Discussion on the toll houses
Dear Readers, If you are interested in making an objective comparison and examination for yourself of the book The Soul, the Body and Death, please E-Mail us and we will send you a free copy. Meanwhile, let us begin the refutation of the an assessment by Rev Dr S. Harakas, then Dean of Holy Cross (“The Toll-House teaching is a heresy”), and assessments by Dr Alexandre Kalomiros and Fr Panagiotis Karras, and we will add considerably more later!
*******************************
THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST:
Refutation of the Toll-House Theory
So let us neither hear them as they are strangers to us…But rather let us resolve ourselves to our discipline; and let us not be deceived by the demons who do all things in deceit, even to frightening us with death. For they are weak and can do nothing but threaten…The demons have no power, but are like actors on the stage, changing their shapes and frightening children with disruptive apparitions in various forms, for which they ought to be mocked as showing their impotence…(St Anthony the Great)
Seemingly unaware of or indifferent to their Gnostic heritage — especially its demonology — Toll-Housers continue to behave as if they were the protectors of an unadorned Orthodoxy. The ancient and syncretistic “Christian Gnostics” (to which the Toll-Housers are heir) flourished in Rome, Persia, some in Syria, in Egypt. In the Middle Ages, it raided Western Europe in the form of dualistic Manichaeism, and Eastern Europe as the Bogomil heresy (an amalgamation of Orthodoxy, Egyptian death-rites, Chaldean astrology, and, of course, Manichaeism or the belief in physical matter as evil). The many Gnostic cults were not everywhere the same, but they were alike in several basic ways; hence, the appropriate label “Gnostic.”
The Nag Hammadi collection of Gnostic texts (available through the Gnostic Society Library) is a fundamental source of its doctrine which justifies our contention that this religious philosophy is the source of the Aerial Toll-House speculation. The Apocalypse of Paul, The First and Second Apocalypse of James and the Apocryphon of John are the principal texts which describe the Gnostic cosmos as the series of planetary spheres or astral planes at the heart of which are forty-two (twenty according to Fr Seraphim Rose) mischievous beings, sometimes called Archontos (leaders), sometimes Kosmokratores (world-rulers), each of them on guard before his “Custom Booth” (telonia). They are sometimes identified as “Detainers” — as the Gnostics also call them. They demand a “toll” from the souls before they are permitted to continue on their way to heaven, that is, a password, sacred name, or some proof of good works and, most importantly, as proof of their arcane knowledge (gnosis) which makes them eligible to pass through the stands. Otherwise they are cast into Hell.
With regard to modern Toll-House Gnostics, one would expect them to opine that Lucifer’s demons would oblige the soul to give substantiation of their Orthodoxy as well as their good moral character. [However, we find no requirement for Orthodoxy in their system]. Complete piety must be a provision for salvation, and, therefore, a confession of true faith must be a prerequisite for passage to the heavenly Kingdom. One must assume also that the demons are experts in Orthodox theology, christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, etc.
Put another way, in the case of those brethren who have embraced the Gnostic soteriology, we are not convinced that they have thought out their doctrine, which may in part be the result of a defence which has not always been characterized by intellectual honesty. The writings of Toll-Housers, not unlike Fr Seraphim’s exposition in The Soul After Death, have failed to scrupulously check their Biblical and patristic translations, nor draw out all of the historical and theological implications of their advocacy.
If anyone has confirmed the dubious scholarship of Toll-Housers, it is Archbishop Lazar Puhalo’s definitive The Soul, the Body and Death. His Eminence invalidates every Toll-House claims to Orthodox traditionalism(3). He draws our attention to the Toll-Houser (particularly Fr Seraphim) disregard for historical accuracy, the erroneous translations from the Latin and Greek (patristic texts that are forgeries, e. g. books entitled On the Departure of the Soul falsely attributed to St Cyril of Alexandria, St John Chrysostom, St Makarios the Great, etc. ),the false ascriptions to religious art, the uncritical adoption erroneously attributed and spurious writings of the Fathers, tendentious interpretation of the Scriptures, along with the additions to or deletions from sentences (See Rose, Soul After Death, p. 248). As one might expect, Rose was also quick to draw partisan inferences from the supernatural experiences of the Western and Eastern Saints. In addition, Toll-House researchers brazenly cite patristic texts that are forgeries. They are masters at “spinning” hagiographies to their advantage, often involving name-dropping, name-calling and distortion of their opponents’ position(4). Perhaps to elude such charges, zealous campaigners of the Toll-House theory, like Vladimir Moss, make the curious statement that they are “not competent” to discuss the issues surrounding “textual authenticity” (see his Death and the Toll-Houses). He may be compared to a politician who signs a bill before reading it. One may wonder why they champion a soteriology as if it was Orthodox (while denying its pagan antecedents) with such ardour when they are uncertain of the grounds for it. At the same time, there seems to be a misunderstanding about authentic Christian soteriology, “the Mystery of Christ.” Loyalty to the cause has produced a blindness which some might describe as obscurantism. Under these conditions they see no reason for vigilant inquiry into the facts.
Nevertheless, the defenders of the Toll-House Gnosticism have stockpiled numerous [proof-texts from] patristic and liturgical verses, a well of resources from which its membership may draw in order to give their position an aura of truth. To that end, they have also appealed unashamedly — not always openly — to extra-Orthodox sources, such as the writings of the heretics, Origen of Alexandria or Evagrius of Ponticus, as well as the pagan Tibetan Book of the Dead, or Ethiopic The Bandlet of Righteousness, even the profane disquisitions of the Protestant minister, Billy Graham, along with the nineteenth century European theosophists (e. g. , Swendenborg), and, to be sure, any number of westernized nineteenth century Russian theologians.
These and other flaws in their erudition could have been avoided if the proponents of the Toll-Housers had tested their theological musings against the Biblical mysterion tou Christou — “even the mystery which had been hidden from the ages and its generations, but now is made manifest to his saints” (Col.1:26) — the redemptive works of Christ, the power of the Cross and Resurrection in which the existence, worship and creed of the Church can only be understood.
