French Orthodox Chants

This is the website of Father Cassian of the GOC-Stephanos (Matthewite) Synod, which I am still looking into, so not yet able to recommend.  The contents of Father's site seems good, though, and the liturgical chant has the European sounds we are used to in the west.  Apprécier!

LE SITE DES VRAIS CHRÉTIENS ORTHODOXES (VCO) FRANCOPHONES

(THE SITE OF TRUE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS (VCO) FRENCH SPEAKING) 

http://orthodoxievco.net/

Chants Liturgiques avec Notation

(Liturgical Chants with Notation)

All these chants can be listened to (with synthesized voice) and printed

http://orthodoxievco.net/chants.htm

Video on the Name Worship Heresy

 

What is the Name Worshipping Heresy/Imiaslavie?, Old Calendar Journalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2Rzx58VaY

Name-Worship Heresy

Another synod bites the dust.  I had recently been an enquirer with a "Matthewite" synod of the "Genuine Orthodox Church", under Met. Sozomenos out of Birmingham, England.  After taking part in their group WhatsApp chat, however, I was surprised to learn that they believe in the "Name-Worship" heresy, and promptly left. 

This heresy had been condemned early in the 20th century.  The GOC movement began in 1924, in opposition to the abandonment of the ecclesiastical calendar in Greece.  But, in order to justify the Name-Worship heresy, they must not only denounce the 1913 Russian Synod, but also the Synods of the Ecumenical Patriarchs in Constantinople, under Patriarch Joachim III  (1901-1912) and his successor Patriarch Germanos V, as well as Patriarch Gregory of Antioch who condemned the heresy in 1912.  The GOC doesn't tell people what it really believes up front, since most would simply dismiss its members for the deceiving heretics they are.  The sect first has people invest themselves, then the sugar-coated pitch for acceptance of the condemned heresy is made!  

Since I had suggested this synod to readers in the past, I'm now obliged to warn against it, and all other "Matthewite" sects.  Rome fell with the corruption of one man, the pope.  The Orthodox synods, having greater autonomy, have splintered into many sects during this Great Apostasy, so it is difficult to discern who is actually Orthodox.  Here is a synod that rightly condemns the heresy in its belief statement:

Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC), "What We Believe"

https://trueorthodox.eu/who-we-are-and-what-we-believe/

...We reject the heresy of name-worshipping, as did the synods of both Russia and Constantinople in 1913, which goes so far as to believe that “in the very sounds and the letters of the name of God the grace of God is present” (Apology, pg 188) or, which is essentially the same, that God is inseparably present in His name, which results finally in God being somehow subordinate or subject to man; and moreover, that we can consider Him to be somehow at the disposal of man. It is sufficient (even without faith or unconsciously) for a man to pronounce the name of God, and God is somehow obligated through His grace to be with this man and fulfil his desires.” (Decision of the Russian Synod, 1913) 

Here is some historical information: 

A Note on the Heresy of Name-Worship, ROCOR (schismatics)

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/nameworship.htm

History

Name-worship began in 1907 with a book written by an ill-educated hermit, formerly a monk of Mt Athos, called Fr Hilarion. In this book, a work of his imagination which was clearly infected by spiritual delusion, Fr Hilarion spoke of the prayer of the heart and wrote that, ‘The name of God is God Himself and can work miracles’. By 1909 this phrase, further distorted and made into a new dogma by Fr Hilarion, had become popular among some Russian peasant monks on Mt Athos. [And purportedly adopted by Rasputin, as well!]

Some of these fell into a sort of obscurantist superstition, claiming that the name of God must have existed before the world was created and that therefore His name cannot be anything but God Himself. They asserted, as a form of fetishistic idolatry, that the name of God is God Himself, hence the title ‘name-worship’. Among other things, this was thought to mean that the mere knowledge of the name of God allows one to work miracles. Paradoxically, this attracted not only uneducated and unscrupulous charlatans, but also esoteric, intellectual philosophers (in fact intellectual charlatans), who saw in it a form of Neo-Platonism - which it is.

The Heresy Condemned

Obviously, for the Church, name-worship is a form of superstitious paganism, which is quite incompatible with Christianity. Since, before the Creation, God did not need a name, so a name was created, a created sound which has no mystical power in itself whatsoever. The main proponent of name-worship was a Russian Athonite monk, a disgraced former cavalry officer whom some considered to be mentally deranged, called Fr Antony (Bulatovich). The Church responded to him and his fanatical peasant followers in no uncertain terms through the highly-educated Patristic figure of Archbishop Antony of Volhynia (later Metropolitan of Kiev and first candidate for Patriarch). He rightly called name-worship a heresy. Naturally, he was supported in this by the monks of Optina (including St Barsanuphius) and Glinsk, by the Russian Holy Synod and, in 1912, by Patriarch Joachim of Constantinople.

However, in 1913 Russian name-worshipping monks on Mt Athos became more and more violent. They began assaulting the other 4,500 Russian Orthodox monks there (among them the future St Silvanus, in Russian Silouan) and threatening to kill them. The new Patriarch of Constantinople, Germanos V, condemned name-worship as pantheistic. Acts of fanatical violence and the persecution of Orthodox monks became so dreadful that the Greek authorities proposed sending in troops and removing all Russian monks, with the secondary aim of hellenising Mt Athos completely. As a result, in June 1913 the Russian government was obliged to send three small ships to Mt Athos to rescue the Orthodox from the violence, taking the name-worshippers off Athos and back to the Russian Empire. In all 840 monks were transported back to Russia in July 1913. In reality, as the name-worshippers themselves admitted, only some fifty were actually leading the new sect. The others were simply pious and zealous, but uneducated. The leaders were defrocked for their violence towards the Orthodox monks, but the vast majority later repented and were received back into the Church.

The Later Attraction of Intellectuals

After these tragic events, His Holiness the Patriarch, St Tikhon of Moscow, was quite firm in his condemnation of name-worship, signing a document to this effect in October 1918. In January 1919 the wealthy landed leader of the name-worshippers, Antony Bulatovich, broke away from the Church, before being murdered on his estate in December 1919 by robbers or soldiers of the Red Army. Most of the proponents of name-worship were uneducated and often illiterate peasants, attracted to the crude and materialistic idolatry of a name. However, after the Revolution two philosophers, who had by then entered the Church and been ordained, though never fully Churched, Fr Paul Florensky and Fr Sergius Bulgakov, both later considered heretics, supported name-worship.  Part of the attraction was without doubt the ‘romantic’ propaganda put about by the eloquent ringleader, Antony Bulatovich. He set himself up as an unjustly deposed victim...

For a study of the heresy itself, see Vladimir Moss' excellent published work On the Name of God:

On the Name of God, Moss, 2007
https://www.academia.edu/10213604/ON_THE_NAME_OF_GOD 

An Examination of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Name of God in the Context of the "Name-Worshipping" Heresy of Fr. A. Bulatovich and Fr. G. Lourie  

Contents  
Historical Introduction
Part I: The Principles of the Orthodox Teaching
1. Names and Knowledge
2. The Nameable and the Unnameable 
3. Names, Energies and Hypostases
4. The Name of Jesus 
Part II:  Art II: The Main Arguments of The Name-Worshippers
5. Name-worshipping and Eunomianism (I) 
6. Name-worshipping and Eunomianism (II)
7. Name-worshipping and Pantheism 
8. Name-worshipping and the Sacraments 
9. Name-worshipping and Icons 
10. Name-worshipping and the Jesus Prayer
Conclusions

Here are two of the synodal decrees that condemn the heresy:

Decision of the Russian Synod, 1913

https://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/decision-of-russian-synod-1913.html

By the Grace of God, the most holy ruling Synod of all Russia, to the all-honorable brethren who are struggling in the monastic polity, grace to you and may peace from the Lord Jesus Christ be abounding.

