Topic: Avoid these Blokes??

[Poppy]

Is it just preference that some people on the forums say that some of the writings of certain people are a bit iffy or is it that they are badly iffy??

Examples:
Metropolitan Anthony
Father Seraphim Rose

Two that i've noticed so far that people keep saying things about......because if there is people to avoid reading, i can do with the heads up right now so i don't waste time reading wrong stuff. Especially if the crux of the Orthodox faith is partly about right belief.

Cheers Poppy

[IsmiLiora]

I am sure that this thread is going to start an all out battle. I am not going to start out on a negative note, and I will suggest that you stick to a list like this: Orthodox Church Fathers: http://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/.

At the very least, I think that those who would agree with Fr. Seraphim Rose's writings on the toll houses (I don't, for the record) would agree that it's too "meaty" for a new inquirer to read. Start with the first Church Fathers, I would say.

[HandmaidenofGod]

For someone who is new to the Orthodox faith, it's probably a good idea to get a list of "suggested reading" from one's Priest/Spiritual Father. It's not that the author's you listed are "bad" per se, it's just that their understanding of Orthodoxy is best read when one has a strong foundation of traditional Orthodox thought.

What you must understand is that there are a lot of theologoumenons (theological opinions) within the Orthodox Church that are not dogma. These opinions vary greatly, but if not understood within the larger context of the Church, could be misinterpreted as fact.

For example, there are some who believe in the theory of "Toll Houses" and will argue the theory quite strongly. However, this is just a theory, and the belief or disbelief in Toll Houses is not critical to one's salvation.

Hope this helps.

[JamesRottnek]

Metropolitan Anthony who?

[HandmaidenofGod]

I think she means +Met. Anthony Bloom

[Poppy]

I am sure that this thread is going to start an all out battle.

I hope not, i didn't mean it to. I have just been clicking on any of the link people post and reading but then some people don't seem to like certain writers so i wondered if that was just preference or if there was something seriously wrong.

Thanks for the list IsmiLiora. I think people will keep a lid on their preferences if thas what they are 

[Poppy]

For someone who is new to the Orthodox faith, it's probably a good idea to get a list of "suggested reading" from one's Priest/Spiritual Father. It's not that the author's you listed are "bad" per se, it's just that their understanding of Orthodoxy is best read when one has a strong foundation of traditional Orthodox thought.

What you must understand is that there are a lot of theologoumenons (theological opinions) within the Orthodox Church that are not dogma. These opinions vary greatly, but if not understood within the larger context of the Church, could be misinterpreted as fact.

For example, there are some who believe in the theory of "Toll Houses" and will argue the theory quite strongly. However, this is just a theory, and the belief or disbelief in Toll Houses is not critical to one's salvation.

Hope this helps.

Helps a lot, thanks!
Yeah i have avoided the toll houses thread, i have no clue even what that might mean (no explaination needed ta)

[IsmiLiora]

No, I am not blaming you. Someone could probably start a thread about cookies and it would reach page 230 because someone would mention the word "toll house." There are quite a few hot button topics on the board!

And do keep in mind what HandmaidenofGod said. Sometimes some of the writings Church Fathers have to be taken with a grain of salt (particularly the ascetics). You have to take the main lesson. Meat is not evil in and of itself, but gluttony is, for example.

I'm working right now, but I might pull up some specific texts later to show you some examples. Send an e-mail to a local priest or talk to him if you're having any outstanding issues with what you're reading. You can also post on the board and you'll encounter arguments on both sides. Not even the cradles seem to agree on everything!

[John Ward]

I think that, just like anyone, they are human and prone to error. There were even some writings from the Fathers that were later reversed by themselves because they were wrong. There are both good things and "bad" things coming out of their writings. I think the difference is, we have had a few centuries go by where the Church has been able to weed out the "bad" things. Also, just like others, they had their personal opinion on matters that aren't dogma, so can be kind of iffy (just as any opinion can be).

[Monk Cyprian]

I think she means +Met. Anthony Bloom

More likely Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Met Anthony (Bloom) to have written anything controversial.

[PeterTheAleut]

I think she means +Met. Anthony Bloom

More likely Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider Met Anthony (Bloom) to have written anything controversial.

