The Saints of our Church are not extra-worldly beings, but people like us. Holiness is the open invitation of the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, addressed to every man of all time, to participate in His Cross which is the guarantee of the success of the personal Resurrection.

The Saints made the brave decision to be crucified with Christ (through the torment of blood or conscience) by crushing the “old man” through repentation. Their Christ-like humiliation attracted the Divine Grace that he did to them and made them inspired by God. This absolute union with God is “the psychology of holiness”, as St. Justin Popovic points out: “In every Saint the Lord is everything and everything in his soul, in his conscience, in his heart and in his life.”

Let us try to follow them with fidelity, zeal, love a lot and humble student disposition, because “without love for the Saints one’s orthodoxy is mutilated and one’s sense of direction closed- because one must follow the examples (f. Seraphim Rose)”.


Saint Paisios the Agioritis. Turkey will be torn into 3-4 pieces…

From the book Pilgrim Testimonies, Saint Paisios the Agioritis, 1924-1994, N. Zournatzoglou, editions of Agiotokos Cappadocia.


“Then I asked him about the constant intransigence and challenges of the Turks. He grabbed me by the shoulder and very seriously replied: “Don’t worry, son, I’m getting ready to sleep and I won’t be here, but I’ll be watching from above, because here we are all temporarily. Turkey will be torn into 3-4 pieces.


The countdown has already begun. We will take our own territory, the Armenians theirs and the Kurds theirs. The Kurdish issue is already under way. This will be done, not now, but soon, when this generation that governs Turkey ceases and takes on a new generation of politicians.


Then there will be the dismemberment of Turkey. Very soon, prayers made beneath the earth’s surface will be made upon the earth and candles lit below will be lit up. (The Elder was referring to the Greek crypto-Christians of Turkey). You’ll see them, son. Faith and hope in God exists and many will rejoice.

All this will happen over the years. The time has come.”


I also asked him if Greece would get hurt. He replied that there would be some problems, but that would be insignificant. And many people who are currently indifferent will return to the field of Orthodoxy. “Don’t worry about Greece,” he said. Leaving his cell, he said to us again:

“Go to the blessing of the Virgin Mary and don’t worry. Cyprus will be liberated in the years we are walking and Turkey will be dismembered. All countries have their problems, but there is no problem for us. Hope to God and faith,” he said. The excerpts are from the book testimonies of pilgrims Elder Paisios the Agioritis 1924-1994 , Volume 1, page: 297.

He had also said, as stated in the book testimonies of pilgrims, second edition, that: “You should not be sad and afraid of Turkey. Turkey will be dissolved and, indeed, the allies themselves will dissolve it.”


Speech in Metamorphosis Tou Sotiros – Agios Loukas Iatros

“O Do you believe that I, in the father and father in such a state? Verbs a I crow, from my own tongue. And the father in his own hands is the one who is manipulating the works. Believe that I, in the father and father, are in my heart. I do not believe in these works “(Ioan. 14, 10-11).


Great and countless were the wonders of our Lord Jesus Christ: with only one reason he resurrected the daughter of Jaeiros, Archisynagwgou, the son of the widow of Naan, even Lazarus, who was in the tomb four whole days. With one word he only attacked the winds and waves of the Gensarette Lake and became absolute serenity. With five breads and two fish feast five thousand people, with no women and children, and four loaves four thousand.


Let us remember that every day he cured the patients, curing all kinds of disease, dirty spirits from the sin people . How he gave sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf with only one touch. Isn’t that enough?


But all this was not enough for the people who envy him, for the people for whom the great prophet Isaiah said:

«Hearing hear and the usual, and seers, and not see. It was Hagar the heart of the people, and they were heavy, and the eyes of them were poured out, and they were in the eye and in the heart, and they were heard and the Hearts were returned, and I was to be with them “(Matth. 13, 14-15).

In all this, which was not enough for the hard of hearing people and with the blindfold, our Lord Jesus Christ added the great miracle of his metamorfwsews to Mount Tabor. To him, who shone with a dazzling divine light, appeared the Prophets of the Old Testament, Moses and Elijah and worshiped the creator of the law. With fear and terror they saw this wondrous spectacle the chosen Apostles Petros, Iakovos and John. And after the Nephele, who covered them, the voice of God was heard:


“This is my beloved son, I am pleased. It is heard “(Matth. 17, 5).


The Holy Apostles preached to the whole world, that our Lord Jesus Christ is “verily, the father’s clearing”.

The whole world, when he heard it, should kneel before the Lord Jesus Christ and Worship the true son of God.

The appearance in the Tabor of the two most great prophets of the Old Testament and the veneration of the Lord Jesus Christ in his transformation, to close forever the abominable lips of the secretaries and the Pharisees, who hated the Lord Jesus and the They considered the offender of the Law of Moses. But so far the Jews do not believe that he is the Messiah.


Not only do the Jews believe him, but for many Christians more and more he dazzes the Divine light of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even smaller becomes the small flock of Christ for which the Divine light of Christ shines with the same power as the which they shone in the Apostles Peter, James and John then in Mount Tabor.


But do not despair, because our Lord Jesus Christ said:

“Do not fear the small poimnion. That Eydokisen the father of ye give unto the Kingdom “(Lk. 12, 32).

Infidelity among the peoples took alarming proportions and the light of Christ was overshadowed by the dark cloud of atheism. Today more often than ever we remember the dreadful word of Christ:


“Except the son of man comer so that he could raise the world?” (Lk. 18, 8).


Not to despair, however, because he, saying of the signs of his second presence, said:

“The addition are anakypsate and you are in the head, because the dismissal of you” (Lk. 21, 28).


So be your life such that on the dreadful day of judgement we can lift our heads and not bend it deeply desperate. Amen.



Metemorphotheis in the mountain o The Lord, Jesus Christ, Deixas your disciples your glory, as it was possible. Shining and imine sinners, your light is aidion, Presbeiais of the Virgin. Photadora, Glory to thee.


«The Ossios Philotheos of Paros

The ascetic and missionary (1884-1980)»

Issue 2. -May 2001. Thes/Niki

Publication: Orthodox beehive


Orthodox faith and natural sciences


1. In Orthodoxy the opposition – and conflict – of faith (or Theology) and science is not self-evident. This is a pseudo-problem because Orthodoxy in its authentic expression and realization is a science, but with a different subject matter.

Orthodox Theology is a science and a positive one, because it has a cognitive object and uses a scientific method. In the Orthodox tradition there are two knowledge or wisdoms (Apostle Paul, James Brother God as Gregory Palamas and Eugne bulgarian, etc.).

There is the knowledge of the built (= God) and the knowledge of the builder (= the world as building and creation). The knowledge of God (theognosity) is supernatural and is achieved by man’s synergy with God. Knowledge of the world is natural and acquired through scientific research. Method of divine knowledge is the infant – purification of the heart (Psalm 50, 12 – Matth. 5, 8).
Theology is therefore the knowledge and knowledge of the coast.
Science the knowledge and knowledge of the building. Knowledge in the science of faith is called theosis and is the only purpose of Orthodoxy. Everything else is in the way of this end.

The two knowledge, built and built, work with different instruments and therefore the boundaries between them are clearly visible. An instrument of the science of faith is not the intellect, but the heart, which can accept the house of the undying, when the heart is cleansed of passions and can develop, as a supernatural organ of man, its mental function
(= energy of the mind in the heart). Observation and experimentation, basic parameters of the scientific method, also exist in the science of faith.

In the quiet method of theognosia there is observation as a view of the undying light – the divine undying energy and the experiment as the possibility of repeating this experience, which is common to all scientists of the faith, namely the Saints. What is therefore for natural scientists the telescope or microscope, for scientists of faith is the “pure heart”, which becomes a kind of “theoscope”. Theology, as a word of God, with this condition, acts as a positive science and not as a metaphysical, contemplative theology. The natural sciences seek to view the macro-world and the micro-world. The science of faith is aimed at the sight(s) of God, as an undying light, i.e. the theosis.

2. Given the existence in Orthodoxy of two knowledge, it is impossible to clash between Orthodoxy and Science. Conflict is avoided because the task of science is to know the substance and mechanisms of function of beings.
But the work of Theology is the knowledge of God, their creator. The natural sciences deal with how, Theology with who and why (telology).