The recently-appeared teaching of the Schemamonk Hilarion about the most sweet name of the Lord Jesus, which has agitated many of the Orthodox, both monks and laymen, has become a subject of diligent examination in the most holy Synod. For the sake of all possible objectivity, the most holy Synod heard three investigations (attached herein), composed separately from one another; and after sufficient deliberation, unanimously accepted the final conclusions of these investigations, as much as these conclusions are entirely in agreement with the judgments of the Greek theologians of the island of Halki and the decision of the All-Holy ecumenical Patriach and his Synod. Without entering here into a detailed exposition of this newly appeared teaching and all the proofs of its unorthodoxy (they who desire it may read these details in the attached reports), the most holy Synod considers it sufficient to note the principle and most essential points, first of the teaching of Fr. Hilarion as set forth in the book ‘On the Mountains of the Caucasus’, and then the theories of his followers on Mt. Athos, as these were expressed in the ‘Apology’ of Schema-Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich and in diverse appeals and pamphlets sent from Mt. Athos (including those in the name of “The League of Archangel Michael”). 

As concerns, first of all, the book ‘On the Mountains of the Caucasus’, it had a wide circulation among the monastics and was received favorably, and it is not at all remarkable, for this book has as its subject the precious treasure of the ascetics “noetic asceticism” [prayer of the heart]. It confirms the necessity of this practice which has somewhat been neglected by the monks of our times; it gives a clear expression to many things, which the ascetics feel inwardly in their experience, but in the form of unclear presentiments and conjectures.

An objective judgment of such a desirable book, and much more its condemnation, when considering its shortcomings/failings was not easy, for everyone fittingly feared that in condemning the failings of the book, he might cast a shadow of disapproval upon the sacred truths for which this book was published in order to establish them. In spite of this, however, from the first edition of this book, many who were experienced in the spiritual life found it questionable. The most holy Synod knows, for example, that in one of our most illustrious monasteries in the north of the Empire, reading of ‘On the Mountains of the Caucasus’ was forbidden by the elders. What constitutes the deception of Fr. Hilarion? It consists in this; that Fr. Hilarion, not being satisfied with the description of the prayer of the heart, of its spiritual fruits, its necessity for salvation, etc., bowed to the temptation of giving his own somewhat philosophical elucidation of why the prayer of Jesus is salvific; and forgetting the guidance of the holy Church, he wandered lost in his own theories; he invented, as he himself says, a new “dogma”, which was found nowhere else before, leading not to the magnifying of the most sweet name “Jesus”, nor to a strengthening of the prayer of the heart (which was, we think, the intention of Fr. Hilarion) but leading entirely to the contrary.

Truly, we must ask ourselves what is the Jesus prayer in the understanding of the holy Orthodox Church? It is the invocation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the blind man in Jericho cried out calling upon “Jesus, thou son of David have mercy on me”; and he did not cease from crying, paying no attention until the Lord hearkened unto his prayers (“Lord, that I might have my sight”, etc Mark 10:46-52). So also, does the ascetic of noetic prayer unceasingly call upon the Lord Jesus with undoubting faith, with humility, and with continuous cleansing of the heart that Jesus might come and grant him “to taste and see that the Lord is good”. From the Holy Gospel we know that God does not abandon “His own elect which cry day and night unto Him” (Luke 18:7), for He gives them His grace, for (with the Father and the Spirit) “He cometh and maketh His abode among such” for Himself. Where the grace of the Holy Spirit is, there also are the fruit of the Spirit. “Wherever God is, here also is every good”, as a certain ascetic said, for the kingdom of God is there. Behold, this is what constitutes the source and cause and the entire interpretation of those exalted and sweet conditions which befit those higher degrees of noetic asceticism [prayer of the heart] which do not only possess the soul, but which are also manifested in the bodily life of man; they are the gift of the source of every good in response to our beseeching: an entirely free gift, explainable only by the goodness of Him who gives it; since he is free to give or not to give, to both increase and decrease, and also to take away completely His gifts. But this so natural and comforting explanation which so arouses in us love for the good Lord appeared to Father Hilarian and his followers to be insufficient; and they decided to replace it with their teaching, i.e., that the Jesus prayer saves, because the name “Jesus” is salvatory, for in it, as in the other divine names, God is inseparably present. But saying this, they do not suspect apparently to what fearful conclusions such a teaching inevitably leads. For if this doctrine is true, then it follows that the unconscious repetition of the name of God is effective (so Father Bulatovich states in his Apology, page 89). “If you unconsciously invoke the name of the Lord Jesus, you will still have Him in His name with all His divine properties like a book with everything printed in it; and if you invoke Him as man, you will still have in the name ‘Jesus’ all of God.” However this contradicts the very words of the Lord, “Not everyone that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven(Matt 7:21 ff). If this new doctrine be true, then in this case, it would be possible for someone to perform miracles with the name of Christ without believing in Christ. However our Lord told the Apostles that they could not cast out the demon “Because of their unbelief” (Matt. 17:20). If the interpretation of Father Hilarion and his followers is accepted, some events cannot be understood such, as that recorded in Acts 19:14 ff. More significantly, the acceptance (by Father Bulatovich) that “in the very sounds and the letters of the name of God the grace of God is present” (Apology, pg 188) or, which is essentially the same, that God is inseparably present in His name, which results finally in God being somehow subordinate or subject to man; and moreover, that we can consider Him to be somehow at the disposal of man. It is sufficient (even without faith or unconsciously) for a man to pronounce the name of God, and God is somehow obligated through His grace to be with this man and fulfill his desires.

But this is now blasphemy! This is a magical superstition, which long before has been condemned by the Holy Church. Certainly both Fr. Hilarion and all those of like mind with him will turn their faces away with horror from such blasphemy; but, however if they do not like this, they are obligated to come to doubt concerning their “dogma” which necessarily results in such a condition. Not less dangerous results are from this new teaching for the ascetic life, for noetic asceticism [prayer of the heart]. If the grace of God is present in those sounds and letters of the name of God, f this name pronounced by us or the idea of it held in our spirit is God, then the first place in noetic asceticism is now taken not by the invocation of the Lord, not by the lifting up of our heart and our mind to Him (for why should I invoke Him, whom I practically by force possess Him already in my heart or spirit?) but rather the first place will be the repetition of the words of the prayer and the mechanical turning of it in the mind and on the tongue.  

An inexperienced ascetic will entirely forget that this prayer is directed towards someone, he will be satisfied only in the mechanical repetition and he will expect from this dead repetition those fruits which only the true Jesus prayer gives. When he does not receive these fruits, he will either lose heart or he will begin to produce them artificially in himself and to accept this exultation wrought by him as the action of grace. In other words, he will fall into deception. Certainly, Fr Hilarion does not wish such to befall anyone.  

The followers of Fr. Hilarion who wrote the ‘Apology’ and the appeals from Mt. Athos consider themselves to be followers of St Gregory Palamas and their opponents to be Barlaamites. This however, is an evident misunderstanding; the similarity between the teaching of St. Gregory and this new teaching is only external and just in appearance. St Gregory taught that we must attribute the term “divinity” not only to the essence of “God” but also to the “energy” or to His energies, i.e., to the divine attributes: wisdom, goodness, omniscience, omnipotence, etc., through which God reveals Himself to them without, and in this manner the Saint taught that we should use the term in a somewhat broader sense than usual. This variable sense of the term constitutes the whole resemblance of St Gregory’s teaching with this new teaching, but essentially there is a complete difference between them. 

First, the Hierarch in no place names the energies “God” but teaches that we should name them “divinity” (not God, but divinity). The difference between these two terms can be easily understood from the following example. It is said, “Christ showed His divinity on Tabor”, but no one, however, would say, “Christ showed His God on Tabor”; this would either be mindless or blasphemy. The word “God” indicates the person or personality, while the word “divinity” the attribute, the quality, the nature. In this way, even if we acknowledge the name of God as an energy of His, in such a case we could name it simply divinity, but not God, much less “God Himself” as do these new teachers. Secondly, the Hierarch nowhere teaches that we should confuse the energies of God with the results of these energies in the created world, which is to confuse the energy with the fruits of the energy. For example, the Apostles saw the glory of God on Tabor and heard the voice of God. We can say about them that they saw and heard the divinity.

