that, therefore, is responsible for all crimes and all the evils, which man inflicts onto all other beings.

3. Manichaeism is the most antisocial and antihuman doctrine: as soon as it asserted that the matter created by the evil is evil, the very life of a human body is evil. Thus, all that is related to the matter is evil; procreation is sin, because by begetting children, man serves the evil and increases its possession; any social activity is sin, because the one has to deal with the matters created by the evil and serving the evil. Therefore, the only way that left for the one who wants to serve the good (to become the Perfected one), is death. The one achieves salvation by coming through the ritual of slow suicide – “endura,” by depriving himself from all that sustains life of a body.

Hence, Mani forbade marriage for the Perfected: men and women had to live in separate communities, and to conceive a child for the Perfected was “the height of immorality.” Maternity was a calamity and sin; deliverance of a child was the abhorrent deed. The very life became a sin because it sustains existence of the matter, which imprisons the light, into which the souls of the Perfected should come. Consequently, voluntary or suggested by the superior suicide (“endura”) through self–imposed starvation and other austerities became the method of perfection and salvation.

Similar assertions sustain the asceticism of the heathen diviners and followers of the cults, which as St. Paul the Apostle warned {1 Timothy 4:1–5}, forbade marriage and introduced senseless austerities according to the “teaching of demons,” in hypocrisy of liars.

4. In general, the Mani’s doctrine does not offer something new under the sun: his doctrine includes concepts borrowed from religious doctrines of Persia, Zoroastrianism, India, Buddhism (transmigration of souls; vegetarianism), Taoism, the remnants of the Egyptian and Greek myths, including elements of the Orphism, etc. The core of Manichaeism consists of

a/ the Persian doctrine of dualism (the good and the evil are two primeval independent forces)

b/ Gnosticism (the concept of “evil mater,” similar deities: Mani’s “father of majesty/greatness” with five elements/light limbs/aeons/sons are similar to those in Gnosticism: the parent of the eternity with five aeons/sons [w4])

c/ heathenism (the multi–deity arrangement).

However, the open recognition of the omnipotence of the arch–evil covered with the Christian terminology [[Christianity was “incorporated” into the Mani’s doctrine, because it was spreading all over the Middle East, Asia, and North Africa; through use of Christian terms – the Father, the Son, the Paraclite – Mani intended to deceive and to attract Christians]] made Manichaean doctrine the worst heresy, because it disseminates blasphemies against God the Creator: for the Christians, the articles of the Manichean faith are the sacrilege. Those who still have not learnt the words of God well might be deceived with the Christian terminology and therefore, could be forced to swallow the lethal pill: poison of the arch–evil covered with the Name of Lord Jesus Christ and references to the Holy Spirit.

5. Mani attempted to establish new universal religion for the entire world; for achievement of his purpose, he had to make his assertions acceptable for the followers of all other religions. Consequently, Mani’s devised his doctrine as a mixture of deities, concepts, dogmas, myths, and terminology borrowed from many religions of Asia, Middle East, Greece, and Egypt, so the people of these lands could find their deities and the concepts on which their religion is based, and therefore, to assume that Manichaeism is the illumination for those who desires to advance at their ways to complete knowledge and make the first step to salvation.

Definitely, the “enlightened” members of the Mani’s hierarchy (bishops, apostles) and Perfected with the duties to propagate their beliefs had to develop particular flexibility of thinking, advanced skills and techniques of psychological persuasion necessary for convincing likening the borrowed doctrines and articles of faith of other religions to their counterparts in Manichean system. With such arsenal they have to convert people into Manichaeism, yet to make them think that, by their conversion into Manichaeism, they do not commit apostasy, yet pursue the path of advancement and enlightenment.

In other words, the Manichaean propagandists, following to Aristotle’s irrational concept, had to prove truth by falsehood [Aristotle Eudemian Ethics], or to derive truth from lies. They had to convince the people of different beliefs in similarity of their religions with Manichaeism, which they presented as the advanced knowledge of the world elite – the illumination that elevates the carriers of such knowledge over the crowds.

The similar pattern defines ecumenism – the contemporary papal Crusade for unification of Christianity with Catholicism [[see Ecumenism in The World & The War. Part I.]].

6. Manichaeism is the ultimate embodiment of slavery – submission of man to the “omnipotent” power of the evil, which is based on three pillars: no free will, all–encompassing pre–determination, no possibility to avoid the power of the evil and to be saved for those who are of the evil.

7. In summary, Manichaeism is the more advanced version of Orphic doctrine, which contaminated the Western theology through works of Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus. In the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus, there are not many references to the essence of the doctrine – the worship to the arch–evil; the essence is covered with philosophical terms and it is hidden behind concepts accessible for the elite trained in philosophy and philosophizing techniques: the philosophers work at the level of the general framework. Mani’s mythical cover made his doctrine understandable for the simple people whose mind from their childhood was fed with myths, fairy tales, and dreams: Mani’s doctrine was designed to work at the level of general, mostly ignorant, population, so the entire mankind would be cast into the tenets of evil–worship.

In heathen theological terms, Mani postulates his doctrine plainly, without a chance of misinterpretation,


elevating the arch–evil at the rank of the most powerful force of the world

denigrating the power of the good

depriving man of the free will

transforming man into the unreserved slave of the arch–evil


In the same time, the Mani’s doctrine is irrational for the unbiased mind: while it is the ultimate concept of slavery and recognition of the arch–evil as the omnipotent force, still, Mani promises his followers illumination and even salvation. However, his “illumination” is the darkness of slavery of human mind deceived by heresy and lies, and death. The essence of Mani’s promises covered with the references to the light, into which his followers are supposed to enter after conversion into his cult and embodying his “faith” into their life, is death. With recognition of the arch–evil as the omnipotent “evil god” and austerities completed with slow suicide from hunger and austerities, Mani’s followers face death: death of the mind, which exterminates within itself the image of God the Creator [[suicide is the ultimate form of rejection of God, because by killing himself, man lifts his hand against his Creator Whose image is his essence]], and death of a body.

In general, history of Mani and his doctrine provides convincing illustration of the warning left by St. Peter the Apostle {2 Peter 2:17–19} concerning those who, being slaves of death, promise freedom (αυτοι δουλοι υπαρχοντες της φθορας – themselves being slaves of death; where φθορας is derivative of φθορα/φθορη – death, destruction, annihilation, ruin, loss; deadly plague; corruption; concerning the pattern of διαφθορον, which describes the totality of physical, moral, and religious ruin, see  Apostasy – in The War & The World. Part II.




Manichaeism brought forth confusion and attracted attention of the religious and political leaders, because

1/ the Manicheans imitated the Christian terminology, while disseminated beliefs into the omnipotence of the arch–evil and non–human antisocial manner of life

2/ the apparently “righteous” life of the Perfected of Manicheans (no animal food, strict rituals of purification, fasting, mortification of flesh through masochist practices, avoidance of sexual contacts, no social or political activity, rejection of the society and all obligations, duties, and customs) attracted many people; for instance, in Southern France, in eleventh–twelfth century, the majority of newcomers were those who encountered corruption, injustice, and hypocrisy of the papal subjects

3/ danger for mental, social, and political health of the societies, into which Manicheans brought their concepts of the omnipotence of the arch–evil and antihuman and antisocial organization of their sect based on the most inhumane and antisocial doctrine from all heresies ever invented by the human mind

4/ fast movement of the sect into the provinces of the Roman Empire, Egypt, Northern Africa; in the fourth century, Manichaeism already reached Rome, southern France, Spain, and was spread in the Central Asia.

Consequently, the history of Manicheans became the history of persecution and extermination, starting with horrifying execution of the founder of the sect (according to the order of Bahram I, Mani was crucified in 276 or 277, in Babylon (?)).

The Roman Empire, and then, the Byzantine Empire exterminated the Mani’s heresy without any mercy. For instance, in 297, the Manicheans of Egypt had been burned alive for the attempt to intervene with the imperial cult; then, the papacy also borrowed from the heathen Roman Empire the method of execution of the heretics by burning them alive.

Those Manicheans, who survived persecutions in Byzantine Empire, fled and settled in Europe (France, North Italy, the Balkans). During sixth–eleventh centuries, the underground sect penetrated another countries, reached India, Turkestan, Tibet, and Western China, and in the twelfth century, revived under the name of Albigensians or Cathari in Southern France and Northern Italy [Baybrook 314; Vacandard 50; Willett 13].

The apparently virtuous manner of life of the Perfected contrasted so drastically with the life of the papal clergy [e.g., New Catholic Encyclopedia 10:959], that the Perfected attracted many followers and the Albigensians–Cathari–Manichean movement [w3] became the actual threat to the papal power. Eventually, the papacy organized the crusade against Albigensians/Cathari in Southern France, and the papal Inquisition began to exterminate the Albigensians–Cathari–Manicheans. The physical extermination took almost two centuries (1199 – the end of the fourteenth century). However, the doctrine continued to live and penetrated the very core of the papal establishment.

The following line of the events (1 through 5) illustrates how the heresy of the executed heretics overwhelmed the executors’ establishment.

1. In the fifth century, the Roman pope Leo the Great condemned the communion in one element (by bread only) as heresy, because it was the practice of the Manicheans: in imitation of the ancient rite of the Zoroastrians, the Manicheans replaced the Eucharist with breaking of bread [Vacandard 58; Lea 2:472–474].

2. The Fourth Lateran Council (in 1215, about 10 years before Tomas Aquinas was born) recognized the proper (orthodox) order of the Holy Communion in the statement: by the power of God, bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and wine into the Blood of Christ [Documents of the Christian Church 163].

3. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, the main papal theologian whose doctrine became the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome, modified the concept of transubstantiation with the Aristotle’s concept of accidents – inessential, although detectible by senses, changeable property of the substance.

In particular, Aquinas asserted: as soon as “an accident is divinely given the power to exist in itself,” the accident becomes able to be “in itself the subject of another accident” [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica III Q.75 a2, a4, a5; Q.77 a2; Documents of the Christian Church 163–166]. The essence of the Aquinas’ assertion is the logical gymnastics in the Aristotelian style:

– there is no difference between “accidents”; therefore, this something that human senses discern as bread has no different essence that another something that human senses discern as fruit of vine

– there is no difference between bread and fruit of vine anymore – the transubstantiated bread is both the flesh and the blood

– as soon as the “accident” (bread) by the divine power becomes able to exist by itself, without substance, to assume another substance, and to become the subject of another accident, there is no difference between the communion by two elements (bread and fruit of vine) or by one element (bread only).

It means that Aquinas armed with the Aristotelian logic contradicted the most sacred tradition of the Christian Church. As soon as Aquinas was recognized as the main papal theologian, the papal establishment, eventually, accepted the communion of the Manicheans instead of the Divine Eucharist.

The Church is the Christian Church only if she preserves the order of the Eucharist established by God Himself. The Cup of Salvation as the symbol of the anticipated Christianity was foreseen long before coming of the Messiah {Psalm 115:13}. At His last supper, Lord God Jesus Christ called Himself “the True Vine” and His followers – the branches, which must bear the fruits. God gave His disciples a cup with fruit of vine; with the words “Drink of it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins,” He established the order of the Holy Communion, which all His followers should keep in remembrance of Him {Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:17, 19–20; John 15:1}. The order of the Eucharist is the most precious tradition, which unifies the people into the Christian Church.

4. The Council of Trent (1545–1563), which was guided by “the mind and spirit of St. Thomas” and which was summoned to define the Catholic doctrine and to reform the papal church [Walz ref. in: New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:134], at session 21, of June 16, 1562, denied that the Holy Communion with both elements is a “divine commandment,” asserted that the custom to use both elements had been changed “in the course of time,” and condemned those who deny that “the whole Christ is received when Holy Communion is received under the form of bread alone” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 726–727; Documents of the Council of Trent in Latin ref. and qtd. in: Hughes, Philip 327–328].

The decision of the Council of Trent contradicts the Gospels and the words of St. Paul the Apostle with which he conveys “the received from the Lord Himself” order of the Holy Communion: with bread that is His Body given for many, and the Cup that is the new covenant in His Blood shed for many for the forgiveness of sins { Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:17, 19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–27}.  

5. However, contrary to the commandment of God, contrary to the Roman pope who lived five centuries before the Great Schism (and whose proclamations Catholics must take as infallible judgment – according to the article of papal faith), and contrary to the post–Schism Council of the papal church of Rome (the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215), the Aquinas’ modification of the most sacred tradition of the Christian Church resulted in revival of the old Manichean heresy. Hence, the papacy withdrew the Cup of Eucharist from the Catholic laity; the communion with both elements (bread and fruit of vine) was left available only for the papal hierarchy: the pope, prelates, the papal clergy, etc.

The Council of Constance (1414–1418) named the official reason for such a practice as avoidance of “various dangers and scandals.” The Council also warned that the priests who “communicate the people under the form of both bread and wine” would be excommunicated [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 418–419].  So, although the papacy does not punish the priests who commit mortal sins, yet, who are the obedient papal servants, it excommunicates those who follow the commandment of God: God’s followers – the Christians – are not welcome in the papal church.

Deprivation of the papal subject of the Cup of Eucharist is the most dreadful event in the history of the Western civilization, which confirms ultimate destruction of the Christian Church of Rome and establishment of the heathen establishment – the papal empire – on her ruins:

–– although the papacy through the Inquisition physically exterminated the Manicheans, the main papal theologian and canonized papal saint Thomas Aquinas incorporated the Manichean heresy into the papal dogma

–– those who in violation of the Christian teachings shed blood of the countless “heretics” and worship the idol/pope, became unable to keep and thus, by their own will, forfeited the most precious tradition of the Christians.

The acceptance of the Manichean heresy (communion with bread only) by the papal hierarchy triggered off the revolt of the faithful Christians in Bohemia under the leadership of Jan Hus the priest who demanded the Cup of Eucharist for all the laity, because Lord God Jesus Christ gave it to all. The papacy denounced Jan Hus and his followers (who believed in the supreme authority of the Gospels and refused to accept the papal heresy) as disobedient to the Roman Church schismatics and heretics, who “rashly dared to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist under the form of both bread and vine” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 418].

The personal destiny of Jan Hus the priest illustrates the deadly potential of heresy covered with the label of “the article of faith” and protected with the oppressive worldly structures: he was summoned to the Council of Constance with the oath of “safe–conduct” (the guarantee of physical safety), condemned as a heretic, and, in violation of the oath of “safe–conduct,” burnt at stake, in 1415. The reasons for the perjury included not only rejection of the Aquinas’ heresy; Jan Hus reminded the papacy and its subjects – Catholics – of the right order of the Christian Church: the highest authority is the Word–God, not heresy, which became the core of the papal dogma through philosophical speculations, figments of imagination, compromises, and slavish praises produced by the theologians philosophizing at the steps of the pope’s throne.

The anger of the papacy was also fueled by the Jan Hus’ appeal directly to Lord God Jesus Christ as to the Supreme Judge, “bypassing the church’s intermediaries” and “greatly scandalizing Christ’s faithful” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 428]. It looks like the main reason for the “scandal” was the rejection of the papal pretense to be the “supreme judge” and “mediator” between God and man. Yet, following the Scriptures, Jan Hus did not honor usurpation of the place of God committed by the pope: Jan Hus refused to commit the sin of blasphemy by ascribing the attributes of God to the creature. For Jan Hus, as for all Christians, Lord God Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man and the only Supreme Judge. Only through Him, the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father, and only because of Him a human soul–heart–mind, illuminated and educated by the Holy Spirit, becomes the dwelling of God {Matthew 23:8–10; John 14:6, 15–27;  1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Peter 5:4}.

The Sentence of Degradation against Jan Hus  and Condemned Articles of J. Hus  indicate that Jan Hus by literally following the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles {e.g., 1 Peter 5:1–4} consistently and completely refuted the main Aquinas’ assertions concerning the papacy, especially the claims on the supremacy and “divine” status of the pope and papal hierarchy. Thus, for his loyalty to God and steadfast Christian faith, Jan Hus was burned alive as a heretic.

 Concerning destiny of Jan Hus, see Heresyreprint in Note 4 to SELECTIONS_&_REPRINTS_2016; concerning influence of Manichaeism onto the Western theology, see Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas – Folder Heathen Philosophy, Page_7.


Σ2 See Works of Origen – Folder Heathen Philosophy, and my book The Invincible Empire, Chapter 5


Σ3 Thomas Aquinas (1225?–1274) the main theologian of the papal church of Rome, was a Dominican monk whose brethren–inquisitors enthusiastically exterminated the Albigensian–Manichean–Cathari heresy. The Dominican Order (this order includes for instance, such members as the assassin of Henry III, king of France, and inquisitor Jacobo Sprengero – the co–author of Malleus Maleficarum) recognized the Aquinas’ doctrine as its official teachings. The Dominicans began to defend the Aquinas’ doctrine with the same diligence with which they exterminated heretics and witches.

The Roman pope John XXII canonized Thomas Aquinas in 1323; the papal theologians named him the greatest philosopher, and the popes highly praise him [see the papal references in: Kreeft 11; Synave and Benoit 9; New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:109–110].  According to the Code of Canon Law, all Catholic priests must be trained with the Aquinas’ doctrine, principles, and method. In the beginning of the twentieth century, during pontificate of Pius X, Aquinas’ Summa Theologica became the textbook for all papal institutions. Contemporary scholastics present Thomism as the alternative to modernization of Catholicism with nouvelle théologie, which might be linked with Marxism and existentialism [Dulles 120–121].

After Aquinas’ death, some Catholic theologians and members of the papal hierarchy unsuccessfully attempted to condemn Thomism, at least indirectly, while the countries, which rejected the papal authority, discarded Thomism completely. After canonization of Thomas Aquinas, any papal subject who refutes the Aquinas’ doctrine might be deposed from the papal office and might face condemnation for heresy [New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:129–130, 132]. Until now, the loyal papal theologians do not dare to expose the actual meaning of the Aquinas’ political theology: the doctrine of Mani and the heathen philosophy; the subject of their disagreement with Thomism involves mostly the philosophical issues.

At present, the Aquinas’ doctrine, referred to as “neo–Aristotelian system” [Holmes 7], as “Christian Aristotelianism” [McKeon 149], or simply as Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology, remains the official theological doctrine of the papal church of Rome; it is the core of the Magisterium teachings and basis of the papal politics.

See Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas – Folder Heathen Philosophy, Page 7, and The Invincible Empire, Chapter 6.


Σ4 Although the flesh is weak and the human weakness might accompany even the apostles of God {Matthew 26:41; John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 12:7–10}, the errors in comprehension occur only in the beginning of the way to God, when the mind discovers the reality of the true knowledge and sometimes might overestimate own preparedness. If such a mind has not learnt to discard own imagination as the source of knowledge, it assumes that it comprehends the true knowledge, while it continues to consume own phantasms. Then, it succumbs to pride and imagines that it can enlighten the others. This kind of misconception [[see Note further]] creates philosophizing theologians and other candidates for “the saints of ignorance.”