Thus the works of the Holy Fathers (scientists of faith) may have scientific errors, in relation to the constantly renewed findings of the natural sciences. Theological errors, however, do not. The God-given Saint knows the reasons of beings, the cause of their existence and their dependence on God. But the investigation, as we said, of their substance and function is the work of the natural sciences. Theology, then, knows God and the world as His creation and not the natural sciences, which are the creation of man. God in Scripture teaches the truth about Himself and not the (scientific knowledge) about the building.
In the Bible we learn who God is, so that man can respond to His love. Thus, in scientific matters it is possible to change your mind on the basis of the new findings. In sociological matters, however, no change is possible, because the method of salvation and setting is eternally unchanged.

The Fathers (Prophets, Apostles and all Saints), when they also possess human wisdom (e.g. M. Vasilios), know the scientific theories of their time, which they investigate through the prism of their Theology, since their purpose is not natural scientific knowledge, but the guidance of their spiritual children towards salvation and their protection from knowledge that can hinder their path to theology. But the mood in this case is not a priori warlike and dismissive, but merely pastoral and protective.

3. It follows from the above that the natural sciences in all their manifestations and manifestations constitute complementary aspects in the view of physical reality. But the perspective of fatherly theology is different, as the fatherly example demonstrates.

The professor-scientist in the knowledge of the coast is the spiritual father (“professor of the desert” is called Orthodox), who must have the experience of the deity. On the basis of this principle operates the tradition of Orthodoxy centered on the Ecumenical sessions. The crew of believers trusts the knowledge of the gods, such as scientists the knowledge and reliability of their space specialists. The orthodox importance of dogma can also be seen in this connection. The teaching of faith (this is the doctrine as an experience of the Saints) is the scientific manual of the scientist of the deity and acts as the guide of others towards the theosis. The Orthodox faith is as dogmatic as science. Doctrines of science with their secular understanding are its axioms. In this sense, according to Zac Bloch, scientific research is also “biased”, not just Theology. But without this ‘bias’ on both sides, it is not possible to progress this dual science.

4. Holiness, thus, is not an obstacle to scientific knowledge. Quite the opposite. After all, already in the Old Testament (Soph. Sir. 38, 6) he confesses: God “gave human science glorified in his admiration”. Nothing orthodoxly excludes the possibility of being the holder of both scientific knowledge, as is the case with the great Fathers and Mothers of Orthodoxy. This is what Orthodoxy chants on November 25th for the great mathematician of the 3rd century, Saint Catherine: “The wisdom of God received by Marty, and the outside wisdom well-served.” On the contrary, where there is a religiousized ideological faith (in the various religions of the world), Religion and Science use the same instrument, intellect-logic, and thus inevitably they will come into conflict, because the positions of religion cannot accept, from one point on, logic, while the findings of science cannot be accepted by religion when they conflict with positions of religion or religious faith. , which are considered scientific. The problem of religion begins with the acceptance of holy books (e.g. Bible or Koran) as a scientific writing.

It is therefore understandable, because in Orthodoxy, when it is Orthodoxy, there can never be a case of Galileo. The negative attitude of the Orthodox calculus against the Copernic system in the 18th century. it was not the result of spirituality, but of Western influences (meticulous tendencies), biblicalism or waiting for developments in science (Evgenios Voulgaris). On the contrary, the conflict of Faith and Science is not only possible, but also normal, when the findings of science are judged by metaphysical criteria, or the teaching of Faith is approached on the basis of the principles and findings of natural sciences, i.e. on the basis of criteria of another space. In this case, science theologs (so it abolishes itself), and faith changes into natural science (so it is alienated). This was particularly the case in Western Europe, when the maturation of Physics and Science in general abandoned the Aristotelian worldview and its methodology, while the Western Church insisted on them. Extensions of Western reflection and therefore conflicts (rather conflicts) we also had in the western thinking East.

5. Tragic mistakes were made at the meeting of Theology and Science on both sides, which led to absolutism and isolation on both sides. The Western Church insisted on the literal interpretation of the Bible, without reference to its fatherly interpretation. After the case of Galileo, moreover, on both sides, the conflict was taken for granted. Victim of this perception in the 20th century the pastor-Lemaitre and his “Big Explosion” theory, which was repelled as a discovery of a clergyman! Often, moreover, the conflict led to a difference in the language used on both sides. The biblicalism of the ecclesiastical was often confronted with the rationalism (logocracy) of natural scientists. The foundation of intelligence in Europe begins with the holy Augustine (“credo, ut intelligam”) and culminates with Cardesio (“cogito, ergo sum”). The priority is given to the intellect, even in the field of Faith. God, after all, is understood as a cognitive “object”, “captured” by the power of the intellect, which is recognized as the main component of human existence.

6. It is a fact, however, that science in Western Europe came from Theology. Not only from the Western Fathers, but also from Cardesio, Leibnitz, Newton, who were also theologians. Faith in God implies the recognition of sanity in creation, which thus lends itself to research. Later, however, the “child” rebelled against the mother and their paths separated. But this did not happen in the fatherly tradition of the East, in which not only science and theology came to an end, but theology also proved to be supportive of the true progress of Science. A few examples of M’s works are enough. Vassiliou (In the Six-Day Period, PG, 29, 3-208) and St. Gregory Nyssis (On Human Construction, PG, 44, 124-256).

M. Basil accepts the principle of the world and creator God: “If the world has the principle and is convinced, ask for this principle and the poet.” But that’s where the Big Bang theory leads.

Gregory Nyssis (PG 44, 77D) defines the “principle”: “Everything was in God’s first time about the building momentum (= movement), a seminal force towards the birth of all things paid, and the energy of each of them.” Gregory could be called a prophet of the Big Bang theory, since the “seminal force” can be identified with the “superconsused mass” of modern theory.

M. Vasilios (PG 29, 36B) accepts an evolutionary course in the construction, presenting the “first principle”, “in the name of all things, by this position rather than by the creator of power”, and expected “the duties of the times ( = appropriate times), in the name of the uncles, which promoted itself to the obvious movements”.

This is because – according to Gregory (PG 44, 72B) “of all beings concerned and of the cause and forces collected (at the same time) God in the air (instantly) was descended”.

The universe, after all, according to M. Kingdom (PG 29, 1164) has life and pulsates with movement, growing and forming over time. ‘The nature of the sequence of the first order, the tank principle, for the time from now on, shall take place until the common conclusion of all the end’.

And Gregory (PG 44, 148C) accepts an evolutionary course in nature: “By degrees the nature, of life I say idioms, of the smallest for the perfect is the rise”.

M. Basil does not expect from scripture all the answers, considering necessary scientific research: “… many of them have been discharged (the Scriptures), they have been working out for the most part (investigation), for a few reason for the choice (to infer)…” (EIA 4, 72/4). Those Fathers who had scientific-school-training dealt with physical problems based on the scientific knowledge of their time. That is why these issues may differ from one another, but they have no contradictions with each other in theological matters. The interpretation of Scripture is the work of god-spirited performers, not scientists. The existing differences between fatherly theology and science do not lead to ruptures, because true theology patiently awaits the progress of science in understanding theological positions. Two examples: The principle of indeterminateness (Heisemberg) helped to approach Physics with Theology, and its “defatism” ( = inability to accurately identify). After all, an American astronomer has stated that natural scientists look like climbers, who, once they reach the top of the mountain, see theologians waiting for them comfortably in their armchairs!

Of course, when we find coincidences in key physical problems between Theology and Science, it means that we have a identification of concerns and not necessarily of the findings. Non-conflict doesn’t always mean agreement. But since the purpose of each side is different, Theology does not contradict the scientific position, for example of the age of man on earth. What interests her is its creation by God and its purpose.

7. With regard, therefore, to Orthodox Theology, subject to the fatherly tradition, he sees today the possibility of cooperation between Theology and Natural Sciences, with regard to the modernisation of Theology and the ethics of Science. It is a fact that the oldest conflict climate has been confined to our time, unless the prejudices on both sides remain. Theologians accept the freedom of scientific research and scientists do not mix God in their research. After all, faith and science accept world laws, and both demand truth, physics or the supernatural. Michael Polanyi (Personal knowledge, 1969, p. 266) accepts faith as the source of all knowledge, since “all our basic beliefs in the scientific field are unproven”. Moreover, worldviews, even scientific models, are also linked to the various social models in which they are produced or reproduced. Thus, they penetrate science and subjective ideas and prejudices, under the influence of the social environment. There’s Vorverstandis in the investigation, as well. No worldview, therefore, can claim the truth in its completeness, however scientific it may be.

