Изречения, крылатые выражения

Какъ ни странно это можетъ кому-то показаться, но въ дореволюціонной исторической Россіи никакой русской или россійской націи не было. Народности, этносы были, а вотъ націй – не было. Впервые въ исторіи понятіе нація въ его политическомъ значеніи появилось именно въ ходѣ Французской революціи, когда возникла необходимость сформировать нѣкую общность взамѣнъ утраченнаго «подданства французской короны». Ранѣе середины 18 вѣка обнаружить зачатки націонализма очень сложно, націонализмъ — феноменъ Новаго времени съ его свѣтской идеологіей.

Этносы, народности – это по волѣ Божіей и естественнымъ образомъ сложившіеся человѣческіе объединенія, на основѣ родства и общности - религіознаго, культурно-языкового, а также кровнаго.
А вотъ націи естественнымъ путёмъ не возникаютъ. Нація – это всегда нѣкій искусственный проектъ. Въ какой-то моментъ какая-то группа людей или нѣсколько группъ людей воображаютъ себѣ проектъ націи. Дальше составляется образъ того, кто входитъ или не входитъ въ націю, по какимъ признакамъ люди входятъ туда, какая территорія является національной территоріей, какое политическое устройство должно быть у этой націи. Всѣ эти вещи получаютъ какое-то разпространеніе въ общественномъ сознаніи и такъ или иначе реализуются или не реализуются.
Французская революція была ключевымъ моментомъ въ формированіи французской націи, русская революція - совѣтской націи, въ другихъ странахъ аналогично.

Что характерно для формированія націи? Стираніе, уничтоженіе отличительныхъ особенностей народности, выхолащиваніе культуры и тотъ или иной варіантъ избавленія отъ «излишней» или «неправильной» религіозности. Изъ неравныхъ, разныхъ представителей народности (или нѣсколькихъ народностей), искусственно формируется нѣкая усреднённая общая масса «равноправныхъ гражданъ», которые отнынѣ вдохновляются не религіозными, надмірными, божественными идеалами, а сугубо мірскими, человѣческими (которые могутъ даже облекаться въ возвышенную форму). Процессъ селекціи конечно длительный, очевидные результаты проявляются не сразу.

А потомъ возникаетъ культъ этой націи – націонализмъ. Этотъ типично языческій культъ и замѣняетъ теперь людям религію (существованіе при этомъ традиціонныхъ религій не должно никого вводить въ заблужденіе). Любое преступленіе тогда становится какъ бы оправданнымъ, если оно совершено «ради интересовъ народа». «Нравственно то, что служитъ интересамъ пролетаріата націи». «Я служу народу, а не Богу той или иной «формѣ правленія»» - начинаютъ говорить представители націи. Народъ тут какъ божество, какъ наивысшая инстанція. Возникаетъ понятіе о «народной» и «антинародной власти», о «народныхъ герояхъ» и «врагахъ народа». «Одна страна, одна нація, одинъ вождь» - это тоже оттуда.

Революція противъ «стараго традиціоннаго порядка» - это торжество націонализма.

Въ Россіи были только подданные Бѣлаго царя. Во Франціи только поданные французской короны. Основу Россійскаго государства составляли представители русского этноса, со своей вѣрой, культурой, традиціями.

Только ли на территоріи бывшей Россіи есть государства, созданные совѣтскими людьми? Вотъ напримѣръ Французская республика, чемъ не совѣтское государство?
( Далѣе.. )

ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΣΙΣ
ΕΠΙ ΕΠΙΚΑΙΡΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΩΝ ΘΕΜΑΤΩΝ

ΕΚΔΙΔΕΤΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΚΕΝΤΡΟΝ ΓΝΗΣΙΑΣ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΙΕΡΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΗΣ
ΑΓΙΑΣ ΑΙΚΑΤΕΡΙΝΗΣ, ΤΙΜΙΟΥ ΣΤΑΥΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΘΕΟΔΟΣΙΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΥΚΑΣΟΥ
ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΕΙΟΝ ΑΓΙΑΣ ΑΙΚΑΤΕΡΙΝΗΣ ΣΤΡΟΓΓΥΛΗ 19400, ΚΟΡΩΠΙ ΑΤΤΙΚΗΣ, Τ.Θ. 54, ΤΗΛ. 210 6020176, 210. 6021467

ΑΡΙΘΜ. ΤΕΥΧΟΥΣ 82 – ΝΟΕΜΒΡΙΟΣ 2006

ΟΜΟΛΟΓΙΑ ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΟΥ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΩΝ, ΙΕΡΕΩΝ, ΙΕΡΟΔΙΑΚΟΝΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΜΟΝΑΧΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣ ΓΟΧ ΕΛΛΑΔΟΣ ΔΙΑΚΗΡΥΧΘΕΙΣΑ ΤΗΝ 29.10.1941.

