Orthodox Psychotherapy

[joasia]

Christ is Risen!

Philoteus,

I do believe that you are making assumptions of something without direct knowledge. Read it and then you can have an opinion about it. Someone gave me this book and for two years I didn't read it. Then one day I pick it up in order to make notes of all the heretical views so that I can point it out to the person that gave it to me. But, as I read it, the explanations made sense. Why? Because they reflected Orthodox thinking. Now, I'm not saying that this new calendarist is with the true Church, but what he wrote certainly sounds like what all the holy fathers explanations I've read, including the Philokalia.

In an old post you wrote:

Code: Select all

In Effie Mavromichali's Forward he says something what I find disturbing. He says "His series of four books (Hierotheos Vlachos) on "Orthodox Psychotherapy" is of great interest since he believes that the neptic tradition of the Church has a therapeutic value. Archimandrite Hierotheos Vlachos believes that Christianity is not a philosophy or an ideology, but rather it is a therapeutic science and a therapeutic treatment which cures the innermost aspect of one's personality."

My question is what happened to the Holy Spirit and His action in the soul and ones personality? Has humanism and modernism come to Mount Athos? I have not started to read the book because of this statement and I do not think I will. Is this a start of a new way of thinking for Orthodoxy? This type of "science" has been prevalent in Roman Catholicism thinking since the mid 80's from books written by Roman Catholic authors about Carmelite Spirituality and linking it with Carl Jung, Rogers, and other philosophical writings.

This is what Vlachos wrote about the Holy Spirit's action within us.

St. Mark the Ascetic, interpreting the Lord's words: "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17, 21), says: "It is necessary in the first place to have the grace of the Holy Spirit energizing the heart and so, in proportion to this energizing, to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven". Therefore many Fathers regard it as essential to find the place of the heart, which is energized by the uncreated Grace of God, because then the Christian has God as his teacher and is safely directed by the Holy Spirit.

I don't know who Effie is, but I don't see his Forward in the book I have. But, I do see Vlachos' explanation of philosophy:

"Philosophy sets up a system of thought which in most cases bears no relationship to life. The main difference between Christianity and philosophy is that the latter is human thinking, while Christianity is a revelation of God. It is not a discovery by man but a revelation by God Himself to man. Where the human word was powerless, there came the divine-human Word, or Christ the God-man, the Word of God."

The word, science, is used in the title of the first chapter, but this is the translator's (Esther Williams) choice. And Effie probably focused on that concept being western-minded. Nowhere does Vlachos discuss our spiritual state as a condition of scientific levels.

So, until you read what I've read, you don't have any place to make an opinion. I love Fr. Seraphim Rose and he did read heretical works in order to refute them, such as the "evolution theory". He had to know what he was arguing against before he made his arguments, didn't he?

[Philoteus]

I have read this book and it sits on my library shelf. What I am saying is it's much better to read the writings of the Church Fathers DIRECTLY. I doubt you and others have done that. It is harder to do that. I myself have been a victim of that because they are not easily accessible and requires lots of mind power and earlier I was quite lazy. The moderns who write these books presently are people who learned Academic Theology. It is better to sit in prayer , The Jesus Prayer, and then read the Polycarps, Justin's, Gregory Palamas's of the Church instead of college degree terminology.

[Philoteus]

I have read this book and it sits on my library shelf. What I am saying is it's much better to read the writings of the Church Fathers DIRECTLY. I doubt you and others have done that. It is harder to do that. I myself have been a victim of that because they are not easily accessible and requires lots of mind power and earlier I was quite lazy. The moderns who write these books presently are people who learned Academic Theology. It is better to sit in prayer , The Jesus Prayer, and then read the Polycarps, Justin's, Gregory Palamas's of the Church instead of college degree terminology.

I might also add the book Orthodox Psychotherapy is bombastic and takes forever to get to the point. All one does is read and read and read terminology of the likes of Jung or Freud because this writer has been indoctrinated in this secularism by what is being taught in these Westernised Seminaries in Greece. Sure they will quote the ascetics in the Philokalia. They have to!

