You offer a very reasonable historical account and a sentiment shared by many. I almost forgot, we must include this statement attributed to the Saint, which suggests he held the King in high disregard, counting him amongst other infamous figures:
“Now we don't have Ali Pasha, Hitler, Mussolini or the former King Constantine as our enemy,…
You offer a very reasonable historical account and a sentiment shared by many. I almost forgot, we must include this statement attributed to the Saint, which suggests he held the King in high disregard, counting him amongst other infamous figures:
“Now we don't have Ali Pasha, Hitler, Mussolini or the former King Constantine as our enemy, but the devil. That is why we will also have a heavenly salary…”
«…γιατί τώρα δεν έχουμε εχθρό τον Αλή Πασά, τον Χίτλερ, τον Μουσολίνι ή τον Τέως Βασιλιά Κωνσταντίνο, αλλά τον διάβολο. Γιαυτό θα έχουμε και ουράνιο μισθό…»
This is quite explicit to “former King Constantine,” so we require an understanding of the “King Constantine” above, and below, in this final account, we read:
They asked the Elder: “In the end, will Constantine or John take the city?” And they asked this, because one prophecy says that the king from poverty will be called John, while another says that the City was surrendered to Constantine, and Constantine will take it. The Elder then smiled and said: “You are impatient. You will see them with your own eyes. States also have prime ministers and generals, not just kings.”
Ρωτούσαν τον γέροντα : «Τελικά , Κωνσταντίνος ή Ιωάννης θα την πάρει την Πόλη; ». Και το ρωτούσαν αυτό , επειδή μια προφητεία λέει ότι ο εκ πενίας βασιλεύς θα λέγεται Ιωάννης , ενώ άλλη λέει ότι την Πόλη Κωνσταντίνος την παρέδωσε , Κωνσταντίνος θα την πάρει .Ο γέροντας τότε χαμογελώντας έλεγε : «Είστε ανυπόμονοι . Θα τα δείτε με τα μάτια σας . Τα κράτη έχουν και πρωθυπουργούς και στρατηγούς , όχι μόνο βασιλιάδες ».
Right. And ofc, this leads to the question of "which John" or "which Constantine". In the Eastern Roman Empire, there were 11 Emperors who bore the name Constantine, and 8 who bore the name John.
From what I know, the last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos (r. 1448-1453) lived and died a Unite, upholding the execrable Union of Florence (1439) promulgated by his elder brother and predecessor, Emperor John VIII (r. 1425 AD - 1448 AD).
Elder/St Ephraim of Arizona, when he was still with us, was known to believe that the Sleeping King/Marble Emperor would be St John III Vatatzes (r. 1222 AD - 1255 AD), and personally, I'm inclined to believe him, and find that interpretation compelling for a variety of reasons.
As for the Modern Kings of Greece, and the statements of St Paisios, it's very possible that the Constantine he was praising was Constantine I (r. 1912-1917, 1920-1922), who unlike Constantine II (r. 1964-1972), actually took his role as King very seriously and upheld both Orthodox values and the national interests of Greece. Constantine I's mother was also a Romanov princess, and he was married to the sister of the German Kaiser. All of this contributed to his neutral stance in WWI, and his being hated by the Allies (Britain and France) and ultimately their overthrowing of him. It was only after their puppet, Venizelos was ousted in the 1920 election, and King Constantine was restored, that all of a sudden Britain and France threw their support, material and otherwise, behind Kemal and the Turkish Nationalists in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), and actively undermined the Greek economy and war effort, in order to pull off another regime change in Greece, which was accomplished via Venizelist military officers, in 1922.
So it's therefore very possible that St Paisios might have said both things; praising Kostas I, and correctly noting the arrogant and insouciant disposition of his namesake, Kostas II; who allowing the country entrusted to him by God, to fall into economic disrepair and political dysfunction, was justly ousted from his throne by historical circumstances.
Highly recommend Paul Alexander's diligent “The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition” and his section on “The Last Roman Emperor.” A few brief selections of particular relevance:
“The most usual designation of the Last Roman Emperor in the Byzantine sources is simply as Emperor or King (βασιλιάς, rex ), either alone or followed by a qualification of the people over whom he rules: Greeks, Romans, or both. The Latin Sibyl is alone in giving him a name, Constans, and the eleventh of the Oracles of Leo refers to him as ό ήλειμμένος ἐπώνυμος Μεναχείμ. A metaphor used in the Visions of Daniel for the Last Roman Emperor is that of the Lion.
When the Last Roman Emperor is first mentioned in Byzantine apocalyptic texts, the circumstances are always to some extent supernatural…
In addition to stating that the Last Roman Emperor will arise suddenly, by divine revelation, that he will be awakened as if from sleep, death, drunkenness, or uselessness, some apocalypses stress his humble origin.