In a case of the mind, which seeks and eventually finds the way to God, after the mind becomes ready for the true knowledge, it closes itself in deep silence. It has focused itself on God and does not need praise, encouragement, or other manifestations of the material world transmitted through the sensory perception: it had found the treasure for which it paid everything it had {Matthew 13:44–45}. Only the necessity to instruct the next generations might coerce such a mind to break silence: unfortunately, it is a rare occasion. Evil and ignorance cry at any crossroad and fill the minds of people with false, lies, and addiction to fruitless phantasms, while wisdom dwells in silence. The still small voice of reason almost disappeared from the daily life of many, and with each day, it becomes more and more difficult for them to discern the evil in the things that compose the daily routine or customary manner of existence.

Hence, the problem is that the people, who are unable to recognize the truth, become the easy prey for the false prophets and then, elevate them to the rank of the saints and then, begin to consider their heretical fantasies as the dogma inaccessible for critical analysis and reevaluation.

In general, by the very definition of sainthood, the state of holiness, which presumably distinguishes the canonized saint from an ordinary sinner, is not compatible with the errors concerning knowledge of God and absolutely excludes any contradiction of the words of God. Two conditions accompany transformation of a person into a true saint: the inner state of the mind that has become the dwelling of God and the true knowledge of God, which prevents evil thoughts and deeds. The saints are the saints because they are not able to have evil thoughts. As soon as any action begins with thought, the saints are not able to commit evil toward other men, because they are not able to have the evil thoughts.

However, the process of canonization by the hierarchical quasi–religious and political establishments, into which many churches have degenerated, produces questionable results: only God sees the inner man, the true essence – soul–heart–mind, and only God is the True and Ultimate Judge of His creations. Therefore, canonization of humans by the religious establishments and the consequent worship of saints is problematic practice, which – as the direct violation of the second of The Ten Commandments {Thou shall have no other gods beside Me  – Exodus 20:3} – might easily initiate idol–worship, prevent identification of heresies and expulsion of heretics who follow them and even impose them as the articles of faith unto other members of their religious establishment. 

The inner man – mentioned by St. Peter the Apostle {hidden heart of man – 1 Peter 3:4} is the soul–heart–mind, which carries the image and likeness of God. St. Paul the Apostle describes such a new creation of Christ and in Christ as the one enabled to act as the co–worker of God {Θεου γαρ εσμεν συνεργοι1 Corinthians 3:9}, who is the God’s field and God’s building/construction {Θεου γεωργιον, Θεου οικοδομη  – 1 Corinthians 3:9} – the space prepared for the works of God and the masterpiece of God, as everything created by God is the masterpiece, which man should learn, comprehend and imitate.


Note concerning misconception:

From the practical point of view, misconception is the false belief, erroneous judgment, or delusion. As such, misconception might be explained only by the special condition of human mind: to be able of misconception, the mind must lose the ability to discern the good and the evil that is to become unable to perceive the essence of things. Consequently, the mind loses the power of logical reasoning: it accepts as the truth whatever other’s imagination can offer, including false gods/idols, erroneous judgments, and other lies.

Consequently, the meaning of misconception might be explained as the failure of reasoning and loss of freedom of thinking, which is based on inability to discern the good and the evil (that is, firstly, truth and lies) and which results in spiritual slavery. The road into spiritual slavery is open for the heart–mind without steadfast faith in God, without unwavering conscience, without true knowledge of God, and without love to God. Ignorance and deprivation of true knowledge of God are two necessary conditions for enslaving the mind.

False knowledge, lies, and misconception expose a special mental state, in which the mind operates with the perverted logic and therefore, is able to repeat or reproduce the pattern of the original sin [[concerning original sin, see Note 58 to Selections_&_Reprints_2016]], although it already known that the original sin led to death.

The Books of Prophets lead to conclusion that misconception and the subsequent acceptance of the false knowledge as truth are the consequences of the “wrath of God” – the state of human soul that has rejected the Light, took the way into the eternal darkness–death, and lost the ability to create the good: in all its endeavors, is limited to creations of miserable hovels of clay built on sand  {Matthew 7:21–27; John 3:16–21, 36; 15:4–6}.

The root of misconception is separation from God: the mind, which rejects God or which is deprived of the knowledge of God, accepts lies as truth, delusion and perplexity as enlightenment, and slavery as freedom.

Misconception is a foundation of sin, because if the mind lives by false assumptions, it becomes incapable of keeping the words of God and therefore, unable to accomplish the purposes, which it was created to accomplish.

For instance, misconception of Eve who accepted the lies of cunning brute as truth and rejected the truth of the words of God was followed by mistrust of God and disobedience to His will. Because of mistrust of God and disobedience to His will, Adam and Eve committed the original sin, for which they were expelled from the Garden of Delight, cast into the cursed–downgraded earth and destined [[along with their posterity – mankind]] to learn the evil and to cognize death.

Misconception makes possible substitution of lies for truth, false assumption for knowledge, and the evil for the good: the first stage of spiritual slavery is misconception – impaired judgment of the mind deprived of knowledge of God and of love to God.

Acceptance of false knowledge is possible only because of misconception.

See The Misconception – original post in Folder Archive_2011, Page 5_September_October_2011, and Note 41 to Selections_&_Reprints_2016




Σ6 See The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3.


Σ7 See PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA – Supplement 2 to THE WAR & THE WORLD. PART II. APOSTASY, and The Invincible Empire, Chapter 5


Σ8 Concerning the Orphic doctrine and the heathenism

In general, the heathenism is actualization of the hatred of the arch–evil to mankind.

The core of the heathenism is death – idolatry; the essence of idolatry is worship to the arch–evil in the image of the serpent – mythical serpentine theology of the Orphics; however the essence – the arch–evil – might be covered with different images: different idols.

The heathenism is a collective name for a special body of knowledge that is based upon multi–deity theology, with such objects of worship as idols – deified beasts, snakes, insects, humans, astronomical objects, forces of nature, objects of nature – ocean, sea, rivers, trees, mountains, rocks, man–made stone, wooden, and clay statues, “graven images,” human establishments – states, political parties, ideas, doctrines, and other images and hand–made material things – idols.

Making of images has two phases: work of the imagination as creation of thought, and work of hands when the invisible fruit of imagination – the created thought is materialized into visible perceivable material things: books, statues, figurines, idols – social, political, religious institutions, etc.

The first phase embraces the invisible work of imagination inside the mind when the mind assembles, modifies, and re–arranges the images of the surrounding material world. The imagination has only one source – the world of the matter, yet, with the knowledge of the world of the matter, the mind is able neither to comprehend nor to reflect the realm of God the Spirit. It means that the mind must not compose own image of God, because the knowledge it creates itself from the images of the material world is inadequate, therefore, false.

A human being was created in the image and after likeness of God; it means that the human mind is the perfect system–creating reality only when it is focused on God the Creator, and so, is tuned to the divine energy of creation and is acting/working with the wisdom–power given by the Holy Spirit; then, the human thought is an accomplished creation – system, which changes the surrounding world and influences existence of men.

When the mind creates the false image of God, it instantly distorts and disorders/modifies own essence – the core structures correlated with the meanings of truth, purposes, and values, which sustain existence of man and his world. The modified/distorted structures are incapable to perceive the divine energy of creation and to transform it into the life–sustaining energy form: the knowledge of life – own as well as the co–related beings, realities, and systems. The modification inevitably results in perversion and then, destruction, because incapacitated and modified/perverted with the false knowledge structures of the mind are incapable to sustain normal/natural existence of the mind and the body; consequently, the program of annihilation of a body is activated.

The core of the Orphic doctrine might be identified in almost all survived heathen religions and cults focused on worship of the arch–evil.

The Orphics compiled the doctrine of the “divine absolute animal“ –  the dragon–serpent–beast, within which all forms of all living beings are contained, among which a human form is an insignificant one – just one of the multitudes of beings. Since, all religions rooted in the Orphism, and therefore, deifying the arch–evil that was the murderer of man from the beginning {John 8:44; Genesis 3}, can be easily recognized by three features, which express their inhumane core – manifestly or covered with slogans/propaganda concerning ideals of humanity: 1/ rejection of the divine nature of man, 2/ animosity to man and hatred to woman, and 3/ use of lies and deceit for advancement and achievement of purposes.

Invention of the deified universal serpent–beast made possible numerous cults of animals of all kinds and especially, provided the justification of sacrifice of human beings to the beasts, because the ancient diviners characterized the human nature as the inferior to the bestiality of animal “gods.” The basic logic of idol–worship is based on the assumption that if the supreme deity is the beast with horns, wings, tails, paws, bull heads, etc., those in the image of beast are the superior creatures.

The influence of Orphic doctrine might be traced in all heathen cults and doctrines which sustain the contemporary atheistic and neo–heathen systems of thought.

Some researchers refer to the Orphism as the source of the “divine Muse of Homer” and of the “sublime theology” of Pythagoras and Plato [e.g., Thomas Taylor qtd. and ref. in Hall (2003) 74].

Indeed, the Orphic serpentine “theology” is the actual foundation of Plato’s philosophy, especially, the concept of forms–ideas–archetypes, with which he evidently, followed Pythagoras (who was initiated into the Egyptian–Eleusinian–Orphic–other mysteries, and asserted that all material objects have forms as their essence): indeed, if the main – universal or “absolute” – bestial deity contains the forms of wild beasts why it cannot accommodate the forms of all other creatures and objects, which compose the Universe?

Consequently, if to substitute the philosophical “essence–idea–form” for the Orphic “image,” the ultimate meaning of Platonism (recognized as the pinnacle of philosophical thought) is revealed as a set of phantasms – the irrational imaginary world of heathen cults of serpent. For the unbiased mind, the wordings covering the essence of Platonism and issuing doctrines should not conceal the true meaning: the heathens (for instance, the Minoans, Phoenicians, Orphics, etc.) who made this imaginary world into actuality of their daily life, worshiped the “divine absolute animal” – the serpent and their prime deity conceived by the cosmic arch–serpent/dragon – by devouring children, and in this imaginary world, humans are the beasts made after the image of their bestial deities. The Orphic doctrine [in: Graves; Hall; The Sunset Knowledge] became the foundation not only of the Greek heathen philosophy; it also sustains Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, theosophy, and many other cults and assumptions, including those developed within the framework of the Western civilization.

For instance, with the Orphic logic, Manly P. Hall not only infers supremacy of the “philosophy’s God” over “a personal God”; he refers to Orphism as to “theology,” which cannot be destroyed and which “in a more philosophic era … shall shine forth again with splendor undiminished” [Hall (2005) 218, 224].

Indeed, this “undiminished splendor” of Orphic myths identified as “philosophy” and “theology” still “shines” through the contemporary sciences.

In particular, the contemporary continuation of the ancient beast–worship might be diagnosed, for instance, in transhumanism and in the logic of the contemporary Darwinism– and atheism–driven ethics–free scientists and researchers. The followers of transhumanism are busy by designing improvement of the human nature and manufacturing of supermen – they attempt to chain man to their understanding of perfection and to “lift man up” to the new creature with abilities, which would overcome both – human and animal – natures. In their hatred to God and to His creations, firstly, to man, the Darwinism/atheism–driven scientists downgrade man and throw the human nature down, at the level of animals.

In fact, they are in the state of secret, yet constant, war with the remnants of the human reason.

This war can be easily identified through their ferocious fighting against any positive mention of God in media, schools, research institutions, government, political, and social structures. All knowledge–creating establishments are penetrated with propaganda of the basic heathen assumption that man does not differ from animal, moreover, in some matters, human is inferior to the beasts. This propaganda allows increasing negation of the traditional human values; as the result, cynicism, corruption, and perversion supplanted mercy, humanism, virtues and human dignity within all societies, which in the recent Past tolerated or even followed Christian teachings, yet now ferociously strive to “exterminate” God from all social educational and political activities.

Atheism, assumption of similarity of human and animal nature, and eradication of the very meaning of human dignity make possible to spend enormous funds on non–human experiments on the humans and animals, including those which intervene with the natural reproduction of humans and animals (e.g., “creation” of chimeras – human–animal embryos). Having been unable to cure the lethal human diseases (these diseases might be the means of self–annihilation with which the nature prevents further abnormal mutations of immune system), the darwinism/atheism–driven scientists downgrade man at the level of rodents and monkeys, on which they develop their “medicine” and vaccines.

However, the simple truth is that the rodent–monkey–based medicine is not effective for human beings and their long–term consequences for the human nature are not known. For instance, with all the costly efforts and their results – drugs and medical techniques, the sciences are neither able to find the real causes nor effective treatment for ultimate healing and prevention of cancer of all kinds, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, HIV, allergies and other immune disorders, mental illnesses and disorders, as well as many other plagues. Moreover, the monstrous ignorance of “saviors of mankind” and its fruits, for instance, such as poisonous drugs, trigger the next circle of abnormal mutations, thus, increase the overall suffering, spread mental and physical perversion, and eventually, might culminate in annihilation of mankind. Indeed, as of today, the meaning of humaneness is already forgotten by many.

The recent Past discloses the potential of unleashed ethics–free “scientific” imagination.

For instance, the scientists at the service of Nazis accepted the notion of racial inferiority of non–German nations. Within the society that assumed neo–pagan cult of Nazis, they asserted that human beings, who belong to the “inferior nations,” are not complete human beings, that they are “underhumans” not different from animals. Consequently, in accordance with their logic, they inferred that if man constructed slaughterhouses for animals and if “underhumans” do not differ from animals, the unwanted “underhumans” – in the similar fashion, as their equals (animals) –

–– can be “processed” with a particular “effective device,” e.g., such as a concentration camp

–– the ashes from the ovens of such a camp can be used as a fertilizer for the German soil

–– the “underhumans” in the concentration camps can be used as the laboratory animals.

Those who learn the unbiased history of the totalitarian sates of the twentieth century can see how the neo–pagans and ethics–free sciences have implemented their inferences.

With time, the logic of Orphics, through the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, became the common foundation of thinking and learning, on which the Western and other civilizations built on Plato–Aristotle’s social–political–philosophical utopia come to being, strive for existence, and collapse, because by their very nature they are not capable of achievement the purposes for which they are created. This logic is logic of simplification, logic of collapse and disintegration incompatible with the logic of the evolution, with which the evolving systems capable to sustain evolution of mind and its creations (e.g., societies and other establishments) should be designed and maintained.

For instance, the Orphic doctrine sustains Plato–Aristotle’s philosophy, which embodied the heathen vision of the Universe and the “ideals of humanity” into the chain of most destructive concepts:


slavery as the natural foundation of the society

man as a part/property of the community

supremacy of the good of the community over the good, happiness, liberties, and interests of a person

mandatory restriction of the freedom of thought and religion, control and regulation of the life of members/citizens

as the means of survival of the “perfect” community–state

termination of the different–minded as the legitimate practice of the community–state,

which has to protect itself from the wrath of deities

by expulsion or execution of atheists, followers of another cults, and different–minded of any kind,

therefore, by sacrificing life and well–being of its members–men for the sake of the good of men’s establishment



With philosophical doctrines and utopias compiled by Plato and Aristotle and elaborated by the flock of their followers, the Orphic myths eventually penetrated Western and some Eastern theological schools, which admit heathen philosophy as a legitimate source of the theological knowledge.

The Orphism is the most distinctively formed core of the heathenism. Hence, analysis of the different philosophical, religious, and political doctrines rooted in Orphism

a/ facilitates understanding of formation and development of different versions of the same arch–lies {Genesis 3:1–6}, from which the multitude of different false religions, cults, and ideologies sprung

b/ leads to the conclusion that all of them have the same the essence: rejection of true God and acceptance of idol–worship – assertion of existence of “other truths” and “other gods.”

In summary,

– the term Orphism denotes the special knowledge framework composed with mythical serpentine theology, Orphic philosophy, and their derivatives – political, social, religious doctrines. Within Orphic framework of knowledge, many civilizations and other human establishments were arranged, achieved the zenith of their destructive potency, and were ruined or disintegrated freeing time–space for the next generations of thinkers, political, social, and religious leaders that built realm of anti–evolution

– the Orphism is the most distinctively formed core of the heathenism – idolatry: the realm of false religions and cults the essence of which is worship to the arch–evil in the image of the serpent; however it might be covered with different images – different idols

– the Orphism became the root, from which many heathen religions and cults sprung, especially, the cults of serpents/reptiles – the cults of death. The attributes of Orphic deities include horns, paws with claws, tails, snakes, and horned animals. For instance, the ancient Minoan goddess was coiled with snakes and held snakes; originally, Dionysus (the ancient deity of insanity and death) was depicted as the horned serpent; Python the serpent was the deity of divination, its priestesses – pythias – uttered predictions in the state of trance

– the distinctive feature of all religions and cults based upon the Orphism/cult of the arch–evil is hatred to God and to His creation – a human being. This hatred, although might be covered with sermons of peace and love, manifests itself through body–mutilating laws, sadistic corporal punishments, inhumane executions, justification of slavery and crimes against humanity if they are committed for the sake of the religion and its world–wide domination, and idol–worship to invented deities. All such religions also tolerate or even foster especial hatred to woman who might be “lawfully” and according to “the article of faith” mutilated, stoned to death, beaten, sold, raped, deprived of basic rights and liberties, kept in ignorance, murdered – all these in complete agreement with the punishment for the original sin, which made earth–man the food for the arch–evil and established special enmity between the arch–evil and the woman {Genesis 3:15–20}

– the Orphism sustains theological–philosophical–political doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, and their followers

– the Orphism, firstly, is mythical serpentine theology; in the Gospels, the followers of Orphism and its derivatives (cults of different idols of the Israel’s neighbors – idol–worshiping nations) are referred to as “offspring of vipers,” as the sons of the arch–evil [[the ancient serpent of Genesis]], as the ones who, within them, do not have place for the Word of God {Matthew 3:7–12; 15:1–20; 23:1–35; Mark 7:5–13; Luke 7:29–35; 16:13–17; John 8:37–47; Genesis 3:1–6, 14–16}.


Concerning the heathenism and the Orphism and its derivatives, and analysis of doctrines of Plato and Aristotle the heathens and their influence in

The Main Fruits of the Ancient Philosophical Thought: Heathenism and Divination – in ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS: LEGACY OVERVIEW

– postings in Folder Heathen Philosophy and Political Theology @ website Sunday’s Thoughts


Imagination, Idolatry, The Logic of Death, The Strange Knowledge, The True Vine, and The Authority to Survive excerpts in Notes 38, 29, 28, 41, and 22 to SELECTIONS_&_REPRINTS_2016



Σ9 Obviously, when the Hebrews left Egypt, they could not have gold except the “borrowed” from the Egyptians: it would be illogical to assume that the Egyptian authorities paid for bricks and field work with gold (or paid at all) to their Hebrew slaves who had to be suppressed and even exterminated as the threat to Egypt {cf.: Exodus 1; 12:33–36; 32:1–9}.


Σ10 See Philosophy: Plato – Folder Heathen Philosophy, Page_2,  and The Invincible Empire, Chapter 4


Σ11 Concerning Solomon:

Solomon the king possessed the multitudes of women from the idol–worshiping nations, which were forbidden for the Israelites; these women turned the heart of aging king toward their idols. Eventually, he turned his heart away from the Lord God of Israel: he built the places where his wives worshiped the idols of Moab and Sidonians [[the Moabites and the Sidonians/Phoenicians sacrificed their children and animals to male idol and sent their daughters into the temples to practice the “sacred” prostitution as the ritual of worship to the female idol; see ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS: LEGACY OVERVIEW]].