You might be surprised.

[Ioannis Climacus]

Is it just preference that some people on the forums say that some of the writings of certain people are a bit iffy or is it that they are badly iffy??

Examples:
Metropolitan Anthony
Father Seraphim Rose

Two that i've noticed so far that people keep saying things about......because if there is people to avoid reading, i can do with the heads up right now so i don't waste time reading wrong stuff. Especially if the crux of the Orthodox faith is partly about right belief.

Cheers Poppy

Nothing wrong with either of these authors. Both are excellent starting points for people new to Orthodoxy.

On the subject of Fr. Seraphim of Platina, he is completely Orthodox, as are his writings. Criticism of him comes from a class of Orthodox "intellectuals" who typically prefer western rationalism to actual Orthodox theology. I suspect that most of his critics have not even taken the time to read his book The Soul After Death due to the accusations often leveled against him. What Fr. Seraphim said and what people say he said are often two completely different realities.

On a side note, a good introduction to Orthodoxy would be the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Literally read everything attributed to him. I can't think of a more thorough introduction to the Faith.  

[recent convert]

I would suggest any inquirer & most of us laypersons also to read works by such living authors as Fr Anthony Coniaris. Just search for his works at light & life publishing. http://www.light-n-life.com/

[Shlomlokh]

Is it just preference that some people on the forums say that some of the writings of certain people are a bit iffy or is it that they are badly iffy??

Examples:
Metropolitan Anthony
Father Seraphim Rose

Two that i've noticed so far that people keep saying things about......because if there is people to avoid reading, i can do with the heads up right now so i don't waste time reading wrong stuff. Especially if the crux of the Orthodox faith is partly about right belief.

Cheers Poppy

Nothing wrong with either of these authors. Both are excellent starting points for people new to Orthodoxy.

On the subject of Fr. Seraphim of Platina, he is completely Orthodox, as are his writings. Criticism of him comes from a class of Orthodox "intellectuals" who typically prefer western rationalism to actual Orthodox theology. I suspect that most of his critics have not even taken the time to read his book The Soul After Death due to the accusations often leveled against him. What Fr. Seraphim said and what people say he said are often two completely different realities.

On a side note, a good introduction to Orthodoxy would be the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Literally read everything attributed to him. I can't think of a more thorough introduction to the Faith.  

I have a great love and admiration for the Righteous Seraphim of Platina. He is a great inspiration to me. If I could be half the man he was by the time I reach my death bed, I would pass with great peace.

I can only echo what you said, Ioannis, but in reference to the OP, add that we should treat our clergy with a little more respect, instead of referring to them as "blokes."

In Christ,
Andrew

[akimori makoto]

On a side note, a good introduction to Orthodoxy would be the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Literally read everything attributed to him. I can't think of a more thorough introduction to the Faith.  

Seconded!

Sometimes I inappropriately muse that if we lost everything and only St John Chrysostom remained we would still be doing pretty okay.

[IsmiLiora]

On a side note, a good introduction to Orthodoxy would be the writings of St. John Chrysostom. Literally read everything attributed to him. I can't think of a more thorough introduction to the Faith.  

Seconded!

Sometimes I inappropriately muse that if we lost everything and only St John Chrysostom remained we would still be doing pretty okay.

I third that! (And second you, akimori makoto).

Reading his Instructions to Catechumens is a great idea if you want to take a step forward.

[biro]

I would suggest any inquirer & most of us laypersons also to read works by such living authors as Fr Anthony Coniaris. Just search for his works at light & life publishing. http://www.light-n-life.com/

Yes. My priest recommended these books when I was in the beginning of my inquiry. They are very informative. 

[joasia]

I've read everything by Fr. Seraphim Rose.  His work is excellent.  AND he writes about non-Christian religions which I think you would find interesting.  He gives a great explanation about what they believe in compared to Orthodoxy.  Check out: Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future.

[Poppy]

I think she means +Met. Anthony Bloom
More likely Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

I have no idea, what i read just daid met Anthony, i assumed it was short for metropolitan, maybe not lolOl

Thanks IsmiLiora, nah i knew you didn't mean it at me. Thanks for the info and the "second"s and "third"s 

Ioannis and akimori.... i have a website with allot of his homilies on it that i bookmarked. St John Chrysostom, him. I can never pronounce his name  and i have his music in my car.