The Slavonic Daniel, for example, has a somewhat obscure passage according to which he is discovered “carrying two coins in order to receive crumbs.” Pseudo-Chrysostom is more explicit: “His name is small in the world.” The Apocalypse of St. Andrew is clearest, for it knows of an Emperor “from poverty.”
Wherever the circumstances of the Last Roman Emperor's death are mentioned, they follow directly upon his surrender of imperial power to God at Jerusalem . This act in turn is invariably related to his victory over the infidels and thus expresses the notion that by it the Last Roman Emperor has discharged the function assigned to him by God, so there is no further need for his offices or his person…
A stable feature of the Byzantine apocalypses is the beginning of the Antichrist's domination immediately after the Last Roman Emperor's surrender of imperial power (and his death, where it is mentioned). Thus, in the Latin version of the Tiburtine Sibyl, the Antichrist ‘will be revealed clearly‘ (revelabitur manifeste) ‘after the surrender.‘“
I am fascinated by the various oracles on the Holy King, and I believe Saint Paisios is explicitly referring to this Great Monarch and not, as to the former King Constantine II, as can be seen by the explicit reference above.
The confusion arises from the reference to “King Constantine.” And indeed, there is classic apocalyptic literature identifying him as “Constantine” or “Constans,” some explicitly as the final Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos, who, after the fall of Byzantium, remains in an occult state to rise at the end of time, like the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.
Some identify the Great Monarch, as you stated, as Ioannis, whether a historical figure, a present one (King Juan Carlos I, see Helen Tzimi Otto's “Their Earthshaking News”), or a future King Ioannis to rise at the appointed time.
Others, such as Elder Joseph of Vatopedi, identify him as a Hidden Saint, whose name is known only to God, to be summoned at the zero hour:
“And now sleeps one who is a political leader… we do not know who he is. However, he is a friend of God. He is a saint! Nevertheless he is a political leader who will take over leadership in God’s command. He will be miraculous. The earth will show its treasures. The poor will become rich. God will dwell with the people. There will be so much tranquility, so much peace, so much happiness, for about 3 - 4 decades so Christians to be well organized after all these, the Antichrist for the end of the world.”
I am inclined toward this latter position, and find classical correlates to be very intriguing. I also find Revelation 19:11-16 to be of interest, although I understand that the Rider on the White Horse is classically interpreted as Christ, the sequence of events is very telling – War, a falling Star on Mystery Babylon (many have identified as the US), the Angelic Court, the Rider on the White Horse, who “has a name written that no one knows but himself.”
There are many traditions that establish the rise of the Great King immediately after the Falling Star (Comet), which comes in the second-half of the World War, we have now just begun.
Very fascinating. You mentioned his surrendering his power at Jerusalem, and the Antichrist's reign beginning shortly after this? Is he defeated by the Antichrist, or is it more that he passes away and somewhere in the aftermath the Antichrist makes his appearance?
Also, how do correlated prophecies of other countries, such as Russian prophecies about the Tsar who will come and rule, German legends about the King under the Mountain, or British legends about the return of Arthur, fit into all this?
this conversation thread is great! this is exactly the discussions we want in our comments. are you a Greek speaker by chance? if so please message me on twitter or telegram! 👀
Unfortunately, my knowledge of Greek is is not strong enough to be of service to you. I can understand spoken Greek, and I can make myself understood, but reading I'm not good enough at, definitely not for translation purposes. Twitter, I don't have, but TG, I do.
Most of the traditions I am familiar with grant him 30 - 40 years of reign before the Antichrist in a post-WW3 world. After having seen great horrors and catastrophe, the Holy Emperor establishes great peace and wealth amongst the people.
I believe there are some traditions having him surrender the crown to Christ at Jerusalem, which seems to suggest his reign is continuous with Christ and will witness the Parousia. The Antichrist, as you know, will possess “otherworldly“ power (perhaps techno-occult) and overrun the world, none can defeat him except Christ.
I would anticipate the Holy Emperor to be the primary center of resistance but there are certain traditions that indicate an alliance between the Holy Emperor and other Kings, such as a new Tsar of Russia, anointed after the war, who will also reject and resist the Antichrist. This needs further study.
I am not familiar with any of the German or British legends. If you have sources, would you kindly share them?
I am not especially familiar with them either. I simply know that there are similar traditions in the West. The Germans used to say, apparently, that Frederick Barbarossa was asleep and would return, or Charlemagne. The British apparently had similar accounts about King Arthur - though where exactly all of these come from; the source materials and such, idk. I'd have to do more research into the matter. The question is, do these tales come from older Orthodox traditions in the West, or, are they merely copycats on the East Roman tradition, done later on by the Papists? Hard to say.