Descending from the mountain, the Apostles remembered that which had taken place and then narrate it to others, communicated to them all the words heard by them. Can it be possible to say that they communicated to others the divinity? That their narration was an energy of God? Certainly not. It was simply the fruit of the divine energy, the fruit of its activity in the created world. However, there new teachers manifestly confuse the energy of God with its fruits, when they name as divinity as God Himself, the names of God, and every divine word, and indeed even the church prayers, i.e., not only the word spoken by God, but all our words about God, “The words, by which we name God” as is written in the objection to the Confession of Faith of the Monastery of St Panteleimon (in a parenthesis to the words of St Symeon the new Theologian). But this is already a deification of the creature, pantheism, which considers that all that exists is God. Wherefore, the danger is clearly justified, that was pointed out in the theological verdict from the theologians of Halki theological School. In this confusion of the creature and the divinity one discerns not a resemblance with the teaching of St Gregory Palamas, but rather an exact resemblance to the teaching of Barlaam and his followers, whom the holy Father refuted, for among other things, also accepting somehow two kinds of divinity, created and uncreated (Porphyrius, History of Mt Athos, Vol 3, page 748). In order to support its conjectures, the Apology and other writings of like mind with it did not bring forward quotations from Holy Writ and the writings of the Holy Fathers. For Fr Hilarian did not confess in vain to his spiritual father [Kyrikos] that the teaching of this new dogma “is found nowhere.”

The passages presented do not prove the ideas of the followers of this doctrine, as is proved in detail here in the attached statements. The phrases “thy name”, “The name of the Lord” and the like in the language of sacred literature (and together with these, in the Fathers of the Church and in the Church’s hymns and prayers) are simply descriptive expressions, like “the glory of the Lord”, “the eyes, ears, hands of the Lord”, or referring to a man, “my soul”. It would be extremely erroneous to understand literally and to attribute eyes and ears to the Lord or the soul as separated from a man. Likewise, not in the least is there any foundation to perceive in the former expressions traces of some teaching concerning the name of God; i.e., the deification of he name of God; the phrases simply mean “Thou” or “the Lord”. A great many passages of Holy Writ, aside from the foregoing, are arbitrarily misinterpreted by the followers of this new doctrine, so that justly we can bring to mind the anathema published against them who attempt “to misinterpret and change that which is spoken by the grace of the Holy Spirit” (Greek Triodion pg. 149) which anathema is referred to in the Appeal of the League of Archangel Michael (section 6).

In the appended expositions, examples of such misinterpretations are presented; here one of them of all will suffice. One of the objections in the Confession of the Panteleimonites refers to the words of Symeon the New Theologian, “The words of men are changeable and empty, but the word of God is living and active”. But where herein either refers to the creative word of God (e.g. “Let the be light, and there was light” and the like) or it refers to the begetting before all eternity of the Son of God, the Word of God. The editor of the objection himself simply interpolated after “the word of God” (that is, the words with which we name God) and he achieved that which he desired, forgetting that the words proceeding from the mouth of men, even if they are spoken concerning God, are not possible to be equal with the words from the mouth of God.

With special insistence, the followers of the new teaching refer to the late Fr. John of Kronstadt, in order to prove their doctrine. Wonderful to say, the writings of this blessed man are widely available. One might say that all have read them. Why then up till now, no one has observed in them such a teaching expect Fr. Hilarion and his followers? This and only this now cause one to doubt the accuracy of the reference to Father John. Carefully reading the works of Fr. John everyone can be convinced that Fr John is speaking only concerning the particular phenomenon in our consciousness when praying, with the pronouncement of the name of God in our heart, and especially in the Jesus prayer, we do not separate Him in our consciousness from the pronounced name, and that the Name and God Himself coincide. Fr John counsels that we not separate them, not to attempt in prayer to think of God as separated from the name and outside it; this advice is entirely necessary and reasonable for the man who is praying. If we, so to speak say, enclose God in His name, when in it is pronounced in the heart, we are protected from the danger of attributing to God, when we address Him, a material form, which all the law givers for spiritual warfare dissuade us from doing.

The name of God at the time of prayer should in some fashion be fused or identified with God so as to be inseparable. Not unjustly did Fr. Hilarion in the beginning said that the name of God for the man praying is not ”God” but “like God”. But this is so only in prayer and in our heart and it depends only upon the limits of our consciousness and our created nature. However, never is it concluded from the foregoing, that outside of our consciousness the name of God is identical with God, that it is divinity. Wherefore, Fr John, if he like many other church writers, refers to the special and miraculous power of the name of God, he also clearly gives us to understand that this power does consist of the name itself as such, but in the invocation of the Lord, who or whose grace is acting. For example, we read in his My Life in Christ, (book 4, pg 30, 2nd edition, revised by the author, Petrograd, 1893) “the almighty and creative spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ is everywhere and He can everywhere name the non existent as existing (Matt. 18:20) ‘And lo, I am with you alway…’ But so that the heart of little faith might not think that the Cross or the name of Christ accomplish these things in and of themselves, and that the same Cross and the name of Christ, do not produce miracles when I do not look with the eyes of the heart or of the faith in Christ the Lord and I do not believe with all my heart in everything which he did for our salvation.” These words in no way agree with the new dogma of Fr. Hilarion and Fr Anthony Bulatovich that supposedly “the name has almighty power to work miracles as a consequence of the presence in it of the divinity” (fourth point of the Appeal of the League of the Archangel Michael.). On the contrary, that which Fr. Chrysantus and the others spoke and wrote against such a teaching is validated, i.e., the name of God works miracles under the condition of faith. In other words, when a man pronounces the name, he awaits the miracle not from speaking the words, but he calls upon the Lord, whom the name indicates, and the Lord according to the faith of this man performs the miracle. The Lord also designates this absolutely necessary condition for a miracle, “If ye have faith and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain be thou removed and cast into the sea; it shall be done, and all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive (Matt 21:21-22). “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove ye hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you [(Matt 17:20) et. al.]. So does the Apostle Peter explains the healing of the lame man in Acts 3:6 “And His name through faith in His name both made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea the faith which is by him hath given him this prefect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts 3:16). The falseness of this new dogma is finally verified by the conclusions, which are derived from it by its followers, especially Fr. Bulatovich in his Apology. According to him, the icons and the sign of the cross and divine mysteries of the church have effect only because upon them or during the course of performance, the name of God is portrayed or pronounced.

One cannot read without extreme astonishment the 12th chapter of the Apology (pg. 172-186) where Fr. Bulatovich, gives a new elucidation of the Divine Liturgy according to his new doctrine. Up to now, the Holy church taught us that bread and wine become the body and blood of the Lord because God by the prayers and the faith (certainly not that of the priest or of one of the congregation, but) of the Church of Christ “sends down His Holy Spirit and makes the bread the body and the wine the blood of His Christ”. Fr Bulatovich in his Apology writes that the mystery is accomplished “precisely by the pronounced name of God” i.e., supposedly, because simply the words “Holy Spirit”, “name of the Holy Spirit” and the sign of the cross was made with the fingers in a position which expressed the name (pg 183-184). But since before this the names of God are pronounced over the gifts indeed more than once, Fr Bulatovich in his sophistry maintains that in the proskomide, from the moment of the piercing of the lamb “the lamb and the wine in the chalice are all-holy, sanctified be the confession of the name of Jesus; it is Jesus according to grace, but not yet according to essence” (pg. 174). If such be the case, why did the Orthodox Church once condemn the so-called bread worshippers, who preformed prostrations before the Holy Gifts before their change? Finally, if the performance of the mysteries is restricted only to the pronouncement of certain names and the performance of certain names and the performance of certain actions, in that case these words could be pronounced and these actions preformed not only by a priest, but also by a layman and indeed even by a non-Christian. Is Fr. Bulatovich really ready to accept that even by such a server the mystery would be accomplished? Why then do we have a lawful hierarchy? It is true that in the synaxaria and other such books there are found narratives of mysteries accomplished without a lawful celebrant when the appointed words of the prayers were pronounced (indeed, sometimes as a joke or childish sport). But all these narratives bear record that God at times “became manifest to them that asked not after Him” (Esaias 65:1), as e.g., the Apostle Paul or at times, that the church’s mysteries must not be a subject of mockery or childish games, for God can punish such. In any case, such narratives do not overturn the God-given ecclesiastical order. Thus from an erroneous principle, Fr Bulatovich necessarily reaches erroneous conclusions, which on their part prove the falseness of the principle.