We all will be so much further ahead if we read the writings of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov and Bishop Theophan the Recluse who lived in times much like ours and who saw the coming of the onslaught of westernized thinking which would destroy The Russian Church and murder 50 million or more of her citizens. New Calendarist's like Vlahos push their unorthodox agenda on the newbies and converts which people immediately jump on board and accept. Academic college Phd degrees which these New Calendarist's put alongside their names to show they have the credentials to speak on such matters is bogus. He is not sticking to tradition. He and other's are New Calendarist's and schismatics plain and simple.

Another book that is bogus by the New Calendarist Vlahos is "A Night on the Holy Mountain". Fairy Tales. An excellent traditional Orthodox book on the Jesus Prayer is "On the Jesus Prayer" by Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov. This book is the finest on the Jesus Prayer and it also comes in a 3 cd and the website is http://www.ocrb.org which I don't have any interest in. I like to listen to them when I am traveling. On another note be careful when reading traditional Orthodox Church Fathers. I am referring to the INTRODUCTIONS in these books. Most are written by protestants who don't know the orthodox faith or written by schismatic New Calendarist's like Kallis Ware the Anglican bishop. If anyone finds this statement hostile then you don't know or have an understanding of Orthodoxy.

I am finished with this topic and probably with this Cafe. So continue your never ending "debates". I am going to pray and read the Homilies of Gregory Palamas. CIAO!

[joasia]

Christ is Risen!

Philoteus,

My first Orthodox books were the Philokalia and the Life of St. Anthony the Great, 25 years ago. I always read the holy fathers. And I re-read them and because of all these years of reading them, I saw that Vlahos was writing on a spiritual level. My favorite book is Path to Salvation by St. Theophan the Recluse which God revealed to me after I read Vlahos. When I read Vlahos, I kept a keen eye on his explanations in order to say: ah ha, there's the lie. But, I didn't feel that way. The sayings of the holy fathers, especially in the Philokalia, kept coming back to mind and I would think: oh, this is what they meant.

I've been officially Orthodox for 19 years in the Old Calendar tradition. I'm not a newbie to Orthodox tradition. And I've never been in the New Calendar Church. I am presently reading the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew. I also have his homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Hebrews.

You say that he expresses himself like Jung and Freud, but I think that their psychology borrows from a spiritual mentality, because of self-examination which mankind is prone to do. Their views are secular (although Jung studied the religions), but the Orthodox understanding of guarding the nous in the heart is what Vlahos is describing.

It's been three years since I've read this book, so I will read it again and re-evaluate. I guess I'm not at the level of your high spiritual understanding.

But, I would have hoped that you could provide clear criticisms to help us see the errors. Accusing him of being a new calendarist is not going to prove the point. I need facts from the book.

But, that would be daring you to take the book off your shelf. Frankly, I'm surprised that you didn't throw it in the garbage as that's what you think it is.

Joanna

[Philoteus]

Christ is Risen!

Philoteus,

. I guess I'm not at the level of your high spiritual understanding.

Joanna

Please refrain from making comments like this. This is not about having higher spiritual understanding.
Thank You.

Philoteus.

[JHunt777]

I have never read "Orthodox Psychotherapy", though I have wanted to for quite some time. I agree that it is best to read the saints and Fathers directly, and generally it is best to not read contemporary authors. However, Met Hierotheos is one of the very few contemporary authors that I would recommend. I find that he does a very good job synthesizing the patristic writings and summarizing the teachings of the Fathers, the decisions of the Councils, and the hymnography of our Church in a clear and systematic fashion that is comprehensive yet easy to follow and enjoyable to read. Understandably, people here may object to the fact that he is on the New Calendar, but I think one will search in vain for anything syncretistic, renovationist, or ecumenistic in his writings. Many Old Calendarists already love and cherish the writings of Met Hierotheos' mentor, Fr. John Romanides, who was also on the New Calendar.

I would never recommend that anyone read a contemporary author instead of the Fathers, but that doesn't mean that books such as "Orthodox Psychotherapy" do not have their place. One can read the Fathers regularly and still benefit from the words of someone who has spent so many more decades studying the Fathers in the original languages, living monastically, and sincerely struggling to follow their teachings.