You offer a very reasonable historical account and a sentiment shared by many. I almost forgot, we must include this statement attributed to the Saint, which suggests he held the King in high disregard, counting him amongst other infamous figures:
“Now we don't have Ali Pasha, Hitler, Mussolini or the former King Constantine as our enemy, but the devil. That is why we will also have a heavenly salary…”
«…γιατί τώρα δεν έχουμε εχθρό τον Αλή Πασά, τον Χίτλερ, τον Μουσολίνι ή τον Τέως Βασιλιά Κωνσταντίνο, αλλά τον διάβολο. Γιαυτό θα έχουμε και ουράνιο μισθό…»
This is quite explicit to “former King Constantine,” so we require an understanding of the “King Constantine” above, and below, in this final account, we read:
They asked the Elder: “In the end, will Constantine or John take the city?” And they asked this, because one prophecy says that the king from poverty will be called John, while another says that the City was surrendered to Constantine, and Constantine will take it. The Elder then smiled and said: “You are impatient. You will see them with your own eyes. States also have prime ministers and generals, not just kings.”
Ρωτούσαν τον γέροντα : «Τελικά , Κωνσταντίνος ή Ιωάννης θα την πάρει την Πόλη; ». Και το ρωτούσαν αυτό , επειδή μια προφητεία λέει ότι ο εκ πενίας βασιλεύς θα λέγεται Ιωάννης , ενώ άλλη λέει ότι την Πόλη Κωνσταντίνος την παρέδωσε , Κωνσταντίνος θα την πάρει .Ο γέροντας τότε χαμογελώντας έλεγε : «Είστε ανυπόμονοι . Θα τα δείτε με τα μάτια σας . Τα κράτη έχουν και πρωθυπουργούς και στρατηγούς , όχι μόνο βασιλιάδες ».
Παϊσίου Μοναχού Προφητείες & Διδαχές , Σελ: 434
Right. And ofc, this leads to the question of "which John" or "which Constantine". In the Eastern Roman Empire, there were 11 Emperors who bore the name Constantine, and 8 who bore the name John.
From what I know, the last Roman Emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos (r. 1448-1453) lived and died a Unite, upholding the execrable Union of Florence (1439) promulgated by his elder brother and predecessor, Emperor John VIII (r. 1425 AD - 1448 AD).
Elder/St Ephraim of Arizona, when he was still with us, was known to believe that the Sleeping King/Marble Emperor would be St John III Vatatzes (r. 1222 AD - 1255 AD), and personally, I'm inclined to believe him, and find that interpretation compelling for a variety of reasons.
As for the Modern Kings of Greece, and the statements of St Paisios, it's very possible that the Constantine he was praising was Constantine I (r. 1912-1917, 1920-1922), who unlike Constantine II (r. 1964-1972), actually took his role as King very seriously and upheld both Orthodox values and the national interests of Greece. Constantine I's mother was also a Romanov princess, and he was married to the sister of the German Kaiser. All of this contributed to his neutral stance in WWI, and his being hated by the Allies (Britain and France) and ultimately their overthrowing of him. It was only after their puppet, Venizelos was ousted in the 1920 election, and King Constantine was restored, that all of a sudden Britain and France threw their support, material and otherwise, behind Kemal and the Turkish Nationalists in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), and actively undermined the Greek economy and war effort, in order to pull off another regime change in Greece, which was accomplished via Venizelist military officers, in 1922.
So it's therefore very possible that St Paisios might have said both things; praising Kostas I, and correctly noting the arrogant and insouciant disposition of his namesake, Kostas II; who allowing the country entrusted to him by God, to fall into economic disrepair and political dysfunction, was justly ousted from his throne by historical circumstances.
Highly recommend Paul Alexander's diligent “The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition” and his section on “The Last Roman Emperor.” A few brief selections of particular relevance:
“The most usual designation of the Last Roman Emperor in the Byzantine sources is simply as Emperor or King (βασιλιάς, rex ), either alone or followed by a qualification of the people over whom he rules: Greeks, Romans, or both. The Latin Sibyl is alone in giving him a name, Constans, and the eleventh of the Oracles of Leo refers to him as ό ήλειμμένος ἐπώνυμος Μεναχείμ. A metaphor used in the Visions of Daniel for the Last Roman Emperor is that of the Lion.
When the Last Roman Emperor is first mentioned in Byzantine apocalyptic texts, the circumstances are always to some extent supernatural…
In addition to stating that the Last Roman Emperor will arise suddenly, by divine revelation, that he will be awakened as if from sleep, death, drunkenness, or uselessness, some apocalypses stress his humble origin.