On the foundation of all the foregoing, the most Holy Synod unanimously is in agreement with the decision of the all-Holy Patriarch and the sacred Synod of the Great Church of Constantinople, which condemned the new teaching as “blasphemous and heretical”; and after this, the synod also beseeches everyone who has been led astray by this new teaching, to abandon this erroneous sophistry and humbly obey the voice of the Mother Church which alone upon the earth is “the pillar and ground of the truth” and outside her there is no salvation. She, the Bride of Christ, knows more than all how to love and honor her heavenly bridegroom. She, more than all, knows, embraces the most sweet name of Jesus and other names of God; but she never permits, however, this honor to extend beyond what is proper, she does permit our purblind human conjectures and our limited human perception to become superior to the truth revealed to the Church by Christ, as if we would correct it.

The Orthodox theology concerning the divine names is as follows:

1. The name of God is holy, worshipful, and desirable, because it is useful to us as a verbal designation for that most desired and most Holy Being, God, the source of every good. This name is of God, because it was revealed to us by God, it speaks to us of God, it refers our spirit towards God, etc. In prayer (especially the Jesus prayer) the name of God, and God Himself are inseparably in our consciousness, and it is if they coincide, and indeed, they cannot and ought not be separated, opposing one to the other; but this only in prayer and only by our heart. Examined theologically and in reality, the name of God is only a name. It is not God Himself nor an attribute (characteristic) of His. The name of an object is not the object itself. Therefore, it is impossible for it to be considered or named either God (this would be mindless and blasphemous) or divinity, for it also is not an energy of God.

2. The name of God uttered in prayer with faith is able to perform miracles, but not by itself in itself, nor as a consequence of some divine power which, in a matter of speaking, is enclosed in it or attached to it, which would then work mechanically, but rather thus: the Lord seeing our faith, in the power of His un-lying promise, He sends His grace, and through it He performs the miracle.

3. Each of the Holy Mysteries are accomplished neither by the faith of him who performs them nor by the faith of him who receives, but neither by the invoking or depiction of the name of God, but by the prayer and faith of the Holy Church, on whose behalf it is preformed and with the power granted he by the Lord’s promise. Such is the Orthodox faith, the patristic and Apostolic Faith.

Now the most Holy Synod invites the superiors and elders of all the venerable monasteries in Russia: after the reading of this epistle, with all the brethren present, to hold the service of supplication, that is appointed for Orthodoxy Sunday, for the return of all who have gone astray. Afterwards, if there are in the brotherhood some of contrary mind, they must express their submission to the voice of the Church and promise that from now on they will withdraw from self-willed arbitrary theories and they shall not offend anyone by them. All are obliged to forgive one another from their heart, if anyone in the excitement of the discussion said or did something offensive to the other, and they should live in peace, working out their salvation. The book, On the Mountain of the Caucuses, as containing grounds leading to erroneous theories and the Apology of Fr Bulatovich and the books and pamphlets written to establish this concocted new teaching, must be proclaimed as condemned by the Church and must be removed from circulation among the brotherhood of the monasteries and their reading to be forbidden. If after this there should still exist stubborn followers of this condemned teaching, immediately they are to be suspended from priestly service, as many as among them have the priest’s office, all who remain obstinate, after counseling, should be referred to the appointed Church court, which in the case of their further persistence and un-repentance, will deprive them of their priestly and monastic rank, so that the evil sheep not infect the flock. The most Holy Synod fervently summons to obedience, Fr Hilarion the Schemamonk, and Anthony the Schemahieromonk and the other foremost defenders of the new doctrine. For if they until now believe that they were defending a truth of the Church and that the words of the Apostle could apply to them concerning “shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:20), now when the highest authority of the church both Constantinople and Russia have passed judgment, further persistence in their own opinion is finally a battle opposing the truth and draws, upon them the threatening word of the Lord, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6). But may this lot never befall them, nor any one else, but may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God the Father and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all men. Amen.

[Synodal] Epistle of Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos V, April 5, 1913
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bmFaw9aSNFq7zGVtmP6dV3HPDkCpJF6D/view?pli=1 

Most Holy Overseers and Representatives of the Holy Mountain Athos; children of Our Modesty, grace unto Your Holinesses, and peace from God!

From the various letters received from your holy place, as well as from Your Holinesses' official report by which with sorrow was made known unto the Church concerning a newly-appeared, novel and pretentious teaching disseminated by Russian monks regarding the name of "Jesus", as being that very same Jesus and God Himself, which name in a manner of speaking, is hypostatically identified with Him. Inasmuch as this novel and unwarranted teaching which is derived from delusion and misunderstanding, due to ignorance, results in blasphemous heterodoxy and heresy, as co-identifying and confusing those things which cannot be confused, and thus, leads to pantheism, Our Modesty, along with the Most-Holy Metropolitans, and most-honored beloved brethren and concelebrants in the Holy Spirit, who were greatly troubled by the appearance, and moreover by the constant and daily distribution of this impious and soul-corrupting teaching in your chaste place (The Holy Mountain), perceived

cause to act, and we immediately once more began to give serious attention to this matter, which had been judged by Our ever-memorable predecessor, Joachim III, and by the resolution of the Sacred Synod, which had met for this purpose. And, moreover, for a more complete knowledge of the details of this delusion, we entrusted a study and examination of the source and the foundation of this same teaching to the committee of the Professors of Our Theological School in Halki, after which, having received from them their analytical explanation, relative to this matter, which explanation we have attached a copy to this letter, at a synodal meeting, we then unanimously condemned and denounced in the Holy Spirit, as blasphemous and heretical, the above-mentioned novel teaching concerning the name "Jesus" as being supposedly that self-same Jesus and God, whose very essence is contained in His name. 

Wherefore, by way of this Patriarchal Epistle, we make known to Your Holinesses concerning the Synodal condemnation and judgment of this delusion and direct you to proclaim the decision of the Church to those in the Holy Monastery of St. Panteleimon, and to those in Vatopedi's Skete of St. Andrew, as well as to all of those deluded monks to be found therein, and that you require in Our Name, and in the name of the Church, that they will all completely loathe this blasphemous delusion, and that they from henceforth completely avoid the varied and alien teachings, and faithfully remain only in that which has been received and dogmas, and in the traditional teaching of the Church, for which and by which (Church) there is no novelty. "If any one of you teacheth other than that which ye have received; let him be anathema". 

If they manifest after this second ecclesiastical admonition that some have remained in this heterodox belief and resolution, and continue to hold to this incoherent teaching; that the name "Jesus" is of itself that very God, we then say that they should be considered as heretics and rebels against ecclesiastical discipline, and that the measures indicated by the Sacred Canons must be taken, and that in no way should it be allowed that such (heretics) remain, and by their pestilence corrupt your chaste place. We pray that the Lord God enlighten all unto the path of piety and virtue.

April 5, 1913

Your fervent intercessor in Christ

[Signed:]

+ Germanos of Constantinople

Are You Giving Others an Antichrist Blessing?