Ὁμολογοῦμεν οἱ ὑπογραφόμενοι Ἀρχιερεῖς, ἱερεῖς, ἱεροδιάκονοι καί μοναχοί ὅτι εἴμεθα τέκνα πιστά τῆς Μιᾶς, Ἁγίας, Καθολικῆς, ‘Αποστολικῆς καί Ἀνατολικῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘Εκκλησίας. Πιστεύομεν καί Ὁμολογοῦμεν συμφώνως τῶ ἱερῶ Συμβόλῳ τῆς Πίστεως ἡμῶν, καί δεχόμεθα τάς 7 ἁγίας καί Οἰκουμενικάς Συνόδους, καί πάσας τάς τοπικάς τάς παραδεδεγμένας ὑπό τῆς ‘Εκκλησίας, καί τούς κανόνας τῶν κατά μέρος ἁγίων Πατέρων.
Πιστεύομεν καί δεχόμεθα ἐν ὅλῃ μας τῆ καρδίᾳ πάντα τά δόγματα καί τάς ἱεράς παραδόσεις ἐγγράφους τε καί ἀγράφους τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας, ὡς ταῦτα καθιερώθησαν ἐξ’ ἀρχῆς.
Ἀποκηρύσσομεν καί ἀποπτύομεν τό Γρηγοριανόν παπικόν ἤ νέον ἡμερολόγιον καί τάς σύν αὐτῶ ἀναφανείσας καινοτομίας, σχίσματα, καί αἱρέσεις, καί ἀκολουθοῦμεν πιστῶς τό ‘Ιουλιανόν καί πάτριον ἤ παλαιόν καλούμενον, ὅπερ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς παρέλαβεν ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος ‘Εκκλησία ἡμῶν, καί τέλος δεχόμεθα πάντα ὅσα δέχεται καί φρονεῖ ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ‘Ανατολική Ἐκκλησία, ἀναθεματίζομεν δέ καί ἀποκηρύσσομεν γενικῶς ὅσα ἀναθεματίζει καί ἀποκηρύσσει Αὕτη ἀνέκαθεν, καθώς καί τήν στυγεράν Σιμωνίαν.
Ὑποσχόμεθα διά τοῦ παρόντος ὅτι θά ἐμμένομεν πιστοί εἰς τά ἀνωτέρω χάριτι Χριστοῦ μέχρι τελευταίας μας ἀναπνοῆς καί θά ἐργασθῶμεν ὡς Ἱερεῖς τῆς ‘Εκκλησίας τῶν Γ.Ο.Χ. τῆς Ἑλλάδος μετ’ ἀληθοῦς αὐτοθυσίας, εἰλικρινείας καί ἀνιδιοτελείας, μέχρι τελικῆς ἀποπερατώσεως τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἡμῶν ἀγῶνος, ἤτοι τῆς ἐπαναφορᾶς τοῦ πατρίου ἑορτολογίου.
Ἐπίσης ὑποσχόμεθα ὅτι θά τηρῶμεν πάσας τάς περί ἡμερολογίου ἀκριβολογίας ἀποφεύγοντες τάς ἐπιβλαβεῖς οἰκονομίας, ἤτοι δέν θά ἐκτελῶμεν μυστήρια, λειτουργίας, βαπτίσεις, εὐχέλαια, ἁγιασμούς, γάμους καί τά τοιαῦτα εἰς Νεοημερολογίτας.
Δέν θά βαπτίζωμεν, ἐάν ὁ ἀνάδοχος τυγχάνει νεοημερολογίτης, τουναντίον θά βαπτίζωμεν ἐάν οὗτος εἶναι παλαιοημερολογίτης (σ.σ. ὀρθόδοξος), οἱ δέ γονεῖς τοῦ παιδίου νεοημερολογῖται.
Ὁμοίως τούς ἐρχομένους ἐκ τοῦ νέου ἡμερολογίου εἰς τό παλαιόν θά δεχώμεθα δι’ Ὁμολογίας Πίστεως, τούς δέ βαπτισθέντας μέ τό νέον ἡμερολόγιον θά τούς ἀναμυρώνωμεν, ἀναγινώσκοντες τήν εὐχήν τοῦ Ἁγίου Μύρου κατά τόν Α΄ Κανόνα τοῦ Μεγάλου Βασιλείου.
Θά διδάσκωμεν τήν μή συμπροσευχήν μετά τῶν Νεοημερολογιτῶν καί τήν μή μετάβασιν εἰς τούς Ναούς των, καί πάντα τά σχετικά ὅσα ἀπαιτεῖ καί διδάσκει ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος ἡμῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησία θά ἐκτελῶμεν.
Τό παρόν ἀναγνωσθέν εἰς ἐπήκοον πάντων ὑπογράφεται παρ’ ἡμῶν τῶν ἀποτελούντων τήν Ἐκκλησίαν τῶν Γνησίων Ὀρθοδόξων Χριστιανῶν τῆς Ἑλλάδος Ἀρχιερέων, Ἱερέων, ἱερομονάχων, ἱεροδιακόνων καί Μοναχῶν.

