23 Iulie 2008:
Boala lui Corneanu, Ciobotea, & Co. nu e nici colaborationismul, nici neo-calendarismul, nici ecumenismul!
Acestea sunt doar simptome ale maladiei contagioase de fond: nihilismul.
Din fisa de observatie & diagnosticul Dr. Kalomiros:
http://orthodoxyinfo.org/touchstone.pdf
«…Before the advent of our amazingly wondrous age, the Orthodox believed in Orthodoxy, the heretics in their heresy, the atheists in their atheism, and the one attempted to convince the other that he was in possession of the truth. People, that is, believed in truth and labored on its behalf, even those who were ignorant of the Truth. The terrible apostasy of our era is not due to the fact that the world is filled with heretics and atheists. All things being equal, they cannot but strengthen the faith of the pious, no matter how many they may be. Our contemporary apostasy is due to the fact that people today have ceased believing in the truth; they have ceased believing in the existence of truth and that it is worth struggling for. Heretics who believe in their heresy have become a rare species. Strange as it may seem, even the ideological atheists, who have some conviction in their type of atheism, are somewhat of a blessing in our era. People today have lost every conviction. All things to them are relative, doubtful, indefinite. Little exists for them that merits fighting for. Little appears worthy of their support except the pleasures of this fleeting life. In such a world, an atheist and a heretic of conviction are living islets in an ocean of death, because such conviction witnesses to a zeal for the truth, which, no matter how bereft of understanding, dark, or impassioned it may be, has not burned all the bridges connecting a soul with God, Who, even if they do not know and accept it, is Himself the Truth…
…
Ecumenism teaches that the truth is nowhere to be found. It is the assassination of the hope that has lived in the heart of man from time immemorial. It is the rejection of Truth and its supplantation with man-made truths. These man-made truths, of necessity, must make concessions, one to another, for the common good. Ecumenism is the last and most perfect trap that the devil has set for mankind and his most terrible, underhanded attack against the Church of Christ. It is that poison which paralyzes the soul and renders it incapable of believing, of seeing the light, incapable even of thirsting for the truth. It darkens the mind of the Orthodox Christian and affects him, so that instead of loving the sick and laboring to cure the illness, he ends up loving the very sickness; instead of loving the heretic, he ends up loving his heresy.
…
Constantinople opened the back door to Ecumenism in the year 1919. The Anglican or Episcopalian ‘Church,’ which had organized the ‘Ecumenical Movement,’ sent a deputation in that year to the Orthodox Churches, inviting them to send representatives to the ‘Faith and Order’ assembly of the Ecumenical Movement, which was to convene in Geneva in August of the following year. At that time, Dorotheus of Prusa was the
locum tenens of the Ecumenical Throne. At a meeting of the Patriarchal Synod on January 10, 1919, he stated, ‘I think it is more than time that the Orthodox Church also think seriously about the subject of the union of the individual Christian churches.’
The Synod was pleased to accept the suggestion of the locum tenens and proceeded to form committees, whose task it was to study the various ways this union might take place. In one year, by January, 1920, the historic Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate ‘To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be’ was ready, and dispatched to all corners of the world. It elicited a universally enthusiastic response. Protestants of every denomination applauded the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate has ever since preened itself for this encyclical which proves it to have been a pioneer in the Ecumenical Movement. According to this encyclical, the union of the churches would become a reality with the gradual erasure of differences between the ‘individual churches.’ As a first step, the encyclical suggested:
1. The adoption by all the Churches of one single calendar for the common celebration of the great Christian feasts (holy days),
2. The exchange of fraternal letters,
3. Fraternal contact between the representat ives of t h e Churches,
4. Establishment of relations among the divinity schools and exchange of documents and periodicals ‘of each church.’
5. Student exchange,
6. The convocation of pan-Christian assemblies,
7. An objective, historic examination of doctrinal differences,
8. Mutual respect of practices and customs of the various ‘churches.’
9. Mutual sharing of houses of prayer and cemeteries, for the burial ‘of adherents of other confessions.’
10. Implementation of common rules regarding mixed marriages, and
11. Mutual support in the realm of religious edification, philanthropy, etc.
A bishop who held the throne of Constantinople had not visited the West for centuries. The last to make such a visit was Patriarch Joseph who took part in the false Synod of Florence in 1439. (At that time only Saint Mark of Ephesus refused to sign the union of the Orthodox Catholic Churches with the Papacy.) That Patriarch had an inglorious end. Nonetheless, after so many centuries, it was he whom Dorotheus wished to emulate. Royalty, lords, and various officials received Dorotheus in England with great pomp. He was unable, however, to be present at the great ceremony prepared in his honor. He also died in the West far from his throne.