The meeting of Theology and Science is more effective when the Theologian is chosen with real researchers (i.e. free and not “inter-in-contact”), and the scientist has opposite him continuators of M. Kingdom and Eugene Bulgarian and not fundamentalists of western or Islamic type. I felt taken by surprise in a country of M. East, when Rector-Professor of Physics – sought the foundation of his science in the Qur’an. The tendency towards absoluteity in science is tempered by the observed inconsistencies between scientists, and in Theology the knowledge of the fatherly example. Quantum mechanics denies causality, but Einstein disagreed (“God doesn’t roll dice”). On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church still pays for the crime of pedanticism against Galileo. (Recently the current Pope, as former head of the Inquisition, was forbidden to visit the University of Galileo “Sapienza”.

Modesty creates in the scientist the fact that scientific knowledge has its limits (cf. E. Theodorou, former Rector of the EKPA: The Limits of Scientific Knowledge, Athens 1981). So science is right not to deal with the problem of God, because it would be transformed into metaphysics, self-rejected. It won’t be a positive science anymore. Science cannot dismiss the possibility of The existence of God as the creator and forepossibility of the universe, because it does not have the proper instruments to capture Him. That’s why he can’t accuse Theology of mythology and superstition. But theology is not entitled to accuse Science of being an atheist either, i.e. by its own standards.

However, creative convergence and cooperation between Faith and Science requires a common language. According to The Most Reverend Metropolitan of Pergamos Ioannis (academic), “we must reach a cosmology common to both Scientists and Theologians and we must also agree on what constitutes knowledge and truth”. Scientists such as Paul Davies (Professor of Theoretical Physics in Newcastle) have arrived in this common language, stating: “Science offers a safer path to God than religion.” But also the well-known B. von Brown, when he declared: “Why should they be (faith and science) at odds? Religion deals with the Creator, science with creation.” Recently, we read with surprise (in the “K” of Sunday’s Kathimerini 3.2.08) in an interview with the great Greek anthropologist Mr. Katerinas Harvatis: “Science and religion do not conflict, because they answer different questions: Science answers how and religion to why”.

On the contrary, prospects for co-operation and cooperation are opened up. Science with the help of fatherly Theology: a) distinguishes its limits, b) receives important moral guidance, realizing its philanthropic and deaconic character; (c) recognizes the value of man, since Theology teaches, that “saturday by man was born, not man by Saturday” (Mark. 2, 27), or that man is “animal god” (Gregorios Nyssis) or “god of the dead” (= has within him the commandment to become a god) (M. Vasilios).

Complementary Faith and Science can exist mainly in the ecological problem, since Orthodox Theologians, such as our Ecumenical Patriarch or His Eminence Pergamos Ioannis, fighting for the rescue of Nature, do not cease to recognize that the meaning of creation is revealed through science, and Theology wishes and supports Science, which is fighting for the rescue of the Building.

So let us not define each other’s Science and respect the findings of the research on both sides, conducted with self-respect and humiliation, because our world needs not only the natural sciences, but also the science of the deity, as long as “man is not only living” (Matt. 4, 4)

Peer Professor of the University of Athens
Science and Religion

God’s. I. Riginioti
The distinction between science and faith in the Orthodox world

In ancient Christian tradition, i.e. the thought of the saints of the first thousand years and then of the Orthodox Church, the Bible was not treated as a source of information for the creation of the world. Knowledge in this field has always been considered the subject of philosophical-scientific research.

The great Basil considers that Genesis not only does not describe in detail the creation of the world, but also acts as an exhortation for scientific research: “In the beginning, God made heaven and earth, many of them, water, air, fire, the resulting passions… and the history has remained, the day of the gymnast for the work, of a few aphorisms provided for the selection of the missing” (Writing “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”, many remained, water, air, fire [the elements of nature in the ancients] and the associations that come from them… and the narration omitted them, in order to exercise our own minds, making us from small exhortations to discover the rest), see M. Kingdom, In the Six-Day, Speech II, 3.

I stress this because there is confusion: in Christianity there has always been a clear separation of science and faith. Of course, the intervention of one space in another was rejected, i.e. the attempt to possess God with the tools of philosophy (or, today, science), while the attempt of the institutional Church to guide scientific research was something unknown in the fatherly space. It only happened in the distorted Christianity of the European Middle Ages.

[One observation: the 7th Ecumenical Synod rejects as heretics those who study Greek philosophy believing its metaphysical doctrines, i.e. its odological principles (e.g. that the world “always exists”), while accepting as Christians those who study it as a scientific tool (“by education”).

So the book of Genesis is not a book of cosmology or biology. He does not want to give knowledge of how the world was created, but to set some theological principles, on the basis of which he proposes an understanding of the world, man and the relationship between man and world and man-God. Such principles are e.g. that there are not many gods, but one, that stars, earth, animals, trees, etc. are not gods, but creations, that man began from a life of relationship with God, whom he turned away, etc.

The Bible as a source of information to the ancient man

However, Genesis is the closest to our thinking cosmogony that comes to us from the ancient world. First he regards heaven, earth and what is contained in them – heavenly bodies, mountains, seas and all beings – as simple parts of the universe and not as gods. He considers them God’s creations, not the products of chaotic coincidences, but it is not wise to make us reject it in advance. I guess the logical thing would be to ask the question: how did the author conclude that there is a God?

No matter how he came to this conclusion, even if we don’t care if he’s right or not, it’s certain genesis wasn’t written on the knee.

Moreover, he speaks not of battles or associations between anthropomorphic gods, which have caused secular upheavals, but of an invisible, transcendent God of cosmic dimensions, who by intangible means, with His word, staggers the universe, the earth and finally man. Scaled: the first formulation of the theory of evolution is found in the Bible. To some, Darwin, as a Jew, inspired the theory of evolution by reading the first chapter of Genesis.

Thus, to us Genesis obviously has no knowledge of the events of cosmogony, but to the public to which it was originally addressed, it also had to offer such knowledge. To understand the difference, let us remember that, in the same historical space as the pastoral culture of the Bible, Babylon’s infinitely richer and stronger empire had a complex exotic polytheism and a typical mythical cosmogony.

But, paradoxically, Genesis’s references to the events of the world themselves are in proportion to modern science’s suggestions of how things were done. These proportions are secondary and may mislead some, making them think that they are the ones to be served, while it is all about the holiness of man. They do matter, however, because they ring a bell that says it would be good to watch Genesis.

The culmination of the analogy between Genesis and today’s science is the description of the creation of earthly beings (chapter 1), which follows a series of schematics of course, but scientifically correct: a) plants (greens and trees), b) from the water “come out” reptiles, herds and birds, c) from the earth “come out” mammals and reptiles (again, because dinosaurs are lost) , d) man.

There is, of course, a monstrous inaccuracy: the sun, moon and other celestial bodies seem to be created on the fourth day and not on the first, as the reader would expect! The great Basil gives a theological explanation: Moses – author of Genesis in tradition – sets the sun, etc. in the middle of creative time, because his readers lived among powerful sun lovers. He thus wanted to emphasize that the primary source of light and creator of life is not the sun, but God– therefore, that the sun is not a god.

Another explanation is that he writes as an observer, which sees “the sky, the Earth and always the likes of it.” He sees the celestial bodies on the fourth day, when the sky clears from the dense clouds of water evaporation. But he knows that day and night exist from day one (it is understood that the seven “days” are not 24 hours: “either day say, or century, the same thing is”, M. Vasilios).

Also, Genesis and the Christian tradition that follows it knows the biological affinity of man with animals: both man and animals were created “from the earth” (from the soil, the materials of the earth), Yen. 2, 19. “[Without the Holy Spirit] man takes precedence over the beasts in the first voice only, and the rest of the same diet is, the likeness of God” (Tatiana the Syros, 2nd century A.D.). “Two of them at the extreme to another of the two-year-olds, the means of the human, the divine and the inseable nature, and the horse and the beastly life” (Ag. Gregory Nyssis). The difference is that, according to Genesis and Christians, man was created “in the image” (spiritual) and “likeness” of God.


The Science and Faith Controversy

The controversy between scientists and theologians or representatives of the institutional Church over the origins of the universe and earthly life has disrupted European intellect throughout the younger years. It was a dispute over the power of “faith” or “right speech”, which began in the Middle Ages with the claim of scientists to investigate without the fear of the Inquisition.

The first steps in the declaration of war had been taken by the Roman Catholic Church, with the condemnation of the efforts of the pioneers of modern astronomy (prohibition by the Pope on the wanderings of the heavenly spheres of Copernikos in 1593, condemnation of Galileo in 1632), while science avenged, initially with the enlighteners, who often enlisted with intensity against the Church (such as Voltaire) , and, in the 19th century, with Darwin’s theory, used as a weapon in the fight against ecclesiastical authority.