Surely, if the theory is true, it is obligatory, how can a Christian truth be otherwise? The Toll-House scheme presents its belief with a logic that radically modifies certain essential elements of Christian soteriology. Thus, Toll-House Gnosticism is not simply a matter of life and death, but eternal life and eternal death. It demonstrates the difference between dying in realistic sorrow for one’s sins in the hope of salvation by a merciful God, and dying in the terror of trials before lying and vicious demons whose only purpose is to condemn the soul to Hell(7). Also, if the latter is true, one must not take for granted that the demons will be judicious and honourable in their decisions.
Lucifer and his host have no other agenda but the damnation of man. It is this raison d’etre that defines this logic of damnation, as it were, with all its terrible consequences. The Toll-Houses (telonias) gives them the “instrumentality” to achieve that end. But where did the demons obtain such control? Is it inherent to their nature? If not, then, we must suppose that the demons were given permission by God to grant eternal life or eternal death to the soul which passes before them. Vladimir Moss justifies his Toll-Housery by the reasoning that “God often uses created beings as the instruments of His justice, such as the Archangel Michael’s destruction of Sennacherub’s army” (ib.). This comparison between the Archangel and demons is regrettable. It is curious, too, that God did not staff the Toll-Houses with His holy and trustworthy angels!
We are further surprised that Mr. Moss, et al, seem to have found no incongruity between their doctrine and the defeat of the devil at the Cross — the victory that lies at the heart of the Saviour’s Ransom. It is an outrageous idea that God would endow His enemies with power to determine man’s destiny. Moss’ failure in this regarded explains, too, his unashamed adoption of the Gnostic Bandlet of Righteousness teaching that even the Theotokos would have failed to pass the Toll-House test had not Christ escorted her through their demonic ranks. [If that was the case, then there would be absolutely no hope even for the most outstanding of the Saints, let alone ordinary believer.]
If the devil has the power the Toll-Housers claim for him, what actually did the Cross accomplish? What meaning has the Incarnation and the Resurrection? What role does the Mother of God play in our salvation? What is the process of deification initiated by the Redemption? In other words, of what value are the Church and her mysteries, the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the baptized, or the efficacy of God’s deifying Grace, that is, the life of repentance and its relation to Christ’s Ransom? And, finally, if our fate is in the hands of the devil, what need of the divine Revelation? Indeed, what need of the Final Judgment of Christ — merely to ratify the decisions of the wily Toll-House demons? Given the Toll-House paradigm, who will be saved?
If, on the other hand, the Christian soteriology presupposes a logic of love, so to speak, where the Paschal joy prevails and the hope with which the believing soul separates from the body, salvation then depends not on a catalogue of sins but the rightness of faith, the virtuous disposition of the soul formed by Baptism and the Eucharist, and the dedication of the struggling heart. What else do the words of St John Chrysostom’s Paschal Homily mean — “let none fear death, for the death of the Saviour has set us free”?Likewise, the wisdom of St Isaac the Syrian, “Do not fear death, because God has made preparations to raise you above it” (Ascetic Homilies 48 —HTM trans.). Listen now to the poetry of St Gregory the Theologian at the funeral of his brother, Saint Caesarius:
I believe the words of the wise, that every fair and God-beloved soul, when set free from the bonds of the body departs hence, and at once (euthys) enjoys a sense and vision (theoria) of good things to come, inasmuch as what was dark in it has been purged or laid aside…and feels a wondrous pleasure and exultation, and rejoices in the Lord. Then, a little later, it will receive its flesh, what it once shared in the pursuit of things above…And, as it shared in the hardship of the body in a common life, so also is bestowed upon the body the joys of the soul hereafter, gathering it up into itself and becoming with it one spirit and mind in God…I await the Archangel, the last trumpet, the transformation of the Heavens…Then shall I see Caesarius himself, no longer an exile, no longer prone in a bier, no longer the object of mourning and pity, but brilliant, glorious, heavenly. Such are the dreams in which I have often beheld thee, dearest and most loving brother…(Oration VII, 21 PG 35 781BC).
Such a declaration of hope rests entirely upon the promise of the Cross, the defeat of the devil, his impotence before the holy. His ambition has been limited to taunting, tempting and lying. The “abominable demons” agitate and delude us about things unprofitable to our souls. They cannot compel us to do evil. “They have no power whatsoever to set in motion the natural thoughts of the intellect,” writes St Isaac the Syrian. “For it is impossible for the sons of darkness to approach light. Only the holy angels have this ability” (Ascetic Homlies 28).
The devil and his minions can in fact judge no one, most especially the man who has been cleansed or is cleansing his heart from the passions and, of course, they need not judge the unrighteous, they already belong to him. But the believer who has cast off the “old man,” is a “new creature” (2Cor.5:17) and “reborn” through Baptism. He has been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of God’s Beloved Son. The “elect” or“sons of God” are free from the devil and “walk in the Spirit” by which the “saints” not only judge the fallen angels (1Cor.6:3), but, to quote St Irenaeus of Lyons, they have by “the Word, the grace to tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon the power of the enemy” (Adv. Haer. V, xxiv, 4 / Against All Heresies, 5:24, 4).
According to St Athanasius, even the demons recognize that their power is gone. They no longer tyrannize human existence with the fear of death. Whatever weapons they once possessed has evaporated before the Grace of God. “If they had power, they would permit none of us Christians to live. . . . But since they can do nothing, they inflict the greater wounds on themselves; for they can fulfil none of their threats. Next this ought to be considered that we may be in no fear of them. . . . But the demons as they have no power are like actors on the stage. . . from which they ought rather to be despised as showing their weakness” (Life of Saint Antony, 42).
The devil knows that Christ has conquered death by the Cross and thereby he no longer has dominion over man. The rein of death having been erased, the power of sin has likewise been diminished and, like death itself, will eventually vanish completely. The world has been judged and “the prince of the world has been cast out” (Jn.12:3). “To his end was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1Jn.3:8).
