Posted on 12/22/2006 11:58:59 AM PST by Teófilo
Echoes of our own dissenters can be heard in the Holy Mountain.
Folks, for the last few days I've been tracking several news streams regarding the eviction of a number of monks from the ancient Esphigmenou monastery, located in the monastic republic of Mount Athos—also known as the "Holy Mountain"—in Northern Greece. Most Orthodox Christians see the monks residing in the various Athonite monasteries the theological trend-setters of their communion.
Background
The current dispute centers on ecumenism. The current residents of the Ephigmenou monastery refuse to recognize the Orthodox-Catholic rapprochement, of which the late visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Patriarch Bartholomew was a luminous example. In fact, the Patriarch recently visited the monastery and asked the monks to reconsider their position.
The monks at Ephigmenou wanted nothing to do with this and apparently did something that placed them at odds with the Greek Orthodox hierarchy and with their neighboring monasteries in the Holy Mountain. Although I am not exactly sure what did they do to rock the boat—Orthodox hierarchs must allow a certain degree of anti-Catholicism suspicion to run in their Church, whether they personally agree with the attitude, or not—I speculate that the rebel monks crossed a few red lines that earned them the wrath of the Greek Orthodox Church.
Nevertheless, the dispute has caught the attention of our State Department, which has approached the issue from the viewpoint that the Greek government and the Patriarchate are violating the religious freedom of the rebel monks of Esphigmenou.
The intra-Orthodox doctrinal dispute between Esphigmenou monastery on Mt. Athos and the Ecumenical Patriarchate that administers the region under the 1924 Charter of Mt. Athos continued. Esphigmenou is an Old Calendarist monastery that does not recognize the authority of the Patriarchate. In March 2005, the Council of State declined to rule on the appeal of a 2002 eviction request by the Ecumenical Patriarchate against the abbot of Esphigmenou on the grounds that it was not competent, under the constitution, to judge the ecclesiastic and administrative jurisdiction of the Patriarchate over Mt. Athos, but the Government had not enforced the expulsion order. Approximately ninety similar appeals by other Esphigmenou monks were pending. In late 2005, the Holy Community governing Mt. Athos appointed a new Esphigmenou monastic order, recognized by the Patriarchate, to replace the existing order. An open dispute between the two monastic orders ensued in December. The Esphigmenou monastery complained about restrictions on access to supplies and medical care that it claimed threatened the survival of the monastery. Government and ecclesiastic representatives claimed they preferred to settle this dispute without eviction.The dissenting monks of Esphigmenou have a copy of this State Department finding on their website.
Now, the situation has decayed enough for monks to arm themselves with "crowbars and sledgehammers." A number have been wounded. An eviction action is imminent.
Monks stake position against "the heresy of ecumenism"
Their website states the position of the monks of Esphigmenou as follows:
The fathers of Esphigmenou struggle against the heresy of ecumenism which states that there is no one church which possesses the Truth. The Orthodox Church believes, as the monks of Esphigmenou Monastery believe, that the Church has never lost the Truth or its unity. The Nicene Creed states the Orthodox Church’s dogmatic basis, “I believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I believe in one baptism.” Ecumenism rejects these fundamental truths of the church by teaching that there are many churches and many baptisms.A recent report also posted on the site statesThe beliefs of ecumenism and the beliefs of Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. You can either believe in the Creed or you can believe in ecumenism, not both. By embracing ecumenism Patriarch Bartholomew has embraced a belief in conflict with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. This is what the monks object to and what they wish to discuss with the Patriarch. There is not a single saint of the Church, ever, who believes in what Patriarch Bartholomew teaches and practices with regards to ecumenism, and this has caused great concern on the part of the monks. The Patriarch refuses to allay those concerns and refuses to engage in constructive dialogue with the monks. He has, however, demanded an apology in writing for questioning him.
Though praying with non-orthodox is strictly forbidden by the Holy and Sacred Canons of the church, Patriarch Bartholomew has once again demonstrated that things like the Canons of the church don't matter - he is a man above the law. To sin is to transgress God's law; to commit heresy is to change God's law. He'll decide what's lawful and what's not. Starving monks - yup, that's OK. Praying with non-orthodox, that's OK too.When I refer on my ocassional posts on the subject to Orthodox "traditionalists" and "integrists" (this latter term not to be understood as derogatory) I have expressions such as the above in mind, and the ones who uttered them.