However, the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe was a surprise: it is so reminiscent of the Bible (creation of the world from scratch) that in 1951 the Pope greeted it with enthusiasm! The scientists who supported it were accused of inventing it to “restore Christianity”, which the international scientific community prided itself on its abolition in the minds of “reasonable people” (Simon Singh, Big Bang, ed. Trayl 2005, pp. 414-419).

The theory of the evolution of species was considered a bomb of many megatons on the foundations of the dogmatism and superstition of Christians, who “insisted that God created the world in six days”, that the creatures of the earth appeared automatically with a solemn divine miracle and of course that “God made from soil” a first pair of people, from which all the others emerged.

Of course, the history of the original sin was considered a myth, and indeed a myth that plunged humanity into an ocean of unsubstantiated guilt. The truth, as science has discovered it, is much simpler: man is nothing but the natural and “accidental” evolution of a living being – a kind of animal kingdom, in which the brain, completely randomly, developed too much, that is all.

Of course, since God is “the beginning of the world” and we found out how the world began, we “proved” that there is no God. “We are descendants of the apes” in the thought of western man is equivalent to “we are not in the image of God” and, in a more extreme case, “there is no God or, even if there is, there is no way that it is the Christian God.”. Of course, the idea that the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies, the appearance and evolution of life were made by accident and not by the design of a supreme Mind, is not a “scientific finding” but a metaphysical interpretation, which many scientists teach unsavoryly because in their thinking a particular philosophy dominates.

In fact, the theory of evolution was not a blow against Christianity, but was considered so because the Western scientific world, bearing the holy wounds of the Middle Ages, felt the need to see it that way. “Darwin was fortunate enough to satisfy every one who wanted to serve his own purposes,” Bernard Shaw.

From an Orthodox point of view, the problem has been solved as early as the 4th century AD, when the great Basil, interpreting the principle of Genesis in the famous Speeches to the Six-Day-Old with the help of all the scientific knowledge of his time, said: “There is no reduction in the maximum surprise because the way in which the paradoxes are found is done” (our admiration for the greatness of creation is not diminished when the way in which they were made is discovered , In the Six-Day, Speech I, 10). Basil wrote this, because some fanatical Christians of his time grumbled that he was scientifically examining Genesis!

Are we ever going to find God?

According to the ancient and Orthodox saints, God is a being completely different from us. He is not anthropomorphic (whatever anthropomorphic the Bible seems to say about Him, e.g. that he speaks, walks, rages, etc., is considered symbolism) and of course it is misplaced to try to get to know Him with the research tools of science, intended for the knowledge of the world, and not of God!

In this mistake, the Roman Catholic Church fell first after the schism of 1054, which believed that with philosophy it would know God. That’s why she called her theology “meticulous” (=schools), i.e. University. The same mistake continues the philosophers and scientists of the Western world, and, when they fail to discover God, they come to the wrong “scientific conclusion” that there is no God.

According to the ancient and Orthodox saints, the only way to know God is to cleanse our hearts of what prevents us from loving. It is this cleansing of the heart that makes man have “God’s experience” (experience of God’s presence in his life). If our hearts are full of selfishness, hatred or contempt, our hearts close and god leaves out. How will God (who loves even those who do not love Him) enter the heart of a man who loves, for example, only those who love him?

Of course, man’s love of those who hate him is not natural, but “supernatural”. It is the purpose of the struggle of all life, which Christians are called to do if they want to see, as we say, “God’s face”. Everything in the Church (ceremonies, fasts, prayers, etc.) aims to eliminate even the shadows of selfishness or hatred from our hearts, i.e. to strengthen people by the grace of God for this superhuman work (do you “not need this reinforcement” but love your enemies on your own, e.g. – or do you think it foolish to love one’s enemies?). , which means a union of love with all the other beings in the universe.


What is Orthodoxy?
P. Georgiou Metalinos
Peer Professor of Theological School of the University of Athens

Speaking of Orthodoxy, we must not repeat Pilate’s mistake when he asked Christ: “What is true?” (June 18, 38). The correct thing is, “What’s true?” Because truth is not an idea, a theory, a system, but a person the Holy Face of the Humanized God’s Word, Jesus Christ. So we must also ask about Orthodoxy, because it identifies with the human Face of God’s Word. He, as a God-man, is our Orthodoxy, our Pan-Truth.

1. If we wanted to define Christianity, conventionally, as Orthodoxy, we would say that it is the experience of the presence of Aktistos (God)1 in history and the possibility of the builder (man) becoming God “for the sake”. Given the constant presence of God in Christ in historical reality, Christianity offers man the possibility of divinity, just as Medical Science allows him to maintain the restoration of his health, but in both cases through a certain healing process and a certain way of life.

The only and absolute goal of life in Christ is the Theosis, that is, the union with God, so that man, by participating in god’s undying energy, becomes “for the sake” of what God is by nature (anarch and unsophistication). This is a Christian concept of salvation.
It is not a moral improvement of man, but the creation in Christ, per-creation, of man and society, through the existential and existential relationship with Christ, who is the incarnate show of God in history. That’s what Ap’s phrase expresses. Paul (Second Cor. 5, 17): “the new buildings in Christ”. United with Christ is a new creation. That is why Christianly the humanization of God’s Word, the redeeming entrance of the Eternal and Hyperchronous in historical time, is the beginning of a new world that continues until the end of the centuries, in the faces of the authentic Christians, that is, the Saints. The Church, as the “body of Christ and in Christ society exists in the world, to offer salvation, as the integration of man and society into this regenerative process2. This life-saving work of the Church is carried out by a non-specific therapeutic method, so that essentially the Church acts in history as a global Therapeutics. “Spiritual hospital” (spiritual hospital) is called the Church by the holy Chrysostomos (†407). The questions will then be answered:

1) What is the disease that Christian Orthodoxy cures?
2) what is the therapeutic method, which it applies and
3) what is the identity of authentic Christianity, which radically differentiates it from its heretical deviations, but also from any form of religion3

2. The disease of human nature is the declining state of man and at the same time of the whole building, which he sympathizes with (“constricts and co-contributes”. This diagnosis concerns every human being, regardless of whether he is a Christian or not, whether he believes or not, because of the physical unity of the whole of humanity (see Prax. 17, 26). Christian Orthodoxy is not closed to the narrow confines of a religion, which cares only for its followers, but, like God, “always people want to be saved and in the knowledge of truth come” (A’ Tim. 2, 4), since God is “savior of all people” (A’Tim. 4, 10). The disease that Christianity is talking about, then, is universal (Rom. 5, 12: «… to all people death passed, as long as ( = because of which death) all were martyred” (= they missed on their way to the will). Just as the fall (i.e. the disease) is universal, so salvation-treatment depends directly on the functioning of the interior of each person.

The experience of the Saints knows a mnemonic system, cardiac or mental memory, that works in the heart and is ignored by medical science. The heart, in orthodox tradition, does not function only naturally, as a blood pump. Because beyond physics, it has a supernatural function. Under certain conditions it becomes the place of communion with God, with His inseable energy. Of course, this is perceived through the experience of the Saints, the true Christians, and not through logical function or intellectual theology.

Saint Nicodemus Agioritis (†1809), in summary of all the fatherly tradition, in his work “Advisory Eghidion” calls the heart a center natural, supernatural, but also paranormal, when the supernatural function is dormant, because the heart is dominated by passions. The supernatural function of the heart is the absolute prerequisite for the completion, the completion of man, that is to say his position, as his complete integration into christ’s society.

In its supernatural function the heart becomes a place of activation of the brain. In the linguistic code of Orthodoxy the mind (in the C.D. is called the “spirit” of man and the “eye of the soul”) is an energy of the soul, with which man knows God, reaching the sight of God the Theotia. Of course, we must clarify that knowledge of God does not mean knowledge of the amethyst and inaccessible divine substance, but of divine energy. The distinction of substance and energy in God is the essential difference of Orthodoxy from any other version of Christianity. The energy of the brain within the heart is called the “mental function” of the heart. We clarify again, that Mind and Word (Logical) orthodoxly do not identify, because logic acts on the brain while the mind in the heart.