According to St. Leo the Great, the Aaronic priesthood signifies a "temporal ministry", whereas Jesus Christ is of the order of Melchizedeck:

St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome, Sermon 3, #I. The honor of being raised to the episcopate must be referred solely to the Divine Head of the Church [Jesus Christ]:  ...For it is He [Christ] of whom it is prophetically written, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedeck, that is, not after the order of Aaron, whose priesthood descending along his own line of offspring was a temporal ministry, and ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but after the order of Melchizedeck, in whom was prefigured the eternal High Priest.  And no reference is made to his parentage because in him it is understood that He was portrayed, whose generation cannot be declared.  And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares: so that in the people of God's adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction, but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop.

After the rejection of the true Messiah, the Jews tried to hide His lineage by altering the dates in the book of Genesis.  In doing so, they tried to say Jesus Christ's priesthood was only an Aaronic priesthood.  Jews rejected Christ because they want a secular kingdom.  They are tirelessly working for the coming of their Mashiach, and will accept Antichrist as their Aaronic king.

John 5;43  I am come in the name of My Father, and you receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.

Star Trek's "Spock", played by the Jewish actor Leonard Nimoy

The Birth of 'Live Long and Prosper', 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdYbpMkH_XQ

"[The sign] came from my childhood, going to synagogue with my family." - Leonard Nimoy

Mork and Mindy, 1978

"Mork" played by Jewish comedic actor Robin Williams

Nanu Nanu, Mork and Mindy Wiki 
https://morkandmindy.fandom.com/wiki/Nanu_nanu

"Nanu nanu (pronounced NAH-noo NAH-noo)...is the typical Orkan greeting. Its usage may be similar to the Hawaiian word "aloha," which may be used as both a greeting and a farewell, since Mork also uses the phrase in his weekly mental reports to Orson.  When meeting new people, the phrase is paired with a Vulcan-style handshake; when addressing another Orkan..."

U. S. President Obama with Star Trek cast member Nichelle Nichols, 2012 (CIA/Mossad operatives)

Nichelle Nichols, Wikipedia:

From 1977 to 2015, she volunteered her time to promote NASA's programs and recruit diverse astronauts...Her brother was a 20 year member of the Heaven's Gate cult [both CIA projects].

She [admittedly had affairs] with both Gene Rodenberry [Jewish creator of Star Trek] and Sammy Davis Jr. [Jewish convert].  She was hired by Hugh (Jew) Hefner as a singer for his Chicago Playboy Club.

Her grandfather was Samuel G. Nichols, a white man who married a black woman, which was taboo at the time.  Her father, Samuel E. Nichols, was the mayor of Robbins, IL.

Obviously, Nichols is from a Jewish family, involved in Intelligence Projects.  The point is, there is an agenda to destroy Christian society, and replace it with an anti-Christian one.  A small part of this has been to get the unsuspecting populace to use this hand sign, which is a repudiation of Christ.

CIA Mossad Pedophile Jew Hugh Hefner, Playboy, Bunny Girls, Staged Chessboard (Tangentially, this video also speaks on the Roman cult of Bacchus.)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/133oHpaokIAF

Heaven's Gate was an Intel Project, Matthis
https://mileswmathis.com/hgate.pdf

Dictionary of American Family Names, 2022

The Meaning of [Surname] Nichols:  2. Americanized form of various like-sounding Jewish surnames.

Is the Vulcan Salute a Jewish Symbol?
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2878949/jewish/Is-the-Vulcan-Salute-a-Jewish-Symbol.htm

"Yes, the Vulcan salute is an authentic imitation of the manner by which Cohanim spread their hands in most congregations when blessing the congregation to this day.

Cohanim are those people that today comprise about four to five percent of the Jewish population, all of whom trace their paternal lineage back to Aaron, brother of Moses, who was also the first High Priest. The Cohanim performed the offerings in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple in Jerusalem. They are still afforded certain honors, and they still bless the congregation with exactly the same words with which Aaron blessed us over 3,300 years ago when we finally got the first Tabernacle up and standing...

When the Cohanim bless the people, they stand at the front of the synagogue, face the congregation, cover their faces with their tallit (prayer shawl), and spread out their hands... 

The reason the Cohanim raise and spread out their hands is because that’s just what Aaron did when he blessed us: “And Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed them…”

But why do they spread their fingers? The Midrash explains that the Shechinah—the divine presence, peers through the fingers of the Cohanim during the priestly blessing, in keeping with the verse, “…behold, He is standing behind our wall, looking from the windows, peering between the cracks.”

...Do that correctly, and you have the original version of what became popularized three thousand years later as the Vulcan salute (just with both hands).