Ἐν ‘Αθήναις τῆ 29η Ὀκτωβρίου 1941


(Ὑπογράφεται ὑπό τῶν δύο ‘Αρχιερέων ΚυκλάΔων Γερμανοῦ καί Βρεσθένης Ματθαίου, καί τῶν Πρωθιερέως Εὐγενίου Τόμπρου, ‘Αρχιμανδρίτου Γεδεών, ‘Αρχιμανδρίτου ‘Ακακίου, ‘Αρχιμ. ‘Αρτεμίου Ξενοφωντεινοῦ, ‘Αρχιμ. Ἱεροθέου Σταμούλη καί 30 ἄλλων ‘Αρχιμανδριτῶν, Ἱερομονάχων καί Μοναχῶν).

Σημείωσις:
Ἐνίοτε προσέθετον καί τήν «Ὁμολογίαν Πίστεως τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Χριστιανῶν» τήν γραφεῖσαν ὑπό τοῦ Εὐγενίου Βουλγάρεως καί ἔχουσαν οὕτω:
«Ἀποδέχομαι καί τιμῶ τάς ἁγίας καί Οἰκουμενικάς Ἑπτά Συνόδους, καί τά ἐν αὐταῖς δογματισθέντα καί κηρυχθέντα θεῖά τε καί ὑπερφυῆ καί σωτήρια Δόγματα παρά τῶν Ὁσίων καί Θεοφόρων Πατέρων ἡμῶν, οὕς κατά καιρούς ἔθετο τό Πνεῦμα τό Ἅγιον ποιμαίνειν τήν Ἐκκλησίαν αὐτοῦ καί διέπειν, καί πάντων τῶν ἐναρέτων καί μακαρίων Πατέρων τά τε Δόγματα καί Πονήματα ἀσπάζομαι ὡς διδασκαλίαν ἀνεπίληπτον, σωτηρίας θεμέλιον΄ καί οὕς ἡ Καθολική ‘Ανατολική Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία προσίεται, ἀποδέχομαι΄ καί οὕς ἀποστρέφεται, ἀποστρέφομαι. Ἀποβάλλομαι δέ καί παντελῶς ἀποτρέπομαι τάς ἀπό Σίμωνος τοῦ Μάγου καί μέχρι τοῦ δεῦρο τῆς εὐσεβείας παντάπασιν πεπτωκότας καί δόξας υἱοθετήσαντας καί φθοροποιά δόγματα ἐφευρόντας καί τήν τῶν Ἁγίων Πατέρων Παράδοσιν ἀθετήσαντας καί τόν πικρόν τῶν ζιζανίων σπόρον συναναμεῖξαι τῆ τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας ‘Αρούρᾳ τολμήσαντας, αὐτούς τε ἀναθεματίζω καί πάντας τούς ἑπομένους αὐτοῖς, καί ὡς λύμην τῆς κατά Χριστόν ‘Εκκλησίας διαπτύω καί τῶ ἀναθέματι καθυποβάλλω».
Προσέθετον δέ καί τό ἑξῆς:
«Γνώμη τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας εἶναι νά πιστεύη ὁ Χριστιανός ὀρθῶς, ἤγουν νά περιπατῆ ἴσια εἰς τήν Πίστιν, καθώς παρελάβομεν, νά μή πίπτη εἰς ἀποστασίας καί αἱρέσεις ἤ εἰς Σχίσματα, ἴδια τῶν υἱῶν τῆς ἀπωλείας. Τούς τοιούτους ὀνομάζει ὁ Εὐαγγελιστής Ἰωάννης «ἀντιχρίστους», ὁ Ἀπόστολος Παῦλος πρός Ἐφεσίους «υἱούς τῆς ἀπειθείας», ὁ δέ Δαμασκοῦ φωστήρ «ἀπίστους»΄ «Ὁ γοῦν μή κατά τήν παράδοσιν τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας πιστεύων, οὗτός ἄπιστος ἐστίν», διότι μή βαδίζοντες καί μή ἔχοντες τόν αὐτόν σκοπόν, ὅν ἐβάδισεν ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία, ἀς γνωρίζουν οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἱερεῖς μήτε ἱερωσύνην, μήτε μυστήρια τελοῦνται ὑπ’ αὐτῶν, ἡ δέ μερίς αὐτῶν μετά τοῦ προδότου Ἰούδα».