The conquest of Constantinople by Ecumenism, however, was a veritable fact. In a short time, the succeeding Patriarch of Constantinople, Meletius Metaxakis, recognized Anglican orders. A new wave of enthusiasm spread throughout the Protestant world. The English press reported, ‘The first step toward total outward union has been completed. The Orthodox will henceforth be able to receive the sacraments and other religious ministrations from the hands of the Anglican clergy.’ At the same time, common prayer with those in heresy commenced, and Anglicans began administering their sacraments to the Orthodox.
The Church of Greece was soon to join the Ecumenical Patriarchate in its Ecumenism. Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Athens, preached the ‘dialogue of love’ many years before Patriarch Athenagoras. This is what he said at his enthronement: ‘For the purpose of such cooperation and mutual help, doctrinal unity, unfortunately difficult to achieve, is not a necessary presupposition, since the bond of Christian love suffices, which, after all, can smooth the road toward union.’ The heresy of Ecumenism, therefore, in the form that it has taken today, did not appear with the advent of Athenagoras, as some would believe. It made its way into Orthodoxy during the time of Dorotheus, Meletius Metaxakis, and Chry s o s t o m Papadopoulos, when the Greek peoples were suffering martyrdoms at the hands of the Moslem Turks in Asia Minor.
The first official announcement of this heresy in Orthodox lands took place in 1920 with the Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate ‘To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They Might Be.’ The first overt symptom of the illness, however, appeared in 1924. It was the application and implementation of the first suggestion of the 1920 Encyclical, that is, ‘the adoption by all the churches of one single calendar for the common celebration of the great Christian feasts,’ by which the liturgical or festal union of the ‘churches’ was accomplished.
…
Hence, we arrive at the strange ecclesiology of the new-calendarists, according to which it is not at all unnatural for a bishop who has revealed himself to be a devotee of extreme syncretism to demand that a monk, who belongs to his diocese but believes differently, be obliged to follow and commemorate him as his own bishop. Two different faiths, two different confessions, but one bishop. That which may be seen in the political life of the nation, where many different religions may exist but where there is but one national government, is now transposed to the spiritual level. Many religions, but only one authority. Can these people tell us how their ecclesiology differs from reprehensible syncretism?
…
They will tell you: ‘Of what concern is it to you if the Patriarch is a heretic, and if the Archbishops and Metropolitans commemorate him? The Patriarch is not our leader, but Christ. We know our hearts and our faith. We are Orthodox. Let the Patriarch declare whatever heresy he wishes. Let the Archbishops commemorate whom they will. They will have to answer for their souls and we for ours. Besides, we are sheep and it isn’t our place to speak out. This is the concern of the shepherds.’ Jesus, our Saviour, the Christ, has said that no one can come unto the Father except through the Son. Similarly, no one can approach the Son except through the Church. A Christian cannot exist as an individual, but only as a member of the Body of Christ, the Church. And the Church is there only where the Truth is confessed. Where Ecumenism that is, error is confessed, there is neither Church nor Christ. And do not think that this is the case only when Ecumenism is preached from the pulpit, though even this occurs frequently enough.
In the Church we confess our faith through the name of the bishop whom we commemorate. The Orthodox commemorate Orthodox bishops, Arians commemorate Arian bishops, Monophysites commemorate Monophysite bishops, Iconoclasts commemorate Iconoclast bishops, Uniates commemorate Uniate bishops, and Ecumenists commemorate Ecumenist bishops. It is possible for all things to appear Orthodox in the Church; however, the bishop who is commemorated by the priest will reveal to us where we truly are. In a Uniate church, all things appear to be Orthodox. Indeed, it is possible that the hair and beard of the priest there may be longer and fuller than those of the Orthodox. Also, the chant may be a great deal more liturgical and traditional, and the icons more austere than in some Orthodox Churches. The Creed itself in such a church may be recited without the Filioque insertion. But the priest there commemorates a Uniate bishop, who in turn commemorates the Pope of Rome. Thus all the appearances of Orthodoxy are for naught.
You may say that it matters little to you whom the priest commemorates since you believe in your heart that you are Orthodox. Would you, then, stay in a Uniate church to receive Holy Communion? But you do remain in a new-calendarist church. Everything there appears Orthodox. Your priest may even have long hair and a beard, and perhaps they have not yet sent you a ‘progressive’ preacher. But which bishop does that priest commemorate? And that bishop, which Patriarchs and Archbishops and Synods does he commemorate aloud or in the diptychs? Does he commemorate Demetrius, the Patriarch of Constantinople? And Demetrius whom does he have inscribed in the diptychs and whom does he commemorate at every Liturgy? Is it not his ‘elder brother,’ as he calls the Pope of Rome, Paul VI on every occasion? Why then flee from the Uniates, since either one way or the other you are commemorating the Pope?