“Why did Christ descend from heaven?”inquired St Irenaeus. God became man that humanity might become divine. “We could not otherwise attain to incorruption and immortality unless we had been united with Him Who is incorrupt and immortal” (Adv. Haer.V xxx, 4). They are wrong, then, who teach that the purpose of the Incarnation — hence, the Cross — was merely the abolition of sin. The Scriptures and the Fathers place the idea of“life” before the idea of sin. Although it was Adam’s sin that introduced death to the world — “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) — it is death (or corruption) that produces sin in us; and sin loses its venom with the death of death. “O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?” The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Cor.15:54-58).
But until the Cross, man was the captive of the devil through death and man’s fear of it. He ruled man through the forces of sin, the passions. As lord of the grave, he knew that man would be unable not to sin and unable not to die. The redemptive work of Christ was dedicated to the death of death, that is, to new life, eternal life; hence, releasing man from satanic domination. On the Cross, “death came to His body, not from Himself, but from the hostile counsels in order that whatever death they offer to the Saviour, this He might utterly abolish,” wrote St Athanasius (de Incar. Verb. , XXIV, 2). The death of death eradicated the devil’s dream.
For if He Himself came to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have ‘become a curse’ unless He received the death set by the curse? And that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written, ‘Cursed is he that hangs on a tree’ (Deut.2:23). Again, if the Lord’s death is the ransom of all, and by His death ‘the middle wall of partition’ is destroyed (Eph.2:14), and the calling of the nations is achieved, how could He have called us to Him, had He not been crucified? For only on the Cross does a man die with his hands outspread? For this is what He Himself has said, signifying by what manner of death He was a ransom for all. ‘I, when I am lifted up shall draw all men to me’ (Jn.12:32). And once more, if the devil, the enemy of our race, having fallen from the heavens, wanders about in the lower atmosphere, and there bearing rule over his fellow-spirits, his peers in disobedience, not only works illusions, but hinders the going about of those who seek to ascend; or, as the Apostle says, ‘According to the prince of the powers of the air, the spirit that manipulates the sons of disobedience’ (Eph.2:2); while the Lord came to cast down the devil and to clear the air while preparing the passage to heaven…for only He that is perfect on the Cross in the air, whence it was most fitting that the Lord suffered this death. For thus being lifted up He cleared the air of the malignity both of the devil and demons of all kings. Thus, He says, ‘I beheld Satan lightening falling from heaven’ (Lk.10:18); and made a new opening of the way up to heaven; as He says once more, ‘Lift up your gates, O you princes and be lifted up you everlasting doors!’ (Ps. 24:7 LXX). For it was the Lord Himself that needed no opening of the gates, inasmuch as He was Lord of all…for it was He that had to carry up his own body. For as He offered it to death on behalf of all, so by it. He once more opened the way to the heavens (ib., XV, 1- 6)
The way up to “the open gates” was blazed by Christ Who has conquered death and overcame the devil. “The devil that once maliciously exulted in death (whose pains were loosed),” St Athanasius the Great declared, “remains now the only one dead” (ib. XVII, 3).
St Maximus the Confessor concurs with the Patriarch of Alexandria, saying:
“…thus, when we fulfil the Father’s will, He establishes us as co-worshippers with the angels, and the manner of our life manifests our emulation of the heavenly blissfulness. From there He leads us again in the supreme ascent through the divine realities to the Father of lights where He makes us partakers of the divine nature by grace through participation in the Spirit. Therefore, we shall be called children of God. And all of us, in purity and boundlessly, shall serve Him wholly, the Worker Himself of that grace, the Father’s Son by nature, from Whom, through Whom, and in Whom we have and shall have being, movement, and life.” (Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, 7; trans. G. Gabriel)
In other words, the divine Economy involves much more than the forgiveness of sin and the liberation of man from death and the demons. God the Son became incarnate to recover the entire cosmos from them, to recover and transfigure it. Thus, on Mt Tabor Christ was metamorphosed with the Uncreated Light from eternity; hence, with the return of the Saviour will the cosmos become the Church or the Kingdom of God. All that exists beyond the cage of Hell will become divine.
The ontological transfiguration of the heavens has already begun. One of the seven priestly prayers of Vespers states, “God Who has given us a pledge of the promised Kingdom through the good things already bestowed upon us, has made us to shun all evil…” The future is already present as Mt Tabor incident proved. The Lord revealed this truth to us in his words to the thief on the Cross,“Today, you shall be with me in Paradise” (Lk.23:43). There is no more pregnant word in the Christian vocabulary than “Today” (hodie, semeron). By Baptism, we have already entered Paradise, as St Cyril of Jerusalem once said.
By the Eucharist, we have tasted the fruit of the Kingdom. The Church is the earnest, the figure, the realization of eternal life on earth. She is the anticipation of the Kingdom of God to come. Christ is already “the Father of the Age to Come” (Isa.9:6). The process of our deification has been inaugurated. No wonder St Seraphim of Sarov called upon all members of the Orthodox Church “to acquire the Holy Spirit” Who dwells in her as His Temple, and by whose Grace we are deified. What, then, does it mean, “For the soul of the righteous are in the Hand of God and no torment shall touch them” (Wisd.3:1)? The “righteous” i. e. , the holy to whom the “holy things” (Eucharist) are given. These are the children of God who are never separated from “the love of Christ. ” — not in life, nor in death, nor in the Age to Come (Rom. 8: 35).
The “righteous” are the saved. They have remained faithful to our Saviour, Jesus the Christ. Under what conditions were they able to retain their fidelity? They were released from their slavery to the devil, and from death and sin by the Grace of His Redemption. They have nothing to fear from any of them, having been baptized into His death and resurrection. unto the“the newness of life,” “for death has no more domination over him” (Rom. 6: 4-9); therefore, the devil is no menace to the “new creature” whose sins have been forgiven by that very Cross that dethroned “the god of the age.” The righteous are the “adopted sons” of the Father in Christ Who is “the natural Son of God” and His Spirit that leads His People (Rm.8:14-17). In the Church, they share already in the everlasting Age to come through the Mysteries, especially the Eucharist.