Christian Agape takes precedence and must prevail.
It also seems to me that in terms of their beliefs, attitudes, and interpretations of past and present canonical law, these monks are little different from our own schismatic "traditionalists" who stand in judgment of the Church and of the Successor of St. Peter, they being the only ones in the right and everyone else, wrong, by their own fiat.
There's an argument, a powerful one methinks, that the command to agape, that is, to LOVE, takes precedence over any fundamentalistic reading of the canons, such as these monks engage in, or our own "traditionalists" do in respect to the Mass of Pius V and the "Syllabus of Errors" of Blessed Pope Pius IX, to give two equivalent examples. Needless to say, our own schismatic "traditionalists" are as fond of the Orthodox Church as theirs are of our Church.
I think that "traditionalism" of this kind is legalistic and at its core, loveless and sterile. Traditionalists of the Christian East and West suffer from a deep-seated illness of the soul, one that moves them to presume that the Churches' only legitimate course of action is to submit to their own narrow interpretations, or else. It is the same sickly and deplorable attitude I see in militant Islamists and as such irrational and ultimately, unworthy of a disciple of Christ.
The present age demands a closer living of the Gospel in faith and love. The confrontation between the Eastern and the Western Churches undermines the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and therefore, the salvation of the world. There's a Greater Law than the canons--many of which are no longer enforced--to which all judgmental attitudes of the "traditionalist" sort must yield.
It appears to me that the monks in question are in a state of disobedience to legitimate canonical authority and when monks become disobedient, they lose any claims to their patrimony as a consequence—particularly since their patrimony is suspect in the first place. A sad truth they're going to learn the hard way.
Now, I am not sanctioning violence here of any kind, from any side, mind you. But it seems to me that, had religious obedience and humility prevailed here, this wouldn't have happened. Yes, I know, that's an obvious observation but angry people seldom heed obvious observations.
- Read the Excommunication Decree and Removal Notice written by Patriarch Bartholomew against the rebel monks of .
- Read the Wikipedia article about the Greek Old Calendarists and compare their outlook with the one shown by the SSPX
It's not the truth, and that is one banner I'll never lay down.
“perhaps you, Dsc, ever hopeful that ideology serves truth more reliably than mere facts, can be the decider here...”
Well, I can decide this: you’re playing fast and loose with your “facts.” Let’s look…
“You know what's funny about this? The common defense of Bush's lying is in essence that he was an ineffectual, incompetent, fool, who surrounded himself with the same. The record is rather that Bush had no interest in any intelligence that moved him away from his desire to invade Iraq.”
What “facts” are assumed here?
1. That only an ineffectual, incompetent, fool can be deceived.
2. That Bush is therefore lying.
3. That Bush had some mysterious “desire” to invade Iraq, unrelated to any valid reason.
4. That he “ignored” intelligence that “moved him away” (whatever that means) from this mysterious lust to invade Iraq.
When you see the Hatter, tell him I’ll be late for tea.
Anyone can be deceived. You, for example, with regard to this issue.
I will grant you that Bush did at least one extremely foolish thing, and that was to fail to purge the Clintonoids from every last nook and cranny of public life. However, it is nonsensical to assert that a President is “an ineffectual, incompetent, fool” because the CIA was able to mislead him. The slightest knowledge of the way things work on this planet precludes any such rash judgment.
Further, this mysterious “desire” that Bush supposedly had to invade Iraq (for reasons unconnected with the security and interests of the United States) belongs in the same tabloids with “Having Elvis’s Baby: Impregnated by the King on Board a UFO” stories.
Falling for Drumheller’s story is one of the most gullible things I’ve seen in a long time. Only a renegade with an agenda would prattle like that.
“that Saddam didn't even know he had.”
Ah, another “fact.”
"All this was discussed right here on FR."
“That is only meaningless.”
If you think so, perhaps you’d be happier over at DU.