The significance of the story of Solomon the king becomes clear, if to recall that Moses forewarned the kings of the future of the danger of Egypt and multiplying horses and women {Deuteronomy 17:14–20}. Solomon discarded the warnings in all three parts of the Moses’ prophecy {3 Kings 3; 10:23–29; 11:1–13; 2 Chronicles 9:25–28} and, with all his glory, with all his “wise and discerning” heart/abilities of judgment, ultimately, turned from God to idols of his idol–worshiping women:  he betrayed God and became an apostate. 

Furthermore, although every pious man knows that Almighty God is Omnipotent, Solomon attempted to contradict God’s will: he wanted to assassinate Jeroboam (his servant, son of the harlot) to whom the prophet predicted that he would become the king of the biggest part of the divided kingdom. So, Jeroboam fled and lived safely in Egypt until Solomon died, and then, returned in Judea and became a king over the most part of that what was the Solomon’s kingdom {3 Kings 11; 12}.

By turning to idols, Solomon committed apostasy or spiritual harlotry [[the Old Testament prophets refer to the apostasy of the chosen people who rejected God and became idol–worshipers as to harlotry. Hosea the prophet wrote {Hosea 4:7–19} that the people of God became as if they ουκ εχων γνωσιν – have no understanding. So, God promised to reject them as the priests, and to turn their glory (glory of ancient kingdom of Israel) into shame, because they have sinned before God according to their multitudes. In the same way as they went astray in a spirit of whoredom – by believing in signs and sacrificing to idols, in the same way as they mingled themselves with harlots and the polluted ones, similarly, their daughters will go a–whoring and their daughters–in–law will commit adultery: as they have chosen the ways of Canaanites (the Phoenicians), so they shall be ashamed]].

Because of Solomon’s apostasy/harlotry, God divided the Solomon’s kingdom and rendered to Solomon’s slave Jeroboam –– Jeroboam the son of woman whose name was Sarira the harlot {3 Kings 12:24 – δουλος τω Σαλωμων, …Ιεροβοαμ, και ονομα της μητρος αυτου Σαριρα, γυνη πορνη} –– the most part of it, with ten tribes of Israel, leaving to Solomon’s son authority only over Jerusalem. As Solomon rejected faithfulness and loyalty to God and committed harlotry by serving idols of his women, so, his glorious kingdom was rejected and cast into the hands of the son of harlot to begin the disgraceful path to the ultimate ruin.

In spite of the warning given to him by Achia the prophet, Jeroboam the son of harlot and new king led the people into the great sin: he made two golden heifers, told his subjects that the heifers are their gods, which led them out of Egypt, appointed new priests not from the tribe of Levi, set new feast day, and made sacrifices to the idols {3 Kings 11:29–38; 12:24–33; 13}.

After Jeroboam’s death, the plague of kings–apostates took over the Promised Land {3 Kings 11; 4 Kings}; only the small number of the rulers from the long line of kings recognized God of Israel and followed His law. The tribes of Israel have broken their covenant with God the Creator of heaven and earth: the people sacrificed their children to idols, waged fratricidal wars, used divination, committed iniquities, and adopted abominable customs of the surrounding idol–worshiping nations and worshiped their idols, although the most part of them was removed from the Promised Land when it was given to Israel as the Lord promised {Joshua 21:41–43}.

As Hosea the prophet wrote {Hosea 4:7–19}, the people of God became as if they ουκ εχων γνωσιν – have no understanding. So, God promised to reject them as the priests, and to turn their glory (glory of ancient kingdom of Israel) into shame, because they have sinned before God according to their multitudes. In the same way as they went astray in a spirit of whoredom – by believing in signs and sacrificing to idols, in the same way as they mingled themselves with harlots and the polluted ones, their daughters will go a–whoring and their daughters–in–law will commit adultery: as they have chosen the ways of Canaanites (the Phoenicians), so they shall be ashamed.

The Book of Isaiah begins with description of the people who became loathsome to God – a people full of sin, lawless rebels. They do not know God: they rebelled against Him and disregarded His law. Their hands are full of blood; they are murderers, thieves, rebels, and transgressors; there is no soundness in them. Their princes are rebellious, companions of thieves, loving bribes, seeking after rewards, and not doing justice. Their silver is worthless; their merchants are deceitful; their cities are burned with fire, and their land became desolate – the strangers devour it at their presence. Their main city once full of judgment became a harlot; they shall become powerless, and their destiny is ruin and annihilation {Isaiah 1:2–31}.

In another chapter, Isaiah elaborates his vision of the sinful men and their world {Isaiah 59:2–15}; his descriptions allow comprehension of the meaning of sin, its manifestations, and its consequences.

The prophets connect the idol–worship as disloyalty to God with death – firstly, death of reason, then, physical annihilation: the inevitable companions of idol–worship – immorality, corruption, and insanity – lead to collapse of intelligence/reasoning and issuing inability of sound judgment, therefore, inability of survival.

The spiritual harlotry or unfaithfulness, as the sin of wandering disloyal human spirit, transforms a human being into the living dead. The prophets describe apostate and idol–worshipers as sick men within the sick world awaiting annihilation; thus, the summary of the prophets’ warnings is straightforward: spiritual harlotry is inseparable from physical corruption leading to death:


the people are degenerates incapable of normal and creative life

and unable to protect themselves and their land

their world is poisoned with the evil;  their works are as spider webs unfit to be the garment;

misery and ruin are completion of their ways

corruption and harlotry took place of righteousness and justice;

they have no truth nor judgment nor understanding nor enlightenment

their economics (“silver”) lost values and, therefore, became useless

their land is devastated; they do not have peace, their endeavors are unrighteous and unsuccessful

the strangers (forerunners of the conquerors) already devour their land at their presence

their imminent destruction (war, slavery, death) is coming


Indeed, the Lord began to remove the apostates from the Promised Land {e.g., in: 4 Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Lamentations}. In addition to constant internecine conflicts of Israel tribes, the kings of Syria, Assyria, and Babylon continuously waged wars, besieged the cities, carried the people of Israel out of the Promised Land, and settled other nations at the place of Israelites {for instance, four nations from Babylon, as it is written in: 4 Kings 17:20–24}. Thus, the Promised Land, as well as the adjacent countries of the Middle East, Asia, and North Africa, was cast into the fire of uninterrupted wars.

The spiritual harlotry, which began to plague the kings of the chosen nation starting with Solomon, was initiated by violations of the law of God and committed by those who disregarded the laws of Moses concerning the heathens and the warning of the prophets; it was spreading through false knowledge – knowledge of “other gods” and the consequent assertion of permissibility of any kind of corruption and perversion, especially, as the rites of idol–worship.

The examples are the Orphism and other doctrines, which sustained the cults of the heathen nations surrounding Israel [[the knowledge, which the Holy Scriptures relate to lethal poison of asp and viper {e.g., Deuteronomy 32:33; Psalm 90(91):13; 139(140):3; Isaiah 59:2–5}]], and later, through the philosophical doctrines, social and political utopias of Plato, Aristotle, and their followers became the foundation of the Western civilization.

Hence, the lesson given by the Old Testament is simple: the one who desires to survive and enter the everlasting life in the presence of God, should avoid “knowledge” of the idol–worshipers as the lethal poison that debilitates the heart–mind and makes it incapable of perceiving God and being in the presence of God.

In the New Testament, the meaning of apostasy as spiritual sin is deepened, because the human evolution advanced to the last stage at the earth: a possibility of transformation of the human essence – soul, spirit, or soul–heart–mind – into the being prepared for the eternity with God the Spirit.

For instance, Lord Jesus Christ forgave the woman taken in adultery and the woman who was “a sinner in the city” and who kissed His feet, washed them with her tears, wiped with the hairs of her head, and anointed them with the precious oil {John 8:3–11; Luke 7:36–50}. Yet, He said to the learned scribes and Pharisees {Matthew 21:31–32; 12:34; 23:13–38; Mark 7:1–9} that they maintain the appearance of righteousness and are as whitened graves, which appear as beautiful outwardly while inside they are full of dead bones and uncleanness: they are the hypocrites, “serpents, offspring of viper” who murder and crucify and persecute the messengers of God and prophets; they worship in vain teaching the doctrines of men, and the harlots (αι πορναι – sinners by body) go before them into the Kingdom of God.

Concerning Solomon and collapse of his kingdom, see

The Rejected Knowledge and The Earth without the Foundationreprints in Note 54 and 56 to  SELECTIONS_&_REPRINTS_2016



Σ12 Concerning philosophizing in temple, see ANCIENT CIVILIZATION: LEGACY OVERVIEW 


Σ13 See Philosophy: Aristotle –  Folder Heathen Philosophy, Page_3, and The Invincible Empire, Chapter 4


            Σ14 On March 12, 1938, three days after the Anschluss and after visiting Adolf Hitler, the archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer directed the clergy and the faithful Catholics

 –  to unconditionally support “the great German state and the Führer” because “the Führer” has “the blessing of Providence” and it is the “divine idea” to realize the unity of all nations

–  to encourage membership in the German Reich’s youth organizations

–  to “serve in the best way the good of the Reich, the nation, and the fatherland.”

At the time when Cardinal Theodor Innitzer issued his directives, it was already possible to infer from the Nietzsche’s writings, the Hitler’s book and speeches, and the Nazi state laws and policies that the “divine idea” of realization of the “unity of all nations” includes


1/ subjugation and enslaving by the means of war and terror

2/ appropriation of labor and resources of the conquered not–Aryan nations

3/ termination of the weary human chattel or unneeded surplus of human beings


The reference to such a Future of mankind as to the “divine idea” might be consequence only of one of two things: either the Cardinal’s deity–source of the “divine idea” is the pagan god of death (e.g., the Nietzsche’s Dionysus or Manichean’s second principle – the force of the arch–evil) or the Cardinal commits blasphemy against Christian God.

                        Furthermore, on March 18, 1938, the Austrian Episcopate granted the “heartiest blessing” to “the National–Socialist movement” in its struggle against “all–destroying atheistic bolshevism” and asserted as “a national duty” of “all believing Christians” to vote for “the German Reich” in a plebiscite on Anschluss [La Documentation Catholique ref. and qtd. in: Passelecq and Suchecky 51–52, 285].  


Σ15 See Concept of Slavery – Supplement 1 to this file


 Σ16 Concerning the heathenism, see

Note 8 above

The Main Fruits of the Ancient Philosophical Thought: the Heathenism – in ANCIENT CIVILIZATION: LEGACY OVERVIEW 



Σ17 Concerning Socrates, see

Note 4 to Philo of Alexandria – Supplement 2 to THE WAR & THE WORLD. PART II. APOSTASY

Concept of Slavery – Supplement 1 to this file


Σ18 See The Statecraft – Original post in Folder Archive_2011, Page 3_June_July_2011


Σ19 See cf.: in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 233–234; the law of the pope Innocent III, which legalized confiscation of property of heretics [e.g., Maycock 104], Thomas Aquinas’ concept of unjust possession [Summa Theologica II–II Q.66 a8 ro2] and, for example, its application in Spain, where the faithful Catholics stripped the Jews and the Moors of their property [e.g., in: Willett 83]. 


Σ20 With the reference to the Augustine’s expression “there is no possible source of evil except good” and Aristotle’s assumption that an entirely evil thing or complete evil is self–destructive, Thomas Aquinas the Catholic saint and main theologian declares that although evil has only an “accidental cause,” good is the cause or foundation of evil: evil is caused by good and supplements the image of God with such characteristics as the source of unjust laws and the cause/source of evil [Summa Theologica I Q.48 a2 ad3; Q.49 a1, a2, a3; Q.103 a7 ro1; I–II Q.18 a1 ad2 a3; Q. 93 a3 ro2, ro3; Summa Contra Gentiles III 4, 6, 7, 10, 11].

The summary of Aquinas’ assertions based on references to the Augustine’s discoveries (for instance, “there is no possible source of evil except good”) and Aristotle’s assumption that an entirely evil thing or complete evil is self–destructive [Summa Theologica I Q.48 a3; Q.49 a1 ro1, a2, a3; Q.103 a7; I–II Q. 93 a3 ro2, a4; III Q.6 a1 a; Truth Q.3. a4 ad7, ad8; Q.5 a2 r, ad4] is that

a/ although evil has only an “accidental cause,” good is the cause or foundation of evil: evil is caused by good

b/ the unjust law of men is derived from the eternal Law of God; moreover, the evil can exist only in the good “as in its subject,” and evil always is mixed with good: good is always foundation of evil, and evil should be reduced to “some good cause”

c/ as soon as the opposites (“contraries”) exist on a “common ground,” they have one common cause: while evil has only an “accidental cause,” good is the cause/foundation of evil [Summa Theologica I Q.49 a1]. If according to Aristotle, the secondary cause does not exist without the essential or primary cause; for Aquinas, the causality becomes the hierarchy: the first cause → a cause (as the midway) → the last effect [Summa Theologica III Q.6 a1 a]

d/ ultimately, Aquinas directly names God “the author of the evil which is penalty” and implies the God’s responsibility for corruption of things because, according to Aquinas, corruption is the accidental consequence of the order of the Universe. Then, he refers to the unity of the opposites – “contraries”: as soon as “all contraries agree in something common,” in particular, in the nature of being, contraries have “one first common cause” [Summa Theologica I Q.48 a3; Q.49 a1, a2, a3]

This is the Aquinas’ conclusion: the good and the evil have one first common cause. Furthermore, if the Aquinas’ god is the source of evil, it means that the nature of Aquinas’ god originates, therefore, accommodates evil. Indeed, at the beginning of his Treatise On God, Aquinas declares that God is the same as His nature, as His essence, and as His being, God acts through His essence, and knows effect “by knowing His own essence” [Summa Theologica I Q.3 a3, a4; Truth Q.2 a3 ad3].

It means that

1/ for Thomas Aquinas the Catholic saint and main theologian, the good is the subject of evil, and the Aquinas’ god is the cause/source of two opposites – the good and the evil

2/ Aquinas follows the Manichean traditions of Augustine and continues heresy of Hermogenes who [[similarly to Manichean doctrine]] refers to God the Creator as to “the author of evil” and suggests that evil should be attributed to the will of God [Hermogenes ref. in: Tertullian The Treatise against Hermogenes 9:3; 10:1 38–39].

3/ whichever logical dancing around in circles Aquinas makes with all his Aristotelian tools, references to Augustine’s works, and with standard praises to God, the essence of all his wordings comes to the assertion that God as the source of evil.

Such assertion would be a sacrilege even in the Plato’s perfect Republic. Although Aquinas usually slavishly follows the pagan philosophers, in this case he discards the Plato’s advice: if a ruler intends to arrange a perfect community, he must not allow voicing of the sacrilegious claim that god – the Absolute Good – might be responsible for “any instance of badness.” Any claim on the connection of god and evil must neither be spoken nor be heard; any word and any work have to comply with the preliminary assumptions that god is good and that god is not responsible for any evil, because it is sacrilege to speak about responsibility of gods for any instance of evil [Plato Republic 380b–c].

It looks like the pagan philosopher has more reverence to God than the main theologian of the papal church of Rome does. Perhaps, Plato understands that to make God the source of evil means to destroy the very meaning of humanity and the very foundation for existence of men. Indeed, centuries later, the Aquinas’ concept of the god–source of the evil – matured into the von Hartman’s unconscious death–designer of evolution [von Hartmann 2:11–13, 15].

Although portrayal of God as the source of evil might be consisted with the ancient doctrine of unity and struggle of the opposites, yet, this portrayal is heretical and sacrilegious for the Christians.

Lord God Jesus Christ explained that the good and the bad do not come from the same source {Matthew 7:15–20; Luke 6:43–45}; from their fruits the one shall know them. The Christian theology does not admit existence of the opposites/contraries/evil in any reference to God: God is Light and there is no darkness in Him; He is the Light and Perfect Love without darkness, fear, and suffering – perfect God Who creates everything good, Who has mercy, forgiveness, and such love to His creations that He took on Himself the sins of the world, sanctified man with Own presence, and gave man salvation and eternal life {John; 1 John} [also, in: St. Gregory Palamas §34 in: The Philokalia 4:359].

Therefore, the assertion that God – the source of life and the Absolute Good – might be at the same time the source of the evil and death is blasphemy and utter heresy incompatible with the Christian teachings.

Therefore, for the Orthodox Christians, the Aquinas’ theological “discovery” is not only the ultimate heresy; it is the unforgivable blasphemy, which makes the Aquinas’ doctrine and its derivative – the papal faith/Catholicism – irreconcilable with the Christianity and unacceptable for the Christians.

Therefore, the Christian can make only two inferences from the referred Aquinas’ texts:

1/ the Aquinas’ god is the source of two opposites – the good and the evil

2/ for the Christians, the Aquinas’ speculations, covered with the wordings from the Holy Scriptures, are blasphemy against God and heresy incompatible with the Christian dogma.

See also

–– Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in Folder Heathen Philosophy

–– Concept of evil – in The Logic of Death, excerpt in Note 28 to SELECTIONS_&_REPRINTS_2016

–– The Invincible Empire, Chapters 5– 8.


Σ21 See The Invincible Empire, Chapter 7


Σ22 For instance, according to Aquinas, the Roman pope has the sole authority to “publish a new edition” of The Creed, as well as to decide all other matters of the whole – universal – Church, because he has the authority to summon a general council and confirm its decisions [Summa Theologica II–II Q.1 a10 o2, a, ro2].

Such assertion coincides with the canon law, which elevates the pope’s right over the councils at the level of iuris divinum (the divine authority). Yet, some researchers maintain that the papacy strengthened own authority and justified the right to convoke councils and to confirm their decisions with the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals (or “the Forged Decretals”) held to be false or “forged” [e.g., Documents of the Christian Church 103; Küng (1982) 289; La Due 84–86]; in such a case, the papal iuris divinum has the very worldly source of origin.

Concerning the prohibition of the Ecumenical Councils to modify The Nicean Creed (Council of Ephesus in 431, and Council of Chalcedon in 451) Aquinas explained that the prohibition “was intended for private individuals, who have no business to decide matters of faith” [Summa Theologica II–II Q.1 a10 o2, ro2].

In fact, when both Councils declared that the teaching of the Church about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete and The Nicean Creed is unerring, they specifically addressed their prohibition: for an attempt to compose, write, or produce another creed, bishops and clerics should be deposed and monks and laymen should be anathematized (excommunicated) [Decrees of Ecumenical Councils 65, 83, 84, 87].

So, it looks like a Dominican monk and papal saint Thomas Aquinas contradicts the Ecumenical Councils and misinterprets their decrees.

