This paper investigates the relationship between mental health and pastoral care in the Church. The principal goal is to indicate the area of dialogue and cooperation between pastoral theology / pastoral psychology and psychology and psychiatry, an area most noteworthy. Furthermore, the importance of the preservation of boundaries between scientific disciplines is emphasized as a key prequirement for a successful dialogueἩ ἐργασία ἀσχολεῖται μέ τή σχέση τῆς ψυχικῆς ὑγείας μέ τήν ποιμαντική διακονία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Βασικός σκοπός τῆς μελέτης εἶναι ἡ ἀπόδειξη τοῦ ἀξιόλογου περιθώριου πού ἔχει ὁ διάλογος και ἡ συνεργασία τῆς ποιμαντικῆς θεολογίας μέ τήν ψυχολογία καί ψυχιατρική ἐνῶ παράλληλα τονίζεται ἡ σημασία τῆς διαφύλαξης τῶν ὁρίων κάθε ἐπιστήμης ὡς βασική προϋπόθεση γιά ἕνα ἀποτελεσματικό διάλογο.

Εἰς τὴν παρούσαν ἐργασίαν ἐκτίθενται ἐνδεικτικὰ χωρία τοῦ ὅρου μύστης, ἔτσι ὅπως εἶχε διαμορφωθεῖ ἡ χρήση του καὶ oἱ σημασιολογικὲς ἀποχρώσεις ποὺ λαμβάνει σὲ χωρία ἀρχαίων συγγραφέων. Παρουσιάζονται ἕξι χωρία, τὰ ὁποῖα ἀποδεικνύουν ὅτι ὁ μύστης ἦταν μέτοχος καὶ πλῆρες μέλος τῶν μυστηριακῶν λατρειῶν, ὄχι μόνο τῶν Μυστηρίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ὀργίων. Κάθε χωρίο ἀκολουθείται ἀπὸ μετάφραση σὲ μία ἀπὸ τὶς σύγχρονες γλῶσσες. Ἀπὸ τὸ χωρίο τοῦ Ἀριστοφάνη προκύπτει ὅτι ὁ ὅρος ἀρχικὰ εἶχε διατυπωθεῖ ὡς ἐπίθετο καὶ ὄχι ὡς οὐσιαστικό. Ὡς τέτοιο μέρος τοῦ λόγου, λειτουργεῖ καὶ ὡς προσωνυμία (ἐπωνυμία) τῶν ἀρχαίων θεοτήτων. Παρ΄ὅλο ποὺ ἡ σημασιολογία του δείχνει νοηματικὴ διαφάνεια, ἡ ἐτυμολογία τοῦ ὅρου παραμένει ἀνεπαρκῶς προσδιορισμένη. Στὰ ἐτυμολογικὰ λεξικὰ δὲν ἀποτελεῖ ξεχωριστὸ λῆμμα, ἀλλὰ συγκαταλέγεται στὰ ὀνοματικὰ παράγωγα τοῦ ῥήματος μύω.This paper presents indicative quotations of the term mystes. They are taken from the texts of ancient writers, focusing on the way its use and its semasiological aspects were formed. Six excerpts are selected to assess the fact that mystes was an active participant and a full member of the ancient Mystery cults, not only of the Mysteries, but of the Orgies, too. Most quotations are followed by their interpretation in English or French. Aristophanes’ fragment leads to conclusion that initially the term was introduced and formulated rather as an adjective, than as a noun. As such, it serves as a name, title, or cognomen, referring to ancient deities. Although its semasiology indicates rather intelligible transparency, its etymology remains insufficiently determined. In etymological dictionaries it is not presented as a separate lemma, but is assumed to be a noun derivative of a verb, thus presented s.v. μύω [mýō].

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the hermeneutical method of Theodoret of Cyrus, who was one of the most important Biblical commentators and an influential theologian of the School of Antioch. This paper attempts to point out the fact that in the person of the Blessed Theodoret we find the first attempt of synthesis between the Antioch and Alexandria hermeneutical schools. In his hermeneutical work Theodoret attempted to overcome the contradictions existing up to that point and to follow a middle way, without discarding neither the literal nor the spiritual-allegorical interpretation. It could be argued that Theodoret rejected the extreme hermeneutical trends of both the Alexandrian and Antioch inspirations; he developed his unique methods and tactics, which were rooted in the previous patristic tradition of the Church Fathers.

have decided to write this paper for the late Professor Ioannis Kornarakis mainly for two reasons: (1) Professor Kornarakis was the first to attempt an interdisciplinary preoccupation between the branch of Patristics and Modern Psychology; (2) Because he worked on this interdisciplinary perspective with innovation and creativity. For Professor Kornarakis’s work what is worth to be mentioned, above all, is that it was a struggle and an effort towards an unusual project: that of seeing the writings of the Church Fathers and of Scriptures in ways which could be relevant to modern human problematism so that a fruitful understanding to be attained, as to what we can do with them on a personal, interpersonal and social level. Though Professor Kornarakis did not use the empirical method in his scientific research - observation-hypothesis-experiment-support, or refutation, of ideas tested-replication of the study conducted, etc. - he came across very important insights as to the human condition, that even today can elicit discussions as to the salience of his endeavours for modern pastoral psychologists.In this theoretical paper, what I am doing is to refer to Professor Kornarakis’s work historically and systematically. Historically, in terms of the development of it, since its inception, in the theological literature; systematically, in terms of the presentation of it in relation to the main ideas this was based upon. The historical preoccupation with Kornarakis’s work is being exhausted in the realm of an interview I conducted of him, when I was collecting information relevant to what he wrote, discussed and envisaged as to the association between Patristics and Psychology. The systematic preoccupation with Kornarakis’s work refers to the content and context his works were conceptualized and composed.Through both these perspectives -the historical and the systematic- Kornarakis’s work is actually put in the framework it belongs to, which is that of the theoretical foundations needed for the construction of a mode of thought in the pastoral understanding of the writings of the Fathers, and those of the Bible, in relation to what modern psychology studies in detail. Kornarakis’s work can be exhausted in terms of its chronological framework; however, it can also appear inexhaustible as to the kind of contingencies one can find in it, which are both situation-driven and hermeneutically-specific. Situationdriven, for they refer to events the modern man is bothered by; hermeneutically-specific, for they refer to issues, the exegesis of which can help the modern man’s condition to be improved.