The Slavonic Daniel, for example, has a somewhat obscure passage according to which he is discovered “carrying two coins in order to receive crumbs.” Pseudo-Chrysostom is more explicit: “His name is small in the world.” The Apocalypse of St. Andrew is clearest, for it knows of an Emperor “from poverty.”
Wherever the circumstances of the Last Roman Emperor's death are mentioned, they follow directly upon his surrender of imperial power to God at Jerusalem . This act in turn is invariably related to his victory over the infidels and thus expresses the notion that by it the Last Roman Emperor has discharged the function assigned to him by God, so there is no further need for his offices or his person…
A stable feature of the Byzantine apocalypses is the beginning of the Antichrist's domination immediately after the Last Roman Emperor's surrender of imperial power (and his death, where it is mentioned). Thus, in the Latin version of the Tiburtine Sibyl, the Antichrist ‘will be revealed clearly‘ (revelabitur manifeste) ‘after the surrender.‘“
I appreciate this detailed historical rendition.
I am fascinated by the various oracles on the Holy King, and I believe Saint Paisios is explicitly referring to this Great Monarch and not, as to the former King Constantine II, as can be seen by the explicit reference above.
The confusion arises from the reference to “King Constantine.” And indeed, there is classic apocalyptic literature identifying him as “Constantine” or “Constans,” some explicitly as the final Byzantine Emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos, who, after the fall of Byzantium, remains in an occult state to rise at the end of time, like the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.
Some identify the Great Monarch, as you stated, as Ioannis, whether a historical figure, a present one (King Juan Carlos I, see Helen Tzimi Otto's “Their Earthshaking News”), or a future King Ioannis to rise at the appointed time.
Others, such as Elder Joseph of Vatopedi, identify him as a Hidden Saint, whose name is known only to God, to be summoned at the zero hour:
“And now sleeps one who is a political leader… we do not know who he is. However, he is a friend of God. He is a saint! Nevertheless he is a political leader who will take over leadership in God’s command. He will be miraculous. The earth will show its treasures. The poor will become rich. God will dwell with the people. There will be so much tranquility, so much peace, so much happiness, for about 3 - 4 decades so Christians to be well organized after all these, the Antichrist for the end of the world.”
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bon6umAl7MY)
I am inclined toward this latter position, and find classical correlates to be very intriguing. I also find Revelation 19:11-16 to be of interest, although I understand that the Rider on the White Horse is classically interpreted as Christ, the sequence of events is very telling – War, a falling Star on Mystery Babylon (many have identified as the US), the Angelic Court, the Rider on the White Horse, who “has a name written that no one knows but himself.”
There are many traditions that establish the rise of the Great King immediately after the Falling Star (Comet), which comes in the second-half of the World War, we have now just begun.
Very fascinating. You mentioned his surrendering his power at Jerusalem, and the Antichrist's reign beginning shortly after this? Is he defeated by the Antichrist, or is it more that he passes away and somewhere in the aftermath the Antichrist makes his appearance?
Also, how do correlated prophecies of other countries, such as Russian prophecies about the Tsar who will come and rule, German legends about the King under the Mountain, or British legends about the return of Arthur, fit into all this?
this conversation thread is great! this is exactly the discussions we want in our comments. are you a Greek speaker by chance? if so please message me on twitter or telegram! 👀
Unfortunately, my knowledge of Greek is is not strong enough to be of service to you. I can understand spoken Greek, and I can make myself understood, but reading I'm not good enough at, definitely not for translation purposes. Twitter, I don't have, but TG, I do.
Most of the traditions I am familiar with grant him 30 - 40 years of reign before the Antichrist in a post-WW3 world. After having seen great horrors and catastrophe, the Holy Emperor establishes great peace and wealth amongst the people.
I believe there are some traditions having him surrender the crown to Christ at Jerusalem, which seems to suggest his reign is continuous with Christ and will witness the Parousia. The Antichrist, as you know, will possess “otherworldly“ power (perhaps techno-occult) and overrun the world, none can defeat him except Christ.
I would anticipate the Holy Emperor to be the primary center of resistance but there are certain traditions that indicate an alliance between the Holy Emperor and other Kings, such as a new Tsar of Russia, anointed after the war, who will also reject and resist the Antichrist. This needs further study.
I am not familiar with any of the German or British legends. If you have sources, would you kindly share them?
I am not especially familiar with them either. I simply know that there are similar traditions in the West. The Germans used to say, apparently, that Frederick Barbarossa was asleep and would return, or Charlemagne. The British apparently had similar accounts about King Arthur - though where exactly all of these come from; the source materials and such, idk. I'd have to do more research into the matter. The question is, do these tales come from older Orthodox traditions in the West, or, are they merely copycats on the East Roman tradition, done later on by the Papists? Hard to say.