The Ecumenical Councils represent the whole – Universal (Catholic) Apostolic Christian – Church, where the Church of Rome is one of the many Episcopates of the Christian World, and only they – the Ecumenical Councils – have the right to speak on behalf of the whole Christendom. Thus, the Aquinas’ misrepresentation reveals the peculiar attitude toward Christianity: in his service to the papacy Aquinas disregards even the Universal Christian Church, whose decisions her humble servant – the Bishop of Rome/Roman pope – should obediently execute not amend.

Aquinas had to modify the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils because he had two objectives:

1/ to present as the lawful act consistent with the authority of the Roman pope the amendment of The Nicean Creed committed by the Bishop of Rome – the pope Benedict VII, for which he, according to the decision of the Ecumenical Councils, had to be deposed from the episcopacy

2/ to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome/Roman pope over the Ecumenical Councils, therefore over the Universal Christian Church, while the supremacy over the Universal Christian Church belongs only to Lord God Jesus Christ {Colossians 1:12–20; 2:2–3, 8–9; Ephesians 5:23–24

Even the Councils, which represented only the local Churches under jurisdiction of the papal church of Rome, challenged the Aquinas’ version of the absolute papal authority.

For instance, the Council of Constance (1414–1418) declared that the General Council draws its power “immediately from Christ,” and the popes must obey the Council’s decisions; the Council also deposed two “Supreme Pontiffs”:

– in 1414, the pope John XXIII – “evil administrator” who scandalized the Church with “dishonest life and morals”

– in 1417, the pope Benedict XIII – “a perjurer” and heretic who fostered schism, “persecuted and disturbed” the Church and the people [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 409, 417, 437].

Consequently, the Council of Basel–Ferrara–Florence–Rome (1431–1445) promulgated the permanent validity of the authority of the General Councils with the threat to suspend or even deprive of authority any pope who would violate the decree concerning the status of the Council [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 466].

To repair the damage inflicted to the concept of the absolute power of the pope, Tomas de Torquemada [[1420–1498; the Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who burned at the stake about 2,000 people]] offered another interpretation of the authority of the Council over the pope: Council does not depose the pope as a heretic or schismatic; it declares that the pope is not the pope because he “fell openly into heresy and remains hardened and obstinate in heresy” [Tomas de Torquemada ref. and qtd. in: Küng (1982) 273]. This modification means that the Council has no power over the pope: it might deprive of the papal authority only those recognized as heretics who usurped the papal authority; thus, the Grand Inquisitor corrected the papal Council, and restored the status of the pope as untouchable.


Σ23 In 1302, the pope Boniface VIII made two statements [The Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, in: Documents of the Christian Church 127]:

1/  the papal authority is divine

2/ for the sake of eternal salvation it is necessary “for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Then, in 1943, the pope Pius XII continued:

1/ primacy of jurisdiction gives the church as “a Mystical Body two heads.“ “One chief head of this Body, namely Christ” Who “in a certain sense lives in the Church” guides the church invisibly, and also visibly, through “His representative on earth.” “That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head” and “Peter” (St. Peter the Apostle) is “the visible foundation stone.” Taking away “the visible head” – the pope – leaves “the Mystical Body of Redeemer so obscured and so maimed” that eternal salvation can be neither seen nor found [w7, §40–41, §53]

2/ Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam” (Christ as invisible head, and the pope – “Vicar of Christ” as the visible head)

3/ it is the dangerous error to believe that it is possible to accept Christ “as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on Earth.” Those who take away the visible head (that is the pope) can neither see the eternal salvation nor find it [w7, §40–41]; also [ref. and qtd. in: Church, Papacy, and Schism: A Theological Enquiry by Philip Sherrard. London: SPCK, 1978. 60].

It means that eternal salvation of men had been separated from the acceptance of Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior and God, from fulfillment of the God’s commandments, and from the mercy of God. The popes asserted themselves as the unavoidable supplements to God, as a new deity, perhaps even more authoritative than God Himself, because faith and loyalty to God are sufficient no more: the absolute submission and “loyalty” to the pope became the conditions of eternal life. With such dethronement of God, idolization of the pope is logically complete.

Furthermore, the pope declares that it cannot be “real opposition or conflict between the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and Teacher received from Christ,” and ascribing “the whole spiritual life of Christians and their progress in virtue exclusively to the action of the Divine Spirit,” without the collaboration of the pope, leads to “deplorable ruin” [w7, §65, 87].

Seemingly, the pope assert that, without collaboration of the pope, the Holy Spirit does not work.

The portrayal of the church as two–headed body would definitely fit the Orphic serpentine theology, and “primacy of jurisdiction” is the definition applied in the worldly affairs; nevertheless, none of human “jurisdictions” as well as any of human affairs, is able to define the status of God, attach man to God, or make a man into “one head with God.”

Concerning deification of pope, see Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, in Folder Heathen Philosophy, postings in Folder Political Theology, and The Invincible Empire, Chapters 6 and 7.




Σ25 See The Focus and The Shift  –  excerpts in Note 2 to  SELECTIONS_&_REPRINTS_2016


Σ26 Concerning papal crusade of 1204, when papal subjects – the Catholics ruined Constantinople, which was the capital of the Byzantine Empire, desecrated, pillaged and destroyed Christian temples, robbed and murdered Christians, even raped women and children on the altars of the Christian temples, see

Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism:  A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries. Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1955. New York:  AMS, 1983 (reprint).

The Great Schism and Origin of the Papal Church of Rome in The Hierarchical Church – Folder Political Theology

The Invincible Empire, Chapter 7






Supplement 1


Concept of Slavery




Introductory Note


it should be noticed that, in the current world, complete freedom as the unlimited possibility to follow the one’s inner inclinations and to pursue own purposes according own convictions does not exist. The world could be described as the net of hierarchical prisons with different degrees of limitations and restrictions of freedoms and liberties; for instance, such as freedoms of conscience, religion, access to knowledge and information, travel. In general, freedoms and liberties, which define freeman within free world, have lost their genuine meaning.

The one might infer that the current civilizations embody (although in deferent degrees) the Aristotelian “divine”/universal master←→ slave orderΣs1, in accordance with which a human being is considered and treated as the human chattelΣs2 with strictly determined ranges of physical movement/behavior established and controlled by the masters/slave–owners. These ranges of movement/behavior usually are defined by the purposes for the sake of which a slave is kept alive and used by other humans and by human establishments: household, society, state, empire, social, political, religious, and the others.

The heathen philosophy based on the Orphic doctrineΣs3 sustains the framework of knowledge, which justifies human slavery and makes it the only arrangement acceptable for the current political, religious and other establishments of all current civilizations, which employed Aristotle’s political, religious, and social doctrines

either explicitly

[[through the “ideals of democracy” openly based on or derived from the Aristotelian concepts, which the Westerns learned from the works of Avicenna (980–1037, “the Commentator” in the Western references) supplied by the Crusaders who looted them from the houses and libraries of the Muslims. Through Aristotelian notions, the Orphic doctrine penetrated the works of the Western theologians, starting with Thomas Aquinas, and shaped the religious–philosophical–political framework of the Western civilization]]

or implicitly

[[through acceptance of the legacy of Avicenna (980–1037) as consistent with any of monotheistic theologies]]


In general, the current slavery–sustaining religious–social–political framework still underlies all current civilizations, although limitations of freedoms and liberties of human beings have different degreesΣs4. This common framework is based on Aristotle’s notion of slavery as a “divine” or universal order; it includes the following assertions borrowed from the Plato–Aristotle’s religious–social–political utopia:

a/ a human being is a part/property/slave of state/community/other establishments

b/ slaves, women, and animals are equal in deprivation of the right on a share in creation of common good and privileges of freemen

c/ woman might be considered as a property of man (father, male relative, husband), or even as the common property.

However, any establishment founded on slavery is abomination to God, because it perverts the human nature and corrupts the world created by God; as anything with the perverted nature, it activates the laws of disintegration, and its very existence is the anti–evolution – the process of degeneration and perversion of the humans and decay/disintegration of the human establishments.



Concept of Slavery


From all fantasies of the corrupted and evil imagination and all evil devices of the mind, slavery is the worst and the most incompatible with the human nature invention: the root of slavery is hatred to God the Creator and hatred to the creations of God – man and woman. 

Slavery exists because of the assumption that a human being created in the image and after likeness of Almighty God may be treated in the same way as humans treat domestic animals; for instance, a human being (a slave) might be a property of another human being (a slave–owner) who has the right to determine conditions of life and death, to restrain, punish, maim, inflict harm and suffering, slaughter, to allow or do not allow procreation, to train/educate or do not train/educate his slave, and to use his slave or derive advantages from his use by any other means. In brief, the slave–owner determines life, death, suffering, and all other components of slave’s existence, because the slave–owner has the right to use the slave for slave–owner’s advantages and according slave–owner’s needs, convenience, desires, or whim.

At least four co–related fundamental assumptions sustain the framework of knowledge that is behind justification of human institutions and arrangement of human establishments, which accommodate existence of slavery:


denigration of the image of God, which any human being carries as a creation of God,

therefore, either rejection or belittlement of God the Creator

↓   ↑

revolt against the God’s commandment: you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself

{Leviticus 19:18; or the second greatest commandment in: Matthew 22:36–40; Mark 12:29–34; Luke 10:27–37}


permissibility to deprive a human being of his natural rights on freedom, life, happiness, procreation,

education according to his choice and natural inclinations,

of freedom of development/evolution, as well as of his right to live according own will –

and all these for the sake of another human being who has access to the physical power of coercion

↓   ↑

permissibility of one human being to transform another human being into the human dust


Only the heathenism – the cult of the enemy of God and issuing doctrines, which are based on rejection and denigration of God the Creator and the consequent belittlement of a human being created in image and after likeness of God – provide the theological foundation of slavery.

One of such cults, for instance, is the doctrine of OrphicsΣs3 [[who envisioned their main deity in image of the arch–serpent/dragon – “the absolute divine animal” – stuffed with forms of the living beings, among which a human form was just one of the multitude]] and issuing assumption of permissibility to sacrifice human beings to the deified animals, beasts, and other creatures contained within the arch–beast.

So, a human being created to dominate and to possess the earth and to subdue the fishes, reptiles, beasts, and birds of the sea, land, and air {Genesis 1} was degraded at the level of miserable creatures who worship the reptiles and other beasts and who are sacrificed for glorification of the swarm of their bestial “deities” gushing out of the arch–serpent/dragon – crooked serpent, the arch–evil {Isaiah 27:1; Revelation 20:2}.

Generally, slavery could be defined as the composite of the following factors:

a/ physical and mental intimidation, oppression, and subjugation resulting in a complete submission of one human being (slave) to the will and control of another human being or human establishment (slave–owner, master), which is based on deceit, on the power of coercion and duress, and on fear of suffering and death

b/ an attempt to substitute the will of man/men’s establishment – slave–owner – for the will of God the Creator, and as such, the revolt against God, His Law, and His will

c/ denigration of a human nature created in image and likeness of the free Omnipotent Almighty God

d/ substitution of the arch–evil for God, because each act of revolt against God and His Law has the only source: the corrupted human heart/mind that became the servant of the arch–evil and pursues the purposes of death and destruction.

For the slave–owner and within the slave–owning establishments, slave is not a person, individual, personality. A slave is an article of property, the human chattel, a moving animated part of the master’s estate that exists for the sake of bodily service to his master. A slave is different from cattle and other living beings, which are also the property of the master, because he possesses the faculty of speech (yet, a slave has no right to speak in the presence of his master until the master orders him to speak), has hands for work, and can be trained to serve different needs of his master. A master is empowered to utilize body of a slave for own purposes. The master has rights to coerce his slave to do all that the slave–owner desires [[including slaughter of other slaves and living beings]], inflict on a slave pain and suffering, and to put a slave to death for disobedience, attempt to escape, and for any other reason.

For maintenance of the institute of slavery and own protection, slave–owners utilize political, military, religious, and social structures/establishments, which are capable of exercising the power of coercion to guarantee obedience of the slaves.

The slavery exists only because of deceit, power of coercion, and authority based on military force, arms, weapons, special establishments – army, secret police, inquisition, total surveillance, and other inventions of the slave–owners [[recall for instance, the history of the Roman heathen Empire, the papal empire, Nazi Germany, Bolshevist–Communist Russia, and consider the current communist and oppressive regimes, for example, such as in North Korea, Islamist states]], insufficiency (e.g., poverty, ignorance), laws, customs: the lies, whose father is the arch–evil {John 8:44}, and the authority/power to inflict death and suffering make possible the domination of slave–owners over slaves.

There are two kinds of slavery: physical and spiritual.

A slave by body is restrained by the power of physical coercion, although sometimes, such a slave can obtain physical freedom (to flee the master, to buy own freedom, to receive freedom as a gift from a kind master, etc.).

A slave by mind has no freedom of thinking because of deceit and false knowledge; he lives to accomplish the will of the others who are his spiritual leaders, masters/guides, etc., – in fact, owners. To become free, a slave by mind needs

a/ an ability to access new knowledge and an ability to comprehend it

b/ an ability to form own convictions and opinions – to have own judgment

c/ an ability to think according to  own convictions and an ability to act according to own will

d/ the mental power to discard the will and orders of those who keep him under control.

A slave by body can be a freeman by his mind and manner of thinking, although he might not have freedom to act according to his own will [[with one exception: the ultimate decision to choose suffering and death when his faith makes impossible the submission to the laws that contradict the Law of God]]

A slave by mind can be apparently free and independent, yet, he thinks and acts according to the will of the others who control his mind and conscience and who dictate him how to think, act, live, believe, worship, procreate, etc.  

The most frequently employed methods and practices of enslavement are false religions and false knowledge. From all the evils invented by those who need to enslave the others for the sake of own advantages and for accomplishment of own purposes, false religion is the worst and the most effective weapon of enslaving.

Slavery entered the post–Flood world with the curse of one man (Noah) imposed onto another man (Noah’s grandson – Chanaan, the son of Cham) for evil and treachery: slavery came from the world annihilated for corruption, iniquity, and perversion of the nature, which made it the abomination to God. The descendents of Chanaan – Canaanites, the cursed nations of slaves, include Sidonians (Phoenicians)Σs5, Amorites, inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the others, which the Holy Scriptures mention as the corrupted idol–worshipers who became abomination to God, as those who the chosen nation must avoid, and as those who are destined for extermination {Genesis 6:6–14; 9:18–27; 10:6, 15–20; Exodus 34:11–16; Leviticus 18:21–30; Deuteronomy 7:1–6, 16–26}.

These nations were prosperous and successful in wars, trade, agriculture; they possessed lands, riches, slaves, and other property; some of them dominated other nations and headed political and commercial unions, yet, all of them carried the curse of slavery.

In the current world, continuation of existence of slavery is the logical/natural consequence of false assumptions, evil thoughts, corrupted imagination, heresies and  liesΣs6, which take the place of true knowledge of God and therefore, enslave the mind to the worst enemy and murderer of man – the arch–evil, the father of lies.

For instance, development and implementation of Aquinas’ political theology (devised by Thomas Aquinas with the concepts of Aristotle), which is the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome, and especially Aquinas’ doctrine of “holy obedience,” by the papal establishment reveal how slavery of the mind takes the place of the teachings of freedom and how slavery becomes the actuality of the people who were called to the perfect law of freedom: the road to the comprehensive slavery of mind begins with heresy – the false assumptionsΣs6 concerning God, application of the heathen philosophy for explication of the Gospels, and following misinterpretations of the words of God. 

Aquinas’ definition of disobedience to the pope as “mortal sin,” even the more grievous sin than disobedience to God, reminds customs of slave–owning societies, which condemned disobedient slaves to death, especially, because Aquinas equates disobedience with heresy, while the papal establishment/”empire” considered heresy as the state treason (according to Vergentis In Senium, 1199, pope Innocent III) and similarly to the Roman heathen empire, punished it by death. Aquinas postulated that heretics must be separated from the papal church and delivered “to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death” [Summa Theologica II–II Q.11 a3].

Aquinas attempted to devise the comprehensive doctrine of obedience and so, to establish submission of the mind and body of the papal subjects to the pope as the unquestionable foundation of his religion. In particular, Aquinas asserts that the religious people have three degrees of obedience: in the regular mode of life, that is sufficient for salvation, then “perfect obedience” in all lawful matters, and the third – “indiscreet obedience” in the unlawful matters [Summa Theologica II–II Q.104 a5, a6].

The believers can reach the state of “perfection of divine love” through “the abnegation of self–will” and submission of own life, will, and conscience to the complete control and government by the superiors [Summa Theologica; The Religious State].

Aquinas’ doctrine of “holy obedience” came to completion in works of Ignatius of Loyola [Spiritual Exercises and the others]. According to Loyola’s rules for the members of the Jesuit society (who became the pope’s most advanced militants, who now are the pool of human reserves, from which the papal hierarchy takes its leaders and most advanced members, and who maintain the current papal institutions), should see the white as the black if “the hierarchical Church so stipulates,” to consider the will of the superior as the will of God and, consequently, to execute any order of the superior, even those “difficult and repugnant to sensitive nature.” For instance, as the history demonstrates, among the Jesuits were spies, conspirators against kings, the inquisitors – these vocations demand abilities to commit deeds “repugnant to sensitive nature”: to betray, deceive, torture, murder human beings; all these deeds are violations of the commandments of God.

Any Jesuit has to achieve complete abnegation of own will and judgments; he must obey “blindly, without inquiry of any kind” to the superior who – for Loyola and his followers – holds the place of God or the place of Jesus Christ, has “His authority,” and is “obeyed in the place of Christ.” The subjects must realize the will of superior as the will of God, and the superior’s wish must become own wish of the subject: when the superior gives orders, his voice must be recognized as the voice of God or as the voice of Christ. For any Jesuit, to “maintain a right mind in all things” means to put aside all own judgments. Such obedience is justified with “the whole natural order, the hierarchies of angels, and well–ordered human institutions” [Ignatius of Loyola: Spiritual Exercises §365; To Rector and Students of the College in Coimbra, 1548, §3–4,7; To Fathers and Brothers in Portugal, 1553, §2–3; On Prophecies and Revelations, 1549, §35, 47; The Final Word on Obedience §2 in: Personal Writings 358; 200, 202; 222, 226, 252; On Perfect Obedience in: Counsels for Jesuits 76, 78, 81; The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms III.284; IX.765 §20 123, 365].

Does not Loyola’s “the whole natural order, the hierarchies of angels, and well–ordered human institutions” have similarity with the Aristotle’s ““divine”/universal master slave order, or the universal master–slave pattern?

For a Christian, Aquinas’ “holy obedience” to the mortal man–pope/prefect of the Inquisition is institutionalization of slavery and idol–worship, which, as any slavery and any idol–worship, are abomination to God.

Another illustration of the meaning of comprehensive slavery (of the mind and of the body) could be found in history of the Phoenician civilization:

1/ the people enslaved by the false religion sacrificed own children to idols and sent own daughters to serve as the temple prostitutes

2/ the practice of human sacrifices was maintained “by the decree of people”

3/ the slaves by body were obtained through wars and piracy (kidnapping)

4/ the slaves by mind embodied their religion and philosophy into execution by crucifixion – agonizing death of a human being whose body is fixed on the wooden cross without any possibility to move, to free himself, to avoid excruciating pain even by accelerating own death, and without any hope of salvation.