Thanks recent convert, i have bookmarked light n life to read some later.

Seems that they are mostly preferences then and maybe maturity levels that make one or two people more acceptable reading. Thanks for clearing that up.

I can only echo what you said, Ioannis, but in reference to the OP, add that we should treat our clergy with a little more respect, instead of referring to them as "blokes."

Andrew, you all are free to do that. Not being inside of any religion, i don't respect the office. My respect of people isn't about semantics, it's about stopping myself from answering you how i rli want to. I try and treat everyone with respect, (however i refer to them as) unless they give me a reason not to.

[Shlomlokh]

Andrew, you all are free to do that. Not being inside of any religion, i don't respect the office. My respect of people isn't about semantics, it's about stopping myself from answering you how i rli want to. I try and treat everyone with respect, (however i refer to them as) unless they give me a reason not to.

If I might inquire, wouldn't you want someone to respect you, even if they didn't know you? Instead of calling you by your name, you'd be alright if, say someone wanted to call you by a clever 4 or 5 letter word? I don't think that would be respectful at all. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling Her Royal Majesty "that Liz Chick." Not being English, I don't have any real reason to respect the crown other than decency and respect for her and those that do.

It's a simple gesture of respect that goes a long way. I'm sure you are familiar with the Golden Rule.

In Christ,
Andrew

[akimori makoto]

I think there's a bit of a culture clash going on here.

Andrew, check out Poppy's "proud subject of her madge the royal queenie" under her name on the left.

I think Americans, generally, are much more formal than the English and Australians/New Zealanders. I wouldn't hesitate to say of my spiritual father that he's a good bloke.

Still, I think Andrew makes a good point and I don't think he's trying to give you a hard time, Poppy.

[jnorm888]

Is it just preference that some people on the forums say that some of the writings of certain people are a bit iffy or is it that they are badly iffy??

Examples:
Metropolitan Anthony
Father Seraphim Rose

Two that i've noticed so far that people keep saying things about......because if there is people to avoid reading, i can do with the heads up right now so i don't waste time reading wrong stuff. Especially if the crux of the Orthodox faith is partly about right belief.

Cheers Poppy

It depends on the topic

[neon_knights]

I'm a new inquirer and I like a lot of Seraphim Rose's stuff. Can't say I agree with it all, but some of it is great.

[Poppy]

Andrew, you all are free to do that. Not being inside of any religion, i don't respect the office. My respect of people isn't about semantics, it's about stopping myself from answering you how i rli want to. I try and treat everyone with respect, (however i refer to them as) unless they give me a reason not to.

If I might inquire, wouldn't you want someone to respect you, even if they didn't know you? Instead of calling you by your name, you'd be alright if, say someone wanted to call you by a clever 4 or 5 letter word? I don't think that would be respectful at all. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling Her Royal Majesty "that Liz Chick." Not being English, I don't have any real reason to respect the crown other than decency and respect for her and those that do.

It's a simple gesture of respect that goes a long way. I'm sure you are familiar with the Golden Rule.

In Christ,
Andrew

There's a preliminary respect if you don't know someone yeah, but true respect is earned. Priest or Saint is a title, not their name so no, i wouldn't expect someone to call me Lady Poppy, and respect my title if they wern't from my country. I don't think y'all have Lords and Ladies in Virginia huh?? But i might have to put up with being called "honey" and "sweetie" as a friend of mine was called recently when she went on holiday (vacation) there.

You can call our queenie "that liz chick" if you like... haha!

As i said before, gestures of respect are more about treatment to me, than about word gymnastics.

The local priest at St Elias wasn't put off one bit that i didn't call him "Father" I just called him by his first name and he never had a problem with that. He was more glad that i was in church and asking questions. I respected him, he knew that; it was all good. I even slipped and said the F word twice!!!!  when you  have been speaking a certain way all your life its hard to change how you speak in a minute. The lady was fine though, she could see i felt awkward and immediately told me a funny story of something she did in church once that put her in a awkward spot.