The righteous are identified with Christ by virtue of their incorporation into His Body, the Church. She lies at the heart of the Mystery on account of the “mystical identity” with the Groom and His Bride. Because of this union, the righteous partake in the Life of God even now. The road to Paradise and the Kingdom has no satanic impediment, for it is a road initiated now in the Church and running into eternity. For that reason, St John Chrysostom said, “Do not separate yourself from the Church! Nothing is as powerful as she. The Church is your hope; the Church your salvation; the Church is your refuge. She is mightier than the heavens, higher than the earth. She cannot age, and her vitality is eternal” (De capto Eut. 6 PG 52 402). She is becoming what she is destined to become. The righteous of the earthly Church have already foretasted the Age to Come.
Only the righteous have “fallen asleep in the Lord,” but it does not follow that they are sinless. It is only compulsory that they are contrite or to use the words of St John the Theologian, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive them and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1Jn.1:9). The Apostle Paul agrees that “there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ, who are walking not after the flesh, but after the Holy Spirit” (Rm.8:1). To the Ephesians (1:7), he wrote that they who have been redeemed “through His blood, receive the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His Grace. ” If we die in Christ, our sins have been expunged. Though our sins be as scarlet, God has forgotten them and, therefore, they need not be identified, counted, assessed nor punished — certainly not by demonic inquisition.
The righteous of the Orthodox Church have nothing to fear from the devil. They will be “judged” by Christ, their “head,” as will be the reprobate. St Luke’s story, so popular among the Toll-Housers, is the Lord’s parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. We learn that the former was carried to Abraham’s bosom by the angels, but the latter “died and was buried” with no mention of demons. He was in “hades,” “a place of torment” (Lk.16:23,24), a “place” which St Hippolytus described not as “Hell” (gehenna), but metaphorically as “Hades to the left,” or “darkest hades.”(8). How do we explain the absence of Toll-Houses in this parable? A Toll-Houser must simply presume it exists, an assumption which shows no relation with “the mystery of Christ.” To my knowledge, there is no Toll-House writer who has shown any intrinsic connection between them. They do not offer the Biblical-patristic statement about the effect of the Redemption on the mischief of Lucifer and his acolytes at their noetic posts. Neither do the Toll-house proponents show what advantage the Cross provides the redeemed as they pass through “the places of detention. ”They do not say by what power the evil ones are able to disrupt the passages of the saved on their way to glory — during the process of deification?
In the most general terms, St Basil the Great maintains that the righteousness of the elect — especially “the invincible heroes” and “valiant athletes of God” or the ascetics, martyrs and confessors— have won themselves a place in “the Hand of God. ” “The prince of the age” can find nothing with which to incriminate them (Ps. VII, 2 PG 29 232BD). Not only the fruit of their life-long ascetical struggle, but the angels of God and the prayers of the Church protect the departed soul from Satan’s presumption. In truth, “He cannot withstand the angel who strengthens and helps the man,” St Isaac the Syrian insists. “Because of his help the man is exalted above the devil, and from the angel he receives strength and patience” (Ascet. Homily 39 HTM).
And not the angels of God alone, but “on account of His grace the sons of the prince of darkness cannot draw near us or surround us, for the sword and spear of grace encircles the soul” (Ascetic Homilies, App. III). So it was with Abba Sourous, “Having spoken to us (monks) about these things, and much else for three days, he delivered up his soul. At once angels received it, and choirs of martyrs led it up to heaven, while the fathers looked on and heard the hymns of the martyrs” (History of Monasteries in Egypt, IX; Russell trans. ). There are many passages in the writings of the Fathers about “the ascent of the soul” — and with absolutely no reference to Aerial Toll-Houses.
The devil’s post-mortem activity is virtually nil. Sometimes the demons dare to approach and taunt the elect as their souls exit their bodies, but souls of the righteous have nothing to fear. The Mercy of God has destined them for Paradise. Also, there are “heroic” Orthodox (Saints) who have no encounter with demons whatsoever, but are conveyed immediately by the holy angels to Abraham’s Bosom.
If the Toll-House doctrine is true, the departed soul of every human being must run the gauntlet of demons — a series of twenty “houses of retention,” each representing the sins perpetrated by human beings in this life. It is difficult for me to reconcile the divine Love with the Toll-House scenario — that even the Prophets, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Martyrs and Confessors would be compelled to endure. How shall we compare this Love, this agape, by which God allowed His Son to undergo the Agony of Gethsemane and the ordeal of the Cross, only to abandon creatures whom He has redeemed to suffer at the hands of evil beings whom He had already conquered on the Cross? What does it mean — “For God so love the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but gain eternal life”? (Jn.3:16). What kind of Love would it be if the sins of every right-believing and humble servant of God having been forgiven from the Cross is now subject to the whim of demons whose declared purpose is to cast even God’s most beloved into Gehenna?
Orthodox have been taught that God has made every effort to recover His creation from death and corruption and to sanctify it by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the transforming action of the Holy Spirit. Why do Toll-Housers expect the world to believe their incongruous and confusing doctrine? What in this Gnostic theology should compel us to think that the God of Love is part of the Toll-House terror? Shall we insist that God is incomprehensible and, consequently, there is nothing rational to explain His concession to the evil One?
In truth, the Toll-House theory presupposes an anthropomorphic idea of God. If we adopt their deity we are obliged to think that He wants an exact and accurate accounting of sins, atonement for each transgression, satisfaction for every infraction of His Law; and He wants purgation through suffering. This villainous re-conception of the divine Plan is a neat system, which has everything in its place, and a place for everything.