The mental service takes place as an uninterrupted prayer (cf. A’Thess. 5, 17) of the Holy Spirit in the heart (cf. G. 4, 6 Rom. 8, 26 A’ Thess. 5, 19) and is called by our Holy Fathers “memory of God”. “Having man in his heart the “memory of God”, he has a sense of God’s “rental” within him (Rom. 8, 11). M. Basil in his second letter says that the memory of God remains uninterrupted, when it is not interrupted by earthly care, but the meaning “departs” to God, that is, it has communion with God. This does not mean, however, that the faithful person acting by divine energy avoids the necessary cares of life, staying in inaction or in some ecstasy, but the liberation of the mind from these cares, with which reason deals. To use an example that touches us. A scientist, who has acquired his mental function, with reason deals with his problems, while his mind, in the heart, keeps the memory of God uninterrupted. This is orthodoxly the healthy (normal) man (the Saint). That is why the treatment of Orthodoxy is linked to man’s path to holiness.
The inoperable under-functioning of man’s mental energy is the essence of the fall. The notorious “original sin” is precisely the failure of man, at the beginning of his historical presence, to save the memory of God, that is, society with God, in his heart.

In this morbid situation all the descendants of the first-time workers participate, because it is not a moral, personal, sin, but a disease of the nature of man (“Our nature is the nature of sin”, observes Saint Cyril of Alexandria †444) and is transmitted from man to man, just as the disease of a tree is transmitted to everything else that comes from it.

The inactivation of god’s mental function or memory and its confusion with brain function, as is the case in all of us, enslaves man to stress and the environment and to the demand for bliss through individualism and antisociality.

In the state of fall disease man uses God and fellow man to ensure his individual safety and happiness. God’s use is made with the “religion” (attempt to extract the power of the Divine), which can degenerate into the self-theization of man (“this is not the case” says St. Andrew of Crete in his “Great Rule”). Use of the fellow human being and by extension of the building is done by exploiting them in every possible way. This is therefore the disease, which man asks to cure, by being included whole in the “spiritual infirmary” of the Church4.

3. The purpose of the presence of the Church, as a society in Christ, in the world is to treat man by restoring his cardiac communion with God, that is, mental function. According to the late Professor P.I. Romanides, “the fatherly tradition is neither a social philosophy, nor a moral system, nor a religious dogmatism, but it is a treatment. At this point it is very similar to Medicine and especially Psychiatry. The mental energy of the soul, which prays intelligently and incessantly to the heart, is a normal organ, which everyone has and anyone who needs healing. Neither philosophy nor any of the known positive or social sciences can cure this organ (…) For this reason the incurable usually does not even know the existence of this organ”.

The need to treat man, according to the above, is a universal hypothesis, associated first with the restoration of each person in his natural existence with the reactivation of the third (mental) mnemonic function. But it also extends to the social presence of man. In order for man to be able to socialize as a brother with his fellow man, his self-interest, which ultimately functions as a friendship, must be transformed into selflessness (cf. A’Kor. 13, 8: “love… asks for them itself”). Selfless is the love of the Triad God (Rom. 5, 8″ 1st Ioan. 4, 7 e.) who gives everything without consideration. That is why the social ideal of Christian Orthodoxy is not “community”, but “community”, but “community”, as a self-requirement of every requirement. Because only then is justice possible.

The method of healing, offered by the Church, is spiritual life, as life in the Holy Spirit. Spiritual life is experienced as an exercise and share in the grace provided through the mysteries. Exercise is a rape of our self-contained and sinful nature, which is moving towards spiritual or eternal death, the eternal i.e. separation from the Grace of God. The exercise aims at victory over passions, in order to defeat internal slavery in the diseased homes of man and to participate in the cross of Christos and his resurrection. The Christian trainee under the guidance of his Therapist-Spiritual, becomes receptive to Grace, who accepts with his share in the mysterious life of the ecclesiastical body. Christian inserable cannot exist, as there is no cured man, who does not adhere to the treatment prescribed to him by his doctor.

4. The above leads to some constants, which substantiate the identity of Christian Orthodoxy:

a) The Church, as the body of Christos, functions as a hospital-hospital. Otherwise it’s not church, it’s religion. The Clerics were originally elected by the healers to act as healers of others. The healing function of the Church is preserved today mainly in the Monasteries, which still withstand secularization, continue the Church of apostolic times.

b) The scientists of ecclesiastical therapy are already cured. Anyone who has no experience of treatment cannot be a therapist. This is the essential difference between pastoral therapeutic science and medical science. Scientists of ecclesiastical therapeutics (Fathers and Mothers) highlight other healers, as the Professors of Medicine highlight their successors.

c) Limiting the Church to the simple forgiveness of sins for the entry after death into heaven constitutes alienation and is tantamount to the forgiveness of medical science to the patient, in order to be cured after death! The Church is not intended to send someone to heaven or hell. Heaven and hell, after all, are not places, but ways of existence. The Church, by healing man, prepares him to see Christ eternally in His undying light as heaven and not as hell, that is, “pyr consumed” (Evre. 12, 29). And this, of course, is about every man, because ALL people will see Christ eternally as the “Judge” of the world.

d) The validity of science is documented by the achievement of its objectives (e.g. in medicine, by the treatment of the patient). “This differentiates authentic scientific medicine from quackism. Criterion and pastoral healing of the Church is the achievement of spiritual healing, by opening the path to theosis. Treatment does not transfer to the afterlife, but it does take place in the life of man in this world (here and now). This is found by the indestructible relics of the Saints who defeat biological decay, such as those of the Saints of the Ionian Sea: Spyridon, Gerasimos, Dionysios and Theodora of Augusta. The indestructible sacred relics are in our tradition the undisputed presumptions of the deity, that is, the completion of the healing of the Church. I would ask the medical world of our country to pay particular attention to the case of the integer sacred relics, because not only have they not undergone scientific intervention, but the energy of divine Grace is revealed to them. Because at the very moment, when the dissolution of the cellular system begins, it stops automatically, and instead of stench a scent is emitted. I limit myself to medical symptoms, and I don’t expand on miracles as evidence of the deity, because they belong to another realm.

e) Finally, the sacred texts of the Church (Writing, accompanying and fatherly texts) do not codify any Christian ideology, but have a therapeutic character, acting like university writings in medical science. This also applies to functional texts, e.g. Wishes. The simple reading of a Wish (prayer), without parallel inclusion of the believer in the healing process of the Church, would not differ from the case, when the patient resorts to the doctor with strong pains, and he, instead of intervening drastically, is limited to lying him in the surgical bed and reading him the chapter on his disease!

This in short is Orthodoxy. It doesn’t matter if one accepts it or not. That is why I am addressing everyone, both non-Christians and the indifferent, but also to “Christians” (in quotation marks). Every other version of Christianity constitutes its falsification and perversion, even if it wants to be promoted as Orthodoxy!


† Metropolitan of Edessis Chrysostomos, Stavros Assotos

… Try all the crosses without finding a single one suitable for him…

A poor and troubled man after many days of trekking arrived in a city. That’s where he found a roof to spend the night. As he was fatigued, he quickly fell asleep complaining to God that he had given him a very heavy cross in his life. In his sleep, he had a strange dream. He saw he was in a big hall. Around the walls were many crosses. Large, small, stone, marble, wooden, malamatene, etc. And then he heard a mysterious voice say to him:

“Man, if you think the cross you’ve been raising so far is too heavy for you, leave him and pick whoever you want.” And the traveler got up and started trying the crosses. The first one was heavy, heavy. The second one was unsying. The third had sharp protrusions that pierced his body. So he tried all the crosses without finding a single one suitable for him. In one corner, however, he saw a discarded cross. She’s picking him up. He weighs him in his hands, and with joy he says: “Be my measure! That’s who I’m going to take.” He looks at him well and what you think he discovered: It was his cross, the cross he held until he lay down to sleep.
The good God does not allow trials heavier and more than we can lift. It’s clearly called his gospel. “We are not in favour of the power” (1 Cor. i,13).
If we, who are small and weak, do not give our child a burden greater than his powers, let alone our heavenly Father does not allow sorrows and sorrows, trials and temptations greater than our endurance.
“Before God sends you the Cross you raise,
he looked at him with His wise eyes
examined him with His Divine logic
checked him with His infinite righteousness
he was heart-filled in His loving heart
weighed him well with His loving hands
don’t let it fall heavier than your stamina
and after counting your courage and strength
Bless him and attack him on your shoulders.
You can pick him up. Don’t be afraid!
Man, hold him and go up.
from Calvary to the Resurrection.”

Anthology of Unpublished Volume I
Publication of the Holy Metropolis of Eden, Pellis and Almopia
Edessa, 1995

Editorial editor:


Agios Paisios reveals to Anestis Mavrocephalus the events that will precede the surrender of Istanbul to the Greeks, as well as some of those that will follow.