“The only question is - "Who is 'we' Kemosabe?"
That is "the only question" for the malicious left, who have no interest in the truth. Others might note that the phrase, “the one reason,” implies that there were other reasons. Sound and sufficient reasons, in fact, but which did not lend themselves to the four-second sound bite.
“When one single analyst told the administration that aluminum tubes could only be used for uranium enrichment, the Dept of Energy (the folks who know from uranium enrichment) were saying just the opposite, that the tubes were not at all suitable for such use.”
Now that, right there, is another example of a person being deceived. You again. Here’s a more accurate summary of the situation: “Upon analysis of the procurement information, technical analysts at the CIA became convinced that the items were for use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge program, a uranium enrichment technology that Iraq had intensively developed between 1987 and early 1991. Because the parts had certain specifications and were ordered in large numbers, the analysts concluded that the parts were intended for the serial production of thousands of centrifuges. Because each centrifuge enriches a relatively small amount of uranium, several thousand centrifuges must be connected by pipes into "cascades" in order to produce annually enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.
Other U.S. intelligence and nuclear analysts, however, have challenged the conclusion that the tubes could only be intended for a gas centrifuge program. These analysts have concluded that the tubes are "dual-use" items that could have been intended for non-nuclear uses. Several government experts said that the tubes could be for conventional weapons programs, including artillery or anti-tank rockets. Thus, the dispute is whether enough evidence exists to state that the tubes were definitely ordered for the gas centrifuge program.”
So, you see that it was not “one single analyst.” You were lied to, and believed it. You were deceived. Further, there was no consensus that the tubes were “unsuitable.” The debate was over whether they were dual purpose or not. Once more: lied to-->deceived-->you.
“Bush went public only with the former claim of course, presenting it as a certainty”
Bush weighed the evidence carefully, pondered conflicting claims by experts, and made his best judgment. That’s as good as it gets in the real world.
“It is impossible for me to decide which of those two possible explanation condemn this administration the most thoroughly”
That’s because you are far more interested in condemning the administration than you are in searching for the truth.
"The CIA has concluded that these tubes were specifically manufactured for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. Many in the expert community both inside and outside government, however, do not agree with this conclusion. The vast majority of gas centrifuge experts in this country and abroad who are knowledgeable about this case reject the CIA's case and do not believe that the tubes are specifically designed for gas centrifuges. In addition, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have consistently expressed skepticism that the tubes are for centrifuges. In his February 7, 2003 report to the UN Security Council, Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's Director General, said: "Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq's efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuges.
"All experts agree that after modification the tubes could be used as a rotor of a poor quality gas centrifuge. Complicating the realization of this design is that the wall of the tubes is unusually thick, and the tubes' diameter is not optimal for such a centrifuge. Many centrifuge experts believe that this design would not work as the basis of a centrifuge plant.
"On the other hand, the tubes' dimensions are consistent with a known Iraqi rocket program. ElBaradei moreover reported to the Security Council that extensive field investigation and document analysis failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these aluminum tubes for any project other than in rockets.
"After months of investigation, the administration has failed to prove its claim that the tubes are intended for use in an Iraqi gas centrifuge program. Despite being presented with evidence countering this claim, the administration persists in making misleading comments about the significance of the tubes."
A single "junior analyst" at the CIA claimed the tubes were for enrichment, while the Dept of Energy - who should know - said the tubes were unsuitable - and they told the adminstration.
When you claim something is certain when you know it is far less than that, you are lying.
Essentially, by floating your unsupported "Clintonoid" silliness, you are really just saying the president is an incompetent, an idiot - completely plausible, as long as it is also recognized that he and his administration have no regard for the truth.
“A single "junior analyst" at the CIA claimed the tubes were for enrichment”
There’s no support for that assertion. Nothing you posted even suggests that. The situation is that “the CIA” concluded “that these tubes were specifically manufactured for use in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium.” I don’t know why you keep repeating that unsupported assertion about “a single ‘junior analyst,’ ” unless it’s just that you hope people will believe it if you repeat it often enough.