As we had hoped to show, “the Mystery of Christ” involves no such rationalism and, by implication, no place for adjudicating demons. The assignment of such power to Satan has nowhere been disclosed to the Church; and if Toll-Housery were true, it would surely have played a prominent role in her Tradition. They are clearly not co-eternal with God and we have no information about their construction. There is no reason for speculation about Toll-Houses. If they existed, Toll-Houses would exist in the time-space cosmos, “the lowest “heaven,”into which God hurled the Devil and his followers.
Without the Incarnation, there was no possibility of Paradise. We hear of sheol, but not “everlasting fire” in the Old Testament. Whatever we may conjecture, it will not support the idea of Toll-Houses. In the book of Job, God confronts the devil with no mention of them. Even as in the Old Testament, there is no reference to them in the New Testament. The risky speculation of the Toll-Housers raises more questions than it answers.
For example, before the Incarnation all souls went to Hades, for which reason St John the Baptizer (and later Christ Himself as represented in the Paschal icon) preached in Hades to “the prisoners in darkness. ”It was with them that the Saviour burst out of the abode of the dead. Did He carry them away to Paradise without interference from the devil, that is, did He transfer them to the Particular Judgment or, more precisely, “the Partial Judgment” without an official Toll-House inspection? What need is there of Aerial Toll-Houses?
One must wonder why so many intelligent and pious people passionately accept this theory of “the realm of Aerial spirits”? Do they not see that if their soteriology is correct, it is the devil who is the “saviour” or “destroyer” of men? It would seem, however, that the advocates of the Toll-House faction have arbitrarily ignored such obvious considerations and seek consolation in an Orthodox tradition of their own conceiving. Like all dissenters, their error has been a fatal attraction. One may suspect that Toll-Housers must be disconcerted by the refusal of so many equally pious and intelligent persons to reject what is so unmistakably true for them.
The misguided do not look for truth but only for affirmation. A good example is the nineteenth century Russian Orthodox prelate, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, who read the Scriptures with the prejudice that the Toll-House doctrine stands naked before anyone who is willing to see it, as he tells us in his Homily on Death and the Supplement. He seems to have been influenced by a number of teachers educated in foreign schools or Russian seminaries dominated by non-Orthodox thought. Many opposed him, including St Theophan the Recluse who in his Souls and Angels: Not Bodies But Spirits, rebuffed the Toll-House theory in the strongest terms. Theophan held that the Toll-House experience must be understood in a metaphorical sense, that is, as the struggle with the passions and, therefore, the “demons” are the critical testimony of the conscience.
Surely that is not the way Bishop Ignatius and those like him saw it. He found proof for his mistaken belief wherever he searched. For instance, he had no doubt about the meaning of Ephesians 6:10-16. Fr Seraphim cites him for us, “There can be no doubt whatever that the holy Apostle Paul is speaking of them (Toll-Houses) when he declares that Christians must do battle with the spirit of wickedness under the heavens,” states Vladika. “We find this teaching in the most ancient Church tradition and in church prayers”(9). There is no hesitation in his words. The alternative that St Paul is warning us about the devil’s stalking earthly Christians seems not to have occurred to him. In fact, there is nothing in this or any other epistle of the Apostles that permits us to interpret his spiritual admonitions as post-mortem Toll-House encounters.
Undoubtedly, since the devil has been vanquished, he has lost all ability to control those who were once enslaved to him. With “the mystery of Christ”, a new and fundamental stage in the history of the divine Economy has completely changed the cosmic drama. By a will recuperated by Grace, the regenerated man has the strength to repel the devil. “Submit yourselves to God,” writes St James, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (Js.4:7). If the baptized or God “heirs” (Rm.8:12-17) may “resist the devil” in this life, we have every reason to believe that they have the might — the Grace — to resist him in the next. In other words, the contest with the devil occurs in this world. It is to this end that St Paul encourages his listeners, “Put on the whole armour of God that you may stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities… against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places…”(Eph.6:10-17).
Likewise, St Peter warns the Faithful, “Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil is a roaring lion, walking about and seeking whom he may devour…” (1Pt.5:8-9). The Apostles cautions the members of the Church about life in the body, now, not about frightened souls rising through the atmosphere to the eager delight of demons. Sts Peter and Paul expected the struggle between man and the evil one to transpire before death not after it. Hence, the spiritual warfare occurs between the living and “rulers of the darkness of this world” — not in the noetic realm (10). St Gregory the Theologian clarifies these verses in the simplest terms. “We struggle with things below, in order to inherit the glory above” (Oration II, 17 PG 35 425C).
No wonder that in The Soul After Death, with its unique perspective on the divine Economy, Fr Rose makes no attempt to integrate “the great Mystery” (Eph.5:32) with the Toll Houses. The Redemption of Christ might have given the Toll-Houses a context, but Rose cum suis seems to have no appreciation for the redemptive significance of the Cross; and, accordingly, no comprehension of the Trinity’s great Mercy and Justice(11). Contrary to the intimation of the Toll-House theory, there is certainly no equivalence between Satan’s “justice” (who has none) nor his mercy (which is alien to him) and the expression of God’s saving Love manifested in Christ Jesus.
By the Cross, the great act of divine Love, the evil One has no competence nor power to judge men, a foritiori the People of God. If I may repeat, he has lost his lordship over the human race and the “brazen doors” of Hades have been crushed. In other words, victory over him is already ours in the crucified and risen Christ. For the righteous, the path to salvation begins with Baptism by which we have died with Him and risen in Him (Rm.6). The righteous, the “new creature,” the elect have stepped into the uninterruptible stream of Uncreated Light which carries them directly from this temporal life into the noetic world of Paradise.
Given these facts, the Toll-Houses are as superfluous as they are impossible, if only because Heaven and Hell will open only after the Final Judgment of Christ when the demons together with the reprobate will be thrown into “the lake of fire. ” Even if the Toll Houses existed, not every soul would pass through them — surely not the Theotokos — who is the Church, the Panagia; and not the martyrs and confessors or any of the servants of the Most High.