As our origin is from Cappadocia and one of our grandmothers comes from the village of Geronta, from Farasa, while the other from Caesarea, we have common roots with the Elder, and because those places hurt us especially now that they are in foreign hands, I kept asking the Elder about Turkey, what about Hellenism and more about it.

Once, I went to the geronta with a friend of mine and there we met a group of five children. At the time, I asked the Elder what he planned to be in relation to Turkey. “Geronta” I say, “we’re from Alexandroupolis. Did we get caught up in the rain there?” he replies, “Look. The Turks will not enter Alexandroupolis. They will only make one challenge in Greece, which will be related to the aeyalitis zone. And we’re going to starve us. Greece will starve. And this starvation will last for some time, it will be months.”

Then I ask, “Geronta, how am I going to figure out that we’re going to be close to war?” “When,” he says, “you hear the TV become a matter of miles, for extending the miles (of the aeyalitis zone) from 6 to 12 miles, then from behind comes the war. It’s coming. I say, “And which states will participate?” “Look, after the challenge of the Turks, the Russians will descend to the Dlispontus Straits. Not to help us. They’ll have other interests. But without wanting to, they’ll help us. Then, the Turks, in order to defend the Straits, which are of strategic importance, will concentrate more troops there. At the same time, they will withdraw forces from occupied territories. But then they will see the other states of Europe, namely England, France, Italy and six or seven other EEC states, that Russia will grab parts, so they will say: ‘We’re not going there, do we get a piece?’ This will put Europeans in the war.”

At this point I ask: “What are we going to do? Will the Greek army take part in this war?” “No,” he says. “The government will make a decision not to send troops. He’ll only keep an army at the border. And it’s going to be a great blessing that he won’t take part. Because whoever takes part in this war is gone… Then, because in Greece the world will be afraid, many will turn to the Church, to God, and repent. That’s why, because there will be repentance, the Greeks will not be hurt. God will spare Greece, because the world will turn to the Church, to the Monasticism and begin to pray. And many Turks will be baptized. Then, King Constantine will contribute as a intermediary, to give the City to Greece. He’s reverent, he’s good.” “Old man,” I ask him afterwards, “Will the City give it to us?” “They will give it to us, not because they will want it, but because this solution will serve the interests of foreigners. Then they’ll understand that. What I’m telling you, don’t tell anyone. They’re going to make you crazy. Because the circumstances aren’t ripe yet. Then you’ll know.” This conversation with the Elder took place in 1991, when I was serving in the army.

Another time, Gerontas said, “The administration of the City, by us, will be both military and political.” I also met three officers who had gone to the Elder. Of the three officers, one said: “Only to me, Gerontas said I would be commander of a military division in the City. He didn’t mention anything to the others.’

Another group had gone to the Elder. One of them was studying civil engineering at xanthi Polytechnic University. In an instant, elder turns, points his finger – he, it should be noted, went to the Elder for the first time – and tells him: “You, as a civil engineer, will contribute to the reconstruction of the City, for the City will be rebuilt from the beginning”. He turned around and pointed his finger in front of everyone. The kid, then, was a student. Then the Elder turns to me and says, “And you, Anestis, will go to the City. And you two – show me and my friend – will go to the City, but for another purpose.” He didn’t show me the purpose. After that, I got the urge to learn Turkish.

Another time I’d been to the Elder’s cell, there happened to be a former Muslim from Thrace inside. I catch him and say, “How did you come here to the Elder?” “Let go,” he says, “let me tell you. The Elder did us a very great miracle and my whole family believed. Then he came to the village and made sure we were baptized.”

And on another visit to Panagouda, the Muslim who was baptized, Stavros, was present. Then, again, elder told us about the events, how they would evolve with Istanbul. And when he got to the point where Greece would hurt and said that we would be touched by hunger, Says Mr. Stavros: “Old man, can I keep a bag of flour so that I can face that period and not starve the children?” “No,” he says, “don’t call, because your neighbor will have flour and give you”! In other words, the Elder foreed who would help Mr. Stavros in the period of hunger. He will, of course, live in a village. Now, we who live in the cities, we’ll say bread bun. So, another time, Elder said, “Have a little land and a little to cultivate it. Close to you, you will also help someone who will not have.”

Source: Deposit Magazine


May 29, 1453 – Engin Ardic, The well-known Turkish writer and journalist wrote about the Fall of Constantinople – These places are Greek and one day they will come to get them.

An article previously published in the authoritative SABAH newspaper by Engin Ardic, a well-known writer and journalist in Turkey, describes the Turkish way of celebrating the fall of Istanbul on 29 May.

In this article the author presents truths about which the Kemal regime has been trying for decades to stifle.

It is worth mentioning a translated part of the text, from the specific address of the Turkish newspaper Sabah which reads as follows:

“It’s been 556 years (published in 2009) and you’re celebrating (the Grove) as if it were yesterday?

Because every year at this time of year, with these celebrations you make, you proclaim to the whole world that:”these places were not ours, we came in retrospect and took them by force”.

Why are you bringing to the memory a case of six centuries?

Is there a fear in your subconscious that the City will one day be given back?

Don’t be afraid, there isn’t what some Ergenecon officials say about 1919 terms.

Fear not, the 9 million Greeks cannot take the city of 17 million, and if they still take it they cannot inhabit it.

And our people celebrating The Grove are a handful of fanatics, except their voices are hard to hear.

Listen, if they tell us we’ve been looting the city for three days and three nights all the time, what are we going to answer?

Are we going to defend ourselves at the European Court of Human Rights or leave the matter to historians?

Instead of taking pride in the cities we have conquered, let us take pride in the ones we founded, if any.

But they don’t exist.

The whole East is an area with violence conquered… Even the name of Anatolia is not what they believe (ana=mana, dolu=full) but comes from the Greek word the East.

Even the name of Istabul is not as Ebliya Celebi tells us “where Islam prevails” by taking the word from the hair, but it comes from “in The City”.

Okay, well, we’ve got a permanent facility, no more nomadic life, and that’s why the people buy five or five apartments.

No one can move us, calm down now…

Let our peasants content themselves with murdering Istanbul without much fanfare…’.


The Turkish article of SABAH

Bugün Atina’da bir “İstanbul’u geri alacağız” mitingi düzenlense… Şehrin surlarının da bir maketi yapılsa ve Ortaçağ zırhlarına bürünmüş savaşçılar o surlara saldırsalar…

“Yunan Battal Gazisi” diyebileceğimiz efsanevi kahramanları “Diyenis Akritas” kılığına girmiş bir herif de bizim Ulubatlı Hasan’ı kolundan tuttuğu gibi aşağı atsa…

Derken beyaz bir atın ütünde İmparator Konstantinos belirse ve yanında Lukas Notaras, Yorghos Frantzis falan kılığına girmiş birtakım heriflerle birlikte şehre temsili olarak girse…

Mukavvadan yapılmış bir Ayasofya’nın da minarelerini sökseler ve tepesine de haçı taksalar…

Tütsüler yakılsa, ilahiler söylense…

Hoşunuza gider miydi?

Gitmezdi. Kıyameti koparırdık, elçimizi geri çekmeye kadar varırdı iş.

Öyleyse siz niçin yapıyorsunuz bunu?

Aradan tam beş yüz elli altı yıl geçmiş, geçen gün almış gibi daha neyi kutluyorsunuz?

Niçin her sene bu zamanda dönüp dönüp bütün dünyaya “burası aslında bizim değildi, sonradan geldik, zorla aldık” mesajını veriyorsunuz?

Neredeyse altı asır önceki meseleyi niçin taze tutuyorsunuz?

Alınan şehrin “bir gün geri verilebileceği” korkusu mu var bilinçaltınızda?

Korkmayın, bir avuç Ergenekoncu ahmağın iddia ettiği gibi “1919 şartları” falan yok ortada…

Korkmayın, dokuz milyon Yunan, on iki milyonluk şehri geri alamaz, alsa da içinde oturamaz.

O rüyayı gören, bir avuç manyaktır.

Bizim burada da İstanbul’un fethi kutlaması yapan bir avuç fanatik ama sesleri gür çıkıyor.

Ya herifler şimdi “üç gün üç gece yağmaladılar” diye tuttururlarsa ne diyeceğiz? Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nde savunma mı yapacağız, yoksa tarihçilere mi bırakacağız?

Hep “aldığımız” şehirlerle övüneceğimize, “kurduğumuz” şehir varsa onunla övünelim.

Öyle bir şehir yok. Buram buram Anadolu, baştan aşağı “sonradan alma”…

Anadolu ismi bile, sanıldığı gibi “annelerle dolu” demek değil, Rumca “i anatoli” yani “doğu” kelimesinden tornistandır.