So, if to consider freedom and slavery in the reality of Christian faith, what makes the difference between the free mind and the enslaved mind? Why one mind accepts false knowledge and becomes a slave of the others, and another mind rejects false knowledge and guards own freedom as the most precious possession? What does freedom mean for a Christian?

Only knowledge of God makes difference between slavery and freedom:


the free mind lives by Truth {John 14:6} – by the Word–God,

 because of Whom the Holy Spirit comes {John 15:26; 16:7–16}

and empowers the one to possess wisdom for comprehension of the actuality and for completion of the road to God


the enslaved mind lives by lies and false assumptions, which are rooted in imagination fueled by the evil

{John 8:31–47}


False knowledge sustains slavery of the mind, and false knowledge of God is the main component of the ultimate weapon of enslaving. 

A slave and a freeman differ by 

a/ responsibility for own actions, words, and thoughts:

– slave has no own will; he executes orders of a master, serves purposes of the master, and accts according to the master’s instructions; he is not responsible for own actions and their results (if he acts according to the will of his master)

– freeman acts according own will, interests, knowledge of the actuality, and pursues own purposes – he is responsible for his thoughts, words, actions, and their results

b/ limitations:

– slave lives in physical and mental confinement; first knowledge that slave receives from those who control him is definition of limits – firstly, space, knowledge (especially, through denial of free access to information), reserves: where he cannot go, what he has no right to read (e.g., Index of the Prohibited Books published by the papal office lists the books that are forbidden for Catholics; one of the first books prohibited by the Inquisition for laity’s reading was the Holy Bible, in 1229), what he cannot possess (e.g., private capital/property was forbidden for the subjects of communist states of the twentieth century), and so on

– freeman’s mind is free to pursue any knowledge he is able to perceive and to comprehend, and he can move freely within his life–space.

If abilities, and consequently, ultimate potential of a slave are defined by the slave–owners, free man’s ultimate development and potential are defined by his own abilities and parameters of the world in which he lives (time–space–complexity). Even in the heathen Antiquity it was known that the mind of a slave is unable of creation of knowledge of the actuality: it is devoid of reason and unable to function according to its nature (that is to perform the works, for which God created it)Σs7.

In the contemporary terms, it could be said that the mind of a slave is the closed, therefore, insufficient degenerating system [[while the mind of a freeman is evolving system]].

For instance, Isaiah the prophet describes the idol–worshipers {Isaiah 42:17–22} as the plundered peopleΣs8. Definitely, not all of them are slaves by body; they are slaves by mind, because they trust in the graven images – idols, which became their snare. Their freedom to cognize, to evolve, and to reach the full potency of wisdom is taken away; they are kept in captivity by lies, deceit, an inability to comprehend the truth and consequently, an inability to obtain freedom. The reality of the plundered people – the slaves by mind, those who accepted false knowledge, who live by dreams and figments of imagination – idols, and are fed by heresies, propaganda, and lies – might be inferred from another Isaiah’s description {in: Isaiah 59:4–11}.

In general, freedom of the mind is the freedom to evolve and to reach optimal potency it was created to obtain – unlimited abilities of

a/ cognition

b/ creation of knowledge of the world given into dominion of man

c/ finding the road to God.

If so, what, then, is freedom of Christianity?

Firstly, it might not be physical freedom. Originally, Christian teachings has found the majority of followers among slaves by body who, nevertheless, discerned and obtained the actual freedom promised by the Gospels {John 8:31–36}.

Again the answer is in the Holy Scriptures.

For instance,

– St. Peter the Apostle {1 Peter 2:13–18} instructs the Christians (who as he writes, are “the royal priesthood” and “holy nation”) to be obedient to the civil authorities as free (ως ελευθεροι) and not having freedom as cover for evil, but as slaves of God (ως δουλοι Θεου)

– St. Paul the Apostle {1 Corinthians 7:20–24} advises the slaves who became the Christians that although it is better to become a free man, this freedom [[freedom of a body]] does not matter

– St. Paul the Apostle warns Christians do not become the slaves of men {1 Corinthians 7:23}, because the Christians are bought by the treasured price [[by the precious Blood of Lord Jesus Christ]].

What then, are the true meanings of freedom and slavery, and how an ordinary human being can be free, if he is born into, spends the entire life and dies within the human hierarchies under the authorities, rules, control, and surveillance of all types and scales, and, if he must be obedient to civil authorities and live according to the laws of the state, which might be hostile to Christianity?

The references to slavery in the Holy Scriptures imply more than physical submission of one human being–slave to another human being – slave–owner. For instance, the conversation of Lord God Jesus Christ with “the Jews who had believed in Him” {John 8:31–59}:

–– God promises the knowledge of truth, which sets man free, and they respond with pride and anger: they are the seed of Abraham, and to no one they have been enslavedΣs9 – never! So, why He promises them that they would become free?

–– God explains that anyone who practices sin is the slave of sin; He knows that they are descendents (seed) of Abraham, yet, they seek to kill Him because His Word–Λογος has no place in them

–– again, they insist that they are the sons of Abraham

–– God tells that they are not the sons of Abraham because they do not act as Abraham did: they seek to kill Him – the Man Who speaks the words of God, because they commit the deeds of their father

–– after their statement that they have not been born by fornication – they have God as their Father, the Lord degrades them into the sons of devil who was a murderer from the beginning and has no truth in him, and He explains why:  they seek to kill Him Who speaks them the truth and accomplishes the deeds of God

–– then, they decide to stone Him, yet, He hides Himself from their sight, passes among them, and leaves; so they stay with their stones.  

The arguments of opponents of Lord Jesus Christ, the answers of God, and the overall dynamic of conversation written with the precision of beholder reveal how the confined and insufficient logic of ignorant, yet, proud [[therefore, impotent – deprived of the power of wisdom that comes only from God]] human mind encounters the judgment of Almighty God–Creator. The Gospel makes visible

1/ the difference between freedom and slavery

2/ death behind the slave’s judgment.

Similarly to the lightning strike by the double–edged sword, the words of God destroy the edifice of human pride and trigger off the actions, which disclose the true intentions of those who “believed in Him.” The ignorant human mind in an attempt to save own dream world of pride and self–exaltation makes higher and higher claims:


1/ the seed of Abraham who never were enslavedΣs9

2/ sons of Abraham

3/ sons of God


Yet, God casts the human clay into its actual miserable place:


1/ ignorant slaves of sin

2/ slaves who desire to murder the messenger of God,

because they are not able to perceive the Word–God

3/ sons of devil [[the arch–evil]] that was a murderer and liar from the beginning


The Gospel discloses the irreconcilable conflict between the human self–exaltation sustained by imagination and pride and reality: “the sons of Abraham” who claim to have God as their Father, pretend that they have reached the Heaven and they are free. In fact, the abyss separates them from the actuality – because of the committed sin, they lost the ability to understand and to hold the words of God; therefore, they lost their true Father and enslaved themselves to the arch–evil – source of lies and death.

The Gospel’s text where God tell that the people became incapable to comprehend His words relates with writings of Jeremiah the Prophet who wrote that the nation of God committed two evils:

–– they left God – the spring of the living water

–– they carved from themselves the λακκους  συντετριμμενους – broken cavities incapable to hold the water (Greek word  λακκοv denotes also underground prison; for instance, when Jeremiah the Prophet was imprisoned for bringing the message about the will of God, he was cast into  λακκον – the underground pit  {Jeremiah 45:7–13}).

These two evils are abandonment of God and enslavement to idol–worship. Eventually, they became slaves and the subjects of mockery imprisoned in a quarry of beasts of prey {Jeremiah 2:13–20}.

There is also another logic line in this conversation: the meaning of slavery extends; it begins from the physical slavery in the material world and envelops the realm of the mind.

The puzzle of slavery comes to its resolution during the Last Supper: Lord Jesus Christ tells His disciples that He no longer calls them slaves (δουλους); He calls them friends (φιλους), because slave does not know the works of his master, yet He made known to them everything He heard from God the Father. These words of God follow His explanation of the meaning of the greatest love and friendship: the friend should lay down his soul for his friends. Then, the ultimate revelation – God tells His disciples: “you are My friends if you do whatever I command you” {John 15:12–15}.

Two inferences due:

1/ the knowledge of God is the freedom of man

2/ ultimately, God bestowed on the human mind the ability to ascend to the power, desire of which became the trigger of the original sin: the power to know God and His works; this power is seen as abilities of becoming His child and His friend and doing the works He does {conf. in: John 1:12–13; 14:12–14; 15:12–15; 1 John 4:16–17, 21; 5:13–15; Wisdom 7:27; Isaiah 41:8}.

Since, with acceptance of the Word–God, with love to God, through observance of His commandments and accomplishment of His will, a human being–child of God finds the way home and enters the house of God the Father {John 1:1–5, 9–14; 14:2, 6, 12, 26}. Only love annihilates slavery of the mind–reason; neither disobedience nor deceit facilitates fulfillment of aspirations and purposes.

The historical background, on which this conversation unfolds, underscores the significance of the freedom promised by God.

The roots of slavery are hidden in the pre–Flood civilization: when Noah cursed his grandson Canaan, he predicted that Canaan would be a slave of his relatives; therefore, Noah definitely knew the meaning of slavery – the part of the burden of evil, which triggered the annihilation of the pre–Flood Earth along with all corrupted flesh {Genesis 6; 7; 8; 9:18–27}.

Before receiving the Law, the chosen nation underwent four hundred years of slavery in idol–worshiping Egypt, the land of descendents of Cham who sinned against his father Noah and whose son Canaan was cursed to be the slave to his brethren {Genesis 9:18–27; 10; 15:13–14; Psalm 104(105):23, 27; 105(106)}. So, the people would learn slavery and to be prepared to appreciate freedom.

Later, when the idol–worship spread all over Israel and, instead of peaceful and prosperous life in the Promised Land, the people had to encounter famine, wars, and ultimately, slavery, Jeremiah the Prophet explained the reasons for their affliction: those who have abandoned God and enslaved themselves to alien gods in their land would become slaves of the aliens in another land {Jeremiah 5:19}. The prophet disclosed the correlation between two plagues of mankind: idol–worship and slavery are inseparable.

At the time of establishment of Christianity, the Promised Land was conquered by the Roman Empire; its population knew slavery well: it became the daily manner of existence. Nevertheless, the true meaning of slavery shifted and for many began to denote only physical submission, although the master slave  pattern describes all dimension and levels of life within the heathen establishments.

For instance, the Roman social hierarchy was maintained exclusively with master slave  relations –

  –– starting from the Roman soldier who during the military campaigns grabbed his portions of loot, enslaved the survivals of conquered cities, and retired to become a farmer living by the labor of slaves who had to toil at the fields and provide all bodily services to their master


  –– finishing with the “divine emperor” who treated senators, patricians, and other citizens of Rome in the same way as his subordinates – senators and other citizens – treated their slaves.

In general, the fabric of the Roman slavery–based society was woven with the Greek theology, philosophy, and logic, especially, with the Stoicism.

Stoicism is the offspring of doctrines left by the Greeks – Heraclitus, Socrates, Diogenes of Sinope, and Zeno of Citium, modified by the Romans (Cicero), and supplemented with deities, ideas, and customs borrowed by the Romans from the conquered Mediterranean and Asian nations. Today, the ancient – heathen – Greek philosophy still is considered as the pinnacle of human reasoning. So, what the human reasoning devoid of true knowledge of God could invent, for instance, in such sphere as slavery and freedom?

The ancient Greek philosophers left two different concepts of slavery, which differentiated the general and personal outlook of the people within the social groups–layers of the Roman Empire. One of them belongs to Socrates, another – to Aristotle.

Socrates defines slavery as the death of reason: slavery “prohibits growth, integrity, and freedom” and produces dead minds, which are not able to create “a single wholesome thought” [Plato Theaetetus173a–b]. If Socrates believes that thinking is life, he should perceive the slave–owning society as the society of murderers – the living dead who destroy the life of reason. He was right in his assessment, because the democratic slaves–owning Athenian society condemned him to death [Plato Euthyphro; Phaedo]. So, the philosophy of Socrates obviously did not fit the democratic environment.

About thirty years separate the year of Socrates’ execution (399 B.C.) from the year when Aristotle the Macedonian entered the Plato’s Academy. The Athenian society had not changed: the historical settings in relation to slavery at Socrates’ Athens and in Aristotle’s Athens are almost identical. However, if for Socrates, slavery is the death of reason, for Aristotle, slavery is a natural law – “divine” order, and the natural foundation of social order: he postulates that for a man, it is proper to observe “the ruling factor” in all matters, as for a slave to live “with reference to the rule of master.”

Moreover, Aristotle believes that the “natural merit” of master slave pattern is beneficial and just [Eudemian Ethics VIII.iii.14–15; Politics I.5.1254b; I.6.1255b].

For instance, when Aristotle describes the household–part of a nation, and the polis (the Greek city–state) – the political association, which is established by the men–heads of households for their own protection and survival, he applies his universal pattern of slavery to every level of the establishment. He asserts that the human chattel (slaves) is the most indispensable part of the property. Then, he made the following statements:

–– humans are slaves of gods

–– a free citizen–master owns his parts–slaves

–– the city is a single whole, formed by a certain quantity of different parts–compounds–citizens

–– a part “belongs entirely” to the whole similarly to an article of property: the slave “belongs entirely” to his master as “an article of property,” and an instrument for purposeful actions

–– a citizen, as a part of the city, belongs to the city, not just to himself

–– the community owns its parts–citizens

–– the Polis/state has the natural right to subjugate the barbarian nations, because they are slaves by their nature [Oeconomica I.i.2; I.v.1; Politics I.4.1253b–1254a; I.6.1255b; III.1.1274b; VII.14:1333b; VIII.1.1337a].

The logic of slave–owner fashions an entire framework for all Aristotle’s speculations; he perceives the entire world, his cosmos–universe, as an embodiment of the universal master slave pattern: humans are slaves of gods, thus, slavery must be the natural foundation of any human society and establishment.

The vision of the deity as a slave–owner has brought Aristotle to the idea of separation of the good of man from the good of gods, because, in his society, that what is good and natural for the master is not intended and is not accessible for his slave. Such separation resulted in substitution of the practicable material good of the society for the Absolute Good: the good material, discernible, verifiable, and understandable by man took the place of the good of gods and the physical perception became the foundation of ethics. 

The Aristotle’s line of arguments prompts some inferences:

1/ the citizens are the slaves of the city, instruments of the city, or the city’s chattel/animated articles (that is the property without faculty of deliberation); therefore, as all slaves, they do not have freedom to live as they like to

2/ the proclamations of the unity of interests of the city and its property with comparisons with the body, soul, benefits of friendship, appeals to the nature, etc. have the purpose to facilitate persuasion of the citizens to accept interests of the city as their own  

3/ the speculations concerning justice, wisdom, happiness, free way of life for the citizens–parts–property of the city, and other lofty words have one down–to–earth practicable end.

Aristotle attempts to deceive the enslaved population with the imagined freedom, because he needs to facilitate management of the citizens and to make the sacrifice of citizens–property of the Polis to the interest of their master–Polis/state to look as the free, purposeful, and virtuous choice. Consequently, in the Aristotelian model of a political establishment,

a/ lies and slavery become companions

b/ proclamation of freedom of democracy disguises slave–owning hierarchy

c/ manifestation of beliefs in slogans and false promises of those who strive for the political power sustains the political rituals similar to rituals of the idol–worshiping societies.

The Aristotle’s doctrine nurtured countless generations of rulers and philosophers of all scales; his concept of slave as the means to provide for the bodily needs of the master received the ultimate completion in the nineteenth century when Nietzsche declared that the vast majority of the population is entitled to exist only because they are used for “service and general utility” [Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil  §61 43].

Then, Adolf Hitler adopted the Aristotle’s habit of self–assertion as the judge of other nations and portrayed the future of the German super–race as the master of all other nations [Hitler 4–5].

The basic concepts of the Nazi ideology – deification of the state, cult of the dictator–Fuhrer as an embodiment of the deified state, racial superiority of the Germans and their right to use other nations as the slaves – all of them have their roots in Aristotelian concepts:

a) a man is the part–property–slave of the community/state

b) the human chattel–slave is the property designated to serve the needs of the master–state

c) one nation might possess special superiority over all the others.

The same logic of slavery might be discerned in the ideologies based on Marxism, e.g., bolshevism and communism. In fact, all totalitarian states of the twentieth century employed the same Aristotle’s method – they promulgated absolute freedom of their subjects, while, in fact, transformed their countries into the most inhumane slave–houses ever existed.

Historically, each oppressive establishment had slavery as its foundation, and not only physical slavery provides the necessary ground. The main foothold is the particular attitude of mind, which impels citizens–subjects to accept any command, wish, desire, policy of their leader as the divine will –– unconditionally, in spite of negative consequences this policy, command, wish, or desire would cause.

Such establishments manufacture similarly–minded standard parts–subjects with the qualities [[through public education, media control, controlled access to the information and knowledge]] and in the quantities [[controlled reproduction]] needed to sustain existence and expansion; any subject’s contradiction [[usually detected through total surveillance including the institute of the informers]] leads to extermination or imprisonment with the purpose to stop dissemination of ideas inconsistent with the official ideology.

For instance, in the Roman Empire, Seneca initiated the irreconcilable conflict between the imperial hierarchy of values and the inner hierarchy of man (therefore possibility of social instability) when he wrote that men are in the power of nothing if death is in their power and that freedom from the fear of death comes with the knowledge of the good and the evil [Epistles XCI 2:447; LXXVIII 2:197–199; CXIV 3:309, 317]. Consequently, the Fate has no power over those who know how to die. Consequently, as Socrates in his time, Seneca had to die because of his convictions. Seneca’s pupil, Roman Emperor Nero (AD 54–68) ordered the aged philosopher to commit suicide (the method of execution reserved for the highest Roman nobility). Obviously, even the mention of freedom had dire consequences in the society of slavesΣs10.

The necessity of continuation of slavery, which is the foundation of the current civilizations [[as well as of any establishment created within the framework of knowledge based on the Orphic → Plato → Aristotle doctrines]] could be one of explanations of the widely spread hatred to the Christian teachings. The reason for this hatred is the fundamental concept of Christianity: freedom given by God {John 8:31–36}.

The Christians hold that slavery is the evil inconsistent with the human nature:


man was created free and for freedom – in the image and likeness

of the omnipotent and free God

therefore, to ridicule, to deceive, to enslave, to deprive of any possession, to murder, to maim, to mutilate, to torture,

and by any other means to denigrate the dignity and well–being of a human being created by God in His image and after His likeness,

is abomination to God

because through such acts –

by inflicting suffering–hurting–mutilating–assassinating the human–carrier of the image of God –

the evil one rises up against God the Creator


Only with acceptance of the Christian teachings, the societies could be empowered to pursue the human ideals and to arrange life of their members according to the human nature. After revelation of the true knowledge of God and its carrier – Christianity, it became clear that all religions, which justify victimizing, enslaving, torturing, murder of some for the sake of the good of the others, are spreading false and lies of the arch–evil.