To repeat, the righteous are escorted to Paradise by the angels with no pause to suffer the ridicule of the evil spirits. Nothing prevents the blessed souls ascending to Abraham’s Bosom. According to St John Chrysostom, “Now so as to know that a soul which departs from the body does not fall under the tyranny of the devil, listen to St Paul who says, `He who is dead is freed from sin,’ that is, he no longer sins. For if while the soul dwells in the body the devil cannot bring violence upon it, it is palpable that when it departs he likewise has no power over it. ” (Homily De Lazaro II. 2 PG 48 984).
The word “gnostic” has appeared numerous times in this essay as has the term, “theosophy” (“God-wisdom”). They are virtually synonyms, meaning possession of a special knowledge, something derived by spiritual vision. Not without value is the fact that the word “gnosis” — differentiated from heretical “gnosis so-called”(1Tm.6:20) — belongs to the glossary of the New Testament. It is a “special knowledge,” but not elitist. The knowledge of God and spiritual things is the result of piety; it is a knowledge which transcends both the senses and the intellect. It is God’s gift to His Own — the Prophets, the Apostles and Fathers of the Church, to those of His children filled with the Spirit. The degree of gnosis depends on the degree of sanctification.
Therefore, the word “gnosis” in the hands of the Toll-Housers has nothing in common with the spiritual insights of the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists or Fathers, but to the delusions of heretics wrought by presumptuous and fanciful speculations. In the case of contemporary Gnostics or neo-Gnostics their opinions are largely the inheritance of ancient Egyptian Gnosticism (12). Anyone interested in the treatment of pseudo-Christian Gnosticism need only read the treatises of St Irenaeus, St Hippolytus, and other classical Orthodox writers.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Tradition of the Church which allows us to adopt as Orthodox the bizarre apparition of an obscure tenth century Manichaean monk, Basil the New who died in 944 (whose vita incidentally is not found in the Byzantine or early Greek synaxaria). Apparently, the Toll-House ordeal was “revealed” to the author of this “vita,” Gregory of Thrace, in a dream by a certain “Blessed Theodora.” There is evidence that this Gregory of Thrace was himself a Paulician Gnostic, as he lived in an era when Bogomilism and Paulicianism dominated Thrace. This Theodora survives these Toll Houses only by virtue of the excess merits of Basil the New.
According to this occult theory, even the most righteous must suffer the demonic trials. Toll-Housers take this episode not only as something historical, but as unquestionable proof of their claims. In any case, one must wonder why there is not a deeper foundation to a doctrine which is held to be basic to Orthodox thanatology. In fact, there cannot be when neither the Lord nor Sts Lazarus nor Tabitha (and others who rose from the dead) make any mention of Aerial Toll-Houses or of their experience in death. The Apostles, the source of all Orthodox teachings, make no mention of Toll-Houses.
Let us be very clear on this matter. Toll-House Gnosticism is the result of a tragic failure to grasp the meaning of Christ’s Redemption by which, among other things, He crushed the power of the devil on His life-giving Cross. What else does St Paul mean when he proclaims, “Nay, in all things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord” (Rm.8:37-39)? Is it not the “mystery” of the Cross that has freed the human race from the evil that seeks to consume it and brought the rightly believing into eternal fellowship (koinonia) with the blessed Trinity? “If when we were dead in sins, God hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)” (Eph.2:5), how then can Lucifer and his demons judge “the new creature” who has been drawn into the noetic realm immersed in the Uncreated Energies of Grace and Light? So we ask again — what need the saved, the heroic and the ordinary elect of Toll-Houses when God has brought the human soul under His protection? What need the damned of the Toll-Houses if their souls have already been condemned to “darkest hades” (13) and, eventually, with their bodies to Hell by virtue of their sin, doubt and infidelity?
Let us not forget, too, that final judgment of the soul cannot be made without the body which, among other things, means that the soul cannot be cast into Hell without it. The whole man sinned, falsely believed and worshipped, and irreverently participated in the Mysteries together. The whole being of the righteous achieved virtue and clung to the Orthodox Faith together, and hence, will be deified together.
While Toll-Housers hold that the demons judge only the soul, letting it pass to Paradise or hurling it into Perdition, the Church proclaims that the whole man must stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to hear His decision. As St Mark of Ephesus declared, “Do you not see that before we stand in front of the Judgment Seat and before the time when we shall all appear gathered together, none shall receive a final verdict without that which was done through the body?” (14).
In a word, Christ is the Sovereign Judge. There is nothing for evil spirits to arbitrate. They do not judge, they are judged by the holy.
Fr Michael Azkoul
Feast of the Archangels – 8/21 Nov. 2010
ENDNOTES:
1. Fr Seraphim Rose is of the opinion that the Toll-House idea belongs to the early history of the Christian Tradition (The Soul After Death. Platina (CA), 1980, p. 2).
2. It is worthy of note that Toll-House literature, although recognizing Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and Father, have showed no concern about the absence of the Toll-House theory in his writings, as well as his theological novelties, especially predestination, that is, God has preordained some human beings to Heaven and others have been preordained or predetermined to Hell. The supreme irony is that Augustine’s soteriology, etc. necessarily contradicts the Toll-Houses myth. The salvation of man rests wholly with the eternal verdict of God, leaving no room for the judgment of demons. Predestination renders the Toll-House theory superfluous — even heretical. Either the advocates of the Aerial Toll-house advocacy must abandon their devotion to him or reject their thinking on the departing soul’s running a gamut of adjudicating demons.