The tragedy of our times is precisely that Orthodox Christians have been united to Rome without being aware that this has already taken place…»
(A. Kalomiros, The Touchstone, o bucata cunoscuta indeosebi pentru respingerea patristica si logica a detractorilor si falsificatorilor ordinii canonice a Bisericii.)
_________________________
A se vedea si Dostoievski, Demonii si alte scrieri; Cuv. Seraphim Rose, Nihilism; Cuv. Constantin Zaitsev, Dinaintea fetei lui Antihrist (in apendice la P. Serafim Rose/ Arhiep. Averchie Tausev, Apocalipsa în învăţătura Sfinţilor Părinţi, Ed. Icos, 2000.) Semnificatia textului Arhim. Constantin Zaitsev poate fi mai dificil de sesizat in absenta diagnosticului corect pus de Dr. Kalomiros mai sus, ceea ce explica, probabil, cvasi-absenta trimiterilor la el pe internet. El poate chiar suna destul de incomod la prima lectura, nu atat din din perspectiva cititorului ecumenist (al carui nihilism de fond il imunizeaza oricum la argumentatie), dar si din cea a anti-ecumenistului grabit. Un ecou notabil l-am gasit totusi aici http://www.filioque.com/farrell-continuum1.html, din pacate fara mentionarea completa sa sursei si cu unele concesii terminologice facute nefericitei ecleziologii augustiniene, insa altminteri patrunzator in sesizarea mesajului: conditia preliminara a oricarui dialog autentic inter-confesional si a posibilitatii ajungerii celor dornici la Adevar este lepadarea de ecumenism, sub toate formele sale!
16 Iulie 2008:
Walter Block ne sparge câteva cărămizi de pe piept
Asemeni unui sensei de renume mondial venit pe plaiurile mioritice la invitația unui învățăcel, Walter Block, parcă purtând un nume predestinat pentru așa ceva, își suflecă mânecile cămășii și crapă rapid și implacabil câteva blocuri de probleme economice de sub a căror greutate strivitoare nu părea că vom ieși prea curând.
Drumurile? Privatizarea. Prostituție și droguri? Legalizarea. Șomaj? Desființarea salariului minim. Românii emigrează? Câteva reforme economice majore și lucrurile ar sta pe dos. Roșia Montană? Doar instituirea și respectarea consecventă a proprietății private poate oferi o soluționare avantajoasă tuturor părților implicate. Hipermarketurile? Prosperitatea dincolo de ipocrizie. Piața liberă? „A cumpăra si a vinde în mod liber, fără coerciţie sau fraudă.” Probleme, Walter? „Guvernul, socialismul, fascismul si analfabetismul economic.”
Dacă vreți să încercați și dumneavoastră acasă – ar fi chiar recomandat -, „senseiul” ne și explică mai pe larg cum a ajus la asemenea performanțe, în scrierile sale, din care una a apărut foarte recent în limba română.
Trebuie totuși să atrag atenția că a sparge astfel de cărămizi nu e totul în viață, iar Block știe și el asta, însă alții știu chiar mai bine.
27 Iunie 2008:
Rugaciunea ca antidot la reeducarea publica
«Daca veti izbuti sa saditi in inimile copiilor vostri frica lui Dumnezeu, atunci feluritele ciudatenii omenesti nu vor putea sa-i influenteze prea mult in rau.» (Staretul Ambrozie)
«De ajuns va fi daca va veti ingriji sa-i cresteti pe copiii vostri in frica lui Dumnezeu, sa le insuflati conceptul ortodox si prin povatuiri blande sa-i feriti de conceptele straine Bisericii Ortodoxe. Binele pe care il saditi in sufletele copiilor vostri in copilaria lor poate stagna dupa aceea in inimile lor cand ajung la maturitate, dupa incercarile amarnice din scoala, din pricina carora nu rareori se frang ramurile bunei educatii crestine dobandite acasa.» (Staretul Ambrozie)
«Trebuie sa gravam pe inima cea delicata a tanarului cel mai dulce nume, cea mai scurta si mai frumoasa rugaciune: “Doamne Iisuse Hristoase, Fiul lui Dumnezeu, miluieste-ma pe mine, pacatosul.” Abia atunci va fi culmea bucuriei, veselie nesfarsita, cand se va inradacina Iisus in inima lui si nu-si va mai dori nimic. Caci Insusi Imparatul impreuna cu intru-tot-laudata Sa Maica si cu toti Ingerii si sfintii vor veni la el si vor face locas la el, Daca ma iubeste cineva, va pazi cuvantul Meu, si Tatal Meu il va iubi, si vom veni la el si vom face locas la el (Ioan 14, 23)» (Staretul Anatolie)
(extrase din „Ne vorbesc Staretii de la Optina”, Ed. Egumenita/Ed. Cartea Ortodoxa, 2007, pp. 31-32)
26 Iunie 2008:
Professor Hoppe on the place of intellectuals in public reeducation
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html
…Suppose you and your friends happen to be in control of such an extraordinary institution [as the state]. What would you do to maintain your position (provided you didn’t have any moral scruples)? You would certainly use some of your tax-income to hire some thugs. First: to make peace among your subjects so that they stay productive and there is something to tax in the future. But more importantly, because you might need these thugs for your own protection should the people wake up from their dogmatic slumber and challenge you.