...when the priest raises his hands in blessing...That is the time when the most ancient and concealed is revealed in the small faces, and peace prevails in all."

~~~

1 Thes. 5:2-3  ...the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them...

Pastoral Encyclical to the Orthodox Greek People, 1935

http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/1935encyclical.htm

Unjustly condemned by the schismatic Synod to deposition and a five-year imprisonment in monasteries, and seized by force by the government [which has become the executory arm of the (new calendar) Archdiocese, which by its mere word has placed itself above the divine canons, the (Church's) Charter, and the Constitution of Greece] because we had the courage and spiritual strength to raise the glorious and venerable banner of Orthodoxy, we consider it our pastoral duty before we depart [for prison] to direct the following admonitions to you that adhere to the Orthodox festal calendar of our fathers:

While faithfully following the Apostle's admonition, "Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or by our letter," do not cease from struggling by every lawful and Christian means for the strengthening and triumph of our sacred struggle, which looks to the restoration of the patristic and Orthodox festal calendar within the Church; only this can re-establish the diminished Orthodox authority of the Greek Church and bring back the peace and unity of the Orthodox Greek people. By the judgments which the Lord knows, the majority of the hierarchy of the Greek Church, under the influence and initiative of its president, has placed the blot of schism upon what up until now had been its pure and truly Orthodox countenance, when it rejected the Orthodox festal calendar — which has been consecrated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and ratified by the age-long practice of the Orthodox Eastern Church — and replaced it with the papal calendar.

Of course, this schism of the Orthodox Greek people was created by the majority of the hierarchy, which forgot its sacred and national mission and the old Greek [revolutionary] slogan: "Fight for Orthodoxy and for Greek liberty," and which, without the agreement of all the Orthodox Churches, introduced the papal festal calendar into our divine worship, thereby dividing not only the Orthodox Churches, but also the Orthodox Christians into two opposing camps.

In assuming the pastorship of the Orthodox Greek populace that follows the Orthodox festal calendar of our fathers, and being conscious of the oath of faith that we took that we would keep all that we have received from the seven Ecumenical Councils, we abjure every innovation and can not but proclaim as schismatic the State Church, which has accepted the papal festal calendar which has been described by Pan-Orthodox Councils as an innovation of the heretics and as an arbitrary trampling underfoot of the divine and sacred canons of the ecclesiastical traditions.

On account of this, we counsel all who follow the Orthodox festal calendar to have no spiritual communion with the schismatic Church and its schismatic ministers, from whom the grace of the All-holy Spirit has departed, since they have set at nought the resolutions of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the Gregorian festal calendar. The fact that the Schismatic Church does not have grace and the Holy Spirit is confirmed by Saint Basil the Great, who says: "Even though the schismatics have not erred in doctrines, yet because Christ is the Head of the Body of the Church, according to the divine Apostle, and from Him are all the members quickened and receive spiritual increase, the [schismatics] have been torn from the consonance of the members of the Body and no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit abiding with them. And how, indeed, can they impart to others that which they have not?" While the Schismatic Church imposes oppressive and intolerable measures in order to violate our Orthodox conscience, we exhort you to endure all things and to preserve the Orthodox heritage intact and unstained, even as we received it from our pious Fathers, having us as luminous and fortifying examples, seeing we are not afraid — even in the waning years of our lives — to withstand with boldness and dignity the bigoted and medieval measures of our exile and imprisonment in monasteries, as it were in prisons.

Esteeming this as honour and glory and joy, according to the Apostle, who enjoins us to rejoice and boast in or sufferings in behalf of Christ, we counsel you also to have endurance and persistence in these griefs, and afflictions, and evils, and outrages to which you will be subjected by a Church that is schismatic; and ever hope in God, Who will not permit that you be tried above what you are able to endure, and Who, in His infinite and unfathomable long-suffering, will be well-pleased to enlighten those who, out of innocence, have been led astray and follow the papal festal calendar; and in the end may he grant you the triumph of Orthodoxy and the unity of those who bear the name of Christ, the Orthodox Greek people, for whom we struggle to the glory of Christ, Whose grace and infinite mercy be with you all.

Germanos of Demetrias

Chrysostom of Florina

Germanos of the Cyclades Islands

The Calendar Question

--- A Classic Defense of the Old Calendar, proving it is part of the Tradition of the Church, by Fr. Basile Sakkas
https://www.hotca.org/orthodoxy/orthodox-awareness/203-the-calendar-question

***This link to the schismatic HOTCA website is recommended only for its English translation of The Calendar Question, which can be accessed for free.  Though Fr. Basile thoroughly explains the importance of the Church's ecclesiastical calendar, one should keep in mind that he was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), which never condemned the new calendar schism.  Fr. Basile also remained devoted to his Bishop, Anthony of Geneva, the ROCOR ecumenist who fought the condemnation of the new calendar.  

In 1935, the Genuine Orthodox Church in Greece synodally condemned those who adopt the "Revised Julian Calendar" as graceless schismatics:

Pastoral Encyclical to the Orthodox Greek People - 1935
http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/1935encyclical.htm

When one refuses to condemn a schism, but rather communes with schismatics (as ROCOR has done from the beginning), he becomes a schismatic himself.  But in the wake of ROCOR's condemnation of the Ecumenical Patriarch for his 1965 lifting of the anathema against Rome, the GOC had reason to hope that ROCOR would finally condemn, rather than tolerate, the abandonment of the ecclesiastical calendar.  

In 1971, the Genuine Orthodox Church (GOC) of Greece (Matthewite Synod) entered into communion with the ROCOR after the Synod agreed whole-heartedly with the GOC's Confession of Faith.  ROCOR then promised to confirm its verbal agreement with the GOC in an official statement condemning the new calendar as schismatic and therefore graceless.  In light of this, The Calendar Question was originally a 1972 report submitted to the secretary (Bp. Vitaly) of ROCOR, to be addressed at its next synodal meeting.  ROCOR could not reach a consensus, however.  In 1975, the Synod finally replied to the GOC, saying that though the abandonment of the ecclesiastical calendar caused a schism, ROCOR still would not make a determination as to the presence of grace among the New Calendarists.  So, in 1976 the GOC broke communion with the schismatic ROCOR.  See:

The G.O.C. and R.O.C.O.R. - 1971
http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/rocor1971.htm

How To Set Up a Home Prayer Corner

Christ Pantocrator

This article is taken from the schismatic Russian St. John the Baptist Cathedral website:

https://stjohndc.org/en/orthodoxy-foundation/how-sep-home-prayer-corner

Parishioners often ask how one should set up a home chapel/prayer corner. We offer for your consideration the article by Serge Alexeev, and hope that in it our readers will find answers to the questions most frequently posed. The article has been abridged.

• Where to place icons at home?
• Which icons should you have at home?
• How and in what order should you arrange your icons? Are there strict rules in that regard?
• What should be our attitude toward holy things? What should you do if an icon's condition has rendered it unfit for use and it cannot be restored?

Quantity and quality are two different categories. It would be naïve to assume that the more holy images there are in an Orthodox Christian's house, the more pious his life is. A disorganized collection of icons, prints, religious wall calendars covering a significant amount of living space, can often have a directly opposite effect on a person's spiritual life.

…Poorly thought out assembling of a collection of icons can turn into simple, meaningless collecting, something in which the prayerful purpose of the icon has no role whatsoever.

Nonetheless, it is essential to have icons in one's home - in sufficient numbers, but within reasonable limits.

In the past, whether on the farm or in the city, any Orthodox family's home would always have a shelf with icons, or an entire home icon screen, located in the most visible place. The place where the icons were installed was known as the front corner, the bright corner, the holy corner, God's place, or the shrine.

For the Orthodox Christian, the icon is not just a depiction of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, the Saints or of events in the history of the Church. The Icon is a sacred depiction, i.e. it rests outside the realm of ordinary reality; it is not to be confused with ordinary daily life, and is intended only for communion with God. Thus, the primary purpose of icons is for prayer. The Icon is the window from the world above into our world, the earthly world; it is God's revelation, made in delineated form and color. In this way, the Icon is not simply a family relic to be passed on from generation to generation, but a holy thing - a holy thing that unites all of the members of the family during communal prayer, for prayer in common can take place only if those standing before the Icon have mutually forgiven one another's offenses, and have achieved complete unity.

Of course, to a great extent today, when the place of the icons in the home has been taken by the television set, itself a kind of a window into the motley world of human passions, the purpose of the family icon, the tradition of common prayer at home, and the consciousness of the family as the "little Church" has been lost.

Therefore, the Orthodox Christian living in a city apartment today may ask: What icons must I have in my home? What is the proper arrangement for them? Can I use reproductions of icons? What do I do with old dilapidated icons?

Some of these questions merit an unequivocal answer, while others do not demand any kind of strict recommendations.

Where to place icons at home?

In an available and accessible place.

The terse nature of such an answer is evoked by the realities of life, rather than by the absence of canonical requirements.

Of course, it is preferable to place icons on the eastern wall of the room, because the East as a theological concept has special significance in Orthodoxy.