Photos of the Synod Meeting on the Feast of the Holy Great-Martyr Catherine - Tuesday, November 25th, 2009 (Dec. 8th n.s.)

Russian - http://iasidnev.livejournal.com/255723.html

English - http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/Synod_at_StCatherines2009.htm

As the blessed Stephen was being brought to the Emperor, he passed a pious traveller. The saint asked this man to give him a coin bearing the image of the Emperor, which he hid under his veil. When Stephen entered, Copronymus immediately began to cry, "O woe, woe! What I must endure from this man, who reviles my authority and counts me as nothing!" The saint stood silently, looking down as the Emperor, breathing out wrath like fire, continued to rebuke him. Finally, the Emperor concluded, "Have you nothing to say for yourself, wicked one?"
"If it is your intention to put me to death, do so now," the blessed Stephen answered meekly. " If, however, you have brought me here to question me, then lay aside your anger and speak calmly. When you have brought yourself under control, we may converse."
The Emperor demanded, "Tell us why you number us among the heretics. Which traditions of the Fathers have we violated?"
"You have impiously commanded that the holy icons be cast out of the churches, although the God-bearing Fathers of ancient times delivered to us the tradition that we are to venerate them," replied the saint.
The tyrant said, "Do not call the images holy icons, but idols! What does that which is holy have in common with idols?"
To this the saint responded, "He that bows down before the image does not revere the material of which it is made: the honor he shows it passes on to its protoype, as Saint Basil says."
"Do you imagine that the Fathers would have us depict with material colors that which is dark and inaccessible to the mind and which no words can explain? And is it right to worship the physical depiction of a nature which no man can know?" the tyrant enquired.
Answered the saint, "What man of understanding would say that the immaterial nature of the Divinity, which surpasses all comprehension, can be depicted with material colors? How can that which the mind cannot even conceive be depicted with paints? When we portray Christ upon an icon, it is not His divinity that we depict but His appearance as the God-man in a form like unto our own. It was in this form that the apostles touched Him with their hands, as Saint John the Theologian said, This is that which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled. If you cite the words of Moses: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, I will answer that Moses himself made golden images of two cherubim, of which the divine Apostle makes mention, referring to them as the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat. Indeed, the altar itself, and the tabernacle, and the holy of holies are themselves likenesses of heaven, as the same Apostle says when he speaks of them as serving unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. How then do we err, depicting Christ as a man on an icon and bowing down before Him? Do you suppose that when we bow down before the Cross, which is also made of a material substance, that we are worshipping matter? Likewise, our conscience makes no accusation against us when we show reverence for the sacred vessels, since we know that they have been sanctified by the invocation of the name of Christ. Would you also cast out of the Church the Body and Blood of Christ, which is mystically given us under the appearance of bread and wine? This mystery portrays the Body of Christ which suffered upon the Cross and now abides in heaven, and we bow down before it and kiss it and partake of it, thereby inheriting the blessing of holiness. But you make no distinction between what is holy and what is profane, considering an icon of Christ to be no different than an image of Apollo, and an icon of the Theotokos to be the same as a statue of Artemis. Therefore you do not hesitate to speak of the holy icons as idols, trampling them underfoot and burning them!"
To this the Emperor replied, "O blind fool, worthy of damnation! Do you imagine that Christ is trampled upon when we trample on these images?"
Then the divinely wise Stephen, intending, like a tried warrior, to wound the foe with his adversary's own weapon, turned Copronymus' words against him. Removing from his veil the coin bearing the image of the impious Emperor, he showed it to Copronymus and asked him in Christ's words, Whose is this image and superscription?
The Emperor answered, "Whose can it be, but mine?
Again the saint asked, "What would befall a man were he to cast this image to the ground and to trample it underfoot? Would he not be punished?"
"He would suffer a severe punishment for dishonoring the Emperor's image," said the others present.
Then the saint sighed deeply and cried with pain of heart, "How great is your foolishness and blindness! If you would punish a man severely for dishonoring the image of an earthly emperor, subject to death and corruption, what punishment do you suppose awaits you, who have dared to trample underfoot and burn the images of the Son of God and His most pure Mother?" With this, Stephen spat upon the coin, and throwing it to the ground, began to trample on it. The two officials hurled themselves upon him angrily, intending to drag him from the palace and to drown him in the sea, but the Emperor, feigning meekness (although his heart was ablaze with wrath), forbade them to do Stephen any harm, because he did not wish it to appear that he was unable to control his anger. Instead, he had the saint bound, taken to the common prison, and locked in a cell.
As he entered the prison, Saint Stephen exclaimed, "Lo, this is my place of rest for the remainder of my life! Here shall I dwell till my last breath; this place of sojourn is my reward for my faithfulness to the icon of Christ." Confined in the most remote cell of the prison, the blessed one found 342 monks from various monasteries and lands, imprisoned for venerating the holy icons. Some had their noses cut off, others their ears, others had their eyes gouged out, while the hands of still others had been removed. This last cruelty was reserved for those who had written books in defense of the veneration of icons. Many bore wounds on their bodies that had not yet healed completely; the faces of some had been smeared with pitch and set afire; the heads of others had been shaved in mockery. Seeing these men, who had suffered so many tortures, the venerable one blessed their patience and struggles and adjudged himself worthy of tears and lamentation because he had not been deemed fit to endure such grievous torments. As for the holy fathers, when they saw the godly Stephen, they crowded around him, embracing him affectionately, and chose him as their guide and teacher. Thus the prison became, as it were, a monastery where the usual hymns and prayers were chanted according to the typicon.


Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints - St. Dimity of Rostov - November the 28th, The Holy Martyr Stephen the New, pp. 646-649

At that time, the Emperor and Patriarch sent to the monastery where the saint was imprisoned leaders of the iconoclastic heresy: Theodosius, Bishop of Ephesus; Constantine of Nicomedia; Nicholas; Sisinius; Basil; the aforementioned Callistus; and other rhetoricians, commanding them to debate with Stephen concerning the faith. These men had the blessed Stephen brought before them, fettered in irons so heavy that he could neither walk nor stand without support on either side. Theodosius, the Bishop of Ephesus, began by asking, "On what basis do you number us among the heretics, setting yourself above emperors, patriarchs, bishops, and all other Christians? Are we all in error, destined for perdition?"
"Hearken to what the divine Scriptures relate concerning Elijah," Saint Stephen replied in a meek voice. "The prophet said to Ahab, King of Israel: I have not troubled Israel; but thou and thy father's house. Likewise, it is not I who trouble the Church, but you who violate the traditions of the Holy Fathers of old and introduce new dogmas into her, for Basil the Great says, 'Everything handed down from antiquity by the Holy Fathers is worthy of esteem, but what is recently established is worthless and untrustworthy.' Such are your decrees against the veneration of the holy icons, which were promulgated not by sons of the Catholic Church but by godless adulterers. Certain is the prophet's saying: The rulers of the people were assembled together with false shepherds and hirelings against Christ and His precious icon!"
At this, Constantine, Bishop of Nicomedia, rose from his seat and kicked Stephen (who was sitting on the floor) in the face. Then one of the guards began to kick the saint in the belly. The blessed one fell over, and the guard proceeded to trample upon his chest. Seeing these disgraceful deeds, the patrician Callistus became indignant and ordered them to cease. Then he addressed Stephen thus: “The choice lies before you, Stephen: either sign the acts of the council or be put to death as one who rejects the decisions of the divine fathers. Decide quickly.”
The God-inspired Stephen said boldly, "Pay heed to my words, my lord! With the great Apostle Paul I declare that for me to live is Christ, and to die for His precious icon is gain. I have told you once and now repeat: if I had within me only as much blood as can be held in my cupped hand, I would not hesitate to offer it to be shed for the icon of Christ. Nevertheless, order that the decrees of your council be read. I wish to learn why you renounce the divine icons."
Constantine, Bishop of Nicodemia, straightway took up the book entitled The Tradition of the Holy Seventh Ecumenical Council and began to read. As soon as the title was announced, Saint Stephen gestured him to silence and cried, ”What falsehood! You have built an unstable building upon a weak foundation indeed! How is it that you call your council holy? Have you not denied the title ‘holy’ to all the saints, forbidding the faithful to call either the apostles, prophets, martyrs, or any of the other saints holy? How can your council be holy when it defies and tramples upon all that is holy? Moreover, you call your council an ecumenical council, but how can it be ecumenical when not one of the patriarchs or their representatives attended it? None of them has sent out epistles expressing their consent to its decrees. Your council should not be called ecumenical, but a false council. You also call it the seventh council, but how can it be the seventh council when it rejects the six that came before it? If it were the seventh council, it would confirm the sixth, the fifth, and other previous councils. Your council should not be called the seventh, but the first: the first to reject the traditions of all six councils preceding it!"
To this the bishops protested, “What tradition handed down by the first six councils have we rejected? We accept both the earlier councils and their traditions."
“Were not those councils held in holy churches magnificently adorned with icons?" said the saint. “The first council took place in the great cathedral of Nicea, the second in Constantinople, in the Church of Holy Peace. The third was held in Ephesus, in the Church of Saint John the Theologian, and the fourth in the cathedral church of Chalcedon. The fifth and sixth councils met in Constantinople, one in the Church of Holy Wisdom, the other in the palace church of Trullo. Were not all these churches adorned with holy icons? Not one of these councils denounced the icons as has your council! What answer have you to this?”