İstanbul isminin, Evliya Çelebi’nin esrarlı “leb-i dilber” macununu çekip çekip salladığı gibi “İslam bol” lafından gelmeyip, gene Rumca “stin poli” (stimboli okunur) yani “şehire, şehirde” deyiminden geldiği gibi…

Fakat tamam yahu, yerleştik artık, göçebelik bitti.

Göçebelik bittiği için millet apartman dairelerini beşer beşer alıyor, kimse bizi sürüp çıkaramaz, rahatlayın artık… Köylülerimiz İstanbul’u katletmekle yetinsinler, fazla bağırıp çağırmadan…μαίου1453-ένας-τούρκος-γράφει-για-την-άλω/


The vaccine against coronavirus and its demystification



It is with sadness and wonder that we are witnessing an unprecedented event in world history [1].

In the name of “love” for the elderly and vulnerable, vaccination of all people of the world is planned, in order to eliminate from the face of the earth the inverted and “invisible enemy” called sars-cov2 coronavirus.

The necessary legal framework that will abolish the right to individual choice and “defend” the right-good of public health (Law 4675/2020 for Greece) [2].


The accompanying government authoritarianism to enforce it.

Creating demand-expectation for the vaccine (terrorism-brainwashing by SMEs with vaccine dilemma or social confinement-exclusion).

Unilateral funding to create the vaccine, to be tested with clinical trials, to be produced in huge quantities and transferred to every corner of the globe, at the expense of research into the finding and production of specialised anti-ial drugs; these are some of the steps in the protocol already being implemented to get to this landmark event.

Entrepreneurs, journalists, government officials, international NGOs almost daily propagandism the vaccine like the magic wand, which will allow humanity to return to the pre-crown age.

On the other hand, the scientific community (apart from an over-projected vaccine elite), instead of singling out this misinformation, maintains a “fish silence” about what people should really expect from the vaccine. Except for a few bright exceptions, such as Professor Dr. Seuss. Giannis Ioannidis [3].

In fact, this pandemic is far from justifying a global vaccination.


Let’s see why:


1. The particularly low mortality rate of the disease, as well as its age distribution, clearly specify that vaccination, whenever possible, should be targeted.

This percentage is currently fictitiously overestimated (~2.5%), on the one hand due to over-representation of seriously ill virus-positive cases [4], on the one hand due to account for coronavirus deaths and deaths of positive cases resulting from another underlying disease (not SARS respiratory syndrome) [5].

Recent studies assessing the number of deceased in relation to the actual number of people exposed to the virus based on serological tests (antibody tests) in a particular geographical area determine that this percentage is in the order of magnitude of seasonal influenza (definitely <1 span=”” style=”mso-spacerun: yes;”> upgrading and tightening of protection measures, hospital structures exclusively forCovid19).

No ‘Italy-type’ errors will therefore be repeated, leading to a further reduction in the mortality rate.

On the basis of the above, even if a safe and effective vaccine is produced (which is particularly difficult for the biology of coronaviruses) it is justified to administer only to groups at increased risk, as is the case with the seasonal influenza vaccine.

It goes without saying that it is not justified to give to children – who are overwhelmingly asymptomatic – and to people who have been exposed and immune to the virus (positive antibody test), since they already have what the vaccine would offer them.

2. Covid19 virus, unlike influenza, mainly affects elderly and fourth-aged people who have the phenomenon of immune ageing (immune senescense) [7], i.e. a reduction in the size, quality and duration of the immune response-protection that can be created after vaccination.

In other words, vaccine-induced active immunity may not be able to protect the elderly, which is also the predominant “target” of coronavirus, which should make it a priority (if it is really a question of protecting the elderly) to find anti-ial therapy.

3. Related to the above is that in patients who are seriously ill, acute respiratory failure occurs through an immuno-pathological mechanism (“storm” of inflammatory cytokine production and reduction of CD4 and CD8 T-mediated immune response [8]).

There are serious concerns that a vaccination will enhance this immune complication in the event of a subsequent infection with the virus and thus worsen the clinical course of the patient.

Something similar was observed with the vaccine against FeCoV coronavirus that attacks cats and causes peritonitis [9].

4. The logic of eradication of an infectious disease through global vaccination presupposes, on the one hand, the existence of a very safe and very effective vaccine, on the other hand, and most importantly, that other hosts of the virus do not exist in the natural [10] environment.

This is true and ongoing for the polio virus, but it does not apply to the coronavirus, because all research agrees that the virus originated in bats [8].

Unknown and controversial remains the intermediate link (host?) that carried him from the bat caves to the city of Wuhan.

In any case, the disappearance of the virus through global vaccination would only be temporary, i.e. a terrible vanity and waste of resources, since at any time it will be able to transition from its natural shelter, bats or intermediate host, to the human population, capable of bypassing the existing herd immunity and starting a new pandemic.

5. Coronaviruses, as RNA virus, quickly mutate by acquiring genetic and therefore antigenic diversity.

This diversity, especially for coronaviruses, is further increased through recombination RNA, due to the particular discontinuous mode of transcription of RNA. Two types have already been identified for SARS-Cov2, S and L [11, 12].

It is doubtful that a vaccine can produce equal coverage for all strains of the virus that will occur, and permanent protection over time, which underlines once again the importance-priority of finding anti-viral medicines against coronavirus.


It is therefore more likely that, next year, a global vaccination will develop into regular global vaccinations. Is that what this is all about?


Is coronavirus the long-awaited pretext to usher in the universal transition to a hybrid human biology, where the human body will be protected, strengthened and ultimately dependent on platform technologies (genetic engineering, digital interconnection) through regular vaccine-updates.

Why so much premede for a vaccine that not only does it not promise much, but causes concern in the scientific community, especially if it is rushed and applied en masse?

Do pharmaceutical companies ultimately serve man, or is the other way around? The reality is that ~99% of affected people from coronavirus survive.

Emphasis (i.e. funding) should be given to how targeted the 1% who do not succeed will be supported, through a multitude of pharmaceutical options (immunomodulizers, monoclonal antibodies, polymerase RNA inhibitors, proteases, etc.).

Already the first results from the hydroxychloricin-azathromycin regimen as well as from a monoclonate antibody targeting the surface glycoprotein S of the virus are [13] [14] very encouraging.

Of course, the development of a safe and effective vaccine is part of an anti-virus strategy.

However, as has been analysed, it is not appropriate to rush its production (1 year instead of at least 6 years) with so many gaps in the knowledge of the biology of the coronavirus, let alone its massive mandatory application.

It constitutes a tragic scientific discount (if not an absurdity) in the age of Molecular Biology, which aims to supply Medicine with specialized (up to and even personalized) treatments minimizing any side effects, to discuss and only intervention in 100% of the human population, in order to “protect” against a flu-type virus of 1%, with a suspicious pharmaceutical half meter.

It is quite simply the WRONG approach and is attested by the fact that for so many years there has been no global vaccination for the influenza virus, which would be more reasonable, because it affects all age groups.

Man, as a critically ill person, has the ability to choose self-intentionedly what medicine and biotechnology have to recommend for his health, while also assuming the consequences of these choices, as interventions in the human body are rarely fatal side effects.

Vaccines are not exempt from this [15] rule.


It goes without saying, therefore, that the final decision-responsibility for obtaining a vaccine belongs to the vaccinated person, since he will have to live with any complications that arise.

None of the compensation can repair irreversible damage to human physical and mental health.

It is therefore reprehensible to condemn any obligation, which criminalises a person’s attitude to living in a body free from suspected vaccines, and transforms societies from democratic to flocks of unwitting and expendable animals.

It is understood from what has been said that the Law on Compulsory Vaccination [2] and the associated propaganda in favour of the vaccine, on the occasion of the Covid19 virus, have no scientific starting point and reference.

They do not defend, rather undermine, the good of public health, and serve the huge economic interests involved and the dark agenda of some “big brothers” with friendly appetites.

After all, they oppose the freedom of the spirit and body of man. They should therefore be undone at scientific, legal and, above all, spiritual level.

The climate in which these methods develop and consolidate is fear. The Means of Mass Intimidation diligently create and maintain this climate.

Fear is a powerful inner power of man, it can paralyze his will, he can steel it. The question is in which direction he will turn it.

If he turns it to God, the only worthy fear (Luke IV 4.5), then he will receive back illumination, fortitude and courage in “I will win the world” (John p. 33).

If she remains focused on phobias of this cause, she will receive back more anguish, confusion and cowardice when “there was fear, that was not fear” (Psal. 5).