2. Rose, S. , The Soul After Death. Platina (CA), 1980, p. 2.
3. Too often Toll-House advocates eagerly pounce on citations from so-called patristic sources that ostensibly favour their doctrine, such as the writings of St Macarius the Great about which there is some serious question. Thus, writes the patristic scholar, C. Bonis, “…from all that has been collected and set forth about the writings that bear the name their author Macarius the Egyptian many do not belong to him but to a much later author” (Commentary in Macarius the Egyptian, vol. 41 of the collection, Bibliotheke Hellenon Pateron kai Ecclesiastikon Syggrapheon. Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece, 1970 p. 140). Toll-Housers seem unaware of this conclusion as they are about so many other things concerning patristic literature. See St Macarius of Moscow, Theologie dogmatique orthodoxe (v. 2), Saint-Petersburg, 1883; “The Response of Fr Michael Pomozansky to the Letter of Deacon Lev Puhalo Concerning Prayers for the Dead,” L. Puhalo, The Soul, the Body and Death. Chilliwack, B. C. n. d.
4. Peer into Jean-Claude Larchet’s La Vie Apres La Mort Selon la Tradition Orthodox. Le Cerf, 2001, p. 124. He describes Archbishop Lev and myself as “two authors, who belong to sectarian groups outside the Orthodox Church. They show a partisan mind of systematic denigration, searching about all to ‘settle the score’ with Fr Seraphim Rose, the author of a successful book on this subject. They totally distort the perspective and interpretation of patristic texts” (footnote 100). I admit to hearing such calumnies before, usually from Ecumenists. In fact, our anti-Toll-House writings were composed to scuttle the pernicious influence of Seraphim Rose and to defend “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Larchet says that the first accusation made by “the authors cited in the preceding note” claim that “the patristic texts on which this teaching (Toll- Houses) rests its case stems from apocrypha whose source is Egypt. ”No such blame has ever been attached to the holy Fathers of the Church. If he studies the subject objectively, he will discover the truth for himself. Another falsehood: the argument is that the Toll-House doctrine has its origin” in Gnosticism which originated in Egypt. Without a doubt! The third accusation is that opponents of the Toll-House insist that “the soul is inseparable from the body, a composite in which the one cannot know the future without the other; hence, the soul must stay in a sleep awaiting the Resurrection. ” (footnote 101). Monsieur Larchet either has not read these “two authors” or he has not read the Scriptures and the Fathers with any care. St Paul declares, “They also which are fallen asleep in Christ(hoi koimethentes)…”(1Cor.15:18). Koimao in Greek is “to fall asleep” — from which is derived koimesis (sleeping, repose); hence, the feast of the Church,“The Falling-Asleep of the Mother of God” (Koimesis tns Theotokou). St Paul chose the term “falling asleep” to avoid any misunderstanding about the word “death” (thanatos) whose power Christ had abrogated. Incidentally, there is not the slightest allusion to the Toll-Houses in the Services of the Feast of the Dormition. Any notion that she could have passed through the phalanx of demons or even feared demons is pure Gnostic blasphemy.
Finally, it is important to note that the Apostle’s reference to those “fallen asleep in the Lord” is a truth fatal to the Toll-House theory. It means precisely that those who die a in Christ are under His protection. To accuse traditional Orthodox with holding the erroneous teaching of soul paralysis and slumber after death is a “straw man. ” Larchet, etc. have sorely underestimated the faith and intelligence of “the two (sectarian) authors. ” The living and conscious souls dwell in Partial Judgment (merike), that is, waiting stations of bliss or torment. There they anticipate the return of Christ and foretaste the universal resurrection at which time Heaven and Hell will be opened.
5. Rose, Ib. , p. 36f.
6. “This teaching is not an article of faith, not having been made a dogmatic definition. It is rather a theologoumenon, a personal belief. The faithful may adopt it with a certain reserve, that is, recognizing that life beyond the grave remains a mystery” (La Vie Après La Mort. p. 125). A curious statement inasmuch as Toll-Housers defend their doctrine as if it were dogma of the Church. Read anything out of the Christian Information Center (Etna, CA. ).
7. Orthodox Archives. Indiana U. Listserv 15. 5.
8. All departed souls, St Hippolytus says, are conducted to Hades (the abode of the dead) by holy angels. The unrighteous are taken to the dark side by the angelic “ministers of punishment” to whom God has assigned this duty. The righteous are carried to Abraham’s Bosom or Paradise (to Christ) or a place of light (Contra Plato, 2). The Lord opens Heaven and Hell or Gehenna after His Return and Judgment (Mt.25). In a word, the Toll-Houses myth contradict the Scriptures. But more than this, the Mysterium Christi makes no room for the Toll-House theory.
9. Quoted in Rose, p. 78f.
10. See St John Chrysostom, Comm. On Eph. , Homily XXI, 1; and St Gregory of Nyssa, Con. Eun. II, 15, 15 PG 45 569BC; St Leo the Great, Serm on Lent, 39 PL 54 265BC; St Ambrose, Ep. LXXXV, etc.
11. See K. Rudolph, Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism. Trans. by R. L. Wilson. San Francisco, 1987, p. 68f.
12. See chapters 3-4, 6 of my The Toll-House Myth: the Neo-Gnosticism of Fr Seraphim Rose. Dewdney, BC. n. d.
13. St Andrew of Crete makes a keen observation in “On Human Life and the Departure of the Souls”:“’For in Him we live and move and have our being’ (Acts 17:28); and to Him we are taken; and logically the souls of us all are ‘in His hand’ (Wisd. 3:1). Completely mistaken is the teaching about darkness and dark places of Hades; moreover, it is an irrational antithesis…. Do not investigate the state of the soul after its departure from the body, because it is not for me and you to inquire into such things. For if we are unable to know the essence of the soul, how should we know its [state of] repose?” (Homily 21 PG 97 1289 BC; trans. by G. Gabriel).
14. Oratio de igne purgatorio, in Patrological Orientalia [vol. 15]. Ed. by R. Griffin & F. Nau. Paris, 1903,I, 2. Cf. St Ambrose of Milan, “Body and soul are judged together” (De Ex Frat. sui Satyrus, II, 8).