So chill Andrew, it's all good. Us Brits and you Americans have got a "special" relationship according to Obama, let's not ruin it huh?? 

[Poppy]

I'm a new inquirer and I like a lot of Seraphim Rose's stuff. Can't say I agree with it all, but some of it is great.

I like his name, he has such a fierce name!!!

[orthonorm]

The local priest at St Elias wasn't put off one bit that i didn't call him "Father" I just called him by his first name and he never had a problem with that. He was more glad that i was in church and asking questions. I respected him, he knew that; it was all good. I even slipped and said the F word twice!!!!

Some of us are adults here, you can say it: filioque.  //:=|

[Volnutt]

Might be a good idea to not read anything on hesychasm or out of the Philokalia until you have some years as a convert under your belt, not because it's bad just easy to misunderstand. At least this is what they keep telling me.

[Sleeper]

The local priest at St Elias wasn't put off one bit that i didn't call him "Father" I just called him by his first name and he never had a problem with that. He was more glad that i was in church and asking questions. I respected him, he knew that; it was all good. I even slipped and said the F word twice!!!!

Some of us are adults here, you can say it: filioque.  //:=|

   

[Poppy]

Might be a good idea to not read anything on hesychasm or out of the Philokalia until you have some years as a convert under your belt, not because it's bad just easy to misunderstand. At least this is what they keep telling me.

Cheers Volnutt, will try and remember that. Although now you got me curious haha...

[Volnutt]

I had a feeling that would happen 

[joasia]

Might be a good idea to not read anything on hesychasm or out of the Philokalia until you have some years as a convert under your belt, not because it's bad just easy to misunderstand. At least this is what they keep telling me.

Actually, that's the book I started reading because of all the spiritual context. That and the Life of St. Anthony the Great.  The holy fathers helped me see the depth of Orthodox spirituality.  But, there is a danger in trying to live by the more stricter teachings in it which were meant for ascetics.  I had no Orthodox priest to ask questions about them as I didn't go to an Orthodox Church until 6 years later. 

And now I've come to read the volumes again.  This time, many things make sense to me after living the faith.  But, for you and Poppy, I think it's okay.  At least you have somewhere to ask questions about what they wrote. 

[mike]

@joasia: out of curiosity: do you have any Polish roots?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

[joasia]

@joasia: out of curiosity: do you have any Polish roots?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Tak.  Both parents and their families on both sides.  Mom from Sandomierz and dad from Posnan.    My name is Joanna.

[mike]

My name is Joanna.

That wasn't difficult to find

[Volnutt]

Might be a good idea to not read anything on hesychasm or out of the Philokalia until you have some years as a convert under your belt, not because it's bad just easy to misunderstand. At least this is what they keep telling me.

Actually, that's the book I started reading because of all the spiritual context. That and the Life of St. Anthony the Great.  The holy fathers helped me see the depth of Orthodox spirituality.  But, there is a danger in trying to live by the more stricter teachings in it which were meant for ascetics.  I had no Orthodox priest to ask questions about them as I didn't go to an Orthodox Church until 6 years later. 

And now I've come to read the volumes again.  This time, many things make sense to me after living the faith.  But, for you and Poppy, I think it's okay.  At least you have somewhere to ask questions about what they wrote. 

Good point. I avoid them out of my own personal issues with "mysticism," but Poppy should be ok with her priest's advice.

[joasia]

I avoid them out of my own personal issues with "mysticism,"

Mysticism?  Are you referring to their state of theosis?

[Volnutt]

I avoid them out of my own personal issues with "mysticism,"

Mysticism?  Are you referring to their state of theosis?

No, I'm cool with Theosis.

Hesychasm reminds me a bit too much for comfort of TM, yoga, "centering prayer," etc. but maybe this is just my fundamentalist upbringing talking.

[joasia]

I avoid them out of my own personal issues with "mysticism,"

Mysticism?  Are you referring to their state of theosis?

No, I'm cool with Theosis.

Hesychasm reminds me a bit too much for comfort of TM, yoga, "centering prayer," etc. but maybe this is just my fundamentalist upbringing talking.