Why then, the contemporary mind still is not able to understand that without God there is no freedom?

There is only one answer for all questions concerning freedom: where the Spirit of God is there is freedom {2 Corinthians 3:17}. In the presence of God, the evil does not exist; therefore, the ultimate freedom for man within the world of the matter is the freedom from the evil and sin: freedom from the deeds of evil committed against God and against men.

What, then the Holy Spirit gives, what does He make with the creature of dust and slave of all imaginable and unimaginable hierarchies, laws, customs, limits of the matter (time–space–complexity), who is born, lives, and dies under the authority of death enabled to end his temporal (physical) existence (life of a body) at any moment of time, without warning, without mercy, without any consideration of unfinished works and unfulfilled purposes?

The Holy Spirit gives the life everlasting; moreover, He gives the ability to know that this life already has been ignited within a mortal body as the ability to comprehend own nature – the image and likeness of God, and the ability to foresee the future – homecoming to the presence of God, in His kingdom. These precious gifts set man free from the power of the matter – the curse of slavery and death: they make irrelevant the temporal restrictions, insufficiencies, and other parameters and features of life within the limited world of the matter.

Then, understanding of freedom comes, because only true knowledge of God sets the mind free from evil and sin, from chains and matrixes imposed by lies and deceit of the others:


free mind is creation of the Eternal Truth, of the Word–God, and slavery has no power over it


free mind lives by the Holy Spirit Who is the only One Teacher of the truth,

Who is the Omnipotent Power that destroys human prisons of lies,

and Who bestows on His human child the authority of eternal freedom


Then, it becomes understandable that Christian freedom is not the freedom to violate civil and other laws of human societies: following God Who came to fulfill His law {Matthew 5:17–18} and the order of God to render to the Caesar the things of Caesar {Matthew 22:21}, a Christian

a/ observes each word of Lord God Jesus Christ

b/ lives according to the commandments of God

c/ lives in compliance with the laws of his country, in submission to the civil authorities [[until they contradict the commandments of God and force a human being to commit crimes against God and against the people]], in peace given by God {John 14:27}, and in dignity and love that are the inseparable properties of the Christian faith {e.g., James; 1 Peter; 2 Peter; 1 John 3:16–17; 4:7–21; 5:1–21; 1 Corinthians 13:1–8}.

Otherwise, he is not a Christian, and freedom and truth have no place in him.

The Christian freedom is the embodiment of the perfect law, the law of freedom of which St. James the Apostle writes {James 1:21–25}: freedom to create the good, to fulfill the law of God, to seek and to find God, to cognize the Truth, and to prepare himself for the Kingdom of God.

Now, when the Christianity and even mention of God became “politically incorrect,” when the Christians are exterminated, when the “free” world tolerates barbaric executions of human beings for their religious beliefs, where the people could find the power to withstand the evil and slavery of heathenism issuing from the arch–evil, violence, fear, ignorance, corruption, perversion, and indifference, which have overwhelmed and now are happily digesting the remnants of the Western civilization?

Will the cry of the ancient Prophet – “Who is going to help you as you are being ruined?” {Hosea 13:9} – become the reality of all countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, Americas, and the current civilizations vanish similarly, for instance, to the Byzantine Empire, which came into oblivion in spite of all her might and grandeur?



Notes to Concept of Slavery:


Σs1 Concerning Aristotelian “divine”/universal master slave order, see Concept of Man in Philosophy: Aristotle, Folder Heathen Philosophy, Page_3.


Σs2 Human chattel” is a G. Cyril Armstrong’s translation of Aristotle’s definition of home slaves – the indispensable and most valuable property in Housecraft [Oeconomica, I.v.].

Definition of “human chattel” – slave – as an animate “article of property” with the recommendations how to deal with it might be found in: Oeconomica I.v. 3, 5, 6; Politics I.2. 1252b, I.4. 1253b, I.5. 1254b; I.6.1255b; I.8. 1256b; I.13.1260a.


 Σs3 The heathen philosophy is created within the knowledge framework that sustains the heathenism.

In general, the heathenism is actualization of the hatred of the arch–evil to mankind.

The core of the heathenism is death – idolatry; the essence of idolatry is worship to the arch–evil in the image of the serpent – mythical serpentine theology of the Orphics; however the essence – the arch–evil – might be covered with different images: different idols.

See Note 8 to the main text of this file, Works of Augustine of Hippo


Σs4 These “degrees of freedom” are determined by the political regimes, religious and political establishments, customs, traditions, and by natural features, such as race and gender.

 For instance, In addition to overall restrictions, woman’s freedom as such, even freedom to regulate life of own body, does not exist in the countries with traditions of arranged/forced marriage, honor killing, special clothing, FGM, restrictions of education and employment, and other limitations, which transform a free human being into the human chattel for household chores and delivery of the next generation of slaves, as well as in the countries that assume any right to control reproduction and make a choice on behalf of woman.

In particular, concerning the right to decide the usage, destiny, and well–being of woman’s body:

– in Islamic countries, women can be forced to undergo female genital mutilation [[similar to the practice of the African tribes, which hold it as the part of heathen fertility rites]], so, they will not have sensual desires and satisfaction, therefore, their physical loyalty to their husbands is presumed to be guaranteed, while they still have to experience pain of childbirth, to carry household works, to be in slavish submission to husbands. Furthermore, physical mutilation is not the only consequence: with ruthless, painful, and senseless act of hatred and hostility to the woman’s nature and violence committed on her body, woman receives deep psychological trauma; she has to live in fear before brutality of men, with permanent inferiority complex, and with deeply rooted hatred to those who violated and enslaved her body and covered such brutality with the references to “faith,” with which she must endure her suffering

– in the Western countries and countries under totalitarian regimes, women can be

1/ deprived of the right of choice [[the choice to have children or do not have children – by using contraceptives and making abortion]] 

2/ for the sake of population control


forced to make abortions

[[in over–populated countries]]


forbidden to make abortions

[[in under–populated countries]]


– in some Islamic countries, women can be deprived of right to drive cars, to work, to choose desirable education, to travel, or even to leave house without permission of their husband or male relatives

– in the Western countries and countries under totalitarian regimes, women still could receive lesser pay for their labor and still could be the last choice for job positions, which because of high salaries, prestige, and social/political/religious prejudices traditionally are reserved for men.

However, enslaving of woman and hatred toward woman pays back and with full measure to the societies and establishments, in which woman is treated as a slave and as a domestic animal, and especially, in which, in contradiction to God Who created woman body, men ascribed to themselves the right to “correct” the work of God the Creator.

When woman conceives a child, she makes for him not only “garments of skin” within own body {Genesis 3:22}; she transfers to the child her mental and spiritual imprint as well as psychological traumas and disabilities. An enslaved and physically and spiritually humiliated, violated, and disfigured being delivers not only inferior offspring, which carries punishment for the act rooted in the primeval animosity toward woman {Genesis 3:15–17} – sin committed by his predecessors for the sake of whose “convenience” woman was mutilated.

Such a woman delivers a being that is genetically modified {because of sin committed against woman and against her Creator by the present and past generations – Genesis 1:27; Exodus 34:5–7} and prepared for the next circle of slavery, brutality, and violence.

A child that was conceived and delivered by enslaved, humiliated, and traumatized woman is capable of hatred and violence toward anyone: he is the offspring of slave and he is ready to be enslaved, manipulated by the others, and turned into a human weapon, especially if he has been convinced that he would have revenge for brutality of the others.

Do not the history of the Past and the Present of the countries, in which mutilation and enslaving of woman is the “article of faith,” provide a convincing illustration of the consequences of brutality against a creation of God and sin against God the Creator?


Σs5 Concerning the Phoenicians, see Ancient Civilizations: Legacy Overview


Σs6 For instance, in the fourth century, Augustine of Hippo invented the idea of the coercive power of the church: the Compele Intrare doctrine. In general, coercive power is not compatible with the Christian Church: coercive power belongs to the secular establishments [[see The Power of Coercion – original post in Folder Archive_2016, Page 4_June_2016]]; its purpose is to subdue the free will and to enforce physical obedience and submission.

Augustine’s Compele Intrare – the infamous doctrine, which is incompatible with the Christian teachings and which could be devised only by the mind nurtured by the Manichean heresy, laid the theoretical foundation of the papal Inquisition, and Augustine’s writings concerning authority and coercive power of the church became mandatory reading for the inquisitors. In particular, the inquisitor’s handbooks included the relevant citations from the writings of Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and other papal theologians [Peters 62], such as Compelle Intrare, wise judge concept, justification of torture and death penalty for heretics, along with description of experience of local inquisitors concerning finding, methods of torture, and extermination of heretics.

Then, following the Augustine’s speculations, Thomas Aquinas the main papal theologian introduced the doctrine of “holy” (absolute or perfect) obedience – freely accepted slavery and submission to the all–inclusive spiritual and secular authority of the pope referred by Aquinas as “divinely appointed functionary.” Aquinas justified his doctrine with misinterpretation of the Christian teachings and the Holy Scriptures. In fact, the Aquinas’ doctrine of obedience was inferred from Aristotle’s depiction of slavery as divine order of the universe.

For instance, the Aquinas’ interpretation of the Great Schism and issuing concept of schism reveal implications of Aquinas’ doctrine of obedience.

The Great Schism [[see Note further]] began in the ninth century as the discord of the Roman Bishop/Pope (the West Roman Church) with the Patriarch (the Catholic – Apostolic or Orthodox – Churches). The Great Schism marks the beginning of separate existence of two irreconcilable theological systems:

1/ Christianity – the original teachings of Lord God Jesus Christ preserved and professed by the Catholic Apostolic (Orthodox) Church

2/ the Roman Catholicism, or Catholicism, professed by the papal church of Rome. The papal church of Rome accepted Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology [[based on the heathen philosophy produced by Orphism]] as the official doctrine, canonized Thomas Aquinas, and accepted him as the main theologian, “the most brilliant light” of the papal church and “angelic interpreter of divine will” without any error in his work [the “light” reference came from pope Pius V; “angelic interpreter” without any error – from pope Clement VII; both qtd. and ref. in: New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:109–110].

In general, a schismatic (e.g., an Orthodox Christian) is the one who refuses to accept the pope as the earthly substitute of God. Consequently, a schismatic

a/ does not recognize the pope as the “vicar of Christ”

b/ does not accept papal blasphemous claims on pope’s ability to stand on the place of God and to have the share of dignity of God

c/ does not believe that submission to the pope is the mandatory condition of salvation and eternal life.

For Aquinas, a schismatic is a person who refuses to submit his mind and conscience to the control and surveillance of pope and other superiors – members of the papal hierarchy, who does not worship the pope, and who does not accept the papal speculations as the words of God.

In particular, Aquinas writes that schismatics “are unwilling to be controlled by the Church’s spiritual power,” while justice demands man to subject his mind “entirely to God” [Summa Theologica II–II Q.57 a1 a, ro3]. Consequently, Aquinas considers schism as the mortal sin punishable by death, because for Aquinas, the rebellion against the pope is equal to denial of God.

To justify his assertions that schism is mortal sin and that schismatic must be either converted into the papal faith or executed, Aquinas asserts that the spiritual power is twofold and consists from the sacramental power, which a schismatic retains, and from the power of jurisdiction (papal religious and secular authority), which a schismatic violates [Summa Theologica II–II Q.39 a3].

However, if Aquinas asserts that a schismatic retains the sacramental power [[the sacramental power connects man with God and signifies that man belongs to God and works for His purposes]], yet, in the same time commits mortal sin [[mortal sin is any thought, word, deed that intentionally defies the power of God and deliberately contradicts the will of God, for instance, violates commandments of God, such as do not have other gods, do not kill]], it means that either Aquinas makes irrational statement or, for Aquinas, the meaning of mortal sin is rejection of papal jurisdiction.

However, rational judgment is a prerogative of the mind that established itself on the Word–God: as St. Paul the Apostle writes {in: 1 Corinthians 2:16}, we (the Christians) have the mind exactly following Christ: ημεις δε νουν Χριστου εχομεν (where νουν is a derivative of νοος – intelligence, reason, mind).  To the contrary, Aquinas thinks in the terms of the heathen philosophy.

Therefore, the one could conclude that

a/ for Aquinas, authority of the pope is higher than authority of God

b/ for Aquinas, schism becomes the mortal sin only because it is rejection of the papal power of jurisdiction – the papal authority, and as such, it deprives the papal hierarchy of unreservedly obedient subjects; at the same time, the violation of God’s commandments is not a mortal sin [[by the way, papal “forgiveness of sin” could be purchased – the infamous indulgencies – from the papal servants who sell entrance into God’s kingdom for money]].

For the Christians, Aquinas’ doctrine of obedience is blasphemy, because it elevates a mortal man at the level of the deity whose authority exceeds the authority of God: Aquinas’ “god” is the pope – mortal man, the creature of dust as all the others, yet, whom the main papal theologian positions higher than God, and, therefore, establishes and propagates idol–worship.

Blasphemy is sin, which could lead to spiritual death – eternal separation from God. Many religious establishments still excommunicate or persecute their subjects for the sin of blasphemy; in some countries, the penalty for blasphemy still is the capital punishment – death.

According to Thomas Aquinas, blasphemy is a sin committed directly against God. Blasphemy is more grievous sin than murder: it denotes the disparagement of the goodness of God when somebody suggests something inappropriate or incompatible with God, e.g., ascribes the properties of God to His creations or makes false statements about God [Summa Theologica  II–II Q.13 a1, a2, a3]. 

Therefore, if to apply Aquinas’ definition of blasphemy for analysis of papal theologians’ writings, it could be inferred that the sin of blasphemy is committed when

a/ the attributes of God are ascribed to mortal men (for instance, when Aquinas ascribes to the pope the ability to “stand on the place of God,” to be the substitute of God at the earth, to be “vicar of God,” etc.)

b/ false statements about God are made (for instance, when the criminal code of the Inquisition and the human law that heretics must be burned alive are ascribed to God)

c/ any connection between God and the evil are asserted or implied; for instance, see analysis of Aquinas’ assertions concerning God as the source of evil, the opposites, etc. [[see Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Folder Heathen Philosophy, Page_7]].

The Christian tradition considers blasphemy as “a frightful passion” originated by the unclean spirit; the Christians are advised to guard the senses and the mind and – with the prayer and praise to God – discard any improper thought [e.g., Nikitas Stithatos (11th century) §59 in: The Philokalia 4:94]. Those who present themselves as Christians, while intentionally commit blasphemy because of their disagreements with the Christian teachings, are excommunicated.

The ultimate version of Aquinas’ doctrine of obedience, with addition of Ignatius of Loyola’s rules for the “Church militants,” lifts up obedience to the superior (starting with the pope–prefect of the Inquisition, or the “Universal Inquisitor”) to the rank of divinely established order, the good and “special” moral virtue, and “the regular mode of life” for “religious people.” This doctrine sustains the papal hierarchy and implies that the pope has the unreserved power over his subjects. In general, this doctrine works only because

a/ the mind of papal subject accepts it as the unchallengeable truth and makes it the actuality of own existence

b/ heresies and misinterpretations of the Holy Scriptures took the place of the teachings of Lord Jesus Christ; for instance, Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology, which is the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome, justifies execution of heretics and provides theoretical foundation for atrocities of the inquisition, religious persecutions and wars: the pope is the Prefect of the inquisition; the papal theologians portray God as “the author of the criminal code of the Inquisition”; papal theologians Henry of Susa (1271) and Jean d’Andre (1348) both asserted that the execution by burning at stake is sanctioned by “the law of Christ” [Vacandard 128]. Assertions of the papal theologians reveal incompatibility of their “theology” with Christianity: to claim any positive connection of Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology with the teachings of Christ is blasphemy against the Word–God, God the Father Who sent Him to redeem mankind, and the Holy Spirit by Whom revelations of God are given

c/ the people are deprived of the access to the true knowledge. For instance, in 1229, the Inquisition in Toulouse made the Bible prohibited book for the papal subjects; for the laity, the right to read the words of God has to be given by the special permission of the superiors. During many centuries, the knowledge of the original word of God was forbidden for the vast majority of the Catholics who had to be fed with the images produced by the papal theologians – “guardians” of their souls, and to accept as the “divine truth” any assertion, which the papal hierarchy considered beneficial for its own purposes. The Inquisition’s decision was supported with the drastic measures; for example, in 1536, William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translation of the Bible into English (published in 1526) [in: The Bible. “Preface.” Iii;  Trager 174, 179; Baybrook 603].

Even today, those, who undergo Ignatius of Loyola “spiritual training”/exercises should “hear”/imagine blasphemies against Lord Jesus Christ – the Word God, and must not read the Holy Bible. In particular, the published in 1983 book of Jesuit David L. Fleming contains recommendations that those who undergo the modern version of the Loyola’s training, have to perform the same “satisfaction for past sins” or self–inflicted “punishment” in accordance with the advice of “director” – the modern term for “the superior,” as it was in the Loyola’s time [Fleming 40–43; 101]; therefore, they definitely should “hear”/imagine blasphemies against Lord Jesus Christ – the Word God, and must not read the Holy Bible. Otherwise, they would not have “being stirred by various spirits” as the result of the Exercises and, as Loyola demanded for those who had “not being stirred by various spirits” as the result of the Exercises, should be investigated concerning time and completeness of all procedures, because the Exercises must be “carefully followed” [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §§6, 20, 82–85 in: Personal Writings 284, 286, 299, 301; On Dealing with Others in: Counsels for Jesuits 11]. 

The question is: of which “various spirits” Ignatius of Loyola writes?

According to the Holy Scriptures {e.g., in: Genesis 2:7; Psalm 150:5; Job 32:8; Mark 7:20–23; Luke 4:4; 6:45; John 8:40–47; 14; 15; 16; 17; 1 Corinthians 12:1–3; Revelation 13:1–15}, the breath of God is the living soul of man, each being that breathes naturally praises God, and those who are of God carry His Word within and live by the words of God. All evil thoughts, murders, deceit, and evils, including blasphemy, come out of the human heart, from the inner man. As St. Paul the Apostle explains, no one, who speaks by the Spirit of God, ever curses Lord Jesus Christ. However, the breath of existence might be given to the beast to utter blasphemies against God and even to the images of the beast to test, deceive, and ruin men: any ill word toward God comes only from the arch–evil, which controls its offspring and slaves [[curse – αναθεμα – in: 1 Corinthians 12:1–3; ill–speaking, reviling, blasphemy –  βλασφημια  – in: Mark 7:20–23; Revelation 13]].

The referred above Aquinas’ speculations reveal not only Aquinas’ renunciation of the Christianity and perversion of the Christian teachings. They illustrate the process of establishing of the heathenism – the process of enslaving of the human mind and a human body, because under the wordings from the Holy Scriptures they conceal the lethal poison of the Orphism that through the philosophical doctrines of Plato and Aristotle penetrated works of Philo, Augustine, and Aquinas and became the foundation of the Western theology and philosophy, and to which many so–called “heretics,” schismatics, and different–minded were sacrificed [[burned at the stake by the papal Inquisition for the sake of purification of papal perfect communities from the heretics and preservation of the papal faithful from corruption. By the way, does not such practice of the papal inquisitors make them similar to the Phoenician priests who burned their human sacrifices to Moloch for purification of their land and their people? Probably not, because the Phoenician practice demonstrates at least some mercy to their victims: usually, the priest–sacrificer cut the victim’s throat to pour blood on the ground, so, the time of physical suffering was short; the inquisitors burned the condemned alive]].