While I personally think very well of Met Hierotheos, I was very surprised to see him quoted in an article on the subject of “The Holy Trinity and the Church” that was published by the Matthewite Synod under Abp Nicholas of Athens. For some background, the article on “The Holy Trinity and the Church” (Keryx Gnesion Orthodoxon, issue 294, October, 2002, pp. 249-251), was written against the teaching of the Matthewite theologian Mr. Eleftherios Goutzides on the Holy Trinity is the “Uncreated Church” or “Beginningless Church”. This Matthewite Synod stated on Feb. 14/27 2002 on this subject that

“The theological position of Mr. Eleftherios Goutzides is not only unacceptable and mistaken, but also constitutes a distortion of Orthodox ecclesiology and an introduction of the corrupt opinions of the Ecumenists into the realm of the Church."

What is interesting about this decision of the Matthewite Synod, as expressed in the article “The Holy Trinity and the Church”, is that not one Church Father is quoted in the entire article against the teaching of Mr. Goutzides. In fact, the only person quoted to refute the teaching of Mr. Goutzides was none other than Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos! He is quoted at such length in this article published by the Synod that it appears as though this theological position of the Matthewite Synod rests exclusively on the authority of the theological writings of the New Calendar Met Hierotheos!

Specifically, this Matthewite article states:

Thus in this small article, and as an initial phase, we are in the position to inform our readers, and anyone interested, that the correlation of Trinitarian Dogma with the Church (that is, the Church's unity or the communion of the Local Churches), truly does constitute a major issue where the involvement or rather the guidance of Ecumenism and its instruments is somewhat more than observable and obvious.

Specifically, the State Church new-calendarist Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Kyr Hierotheos Vlahos, who is well known for his anti-ecumenist ecclesiological convictions, when referring to the topic of ecclesiastical union in his recent book The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece (2002), among other points observes: "The unity of the Church cannot be apprehended through the theological dogma of the most Holy Trinity, but rather via the dogma of the Oeconomy, that is Christ's incarnation. First of all because just as Christ Who with his incarnation united the created with the uncreated, thus likewise union exists in the Church without confusion, division or separation of the created with the uncreated; something that cannot occur in the unity of the Holy Trinity in Which everything is uncreated.

"Secondly, because the unity and distinction among the Churches cannot be associated with the unity and distinction of Persons (or hypostases) of the Holy Trinity precisely because the unity of Persons of the Holy Trinity owes itself just as much to the sole principality (monarchia) of the Father, as it does to the common essence (ousia) /energy (energeia) [of the All-holy Trinity]. At the same time the distinction of characteristics belonging to each hypostasis (hypostatika idiomata)(6) is located in the Father's begetting before the ages (proaionioV gennan), the Son's being begotten and the procession of the Holy Spirit. It thus becomes evident that in the way of union and distinction of Persons of the Holy Trinity there can be no correlation with the unity and distinction of the local Churches because it is not possible to pinpoint the essence of the Church, neither of course can one determine, in the Churches, the meaning of timeless begetting, begottoness, and procession, as well as the Fathers sole principality.

"Thirdly, because the unity and distinction of the Churches may be authentically expounded through the undivided distinction of Christ's Body. As it is known, the Eucharistic Bread is 'divided and distributed… the One who is divided yet not disunited…' This also takes place within the Church which is discerned in local Churches, which are located in various places, yet without any dismemberment, precisely because each local Church is the complete Body of Christ, just like each specific particle of sanctified Bread in the sacred eucharistic chalice is a complete Christ.

"For these fundamental reasons I prefer, just as we find it in the Patristic texts, to interpret the Church primarily as the Body of Christ and not as a type of the Holy Trinity"

The issue of the Holy Trinity as the “Beginningless” or “Uncreated” Church became so serious among the Matthewites that it resulted in a schism, with Abp Nicholas of Athens and those bishops with him on one hand, and Met Kyrikos and other supporters of Mr. Gouzides on the other hand. Again, the Matthewites under Abp Nicholas depended for their theological position almost exclusively on the writings of Met Hierotheos, praising him as one “who is well known for his anti-ecumenist ecclesiological convictions.” While I greatly esteem the writings of Met Hierotheos, I was surprised by the Matthewites’ dependence on his theological writings, considering the fact that they believe him to be “without grace” and “outside of the Church” by virtue of being in the New Calendar Church of Greece.

[jgress]

Christ is Risen!

Philoteus,

. I guess I'm not at the level of your high spiritual understanding.

Joanna

Please refrain from making comments like this. This is not about having higher spiritual understanding.
Thank You.

Philoteus.

I think you should answer her questions and produce some examples of Met Hierotheos' alleged heresies.