Astonished by his words, all the bishops fell silent, except for one, who exclaimed, “Indeed, Stephen has spoken the truth!”
The godly Stephen then lifted up his eyes and hands to heaven, and sighing from the depths of his heart, cried with a loud voice, "Let him be anathema who refuses to venerate the Lord Jesus Christ depicted upon the icons according to His human nature, and may his lot be with those who cried, Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!”
Since they could not prevail over the saint in debate, the bishops ordered that he be imprisoned again. In shame, they returned to the Emperor, who enquired about their mission. The bishops did not wish to tell him of their defeat; Callistus, however, related to the Emperor the whole truth, saying, "We have been vanquished, O Emperor, overcome by Stephen, a wise man, most wise indeed. His words are full of ineffable power and his heart is fearless. He is afraid neither of threats nor death itself."
Enraged, the Emperor ordered that the venerable Stephen be banished to the island of Proconnesus in the Sea of Marmara.

Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints - St. Dimity of Rostov - November the 28th, The Holy Martyr Stephen the New, pp. 640-643

Meanwhile the wicked Emperor [Constantine Copronymos] heard report of our venerable father Stephen, who was struggling in asceticism on Mount Auxentius. Learning that he was a man of virtue, well acquainted with the divine Scriptures, a zealot for the holy icons who taught all to revere the sacred images, whose fame was such that he was glorified as the equal of the holy fathers of old, the Emperor plotted how he might lead Saint Stephen astray. Certain that if the godly one accepted his beliefs, the impious doctrines of iconoclasm would be much strengthened, he summoned one of his firmest supporters among the patricians, his first councilor Callistus, who was skilled and tried in the art of rhetoric. This man he commanded to go to the venerable Stephen and proclaim to him that it was the Emperor's will that he give his consent to the decrees of the council which had condemned the veneration of icons, and that he sign the acts of the council. Moreover, the Emperor sent with Callistus gifts for the venerable one; not gold or silver, because he knew that the saint had no need of these things, but various foods which the godly one ate: dates, almonds, and figs.
Arriving at Saint Stephen's cell, Callistus offered him the Emperor's gifts and related to him Copronymus' message. Spreading out the cunningly woven net of his words, referring often to the sacred Scriptures, he harangued the saint for a very long time in the hope that the blessed one would submit. The saint endured Callistus' lengthy tirade, wisely answering his every point, and at the end declared to him fearlessly, "I will not sign the decrees of your council, which are full of lies and deceit, nor do I praise them. It is not my custom to call bitter sweet or darkness light, since I do not wish to bring upon my head the prophet's curse. I am ready to die for the holy icons and have no fear of the Emperor's threats!" Then Stephen stretched out his arm, and cupping his hand, said, "If I had within me only as much blood as can be held in my hand, I would not hesitate to offer it to be shed for the icon of Christ. Take back the gifts you have brought me from the Emperor; I am in no need of them. With the divine Scriptures I say, As for the oil of the sinner let it not anoint my head. Let my throat not delight in food given me by a heretic!"
Vanquished by these words, Callistus returned to the Emperor and told him everything Stephen had said. The Emperor became very angry and sent the nobleman back to Mount Auxentius, accompanied by brutal soldiers. The Emperor had commanded them to drag the godly Stephen from his cell, to take him to the Convent of Trikhinarion, which stood at the base of the mountain, and to imprison him there. The soldiers therefore broke down the door of the blessed one's cell and mercilessly dragged him away to the convent. There they locked up the saint and all his disciples. The soldiers remained on guard, awaiting further orders from the Emperor, but from within the saint could be heard chanting with his monks, "We bow down before Thine all-pure image, O Good One!" They remained imprisoned for six days, tasting no food whatsoever, and on the seventh an order was received from the Emperor commanding that Stephen be returned to his cell.

Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints - St. Dimity of Rostov - November the 28th, The Holy Martyr Stephen the New, pp. 632-634

Историки не разъ высказывали удивленіе, почему нѣмецкое наступленіе на Москву остановилось, когда цѣль была почти достигнута.
( Далѣе.. )

Saint Amphilochius once had an audience with the pious Emperor Theodosius, whom he entreated to banish the Arians from their places of worship in every city. The Emperor, not wishing to appear harsh in the eyes of the people, refused the saint's request. Saying nothing, Amphilochius departed. A few days later, however, he returned to the palace, and did something wise and memorable. The Emperor was sitting on his throne, and Amphilochius prostrated himself before him, showing him the proper respect and greeting him warmly, but paid no heed to Theodosius' son Arcadius, who not long before had been raised to the imperial dignity. The Emperor was furious, and unable to endure the disrespect shown his son, ordered that the blessed Amphilochius be driven from the palace in disgrace; but before he could be taken away, Saint Amphilochius explained, "Do you see, O Emperor, how you have become angry with me because you cannot bear to see your son held in disdain? Similarly, God the Father cannot suffer those who do not honor His Son as they should. The Father detests and turns away from those who blaspheme His Son, and His anger is upon those who have communion with their accursed heresy!"

The Emperor understood that Amphilochius did not show honor to his son because he wished to make plain how God the Son is to be revered in exactly the same manner as the Father. Marvelling at the saint's wise parable and teaching, the Emperor rose from his throne, fell down before Amphilochius, and begged his forgiveness. He published a decree throughout the Empire, commanding that the Arians be driven out of every city by threats and force. Thus did Saint Amphilochius cleanse the Church of Christ of these heretics.

Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints – St. Dimitry of Rostov – November 23rd, pp 506-507

( ... )

Дарование свобод и учреждение Государственной Думы, имело своей главной целью дать России возможность, сохраняя свои исторические формы государственности, идти в ногу со временем, пройти опасный переход из одной исторической эпохи в другую, сохраняя самое себя. Эта мысль четко прослеживается у Николая II. Когда Витте сказал ему, что в лице Думы, он нашел верного помощника и опору, Царь, скрывая раздражение, заметил: «Не говорите мне этого Сергей Юльевич, я отлично понимаю, что создал себе не помощника, а врага, но утешаю себя мыслью, что мне удастся воспитать государственную силу, которая окажется полезной для того, чтобы в будущем обеспечить России путь спокойного развития, без резкого нарушения тех устоев, на которых она жила столько времени»
( ... )

Сегодня 90 лѣтъ со дня преставленія св. исповѣдника іеросхимонаха Антонія Булатовича († въ ночь на 23 ноября / 6 декабря 1919 г.).

Тропарь преподобному исповѣднику Имени Божія Антонію, гласъ 6-й

Православія поборниче, вѣрныхъ воистинну въ почитаніи имени Божія утвержденіе, монашествуюшихъ славо и похвало, призыванія имени Божія ревнителю усердный, яко во имени Божіемъ Самъ Богъ есть учителю изрядный, имяборцевъ злыхъ ереси обличителю и нечестія ихъ заградителю, Антоніе преподобне на Аѳонѣ и въ Россіи дивно просіявшій, въ богословіи древнимъ ревнителямъ уподобившійся, новый Григоріе Паламо, за имя Христово излиха пострадати отъ имяборцевъ изволивый, и иныхъ страдальцевъ за имя Божіе къ Богу приведшій, моли Того правей вѣрѣ во имя Его утвердитися во спасеніе душъ нашихъ.