Just one historical event could confirm this statement.

When the papal hierarchy revived the old Manichean heresy (communion with bread only) reinstated by the papal hierarchy because Aquinas modified the doctrine of transubstantiation with the Aristotle’s concept of accidents, it triggered off the revolt of the faithful Christians in Bohemia under the leadership of Jun (John) Hus the priest. Jun Hus demanded the Cup of Eucharist for the laity, because Lord God Jesus Christ gave it to all His followers {cf.: Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:17–20}. The papacy denounced those who believed in the supreme authority of the Gospels and refused to accept new practice of communion as disobedient to the Roman Church schismatics and heretics, who “rashly dared to assert that the Christian people ought to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist under the form of both bread and vine” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 418]. The papal Council of Constance condemned Jun Hus the priest as the heretic, and Jun Hus was burned at stake, in 1415: according to the papacy, for heresy; in fact, for his conviction to follow the words of Lord God Jesus Christ and to observe the most sacred tradition of the Christianity.

Therefore, for the papal church, following the Gospels and observance of the Christian tradition established by Lord God Jesus Christ are schism and heresy punishable by death. And the papacy has no choice but to exterminate the Christian faith, if it wishes to preserve its establishment and to keep its subjects in unreserved obedience.

Christianity is the freedom. The heathenism is the prison kept by the arch–evil.


See Compele Intrare in the main text of this file, Works of Augustine of Hippo.

Concerning physical and spiritual slavery see:

a/ works of Aristotle: Oeconomica, Eudemian Ethics, Magna Moralia, and Politics

b/ postings in Folder Heathen PhilosophyPhilosophy: Aristotle, Page_3, Works of Augustine of Hippo, and Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Page_7; Folder Political Theology, Pages 1, 2, 3.

Concerning Augustine’s Compelle Intrare and influence of his works on the following generations of Western theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, see Works of Augustine of Hippo and Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Folder Heathen Philosophy, Pages 6 and 7; concerning the Inquisition and the Loyola’s spiritual training, see The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3.


Note Concerning the Great Schism

In fact, the history of the Great Schism is the history of the war for freedom: the Christians attempt to separate themselves from the enslavers and to protect the spiritual freedom intact, while the papacy armed with heresies, misinterpretations of the Gospels, and lies attempts to enslave the Christians and to transform them into the unreserved slaves of the self–deified mortal man – the pope–prefect of the inquisition.

 The manifest processes of corruption of faith and substitution of the heathen philosophy for the words of God prompted some researchers to identify the Great Schism as completion of the war, which the heathens waged against Christianity soon after it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

There are different points of view concerning the reasons of the Great Schism.

In my opinion, the reasons of the Great Schism (separation of the Byzantine Christian Church from the papal church of Rome) are

1/ the papal claims on the absolute authority in the Christian Church, while the Christian Church itself –– and consequently, the absolute authority over it –– belongs only to God

2/ papal acceptance of the Filioque – the heresy against God the Father invented by Augustine of Hippo who is the convert from Manichaeism and Neo–Platonist and whose writings became the part of foundation, upon which the Christian Church of Rome was transformed into the papal church of Rome [[see Works of Augustine of Hippo]]

3/ acceptance of the heathen philosophy and other heresies by the papal church of Rome

4/ acceptance of the practices of the pagan Roman Empire for the papal strategy of achievement the absolute power over the Christendom.

The first indications of the Great Schism can be traced to the sixth century, to the initial opposition between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the Bishops/popes of Rome who began their quest for the absolute power and authority over all Christendom: in 590, the 64th Roman pope Gregory I (590–604) openly asserted the claim on papal absolutism [Trager 57].

Then, in 1014, the Roman pope Benedict VII accepted the Filioque and inserted into the creed of the papal church of Rome, and, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council authorized the new creed with Augustine’s Filioque as ‘The Creed of the Roman Catholic Church’.

Acceptance of Augustine’s Filioque by papacy and the consequent papal decree with anathema (excommunication for heresy), which the papacy, in 1054, issued against the Constantinople’s Church and Patriarch because of their rejection of Filioque, had sealed separation of the West and East Churches and put the finishing touch on the Great Schism.

The Filioque is Augustine’s assertion of equality of the Son to the Father: the Filioque states that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth also from the Son... even as He proceedeth from the Father... He proceedeth at the same time from both” [Homilies on the Gospel of St. John XCIX.6–9].

It means that in direct contradiction to the words of Lord Jesus Christ Who promised to send “from the Father... the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father” {John 15:26; also in: John 14:26; 16:7, 13–15}, Augustine of Hippo (354–430) asserted that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth also from the Son... even as He proceedeth from the Father... He proceedeth at the same time from both” [Augustine Homilies on the Gospel of St. John XCIX.6–9, 383–384]. Therefore, the essence of the Augustine’s Filioque is the assertion that the Son the same source of the Holy Spirit as the Father is.

With such “correction” of the words of the Word–God, the Manichaean–based imagination of Augustine introduces the multi–deity arrangement, which is incompatible with the monotheistic theology – the Christianity, and which contradicts to The Nicean Creed – the Confession of the Christian Faith.

In particular, the essence of the Christian Faith according to The Nicean Creed:


“The Nicean Creed:


I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.

Light of light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father, through Whom all things were made.

For us and for our salvation, He came down from heaven and was incarnated by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and He suffered and was buried, and on the third day He rose according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

And He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father,

Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

I expect the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the age to come, Amen.”


The Creed or The Nicean Creed was composed in 325, by The First Ecumenical Council of Nicea. According to decision of the Council in Chalcedon (in 451), The Nicean Creed is acknowledged as sufficient for “a perfect understanding and establishment of religion.” The Councils stated that he teachings about the Holy Trinity is compete because “the Fathers of Church” made the clarification about the Holy Spirit with the Scriptures; therefore, The Creed must “remain inviolate.” 


1/ Council of Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451) and the Fourth Council of Constantinople (the Eighth Ecumenical Council; 869–870) established The Nicean Creed as the main universal and constant symbol–Confession of the Christian Faith and condemned as the heretics those who compose, promulgate, teach another creed, or make either any addition to or any subtraction from The Nicean Creed

2/ the Second Council of Nicea (787) ordered that for those with the “priestly dignity” the regulations of the sacred canons of the Ecumenical Synods (that is Ecumenical Councils) must “remain unshakeable and immoveable,” because they are enlightened by the Spirit of God [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 24, 65, 83, 84, 87, and further].

Hence, The Nicean Creed was accepted by the ancient Christian Church as the permanent unchangeable confession of the Christian Faith, which cannot be altered until the Christian Church exists:


The Nicean Creed cannot be changed

not by any Church’s authority

nor by any cleric

nor by any layman

nor by anyone who identifies himself as a Christian


For an attempt to compose, write, or produce another creed – that is for any change, addition, or discarding any word of The Nicean Creed, bishops and clerics should be deposed and monks and laymen should be anathematized [[“anathematized” means excluded from the Christian church and from community of the Christians]]: they are heretics – the ones who do not confess the true essence of the Christian Faith and who, therefore, are not Christians.

Consequently, according to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which have established the foundation of the Christian Church within the world of men as the universal unchangeable system based solely on the words of God

a/ Augustine of Hippo, who invented the Filioque that modified The Creed, is a heretic

b/ the action of the Roman pope Benedict VII who, in 1014, accepted the Filioque as the foundation of his establishment, made the Great Schism irreconcilable; if any Christian Church accepts the papal church with the Filioque as Christian Church, it commits apostasy, because it recognizes the multi–deity religion as the monotheist Christianity; thus, it ceased to be a Christian Church.

Although some researchers classify the dispute concerning the Filioque as a pure theological problem originated by different interpretation and the current leaders of the ecumenical movement do not consider the Filioque as an insurmountable obstacle for recognition of the papal Church as the Christian Church and bestow upon the pope–prefect of the Inquisition the title of the “brother in Christ,” the actual problem, which cannot be eliminated by any researcher, by any theologian, and by any apostate, is that

1/ the Filioque is the direct contradiction to the words of Lord God Jesus Christ

2/ the Filioque is confession of the multi–deity religion, which is not compatible with the monotheist Christian teachings

3/ through the Filioque, the papacy connects its authority with the authority of God the Father.

For instance, in 1264, Thomas Aquinas referred to the rejection of supremacy of the Roman pope as to “analogous” to denial “that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son” [Thomas Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum qtd. in: Likoudis 74–75].

Hence, with the Filioque, the papal theologians position the self–proclaimed “vicar of Christ in the Earth” and “head of the Church” as the representative of two sources of the Holy Spirit.

From a practical point of view, with such a claim, the papacy usurped the right to define what is the good and what is the evil, therefore, interfered with the authority of God. Then,

1/ the papacy asserted own “divine authority”

2/ began to issue the statements disparaging the power of God and the Holy Spirit, which for the Christians are the utter blasphemy.

For instance

–– the Council of Trent (the assembly of the clergy at the highest hierarchical levels of papal church of Rome, in 1545–1563), which according to its participants was guided “by the mind and spirit of St. Thomas” [Walz ref. in: New Catholic Encyclopedia 14:134], declared that the “priests who are in mortal sin” still discharge their duties “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” which they received in ordination [Decrees of Ecumenical Councils 242, 707]. For the Christian who knows that the evil is annihilated in the presence of God, this declaration of the papal council is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because its essence is the assertion that the evil can hold the power of God and act by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In particular,

according to St. John the Apostle, man who commits a sin “is of devil”

{1 John 3:4–10}

according to the Council of Trent, those who commit a mortal sin

(or as St. John the Apostle wrote, are “of devil”)

can act with “the power of the Holy Spirit”


Evidently, the Council of Trent assumes that the power of God can be bound by men in such a degree that even man in a state of mortal sin, who has rejected God (otherwise, he would not commit mortal sin), still possesses the power received when he was ordained. It means that the Council of Trent incorporates into papal dogma–Catholicism the heathen belief in the ability of man to bind and control deity with magic rituals or rites of worship and ascribes to the man “of devil” the ability to act “by the power of the Holy Spirit.” 

The papal dogma that man in a state of the mortal sin (that is the man “of devil”) can discharge his duties “by the power of the Holy Spirit” is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; just only this one article of papal faith is enough to prove the complete incompatibility of the papal dogma with Christianity.

–– according to Pius XII, ascribing “the whole spiritual life of Christians and their progress in virtue exclusively to the action of the Divine Spirit,” without the collaboration of the pope, leads to “deplorable ruin” [Mystici Corporis Christi. Encyclical of pope Pius XII On the Mystical Body of Christ. 1943. http:// www. vatican. va/ holy_father/pius_xii/ encyclicals/documents/hf_p–xii_enc_29061943_ mystici–corporis–christi_ en. html; §65, 87].

–– as the next modification of the Gospels, the papacy asserts that the unity “in Christ Jesus” is incomplete “unless it rested upon that unshaken rock upon which the Church is divinely founded, that is, upon the supreme authority of Peter and his Successors” [Orientalis Ecclesiae. Encyclical of Pope Pius XII. 1944. §28.  http:// www. vatican. va /holy_father/ pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/ hf_p–xii_enc_ 09041944 _ orientalis–ecclesiae_en.html; §28]. The successor of “Peter” (St. Peter the Apostle) is the pope as “vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church” [DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH LUMEN GENTIUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964. http:// www. vatican. va/ archive/hist_councils/ ii_vatican_council/ documents/ vat–ii_const_19641121_lumen–gentium_en. html; §22]. With this assertion, the papacy inserts the pope claimed to be “the successor of Peter” as a necessary participant in the life of the Christians.

In summary, for the Christian, the papal self–deification is based upon blasphemies against God and lies, for instance, such as

a/ the eternal salvation cannot be reached without the pope

b/ without the collaboration of the pope, the power of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient for the spiritual life of man

c/ without the pope, there cannot be unity in Christ

3/ began to override and to disregard the law of God and to claim the absolute power over souls and bodies of the papal subjects [[see the papal doctrine of unreserved obedience and Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola]].

The current summary of definitions of the papal theologians defines the pope as the absolute ruler who is the infallible source of the laws, which supersede the commandments and words of God, and whose definition of the vice and virtue is the binding law for the papal church and for the papal subjects who are papal unreserved slaves and whose conscience the pope can re–program with own meanings of good and evil.

The following examples reveal the practical consequences of the Filioque, through which the papacy asserted the claim on papal “divine authority” and world–wide domination the papacy.

The pope Innocent III (1198–1216) asserted that the pope is positioned between God and man: “less than God but greater than man, judging all men and judged by none” [Innocent III qtd. in: La Due 119], and that the pope acts on behalf of the Holy Trinity, “by the authority of SS Peter and Paul, and by... own authority” [Innocent III ref. and qtd. in: Encyclopedia of the Vatican and Papacy 213–214; La Due 118, 124; Willett 11]. 

The Innocent III’s self–deification had opened the gate for the flow of similar assertions, which ultimately formed the meaning of deification of the Roman pope. In particular, the pope Boniface VIII made two statements:

1/ the papal authority is divine

2/ for the sake of eternal salvation it is necessary “for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Then, the pope Pius XII explained that there is the dangerous error to believe that it is possible to accept Christ and to “reject genuine loyalty to His Vicar on Earth” [The Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302, in: Documents of the Christian Church 127; Pius XII qt. from Mystici Corporis Christi also in: Sherrard (1978a) 60].

It means that the eternal salvation of men had been separated from the acceptance of Lord Jesus Christ as the Savior and God, from fulfillment of the God’s commandments, and from the mercy of God. The popes asserted themselves as the unavoidable supplements to God, and the papal subjects received a new deity, perhaps even more authoritative than God Himself, because faith and loyalty to God are sufficient no more: the absolute submission and “genuine loyalty” to the “divine authority” of the pope became the conditions of eternal life. With such dethronement of God, deification of the pope was logically completed. Consequently, the concept of papal comprehensive “absolute power” was made the article of faith for the papal subjects, which compose the foundation of the papal church of Rome.

In the sixteenth century, also elaborating the Innocent III’s assertion, the pope Pius V presents himself as the appointed by God “chief over all nations and all kingdoms” who sits at the “supreme throne of justice” with the fullness of power “to pluck up, destroy, scatter, dispose, plant and built” [Bull Against Elizabeth, 1570 in Documents of the Christian Church 267–268].

The papal assertions became the laws of the papal church and articles of faith also through decisions of the papal councils. For instance,

–– in the fifteenth century; the Council of Basel–Ferrara–Florence–Rome (1431–1445) declares the pope’s primacy “over the whole world.” It pronounces him to be the head of the whole church, “a common father” for “people from all parts,” and “the father and teacher of all Christians” with the full St. Peter the Apostle’s authority over the whole Church [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 528]

–– in the nineteenth century; after complete loss of the apparent secular power over the states, which constituted the papal empire, the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), nevertheless, re–asserted “the divine right of the apostolic primacy” [e.g., in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 812–815] and “the full and supreme power of jurisdiction” of the whole church worldwide; the Council declared anathema to those who do not recognize that the Roman pope is the “true vicar of Christ,” “the father and teacher of all Christians,” who by “the divine right of the apostolic primacy” is also the “supreme judge” with the “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church” and holds “a worldwide primacy” while the Church of Rome has “preeminence” of power over “every other church.”

–– in the twentieth century; the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) defines the pope’s title as the infallible “supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christ’s faithful,” whose promulgations need neither approval nor judgment of the others. The Council also clarified the doctrine of infallibility of the pope: the pope is infallible, his judgments are “irreformable of themselves... for they are delivered with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,” when he judges not as a private person but as “the supreme teacher of the universal church” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 869].

The preserved by the history papal self–portrayals leave no place for any illusions concerning the essence of the worldwide domination and the real meaning of the title “the father and teacher of all Christians” or “a common father” for “people from all parts”; the papal self–images evoke rather images of the pagan gods of destruction than the Apostle’s description of the head of a Christian community and his responsibilities, which should not go further observing the commandments of God, teaching of the Gospels, and being himself the role model for his brethren {in: 1 Timothy 2–7; Titus 1:5–16; 2:1–8}. Indeed, the seed sown with the Filioque has grown into another – papal – religion incompatible with Christianity.

The Great Schism as the deep division between the Christian Church of Constantinople and the papal Church of Rome came to its zenith in 1204, after the sack of Constantinople accompanied with destruction of the Christian Churches and mass slaughter of the Greek Christians by the papal Crusaders.

When the Crusaders captured Constantinople, in 1204, the Roman pope Innocent III expressed joy and called the capture “magnifica miracula” [Innocent III’s letter qtd. in: Runciman 151]. Some historians assert that the pope Innocent III was not aware of the details of sack of Constantinople [e.g., Runciman 151–152], or he just had “insensitivity to the Byzantine tradition” [La Due 122]. Historically, murders, pillage, destruction accompanied all military invasions, and it is not proper for the Christian to feel joy because of suffering and death of people and to continue to identify himself as the follower of Lord God Jesus Christ. The history preserved another example of joy experienced by another Roman pope: in 1572, after the St. Bartholomew’s Night in Paris, when the Catholics killed approximately 50,000 Huguenots, the pope Gregory XIII congratulated queen–mother Catherine de’ Medici and ordered to celebrate the massacre with lightening of bonfires [in: Trager 197]. Therefore, it looks as some kind of papal tradition or the special rite of papal worship: the papal subjects exterminate schismatics and heretics and plunder their wealth to make their superior–pope to feel joy and celebrate death of human beings created in the image and after likeness of God Whose place on the earth this superior pretends to have.

Concerning the Constantinople’s story: the Crusaders–Catholics (led by the Venetian Doge and the princes from French and German royal houses) committed sacrilege, desecrated, pillaged and ruined the holy Christian temples, murdered men, raped and killed children and women – the Greek Orthodox Christians, set on fire libraries, and plundered houses. Among the temple robbers was German clergyman and preacher Martin of Pairis “the pious Abbot,” whom the pope Innocent III encouraged to inspire the Crusaders. The other crimes committed in the temples of God by the Crusaders–Catholics are so despicable [e.g., in: Runciman 145, 149–151] that they should not be mentioned in any connection with the human beings.

The response of the papal Council to the complains of the Greeks after sacrilege of the temples of God and sack of Constantinople was unambiguous: “comfort themselves like obedient sons” of the mother  – “holy Roman church” [Canon 4 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 235–236]. Then, the Innocent III’s self–imposed mission “to reform the Universal Church” [in: Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III… 144] began with establishment of the Latin empire in Constantinople, at the ruins of the Christian temples of God.