And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. (Genesis 2: 8)

O Jerusalem, look about thee toward the east, and behold the joy that cometh unto thee from God. (Baruch 4: 36)

Moreover the spirit lifted me up, and brought me unto the east gate of the Lord's house, which looketh eastward. (Ezekiel 11: 1)

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24: 27)

But what do you do if the house is so oriented that there are windows or doors on the eastern side? In that case, use the Southern, Northern, or Western walls of the home.

One must not combine icons with decorative objects of a secular nature such as statuettes, various types of panels, etc.

It is inappropriate to put icons onto a bookshelf next to books having nothing in common with Orthodox Truth, or books conflicting with the Christian teaching on love and charity.

It is absolutely impermissible to have icons next to signs or wall calendars on which there are photographs of rock musicians, athletes, or politicians - the idols of the current age. This not only diminishes the significance of reverence for holy images to an unacceptable level, but also puts holy icons on a par with idols of the contemporary world.

The home iconostasis can be decorated with live flowers. Traditionally, larger icons are often framed with towels. This tradition dates back to antiquity and has a theological basis. According to Tradition, an image of the Savior miraculously appeared during His life on earth in order to help a suffering man. After washing His Face, Christ wiped His Face with a clean towel, and an image of His Face appeared upon it; the towel was sent to the city of Edessa, in Asia Minor, to King Abgar, who was afflicted with leprosy. Upon being healed, the ruler and his subjects adopted Christianity, and the Image-Not-Made-By-Hands of Jesus Christ was affixed to a "permanent plaque" and raised above the city gates.

In times past, 29 August (new style calendar), the day the Church commemorates the translation of the Image Not-Made-By-Hands of our Lord Jesus Christ from Edessa to Constantinople in 944, was known among the people as the feast of the "canvas" or "linen Savior," and in some places fabric and towels made of homespun yarn were blessed.

These towels were richly embroidered and were reserved for use in the Bozhnitsa. Likewise, icons were framed by towels used during weddings and during Molebens with the Blessing of the Waters. Thus, for example, after the service for the Blessing of the Waters, when the priest would sprinkle [the icons] abundantly with Holy Water, people would wipe the icons with special towels and would incorporate them into the Bright Corner.

There is a tradition that, after the celebration of the Lord's Entry into Jerusalem, or Palm Sunday, pussy willow branches that had been blessed in church are to be kept near the icons until the next Palm Sunday.

It is the custom that on Pentecost, the Day of the Holy Trinity, the dwelling and icons should be decorated with birch branches as a symbol of the thriving Church, bearing the grace-filled power of the Holy Spirit.

Which icons should you have at home?

It is essential to have icons of the Savior and of the Mother of God. The Image of the Lord Jesus Christ - bearing witness to the Divine Incarnation and Salvation of humankind, and that of the Theotokos, the most perfect of those living on earth, the one made worthy of complete deification, the one revered as more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim (Hymn of praise to the Most-holy Theotokos) - are an essential part of the Orthodox Christian home. The icon of Christ ordinarily selected for prayer at home, is that of the Lord Pantokrator, a waist-length depiction of the Savior. (…)

Those with room for a greater number of icons in the home may supplement their iconostasis with depictions of revered local saints and, of course, of the great saints of Russia.

Russian Orthodoxy has a strong tradition of special veneration for Holy Hierarch Nicholas the Wonderworker; almost every Orthodox family has an icon of St. Nicholas. One should note that together with the icons of the Savior and the Mother of God, the image of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker has always occupied a central place in the Orthodox Christian home. The people revere Holy Hierarch Nicholas as a saint endowed with special grace. This in large part stems from the fact that according to the Church rubric, each Thursday, when the Church offers up prayers to the Holy Apostles, it also offers up prayers to St Nicholas the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Myra in Lycia.

Among the icons of the Holy Prophets of God, that of the Prophet Elias holds a prominent place; prominent among the icons of the Holy Apostles, is that of the Pre-eminent Apostles Sts. Peter and Paul.

Among the images of martyrs for the Faith in Christ most often encountered are icons of Holy Great Martyr and Trophy-bearer St. George, and the Holy Great Martyr and Healer St. Panteleimon.

It is recommended to have depictions of the Holy Evangelists, of St. John the Baptist, of the Holy Archangels Gabriel and Michael, as well as icons of the Feasts, to make a home iconostasis complete.

The selection of icons for the home is always an individual matter. The best person to help one make those choices is the priest, the family spiritual director, and it is to him, or to another clergyman, that one should turn for advice.

As for icon reproductions and color photographs, sometimes it makes more sense to have a good reproduction than a painted icon of poor quality.

The iconographer must maintain a very demanding attitude toward his work. Just as the priest has no right to serve the Liturgy without the necessary preparation, the iconographer must approach his service with all due, full, awareness of responsibility [he bears for his work]. Unfortunately, both in the past and today, one often encounters vulgar examples of [icons that are] things bearing no resemblance to icons. Thus, if a given depiction does not evoke a sense of piety and a sense of contact with the holy, if its exposition is theologically questionable and its technical execution is unprofessional, it would be best not to purchase such an item.

However, reproductions of canonical icons, mounted on a firm backing, and blessed in the Church, can occupy a place of honor in the home iconostasis.

How and in what order should you arrange your icons?

Are there strict rules in that regard?

In church, yes. As to the home prayer corner, we may limit [discussion] to but a few principal rules.

For example, an assemblage of icons hung without a sense of symmetry, without a well thought-out arrangement, evokes a constant sense of dissatisfaction with the arrangement, a desire to change everything, something that often distracts from prayer.

It is likewise essential to remember the principle of hierarchy: for example, do not put an icon of a locally venerated saint above the icon of the Holy Trinity, the Savior, the Mother of God, or the Apostles.

Just as in a classic iconostasis, the Icon of the Savior must be to the right, and the Mother of God to the left [of the center of the prayer corner].

What should be our attitude toward holy things?

As one of the attributes of God (Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord Sabaoth! (Isaiah 6: 3) holiness is also reflected in the worthy ones of God and in physical objects. Therefore, reverence for holy people and sacred objects and images, and likewise a personal striving toward authentic Communion with God are manifestations of a single order.

And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy... (Leviticus 20: 26).

A patronal icon has always been held in particular reverence. Following baptism, an infant would be brought before the icon and the priest or the master of the house would read prayers. Parents would bless their children with the icon to pursue studies, to go on extended journeys, and to engage in public service. As a sign of their approval of a wedding, the parents would likewise bless the newlyweds with an icon. Moreover, a person's departure from this life would take place in the presence of icons.

The well-known expression "you were divorced; at least bring out the saints" bears witness to people's conscientious attitude toward icons. It would be impermissible to have arguments, or engage in rowdy or otherwise improper behavior before the images of the saints.

One should instill proper reverence for holy images [in children] from a very early age.

What should you do if an icon's condition has rendered it unfit for use and it cannot be restored?

Under no circumstance can such an icon, even one that has not been blessed, be simply thrown away. A holy item, even if it has lost its original appearance, should always be treated with reverence.

If the condition of the icon has deteriorated with age, it should be taken to the church, to be burned in the church furnace. If that should be impossible, you should burn the icon yourself, and bury the ashes in a place that will not be sullied or disturbed, e.g. in a cemetery or under a tree in the garden.

The faces that look out at us from the icons belong to eternity. Gazing upon them, raise up your prayers to them, asking for their intercession. We, the inhabitants of the earthly world must never forget our Creator and Savior, His eternal call to repentance, His call to constantly perfect ourselves, and his call for the deification of each human soul.

Holy Fire of Jerusalem, a Twelfth Century Account of the Yearly Miracle

Anthology of Russian Literature, Wiener, pp.56-62

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/71933/pg71933-images.html#Page_51

Abbot Daniel, the Palmer. (Beginning of XII. century.)

Pilgrimages to the Holy Land began in Russia soon after the introduction of Christianity, but Daniel the abbot is the first who has left an account of his wanderings. Nothing is known of the life of this traveller, but from internal evidence it may be assumed that he visited Palestine soon after the first crusade, from 1106-1108. From his mention of none but princes of the south of Russia it is quite certain that he himself belonged there. In a simple, unadorned language, Daniel tells of his wanderings from Constantinople to the Holy Land and back again. Characteristic is his patriotic affection for the whole Russian land and his mention of all the Russian princes in his prayers,—a rather surprising sentiment for the period when Russia was nothing but a heterogeneous mass of appanages. None of the Western accounts of pilgrimages to Palestine surpass in interest that of the Russian palmer of that period, if they at all equal it.

OF THE HOLY LIGHT, HOW IT DESCENDS FROM HEAVEN UPON THE HOLY SEPULCHRE

Here is what God has shown to me, His humble and unworthy servant, Daniel the monk, for I have in truth seen with my own sinful eyes how the holy light descends on the life-giving grave of the Lord our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Many pilgrims do not tell rightly about the descent of the holy light: for some say that the Holy Ghost descends to the Sepulchre of the Lord in the shape of a dove, and others say that a lightning comes down and lights the lamps over the Sepulchre of the Lord. But that is not true, for nothing is to be seen, neither dove, nor lightning, but the divine Grace descends invisibly, and the lamps over the Sepulchre of the Lord are lit by themselves. I shall tell about it just as I have seen it.