"Это было в первые годы революции. Мы сидела втроем на веранде настоятельских покоев Свято-Троицкого монастыря в Киеве: известный духовный писатель С. А. Нилус, кн. В. Д. Жевахов (брат бывшего товарища Обер-Прокурора Св. Синода) и я. Несмотря на значительную разницу лет, меня связывала с князем глубокая дружба и этим связывающим звеном был преподобный Серафим. Князь тогда жил в монастыре, готовясь к принятию монашества (он это и сделал), окончив впоследствии свою жизнь священномучеником архиепископом Астраханским Иоасафом.

С. А. Нилус только что приехал в Киев, пережив очередной арест. Его внутренний и внешний облик произвели на меня сильное впечатление (это было мое первое знакомство с ним). Он много в этот вечер рассказывал о своих поездках в Саров и Дивеево.

— Сергей Александрович, — спросил я, — вы имели такую возможность ознакомиться с архивами и преданиями Сарова и Дивеева, не встречали ли Вы каких-нибудь указаний о грядущей судьбе нашей многострадальной Родины? Ведь Вы имели радость беседовать еще с инокинями — современницами преп. Серафима и с супругой самого Мотовилова, Еленой Ивановной.

Сергей Александрович долго молчал, а потом — поднявшись во весь свой богатырский рост, — стал взволнованно ходить по веранде.
( Зри далѣе.. )

Естественно, тѣ, кто не вѣритъ въ заговоры, называютъ подобные тексты бредомъ. Но подобный взглядъ есть только результатъ недостаточной освѣдомлённости въ томъ – какія силы дѣйствуютъ въ мірѣ и что стоитъ за современной политикой.
( Зри далѣе.. )

( Посмотрѣть документъ )

( Въ слѣдующемъ году мы станемъ свидѣтелями искусственно сконструированной смуты.. )

Тропарь праздника Введенія во храмъ Пресвятой Богородицы

гласъ 4-й

Днесь благоволенія Божія предображеніе и человѣковъ спасенія проповѣданіе, въ храмѣ Божіи ясно Дѣва является и Христа всѣмъ предвозвещаетъ. Той и мы велегласно возопиимъ: радуйся, смотрѣния Зиждителева исполненіе.

Кондакъ

гласъ 4-й

Пречистый храмъ Спасовъ, многоцѣнный чертогъ и Дѣва, священное сокровище славы Божія, днесь вводится въ домъ Господень, благодать совводящи, яже въ Дусѣ Божественномъ, Юже воспѣваютъ Ангели Божіи; Сія есть селеніе небесное.

Величаніе

Величаемъ Тя, Пресвятая Дѣво, Богоизбранная Отроковице, и чтимъ еже въ храмъ Господень вхожденіе Твое.

Задостойникъ

Ангели, вхожденіе Пречистыя зряще, удивишася: како Дѣва вниде во Святая Святыхъ. Яко одушевленному Божію кивоту, да никакоже коснется рука скверныхъ, устне же вѣрныхъ Богородице немолчно, гласъ Ангела воспѣвающе, съ радостію да вопіютъ: истинно вышши всѣхъ еси, Дѣво Чистая.

In addition to what we have said, the Virgin was also silently making an important statement to the onlookers, that she was not being unreasonable in choosing to live in quietness and solitude. The Holy of Holies was out of sight of almost everyone, shut off from everybody, and protected by encircling walls and curtains, with veils and hangings before the entrances, which were never opened for anyone except the high priest according to the law, and only once a year for him, when he entered to gain God's mercy for himself and those outside (cf. Leviticus 16:6, 11, 15). So how could the altar of the delight of the angels, the field in which the evergreen, or rather, eternal plant grows, the mercy-seat for the whole of mankind, into which the High Priest with the highest divine authority (Hebrews 6:20; 7:26), the only one suitable for us, according to the apostle, entered once, and where He reconciled God to men and inseparably united them; how could the virginal treasure be kept anywhere else but in this innermost sanctuary, passing her life invisible to all?
If, according to the apostle, "the world was not worthy" even of the holy men of old, how could it deserve her who was higher than the saints of heaven? Understand also from this just how excellent the Virgin is. The former saints, when they fled from dwelling among men, were given, as the apostle tells us, deserts, mountains and caves of the earth to live in (Hebrews 11:38), whereas she was granted the Holy of Holies as her home.

St. Gregory Palamas - Homily 53 - On the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Holy of Holies II, pp. 423-424