This will not do, however, in particular if you and your friends are a small minority in comparison to the number of subjects. For a minority cannot lastingly rule a majority solely by brute force. It must rule by opinion. The majority of the population must be brought to voluntarily accept your rule. This is not to say that the majority must agree with every one of your measures. Indeed, it may well believe that many of your policies are mistaken. However, it must believe in the legitimacy of the institution of the state as such, and hence, that even if a particular policy may be wrong, such mistake is an accident that one must tolerate in view of some greater good provided by the state.
Yet how can one persuade the majority of the population to believe this? The answer is: only with the help of intellectuals.
How do you get the intellectuals to work for you? To this the answer is easy. The market demand for intellectual services is not exactly high and stable. Intellectuals would be at the mercy of the fleeting values of the masses, and the masses are uninterested in intellectual-philosophical concerns. The state, on the other hand, can accommodate the intellectuals’ typically over-inflated egos and offer them a warm, secure, and permanent berth in its apparatus.
However, it is not sufficient that you employ just some intellectuals. You must essentially employ them all, even the ones who work in areas far removed from those that you are primarily concerned with: that is philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities. For even intellectuals working in mathematics or the natural sciences, for instance, can obviously think for themselves and so become potentially dangerous. It is thus important that you secure also their loyalty to the state. Put differently: you must become a monopolist. And this is best achieved if all educational institutions, from kindergarten to universities, are brought under state control and all teaching and researching personnel is state-certified.
But what if the people do not want to become educated? For this, education must be made compulsory; and in order to subject the people to state-controlled education for as long as possible, everyone must be declared equally educable. The intellectuals know such egalitarianism to be false, of course. Yet to proclaim nonsense such as everyone is a potential Einstein if only given sufficient educational attention pleases the masses and, in turn, provides for an almost limitless demand for intellectual services…
23 Iunie 2008:
Human Action in Romanian, complete!
Almost seven years since its inception, the task of translating Human Action in Romanian is finally accomplished. We are now offering Acțiunea umană from the first to the last chapter.
Our gratitude goes to the supporters of the project and to the translator, Cristian Comănescu, for his long-lasted endeavor to offer the Misesian masterpiece to the Romanian reader.
23 Iunie 2008:
Acțiunea umană, pe de-a-ntregul!
La aproape șapte ani de la inițierea proiectului, vă oferim traducerea operei de căpătâi a lui Mises, Acțiunea umană, de la cap la coadă.
Cu bucurie, cu mulțumiri celor care ne-au spijinit și cu recunoștință traducătorului Cristian Comănescu pentru că a oferit versiunea românească a unui adevărat sistem de referință pentru înțelegerea oricărei societăți umane posibile, vă invităm la lectură-studiu și la reflecție.