On Good-Friday after vespers they rub the Sepulchre of the Lord clean, and wash the lamps that are above it, and fill them with pure oil without water, and put in the wicks which are not lit, and the Sepulchre is sealed at the second hour of night. And not only these lights, but those in all the other churches in Jerusalem are extinguished.

On that very Good-Friday I, humble servant, went in the first hour of the morning to Prince Baldwin and made a low obeisance to him. When he saw me making the obeisance, he called me kindly to him and said to me: “What do you wish, Russian abbot?” for he had known me before and loved me much, being a good and simple man, and not in the least proud. And I said to him: “Sir Prince, I beg you for the sake of the Lord and the Russian princes, let me also place my lamp over the Holy Sepulchre for all our princes and for all the Russian land, for all the Christians of the Russian land!”

The Prince gave me permission to place my lamp there and readily sent his best man with me to the œkonomos of the Holy Resurrection and to him who has charge of the Sepulchre. Both the œkonomos and the keeper of the keys to the Holy Sepulchre ordered me to bring my lamp with the oil. I bowed to them with great joy, and went to the market-place and bought a large glass lamp which I filled with pure oil without water, and carried it to the Sepulchre. It was evening when I asked for the keeper of the keys and announced myself to him. He unlocked the door of the Sepulchre, told me to take off my shoes, and led me bare-footed to the Sepulchre with the lamp which I carried with my sinful hands. He told me to place the lamp on the Sepulchre, and I put it with my sinful hands there where are the illustrious feet of our Lord Jesus Christ. At his head stood a Greek lamp, on his breast was placed a lamp of St. Sabbas and of all the monasteries, for it is a custom to place every year a Greek lamp and one for St. Sabbas. By the grace of God the lower lamps lighted themselves, but not a single one of the lamps of the Franks, which are hung up, was lighted up. Having placed my lamp upon the Sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ, I bowed before the worshipful grave, and with love and tears kissed the holy and glorious place where lay the illustrious body of our Lord Jesus Christ. We came out of the Holy Sepulchre with great joy, and went each to his cell.

Next day, on the Holy Saturday, in the sixth hour of the day, people gather before the church of the Resurrection of Christ; there is an endless number of people from all countries, from Babylon and Egypt and Antioch, and all the places about the church and about the crucifixion of the Lord are filled. There is then such a crowd inside and outside the church that many are crushed while waiting with unlit candles for the church doors to be opened. Within, the priests and people wait until Prince Baldwin’s arrival with his suite, and when the doors are opened all the people crowd in, and fill the church, and there is a large gathering in the church and near Golgotha and near Calvary and there where the Lord’s cross had been found. All the people say nothing else, but keep repeating: “Lord, have mercy upon us!” and weep aloud so that the whole place reverberates and thunders with the cries of these people. The faithful shed rivers of tears, and if a man’s heart were of stone, he could not keep from weeping, for then everybody looks within himself, remembers his sins, and says: “Perchance on account of my sins the Holy Ghost will not descend!” And thus all the faithful stand with tearful countenances and contrite hearts. Prince Baldwin himself stands there in great fear and humility, and a torrent of tears issues from his eyes; and his suite stand around him, opposite the grave and near the great altar.

In the seventh hour of the Saturday Prince Baldwin started with his suite from home for the Sepulchre, and they all walked barefooted. The Prince sent to the abbey of St. Sabbas for the abbot and his monks. And I went with the abbot and the monks to the Prince, and we all bowed before him. He returned the abbot’s greeting. The Prince ordered the abbot of St. Sabbas and me, humble servant, to come near him, and the others to walk before him, but the suite behind him. We arrived at the western doors of the church of the Lord’s Resurrection, but such a mass of people barred the way that I could not enter. Then Prince Baldwin ordered his soldiers to drive the crowd away by force, and they opened a way through the mass of the people up to the very Sepulchre, and so we were able to pass by.

We arrived at the eastern doors of the Sepulchre. The Prince came after us, and placed himself at the right side, near the partition of the great altar, opposite the eastern doors, where there was a special elevated place for the Prince. He ordered the abbot of St. Sabbas and his monks and orthodox priests to stand around the Sepulchre, but me, humble servant, he ordered to stand high above the doors of the Sepulchre, opposite the great altar, so that I could look into the doors of the Sepulchre: there are three of these doors and they are locked and sealed with the royal seal. The Latin priests stood at the great altar. At about the eighth hour of the day the orthodox priests above the Sepulchre, and many monks and hermits who had come, began to sing their vesper service, and the Latins at the great altar chanted in their own way. I stood all the time they were singing and watched diligently the doors of the Sepulchre. When they began to read the prayers of the Holy Saturday, the bishop walked down with his deacon from the altar and went to the doors of the Sepulchre and looked through the chinks, but as he did not see any light, he returned to the altar. When they had read the sixth prayer, the bishop went again with his deacon to the door of the Sepulchre, but he did not see anything within. Then all the people sang in tears: “Kyrie, eleison!”

When it was the ninth hour of the day, and they had begun to sing, “To the Lord we sing,” a small cloud suddenly came from the east and stopping over the uncovered middle of the church, came down in a rain over the Holy Sepulchre and gave us who were standing around the tomb a good drenching. And then suddenly the holy light glimmered in the Sepulchre, and then a mighty, bright brilliancy burst forth from it. Then the bishop came with four deacons and opened the doors of the Sepulchre and, taking a candle from the Prince, went inside the tomb and lighted it. After coming out again, he handed the candle to the Prince. The Prince remained standing in his place, and held the candle with great joy. From that candle we lighted all our candles, and from ours all the other candles were lighted.

This holy light is not like any earthly fire, but quite different: it burns with a bright flame like cinnabar. And all the people stood with their burning candles and wept for great joy all the time they saw the divine light. He who has not seen the great joy of that day cannot believe one who is telling about it, although good and faithful men believe it all and with pleasure listen to the account of this divine light and of the holy places, for the faithful believe the great and small things alike, but to an evil man truth is crooked. But to me, humble servant, God, and the Holy Sepulchre, and my whole suite, Russian men from Nóvgorod and Kíev, are my witnesses: Syedesláv Ivánkovich, Gorodisláv Mikhálkovich, the two Kashkíchs and many others know me and my narration.

But let us return to our story. When the light shone up in the Sepulchre, the singing stopped, and all cried aloud: “Kyrie, eleison!” Then they all went out of the church in great joy and with burning candles, watching them carefully against gusts of wind, and going home they all lighted the candles in their churches with that holy light, and finished the singing in their own churches. But in the large church of the Sepulchre the priests end the singing without the people. We went with the abbot and the monks to our monastery, carrying the burning candles, and after finishing our vesper singing, we went to our cells praising the Lord who had shown us His grace....

After three days I went to the keeper of the keys of the Holy Sepulchre and said to him: “I should like to take away my lamp!” He received me with much kindness, took me alone into the Sepulchre, and walking in, I found my lamp still burning with the holy light. I bowed before the Holy Sepulchre and kissed the glorious place where once lay the illustrious body of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then I measured the length, the width and the height of the Sepulchre, for one is not allowed to measure it in presence of others. After having honoured the Lord’s Sepulchre as much as I could, I gave the keeper a little something and a blessing. He, seeing my love for the Holy Sepulchre and kindness to himself, removed a little the boards at the head of the Sepulchre and broke off a small piece of rock from it which he gave to me after I had solemnly sworn to him that I would not tell anyone in Jerusalem about it. I bowed to the Sepulchre and to the keeper, took my lamp which was still burning, and went away with great joy, having been enriched by the grace of God, carrying in my hand a gift from the holy place and a token from the Holy Sepulchre. And thus rejoicing at the treasures which I had acquired, I went back to my cell.

EPILOGUE

I made my pilgrimage in the reign of Grand Prince Svyatopólk Izyaslávich (1050-1113), the grandson of Yarosláv Vladímirovich of Kíev. God is my witness, and the Holy Sepulchre, that in all those holy places I did not forget the Russian princes and their wives and children, nor the bishops, abbots, boyárs, nor my spiritual children, nor all the Christians, but that I remembered them everywhere. And I also thank God that He has enabled me, humble servant, to inscribe the names of the Russian princes in the monastery of St. Sabbas, where they are mentioned even now in their services....

May the benediction of the Lord, of the Holy Sepulchre and of all the holy places be on all who read this message with faith and love! For they will receive their reward from God equally with those who have made pilgrimages to the holy places. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe! Abraham came into the promised land through faith, for indeed faith is equal to good deeds. For the Lord’s sake, brothers and fathers, do not accuse my simplicity and rudeness, and do not make light of this writing; not on my account, but on account of the holy places, honour it in love, that you may receive your reward from the Lord our God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and may the God of peace be with all of you unto eternity. Amen!

See:

Miracles page:  Holy Fire of Jerusalem

https://thecatholiccottage.blogspot.com/p/miracles.html