As Michael Crichton wrote, “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
Further, the IAEA is a despicable pack of anti-Americans who couldn’t be trusted to give directions to a candy store. Therefore, this inane prattle about “many” and “the vast majority” is worse than puerile. It literally makes me nauseous that you are setting Mohamed ElBaradei up as proof of anything, much less these mad notions that Bush had some mysterious “desire” to invade Iraq.
All that said, the strongest rebuttal that these despicable reprobates could mount was, “not likely,” in the face of the fact that “all experts agree that after modification the tubes could be used as a rotor.” But that’s enough for you to conclude – and worse, proselytize – that Bush was “lying.”
In my view, your accusation that he was lying, on the basis of nothing whatsoever, constitutes lying.
“the Dept of Energy - who should know - said the tubes were unsuitable - and they told the adminstration.”
1. You have provided no support for that assertion.
2. Yes, the DOE should know; however, (a) do they? and (b) would they tell the truth if they did?
3. Even if they did tell the administration, they were merely one voice among many.
4. None of the best minds in any field are career bureaucrats. Anyone would be justified in regarding DOE scientists as second or third-tier.
“Essentially, by floating your unsupported "Clintonoid" silliness”
The fact that you are ignorant of the problem in the CIA doesn’t make it either unsupported or silly. I would suggest you spend less time on whatever whacko sites you’re getting this “Bush lied” lunacy from and more time trying to find out what’s really going on.
“you are really just saying the president is an incompetent, an idiot”
Are you already reduced to repeating talking points, even after they’ve been debunked? That’s pitiful.
I demonstrated in my last note that even people who are not “idiots” can be deceived. As, of course, every intelligent human being is aware. This is especially true when the deceivers are (a) expert, and (b) credible. Before you can again advance the argument that Bush having been deceived makes him “an incompetent, an idiot,” you must demonstrate that only incompetents and idiots can be deceived.
See, that’s how it works. If you make an assertion and someone shows it to be lunacy, you have to demonstrate that it’s not lunacy. Otherwise, just continuing to repeat it makes you a lunatic.
Wrong.
"You have provided no support for that assertion [that the Dept of Energy found the tubes unsuitable for rotor use and told the administration]."
Wrong again - it's been widely reported, it's not in the least controversial.
Here it is again:
"In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking to a group of Wyoming Republicans in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States.
"Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
"But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
"The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government."
In addition, some in the CIA held a dissenting view - were they the anti-"Clintonoids," and if so, why were they disregarded?
Yeah, I know, I know - the New York Times, like the IAEA, like Clinton and his "oids," is pure SATANIC evil.
And support for your notion that the ever-honest but apparently immensely trusting and gullible Bush administration had no clue that anyone had any idea that those tubes led anywhere other than a mushroom cloud, all based on the say so of embedded and evil SATANIC "Clintonoids"?
Why, you've got D*ck...
“Wrong.”
Once again you provide no support for your assertion that claims the aluminum tubes were only suitable for centrifuges came from a single analyst at the CIA. "Wrong," is it? Okay, where’s your support?
"You have provided no support for that assertion [that the Dept of Energy found the tubes unsuitable for rotor use and told the administration]."
Even a cursory reading of my last note shows that my arguments were that the DOE was at best merely one voice among many, that they are second and third-tier minds, and that their veracity is dubious.
“In addition, some in the CIA held a dissenting view - were they the anti-"Clintonoids," and if so, why were they disregarded?”
As you seem completely unfamiliar with the dynamics of such a situation, you’d do better to learn more before speaking.
“Yeah, I know, I know - the New York Times, like the IAEA, like Clinton and his "oids," is pure SATANIC evil.”
Pretty much, yes. Believe the NYT --> be deceived.
“And support for your notion that the … Bush administration had no clue that anyone had any idea that those tubes led anywhere other than a mushroom cloud…”
And in this note you sink to misrepresenting your opponent’s position. My goodness, not only are you arguing demonrat talking points, you’re doing it like a demonrat.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1752183/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708458/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689181/posts
If I had time, I’d go further back to the posts from early in the Bush administration that specifically discuss the Clintonoid cabal in the CIA working to shaft Bush.
Of course, anyone who was interested in the truth could do that for himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.