So, the Great Schism marked the beginning of separate existence of two irreconcilable theological systems:

1/ Christianity – the original teachings of Lord God Jesus Christ; the Catholic Apostolic (Orthodox) Church (Eastern Orthodox Churches) preserved, protected, and still professes the original Christian teachings

2/ the Roman Catholicism (or Catholicism) professed by the papal Church of Rome, which


accepted the Augustine’s Filioque and revered Augustine as the “father” of the Western (papal) church

accepted the Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology as the official doctrine (foundation of Catholicism),

canonized Thomas Aquinas, and elevated him at the rank of the main papal theologian


Hence, two churches –– the Christian Church that follows The Nicene Creed and the papal church of Rome that accepted the Filioque are based on different knowledge frameworks. Consequently, they are irreconcilable: they are different systems founded on different definitions of their main – absolute for them – truth. Each system that changes definition of its original absolute truth upon which it was created/established (in other terms, commits apostasy) becomes another system inconsistent with its original version.

Indeed, as the history of the papal church illustrates, the deeds of the papacy and its subjects after acceptance of the Filioque and after the Great Schism [[e.g., deification of the pope, the Crusades (including the Crusade of 1204, during which Constantinople was destroyed, the Christians were massacred, and the Christian temples were desecrated and plundered), the Inquisition, religious persecution, forceful conversion and plunder of the Jews, torture, imprisonment, and death penalty (burning @ the stakes) for the heretics, religious wars, incessant struggle for the world–wide domination, involvement into secular (political) affairs even up to political assassinations (France) and attempts to overthrow the secular leaders/kings (England), anti–Semitism, cooperation with Fascism and Nazism, ultimate corruption of the papal clergy revealed with world–wide scandals concerning sexual abuse of children by pedophiles and perverts, etc.]] violate the law of God and are not compatible with the Christian teachings granted by Lord God Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, Catholicism developed into another religion – Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology based upon the heathen philosophy [[derivative of the Orphism – foundation for religions and cults of the arch–evil]] irreconcilable with Christianity, and for the Orthodox Christians, the papal church of Rome ceased to be the Christian Church.

In the same time, the European nations came under the “absolute” authority of the papal Church of Rome, and the papal “empire,” which was designed after the heathen Roman Empire’s blueprint, yet pretended on the absolute power over the Christendom, subdued almost all Europe. The papal empire and the papal faith became the core of the Western civilization, which many historians and researchers identify as “Christian civilization,” while it is based upon the religion and doctrines derived from the heathen philosophy, mostly, from doctrines of Plato the Orphic and his pupil Aristotle, both – slave–owners.

Consequently, the crimes against humanity committed by the Inquisition and by the papal subjects during the Crusades, religious wars, and persecutions of the schismatics, heretics and the different–minded were sacrilegiously ascribed to the teachings of Christ, although the papal theologians barbarically misinterpreted Christian teachings and put on its place the Platonic–Gnostic–Origen and Aristotelian–Manichean–Augustinian–Aquinas heresies.

As a result, in the Present, the vast majority of global population

1/ either identifies Christianity with the papal faith, Catholicism, or –– because of the history of corruption and crimes committed by the papacy and the papal subjects –– discards it entirely with hatred, disgust, and mockery

2/ considers the Western civilization as the Christian civilization.


Concerning the Great Schism and its consequences, see

Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism:  A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries. Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1955. New York:  AMS, 1983 (reprint).

Sherrard, Philip. Church, Papacy, and Schism:  A Theological Enquiry. London:  SPCK, 1978

The Hierarchical Church, Folder Political Theology, Page_2

The Invincible Empire, Chapters 1 and 7

Concerning Manichaeism, see Works of Augustine of Hippo, Note 1.

Concerning the Orphism and its impact, see Note 3 above, and also

Ancient Civilizations: Legacy Overview

The War & The World. Part II. Apostasy, with Supplements

Folder Heathen Philosophy: Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Page_7

Folder Political Theology – all posts

Folder Heathen Philosophy: Philosophy: Plato – Page 2


Concerning the meaning of heresy and blasphemy and the place of heresy and blasphemy in the papal church, see The Invincible Empire, Chapters 5, 6, 7; Priest and Heresyreprints in Note 44 to The Mind, and postings: The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3, Works of Augustine of Hippo and Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Folder Heathen Philosophy, Pages 6 and 7.

See analysis of Aquinas’ concepts of faith, heresy, and obedience in The Invincible Empire, Chapter 6, and postings: Folder Heathen Philosophy: Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Page_7; Folder Political Theology: The introduction to Political Theology and The Hierarchical Church, Pages 1 and 2.

Concerning deprivation of the papal laity of the Communion with both elements, revival of the Manichean heresy, and destiny of Jun Hus the priest, see postings Priest and Heresyreprints in Note 44 to The Mind, and Doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, Folder Heathen Philosophy, Page_7.

Concerning doctrine and practices of Ignatius of Loyola, see The Church Militants, Folder Political Theology, Page_3, and The Invincible Empire, Chapter 5 (with analysis of Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola).

See also The Power of Coercion – original post in Folder Archive_2016, Page 4_June_2016


Σs7 For instance, see the following Socrates’ remarks concerning slavery [Plato Theaetetus 172b–173e]:

– slavery “makes devious deeds inevitable,” and deprives mind of “a single wholesome thought” (as soon as Socrates referred to a speaker before the Athenian lawcourt as to a slave, it is obvious that Socrates assumes that the speaker does not possesses honesty, truthfulness, and ability to think)

– the consummate philosopher (mentioned as the opposite to a slave) is concerned only with the search for truth; in his thought he has the complete freedom, he is not involved in the agora discussions, lawcourts, and political clubs

– before a lawcourt, the philosopher looks like a fool because the philosopher’s truth is not compatible with the something that the society holds to be the truth.


Σs8 See The Plundered People – Original Post in Folder Archive_2012, Page 2_February_2012


Σs9 In fact, the Hebrew tribe – descendents of Abraham – was enslaved by the Egyptians: four hundred years they lived as slaves in Egypt, the land of Cham {Psalm 104(105):23}, humbled and afflicted, because they have to learn slavery, so they would appreciate the freedom. They received the first knowledge of truth – the Law of God – through Moses. However, gradually, the scribes converted the Law into lies: they took the key of understanding, yet entered not and closed entrance to the others {Matthew 23; Luke 11:29–54}. Therefore, when the opponents of Lord Jesus Christ profess their eternal freedom, they tell untruth.

Next, when they took up the stones to throw them on Lord Jesus Christ, they revealed their lawlessness (only their courts after some judicial procedures had the authority to send man to death) and inclination to murder {Genesis 15:13–16; John 7:19–20; 8:31–33, 59; Matthew 23:1–2; Luke 11:52; John 11:47–54, 57; 12:17–19; Jeremiah 8:8–10; Romans 1:25}. Their problem is that they lost ability of reasoning, because they had lost understanding of the Law: they are not able to see that their actions (lies, lawlessness, intention to kill) precisely confirm the evaluation they received from God.



Σs10 An interesting illustration of the potential of the heathen philosophy: two of those who became the greatest criminals in the history of rulers – Alexander of Macedonia and Nero the Roman emperor – were the pupils of the philosophers considered to be the greatest in their times and spheres. Aristotle (384–322 B.C.; Greek heathen “classic” philosophy) formed the outlook of Alexander of Macedonia, and Seneca (4? B.C. – A.D. 65; Roman stoicism) was the mentor of Nero.








The Complete Parallel Bible. New York and Oxford, U.K.:  Oxford University Press, 1993.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. Trans. Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich. New York:  HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.

II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary by P. Kyle McCarter. The Anchor Bible, v. 9.  Garden City, New York:  Doubleday, 1984.

Preface. The Bible. New York:  American Bible Society, 1970.


Aristotle. "Politics." Aristotle’s Politics and Poetics. Trans. Benjamin Jowett and Thomas Twining with an Introduction by Lincoln Diamant. New York:  Viking Press, 1957.

Aristotle. "The Eudemian Ethics." The Athenian Constitution. The Eudemian Ethics. On Virtues and Vices. v. 20. With an English Translation by H. Rackham. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard University Press; London:  William Heinemann, 1971. 23 vols.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love. With a New Introduction by Thomas Hibbs. Trans. J.B. Shaw. Gateway Editions. Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 1961.

  Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). Homilies on the Gospel of St. John (Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John). Trans. John Gibb and James Innes. A Select Library of the Nicene and Past–Nicene Fathers. v. 7. Buffalo:  Christian Literature, 1888.  7–452. 14 vols.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). On Christian Doctrine. Trans. J.F. Shaw. A Select Library of the Nicene and Past–Nicene Fathers. 14 vols. Buffalo:  Christian Literature, 1887. v.2.  513–597.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). Select Letters. With an English translation by James Houston Baxter. London:  William Heinemann; New York:  G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1930.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life. The Fathers of the Church. v.56. Trans. Donald A.Gallagher and Idella J.Gallagher. Washington, D.C.: Catholic UP, 1966.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). The City of God Against the Pagans. The Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1960–1968. 7 vols.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). The Confessions. Trans. R.S. Pine–Coffin. University of Chicago. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1990.

Augustine (Augustinus, Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, Saint). The Political Writings of St. Augustine. Ed. with an Introduction by Henri Paoluccli, including an Interpretive Analysis by Dino Bigongiari. Chicago, Gateway Editions, 1962.

Baybrook, Gar. Heresies of the Christian Church. Payson, Arizona: Leaves of Autumn Books, 1998.

Chaeremon, Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher: The Fragments. Collected and translated with explanatory Notes by Pieter Willem van der Horst. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1984.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. "De Natura Deorum." De Natura Deorum. Academica. by Cicero. With an English trans. by H. Rackham. London:  William Heinemann; New York:  G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1939. 2–395.

Conway, John Donald.  Times of Decision:  Story of the Councils. Notre Dame, Indiana:  Fides, 1962.

  Deane, Herbert A. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Ed. Norman P. Tanner. London and Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward, Georgetown UP, 1990.

Documents of the Christian Church. Selected and edited by Henry Bettenson. 3rd ed. Ed. Chris Maunder. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Dulles, Avery Robert. The Craft of Theology:  From Symbol to System. New York:  Crossroad, 1995.

Duns Scotus, John. "The Oxford Commentary on The Four Books of The Master of the Sentences." Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Part II:  Roger Bacon to William of Ockham. Ed. and trans. Richard McKeon. New York, Chicago, Boston:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 313–350.

Durant, Will.  The Story of Civilization. The Age of Faith. (A.D. 325–1300).  New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1950.

Emery, Kent. Monastic, Scholastic, and Mystical Theologies from the Later Middle Ages. Variorum Collected studies Series; CS561. Aldershot, Hampshire, U.K., Brookfield, Vermont:  Variorum, 1996.

Fahey, Michael A. "Trinitarian Theology in Thomas Aquinas: One Latin Medieval Pursuit of Word and Silence." Trinitarian Theology East and West: St. Thomas Aquinas – St Gregory Palamas by Michael A. Fahey and John Meyendorff. Patriarch Athenagoras Memorial Lectures. Brookline, Massachusetts:  Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1977. 5–23.

Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. 1955.  Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1986. 2 vols. v.1.

Grun, Bernard. The Timetables of History:  a Horizontal Linkage of Peoples and Events. Based on Werner Stein's KULTURFAHRPLAN. 3rd revised ed. New York:  Simon & Schuster and Touchstone, 1991.

von Hartmann, Eduard. Philosophy of the Unconscious:  Speculative Results According to the Inductive Method of Physical Science. With a Preface by C.L. Ogden. 1931. Westport, Connecticut:  Greenwood Press, 1972.

  Hitler Directs His War: The Secret Records of his Daily Military Conferences. Selected and Annotated by Felix Gilbert, from the Manuscript in the University of Pennsylvania Library. New York:  Octagon Books, 1982.

Holmes, Arthur F. Christianity and Philosophy. Chicago:  Inter–Varsity Press, 1963.

Hughes, Philip. The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils 325–1870.  New York:  Hanover House, 1961.

Kreeft, Peter. "Introduction." A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990. 11–22.

  Lacouture, Jean. Jesuits:  A Multibiography.  Trans. Jeremy Leggatt. Washington, D.C.:  Counterpoint, 1995.

Küng, Hans.  Structures of the Church.  New York:  Crossroad, 1982.

La Due, William J.  The Chair of Saint Peter:  A History of the Papacy.   Maryknoll,   New York:   Orbis  Books,  1999.

Lea, Henry Charles. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages. New York:  Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1887. 3 vols.

  Likoudis, James. Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism:  the 14th Century Apologia of Demetrios Kydones for Unity with Rome. New York:  Catholics United for the Faith, 1983.

Mansfeld (Mansfield), Jaap. "Philosophy in the Service of Scripture:  Philo’s Exegetical Strategies." The Question of “Eclecticism”: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy. Eds. John M. Dillon and A.A. Long. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California:  University of California Press, 1988. 70–102.

Matthew of Aquasparta. "Ten Disputed Questions on Knowledge." Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Part II:  Roger Bacon to William of Ockham. Ed. and trans. by Richard McKeon. New York, Chicago, Boston:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. 240–302.

St. Maximus the Confessor.The Church’s Mystagogy.” Selected Writings (The Four Hundred Chapters on Love. Chapters on Knowledge. The Church's Mystagogy). Translation and Notes by George C. Berthold. Mahwah, New Jersey:  Paulist Press, 1985.

Maycock, Alan L.  The Inquisition from Its Establishment to the Great Schism:  An Introductory Study. With an Introduction by Ronald Knox. New York and Evanston:  Harper & Row, 1969.

McKeon, Richard. "Introductory Notes." Selections from Medieval Philosophers. Part II:  Roger Bacon to William of Ockham. Ed. and trans. Richard McKeon. New York, Chicago, Boston:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. IX–XVIII, 3–6, 111–117, 149–158, 235–239, 303–312, 351–359.

New Catholic Encyclopedia.  Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1967. 17 vols.

O'Connell, Robert J. Imagination and Metaphysics in St. Augustine. The Aquinas Lecture, 1986. Milwaukee: Marquette UP, 1986.

O'Donnell, James J. Augustine. Twayne's World Authors Series, 759. Boston, Massachusetts:  Twayne, 1985.

Origen. Origen, Spirit and Fire. A Thematic Anthology of his Writings by Hans Urs von Balthasar. Trans. Rober J. Daly, S.J. Washington, D.C.:  Catholic University  of America Press, 1984.

Paolucci, Henri. "Introduction." The Political Writings of St. Augustine. Ed. with an Introduction by Henri Paoluccli; Interpretive Analysis  by  Dino Bigongiari. Chicago, Gateway  Editions, 1962. vii–xxiii.

Papademetriou, George C. "Saint Augustine in the Greek Orthodox Tradition." Agape and Diaconia:  Essays in Memory of Bishop Gerasimos of Abydos. Ed. Peter A. Chamberas. Brookline, Massachusetts:  Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998. 143–154.

Passelecq, Georges, and Bernard Suchecky. The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI. Trans. Steven Randall. With an Introduction by Garry Wills. New York:  Harcourt Brace, 1997.

The Philokalia: The Complete Text Compiled by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, with the assistance of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline) Constantine Cavarnos, Dana Miller, Basil Osborne, Norman Russel. London:  Faber & Faber, 1979–1995.  4 vols.

Pilkington, J.G. "Notes" to The Confessions by St. Augustine. A Select Library of the Nicene and Past–Nicene Fathers. v. 1.  Buffalo:  Christian Literature, 1892.  27–207.  14 vols.

Plato. The Collected Dialogues. Letters. Eds. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Bollingen Series LXXI. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1989.

Romanides, Joannes S. Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine:  An Interplay between Theology and Society. Patriarch Athenagoras Memorial Lectures. Brookline, Massachusetts:  Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981.

Rule, William H. The Brand of Dominic, or Inquisition at Rome “Supreme and Universal.”  New York:  Carlton & Phillips, 1853.

Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism:  A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries. Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1955. New York:  AMS, 1983 (reprint).

Runia, David T. Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, v.32. Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J. Brill, 1995.

Savitsky, Alice A. The Invincible Empire. Washington, DC: Aehesia Services, 2003.

Schaff, Philip. "Prolegomena:  St. Augustine’s Life and Work." A Select Library of the Nicene and Past–Nicene Fathers v. 1.  Buffalo:  Christian Literature, 1892.  1–27. 14 vols.

Sherrard, Philip. Church, Papacy, and Schism: A Theological Enquiry. London: SPCK, 1978.

Sinnige, Th. G. "Gnostic Influences in the Early Works of Plotinus and in Augustine." Plotinus amid Gnostics and Christians.  Papers Presented at the Plotinus Symposium Held at the Free University, Amsterdam, on 25 January 1984. Ed. David T. Runia. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU Uitgeverij / Free University Press, 1984. 73–97.

The Sunset Knowledge: The Sacred Doctrines of Babylon, Egypt, and India. St. Petersburg, 1837. (Russian)

Synave, Paul, and Pierre Benoit. Prophecy and Inspiration: A Commentary on the Summa Theologica II–II, Questions 171–178. Trans. Avery R. Dulles and Thomas L. Sheridan. New York:  Desclee, 1961

Tertullian, Quintius Septimius Florens. The Treatise against Hermogenes. Trans. and Annotated by J.H.Waszink. Ancient Christian Writers. The Works of the Fathers in Translation. № 24. Westminster, Maryland:  The Newman Press, 1956.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint). The Trinity and The Unicity of The Intellect. Trans. Rose Emmanuella Brennan. London:  B. Herder, 1946.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint). Summa Theologica. First Complete American Edition in 3 volumes literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, San Francisco: Benziger Brothers, 1947. 3 vols.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint). Summa Contra Gentiles in: Summa Theologica I-I, I-II. Summa Contra Gentiles. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Ed. Anton C. Pegis. New York: Random House, 1945. 2 vols.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint).  Truth.  Trans. Robert W. Mulligan. 1954. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1994.

Trager, James. The People’s Chronology: A Year–by–Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present. Rev. ed. A Henry Holt Reference Book. New York: Henry Holt, 1992.

Vacandard, Elphege. The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. 1915.  Trans. from the 2nd edition Bertrand L. Conway. Merrick, New York:  Richwood Publishing, 1977.

van Winden, J.C.M. Archè: A Collection of Patristic Studies. Ed. J. Den Boeft and D. T. Runia. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae v. XLI. Leiden, New York, Köln:  Brill, 1997.

Willett, Franciscus.  Understanding the Inquisition.  N. Easton, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Press, 1968.



w1]  Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IV/Manichaean Controversy/Against the Epistle of Manichaeus/Chapter 1


[w2] The Book of the Two Principles. Cathar Texts and Rituals. The Gnostic Society Library []

[w3] Albigenses []

[w4] Masato Tojo, Ph. D. Manichaeism, Esoteric Buddhism & Oriental theosophy; Their Common Ontological Scheme, Emergence of Universal Theosophy in Asia. []


[w6] Manichæism. []

[w7] Mystici Corporis Christi. Encyclical of pope Pius XII On the Mystical Body of Christ. 1943. http:// www. vatican. va/ holy_father/pius_xii/ encyclicals/documents/hf_p–xii_enc_29061943_ mystici–corporis–christi_ en. html




Copyright (c)2010 Sunday's Thoughts &