It is not by chance that the intended de-airification of the Mystery of the Holy Communion is sought. It attempts to elicit and intercept fear to support the myth of the vaccine, as is the case over time with all myths that lack logical remains.

Every time there is talk of saliva, teaspoons and the like, by those who have targeted the Holy Communion, I come to mind the miracle of the born blind (John i). Then the Lord in a move “healthly unacceptable” took the blind man!

He filled His saliva (which is a means of spreading viruses and bacteria) with soil (which is the source of millions of microbes) and “anointed” the clay in the eyes of the blind (conjunctiva mucous membranes: point of entry of microbes and onset of infection).

What followed we know, as we know that no science is going to replicate it.

It’s just that if it were today, except for the then pharisees, there would be some narrow-headed infectious men in Jesus’ accusers.

I hope from the heart that God will ask them to experience the Mystery of The Power.

The Lord is there inviting them. He’ll never oblige them…


Paul the monk of Agioritis,
Biologist, MD Molecular Biology and Biomedicine, Member of Parliament for Mount Athos.





Professor Ioannis Ioannidis: “The predictions of mathematical models for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) have been disproved”


Stanford University Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Disease Prevention claims he never said he was opposed to lockdown and insists that “the word “fiasco” for the poor quality of the original data proved correct.”



Stanford University Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Disease Prevention Ioannis Ioannidis needs no recommendations. Thanks to his excellent work over decades, he has succeeded in being among the ten most influential scientists on the planet (as presumed by the number of reports his colleagues are now making in his work). In other words, his words and writings not only do not go unnoticed, but are also of particular importance. All the more so in times of crisis, such as that of humanity since the beginning of the year because of SARS-CoV-2.


Only this time, Mr. Ioannidis seemed to disappoint many of his colleagues and to exasuise unprecedented passions (mainly on social networks) when he used the word “fiasco” in the title of his article, in which he argued that the evidence that existed about the virus, when the draconian measures of social distancing were taken, were unreliable. The article coincided with the outbreak in Northern Italy, which caused many to wonder whether the Greek scientist’s insistence on numbers made him blind to the harsh reality. Things got worse when a study he co-signed on the search for antibodies in Santa Clara, California, was methodically criticized by some of his colleagues. The research team took note of the comments in response to the reviews. And the icing on the cake: an American scandal website accused the research team of funding from an airline owner whose interests were served by the study’s conclusions that virus infection is more prevalent than believed and therefore its mortality much smaller. “The Step” spoke with the Greek professor in search of answers.


“First of all I would like to stress that I never said I was opposed to lockdown. Quite the opposite! At the same time, however, I argued that just as we are closing the door behind us to protect ourselves from the virus, we should quickly collect data so that we can make safe assessments so that we do not go blind”, the Greek professor told us, and continued: “The word “fiasco” for the poor quality of the original data proved correct. Based on the first predictions, we expected 50 million dead, those in the Spanish flu pandemic. We have about 330,000 deaths to date with an average age of 80, almost all with underlying diseases. Compare that to the 50 million deaths of Spanish flu aged 28 or 10 million who die from smoking each year. Fortunately, that is, the predictions have been disproved, as is often the case with mathematical models.”


But isn’t mathematical models the right tool to predict the evolution of an epidemic? “I love mathematical models, but they have a huge chance of error when they look at the multifactorial dynamics of the spread of infectious diseases. The epidemiological waves of the coronavirus do not follow an exponential function. As the Nobel Prize-leading colleague at Stanford, Michael Levitt, has demonstrated, they follow Gompertz’s sigmoid function, first showing a sharp increase, which then ends up on set. The difference that can result from one function or another is enormous.”.

So where does Italy’s phenomena work? “Right now everyone is trying to figure out what is the reason for the fact that the arc of the central European countries has been hit so hard by the virus. Obviously population density and aviation have played a big part. According to the valuation we published in JAMA Internal Medicine
(, the region of Northern Italy, which was hardest hit, is an area where hospitals almost always have winter occupancy and a large proportion of the ageing population in nursing homes. In Italy and other countries, hospitals and nursing homes have been the hotbeds of major infections,” said Mr. Ioannidis added: “The way the global picture emerges, when the virus is in an environment where confusion is favoured (nursing homes, hospitals, prisons, refugee structures, homeless shelters, stadiums) it breaks. That’s where we need to focus. Draconian hygiene measures must be taken there. If we rescue these battlefields, where the virus has a clear advantage, we will have won 90% of the war. As for the remaining 10%, anyone who tells you they have the perfect solution will lie!”.


yes, but shouldn’t something be done about that 10%? ‘Epidemiological surveillance should be continuous, taking population-representative samples in order to quickly detect resurgences. But now that we know that the virus does not kill young people, on the contrary the economic subsidence and unemployment that this entails are killing us all, young and old (our study showed that for each year of economic crisis Greece was losing an additional 3,000 people [https://www]), we must do the best possible science to be able to respond to the economic consequences of lockdown, while protecting vulnerable groups.”

“I’ve never done on-demand research of a private individual or company”


In response to the bribery accusations, Mr. Ioannidis was categorical: “Never in my life have I done on-demand research of a private individual or a company. Our research in Santa Clara, for which more than 100 people worked, was funded by Stanford. You may know that Stanford itself was founded thanks to a donation from the family of the same name. The Stanford Development Agency accepts donations from citizens or companies that want to contribute to the research. Donations in this case were kept anonymous by the university. The whole thing arose when a scandalous website, which specializes in character assassinations, “discovered” that an airline owner had contributed $5,000 (an amount significantly lower than the cost of research) to the university’s Development Office. Especially for what I’ve done so far in a research on coronavirus, personally, I haven’t agreed to receive a single dollar. The scientist’s role is to do the best research he can and publish impartial results, regardless of whether some people like them or not. The results of the Santa Clara study have now been confirmed by many other studies





The Eucharist does not transmit infectious diseases


Ten years of Holy Communion with lepers. The priest of “Spinalonga”.


Unlike those who oppose the miracle of the Eucharist, which does not transmit viruses and diseases, we believers have to oppose, instead of assumptions, true facts! One such event is the 10-year-old Priest of spinalonga lepers, who, although he socialed with them from the same glass, never got leprosy.

There was a lot of talk about the island of Spinalonga, on the occasion of the book of the same name entitled “The Island”, by the English Victoria Hislop.

One of the historical evidence we learn is that the Hansenics who lived in Spinalonga were angry with God, on the ground that their illness was a great and unbearable ordeal. A Gerapetritis priest dared to visit them once and operate in Agios Panteleimonas, which existed and ravaged the island, in the company of his new inhabitants. They say the first Mass didn’t step on a soul.

The lepers listened stubbornly from their cells to the chanting, and sometimes covered it with their groans and sometimes with their curses. But the priest went back. On this second visit one of the patients bravely projected on to the doorstep of the temple.


– Papa, I’m going to sit in your mass on one condition, though. In the end, you’re going to socialize me. And if your God is so powerful, then you will do the catalysis and not be afraid of my leprosy.

The priest nodded condescendingly. In the nearby cells the conversation was heard and people began to gather at the side of the temple, where there was a small hall, with little view of the sanctuary. The Hansenics lurked at the end of the Mass and saw the priest in tears and kneeling in the Holy Intent to make the catalysis.

It’s been a month. The Hansens were waiting for him. They thought he’d come this time as a patient, not a priest. But the priest returned healthy and rosy and began with morale raised to ring the bell of the old temple. Since then, and for at least ten years Spinalonga has had her priest. The Hansenics restored their own church and at the same time restored their faith. They regularly socially and always peeked at their priest at the time of the catalysis, to make sure that the “miracle of Spinalonga” was happening over and over again.


In 1957, with the discovery of antibiotics and the healing of lepers, the leper house was closed and the island was deserted. Only the priest stayed on the island until 1962, to commemorate the lepers until 5 years after their death. Behold, then, a modern silent hero, who was not honored for his work by anyone!

Father Chrysanthos, world-old Matthew Katsoulogiannakis, was born in Outside Moulian, Sitia Province on July 15, 1893. He attended sixth grade elementary school without getting a diploma. The bishop of Iera and Sitia Ambrosios considered him a monk in 1911 and placed him in the Monastery of Toplou. On 20 January he was ordained a priest and on 26 September 1920 a priest. In 1941, at his request, the bishop of Philotheos Mazokopakis transferred him to the Monastery of Faneromeni Ierapetra. He was published to the Lord on 3 April 1972 and was enthused in the Monastery of Toplou.