02 Mai 2008:
Puterea celor fara de putere
BEYOND TORTURE -The gulag of Pitesti ROMANIA
Pastor Richard Wurmbrand’s hymn
(V. si aici si aici, referitor la contextul ultimei inregistrari)
18 Aprilie 2008:
Ce poate invata machiavelismul (inca?) relativ, de la cel absolut
incet:
…Organele de ordine au instaurat prezumtia de vinovatie si au tratat cu brutalitate orice persoana cu insemne anti-NATO…
Bucurestiul summitului NATO – un oras mizerabil, cenusiu, pustiu si dominat de paranoia autoritatilor. Majoritatea cadrelor au fost realizate pe ascuns, pentru ca expresia cea mai utilizata in aceasta perioada este ‘nu aveti voie’…
…dar sigur:
CSAT a decis inaintea Summitului NATO de la Bucuresti sa inlesneasca accesul SRI la serverele operatorilor de telefonie si internet …Potrivit Mediafax, Hotararea CSAT din data de 25 martie 2008 are caracter secret si a fost comunicata exclusiv institutiilor interesate, acestea avand obligatia de a o pune in aplicare in regim de urgenta…
…In 25 martie 2008, CSAT, sub comanda presedintelui, a decis in secret ca toti operatorii de telefonie si Internet sa-si puna serverele la dispozitia SRI spre interceptare …Basescu si premierul Tariceanu si-au dat mana pentru intarirea statului politienesc…Daca pana acum exista o suspiciune ca serviciile secrete ne asculta, cu mandat sau fara, prin hotararea CSAT se risipeste practic orice posibilitate de a avea parte de o minima confidentialitate a discutiilor telefonice sau a schimburilor de informatii prin orice alt mijloc electronic…
…inapoi la “argument”:
…Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts…
Bush Regime Preaches Democracy, Proposes Tyranny
by Paul Craig Roberts
…Here is a short list of the Bush administration’s crimes:
- - Spying without court warrants on Americans in violation of both the US Constitution and the FISA statute.
- - The denial of habeas corpus, attorney-client privilege, due process, and Geneva Conventions protections to those, American or foreign, designated without evidence as terrorists or enemy combatants.
- - The justification and use of torture to coerce confessions and the kidnapping of foreign nationals who are sent to be tortured in foreign prisons.
- - The initiation of military aggression against states based on intentional deception by the Bush administration of the US public and the United Nations, and the intentional fabrication of “evidence” to justify unprovoked aggression against sovereign states, which is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the US.
- - Violation of the oath of office to defend the US Constitution by practically every member of the Bush administration and Congress.
- - Bush has assaulted the separation of powers and the rule of law with “signing statements” and “executive orders” that President Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean says are commands that treat the co-equal branches of government and the electorate as subservient to executive authority. In April 2006, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage listed 750 laws “challenged” by the Bush administration. Not even the demonized president of Iran claims to be above the law.
- - Genocide against the people of Iraq where one million Iraqis have died as a result of Bush’s invasion and several million Iraqis are displaced persons.
Massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan, which is a form of genocide in which military force is routinely applied to unarmed noncombatants.
Massive corruption in which no-bid contracts are issued to Republican corporations in exchange for kickbacks to political campaigns.
- - The theft of two national elections as documented in books by Mark Crispin Miller and Greg Palast.
The Bush administration has even conducted Stalinist show trials…
… The cruel war and the deceptive vocabulary that protects it are a cover for expanding US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and for constructing a functioning police state at home…
…Today, [U.S.] Congress is almost as superfluous as the Roman Senate under the Caesars. On Feb. 13 the U.S. Senate barely passed a bill banning torture, and the White House promptly announced that President Bush would veto it. Torture is now the American way. The U.S. Senate was only able to muster 51 votes against torture, an indication that almost a majority of U.S. senators support torture.
Bush says that his administration does not torture. So why veto a bill prohibiting torture? Bush seems proud to present America to the world as a torturer...
(Dreptul la “replica”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp4vLBvU1bA)
15 Aprilie 2008:
Monarhia, democratia si tirania
…pe intelesul regimurilor Bush & Co.:
«If you went only a hundred steps further on from parliament, you could see every day—and usually more often—a carriage drawn by two horses drive out of the Hofburg. In it sat the old Emperor and his equally elderly adjutant, and they would set out for Schönbrunn at an easy trot, always at the same hour, and always down the same street. There was no security escort ahead of or behind the carriage, no policeman sat in the vehicle itself; any assassin would have had an easy job. But nobody took the opportunity…The leaders of our modern great empires are driven rapidly in bullet-proof cars, protected by countless bodyguards. Aristotle thus defined the difference between a monarch and a tyrant: the monarch protects his people, the tyrant has to protect himself from them» (Felix Somary, The Raven of Zurich: The Memoirs of Felix Somary, London, Hurst &Co., 1960, p. 11, citat de J. G. Hülsmann, in Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, p.51).
(A se vedea si eseul profesorului Hoppe referitor la rolul intelectualilor in ecuatie.)
02 Aprilie 2008:
Building Blocks for Liberty, by Walter Block
Libertas Publishing has just printed Reconstrucția libertății (Building Blocks for Liberty) a Romanian collection of ten critical essays by Walter Block, dealing with property theory, gun control, ecology, work, transportation, immigration, secession, drug prohibition, libertarianism and libertinism.
·