Ah.  I read about the differences.  Your examples are about "centering prayer" which is to go within oneself.  To be one's own universe.  The ascetics always aimed their prayers to God.  There's a big difference of focus.  This is where reading Fr. Seraphim Rose's book on the religions would come in handy.  He was buddhist before he became Orthodox.

[Volnutt]

I avoid them out of my own personal issues with "mysticism,"

Mysticism?  Are you referring to their state of theosis?

No, I'm cool with Theosis.

Hesychasm reminds me a bit too much for comfort of TM, yoga, "centering prayer," etc. but maybe this is just my fundamentalist upbringing talking.

Ah.  I read about the differences.  Your examples are about "centering prayer" which is to go within oneself.  To be one's own universe.  The ascetics always aimed their prayers to God.  There's a big difference of focus.

Sure, but the obliteration of the rational, conscious mind seems the same in both. They might think it makes them pray more authentically but who knows what can creep in when the mind is empty like that?

I'll keep Father Rose's book in mind, though.

[joasia]

Sure, but the obliteration of the rational, conscious mind seems the same in both. They might think it makes them pray more authentically but who knows what can creep in when the mind is empty like that?

Hesychasm isn't about emptying the mind..that's buddhism and yoga etc.  Hesychasm is about focusing the mind towards God.  The Jesus prayer is all about calling to God for His mercy.  What is more rational and conscious than recognizing our sinfulness before God?  But, what I have seen is that emptying the mind and conscience in meditation can invite evil ones, like in the mystism of trances and automatic writing.  It's like an open invitation because we are avoiding acknowledging our sinfulness and that's what the evil one wants. Hesychasm blocks that invasion.  And the simpler versions are our morning and evening prayers.  Can you say that we are emptying our minds during that...when we are focusing on the prayers?  Just the canons of repentence and to Jesus Christ brings up so much awareness of our sinful states.

[NightOwl]

As a relatively new inquirer myself, I've found Kallistos Ware's works immensely informative and spiritually fulfilling. I truly believe his insight and advice is a gift from God. Haven't bothered with Seraphim Rose, though perhaps I will read him sometime out of curiosity.

[Volnutt]

Sure, but the obliteration of the rational, conscious mind seems the same in both. They might think it makes them pray more authentically but who knows what can creep in when the mind is empty like that?

Hesychasm isn't about emptying the mind..that's buddhism and yoga etc.  Hesychasm is about focusing the mind towards God.  The Jesus prayer is all about calling to God for His mercy.  What is more rational and conscious than recognizing our sinfulness before God?  But, what I have seen is that emptying the mind and conscience in meditation can invite evil ones, like in the mystism of trances and automatic writing.  It's like an open invitation because we are avoiding acknowledging our sinfulness and that's what the evil one wants. Hesychasm blocks that invasion.  And the simpler versions are our morning and evening prayers.  Can you say that we are emptying our minds during that...when we are focusing on the prayers?  Just the canons of repentence and to Jesus Christ brings up so much awareness of our sinful states.

But when the ascetics speak of "putting the mind in the heart" isn't that a cessation of conscious watchfulness? I can appreciate the idea of making awareness of sin a deep part of you, but it still seems trance-like the way I've seen it described.

[joasia]

But when the ascetics speak of "putting the mind in the heart" isn't that a cessation of conscious watchfulness? I can appreciate the idea of making awareness of sin a deep part of you, but it still seems trance-like the way I've seen it described.

Do you not pray from the heart or do you mouth the words without thinking of them like they do with mantras?  If you are okay with theosis, then you should know that guarding the heart is very important.  An excellent book and must have is St. Theophan the Recluse: The Path to Salvation.  He explains how the thoughts work and how we should guard the intellect (eye of the heart/soul).  There's nothing at all involved with trances.

I think you should read more about it. 

[Volnutt]

Yes, I should probably continue to read about it. Sorry if I offended.

[Pravoslavbob]

On the subject of Fr. Seraphim of Platina, he is completely Orthodox, as are his writings. Criticism of him comes from a class of Orthodox "intellectuals" who typically prefer western rationalism to actual Orthodox theology.

That`s your opinion.