CONCERNING FAKE PATRISTIC TEXTS USED BY THE TOLL-HOUSE CULT
Response of Fr. Michael Pomazansky
to the Letter of Deacon Lev Puhalo
concerning the Prayers for the Dead
The Apostle Paul, teaching his disciple the Apostle Timothy, “how one ought to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God” (1Tim 3:15), writes to him in the second epistle: “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some do honour, and some do dishonour (or base usage)” (2Tim 2:20). The Apostle has in mind the people in the Church when he speaks of vessels, but we have the right of employing his thought in a simpler and more literal, yet still a broader, sense.
The history of the Orthodox Christian Church, continuing from the Apostles, has now come to the end of its second millennium of existence. Throughout the process of her broad and many-sided growth, the Church has diligently preserved only the truths of the faith, the dogma of faith. Upon their foundation the tree of the Church developed in all directions, nourished by the grace of the Spirit of God. The wealth of its spiritual contents on its own increased, and at the same time its material contents also grew, and often the one would give place to the other. Much was acquired simply for preservation; other things have been carried away by the river of time into the realm of the forgotten, and now on certain rare occasions, something may float to the surface, thanks to the efforts and searches of special investigators and researchers. The Church herself regards everything conservatively and patiently (indulgently), and it has no persons who are assigned to the task of separating the valuable from that which is not so valuable. It has been forced only at certain times to uproot the tares from the field of wheat, both in the spiritual and in the material sense. From such a conservative attitude, the Church does not suffer any harm. It happens sometimes that something which seemed of little value later turns out to be both beneficial and important. The Church, as it were, says, those losses suffered as a result of the persecutions of the Church and of Christianity, wars and the destructive elements of nature are sufficient. If we are to speak of literature (written works), the Church rejects only that which is an evilly-intended forgery or a heretical concoction.
Let us speak a bit concerning genuine Church literature. Of course, all the various forms of literature are not of the same value; among them there is a gradation of value passing from sanctity all the way to simple usefulness.
Here, approximately, are these gradations:
1. The Four Gospels. They are kept in the altar of the Temple on the Holy Table. Before readings from them we hear: “Wisdom, Aright!”
2. The Epistles and Paremia (primarily from the Old Testament). The exclamation: “Wisdom!”, but one may sit while listening.
3. The various service books.
These forms of literature are the legacy of the Temple.
4. Patristic literature.
5. Lives of saints.
These, while they are used for reading in the church services, are primarily for private reading (in monasteries – in the refectory).
6. Theological science, academic theology and various theological literature.
7. Ecclesiastical and historical sciences, practical textbooks and reference manuals.
8. Pious accounts, edifying parables. This is simply morally edifying reading in an easy form that is accessible to all.
We ask to be excused for such a lengthy introduction. Let us now pass on to the questions concerning prayer for the dead in the article in question.
One must agree with the author of the letter, The article has essential weaknesses.
We are talking about the Church’s commemoration of the dead. Part of the material in the article is concerned with the teaching of the Church, dogmatic theology; but another part with pious accounts and, finally, with Church and popular customs. In the article there is no distinction made concerning the dignity of the material presented, and thus matters which do not concern the dogma of the Church are dogmatized. Let us point out what we have in view:
We find an appropriate example of this in the footnotes of the author. There is no need to discuss the prayerful or liturgical meaning of “kolyva”, as an offering for the dead. For it is simply an expression of the desire to treat those who participated in the prayers for the dead, thank them for their love, as the Apostle says: “all is good and there is nothing worthy of condemnation that is done with the word of God and prayer”. Even more so, there is no use in explaining the “meaning” of wheat in the kolyva or what the honey and sugar in it “mean” or “symbolize” But of course, these thoughts were all placed in a footnote.
In accordance with ancient views, it is accepted to offer special prayers on the third and fortieth days; these days, these very numbers in the Scriptures, in general, represent something sacred. But the Church does not teach that commemoration on these days, as on the ninth day, is “indispensable”. “Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man.” The days are not the important point.
In such points of the article as the quantity of commemorations, of their ritual forms (candles, prosphora), the skeptical reader could even read in the material interests of the clergy or the parish church; people are given to such criticism.
“The Church established” we read here. But in fact only one thing is necessary and required from the believer. Other things are offered and regulated by the Church for good order and benefit. A third category is permitted as a good intention or custom which has arises among the people of the Church, and these are given their proper forms for the Church.
In connection with this, there arises a question which the author of the letter himself does not pose, but which is essential.
Do the dead need prayers from us? Can the sins of a man be removed by the prayers of other men? The answer is simple. We know that the Church is, in all its depth “a bond of love”, where there is One for all – Christ. Therefore in His Body, the Church, one must pray for all and all for each one. This idea is expressed in our services, especially in the prayers of the priest. We pray for those close to us as a duty of love regardless of whether our brother or sister needs our prayers or even wants them.
Much regarding prayers for the dead can appear illogical. We note that the more devoted a person was, the more prayers are offered for his repose. The Church is, as it were, indifferent to great sinners and apostates. Why is this? And in general, do the dead need our prayers? God Himself is merciful and loves mankind, and would He not forgive the dead person without our praying for him? The answer is given in the Gospel and the Epistles of the Apostles. In them there are given three axioms of Christianity. Death does not exist. Pray for one another. Love never ceases. (Rom. 14; James 5; 1Cor 13). “Acquire friends,” the Saviour commanded, “so that when you are in poverty, they might receive you into eternal dwelling places.” In the parable of our Lord concerning the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man had no one to pray for him when he died and to care for his brothers on the earth. Why? He had not acquired love toward himself on earth.
To forgive sins – this is only within God’s will and God’s power. “Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow” (Ps 50). And yet we pray for them, for their repose. Why? First of all, we ask for mercy from God, and secondly, for the sake of that grace-filled fire which burned and warmed, to a greater or lesser degree, the reposed, that this fire be maintained, sustained through the change into another form of being; that the fear of God and contrition not be overcome by the fear of one’s own unworthiness, of one’s own sins. In the prayers of one’s own brothers on earth and even more so in the prayers of the saints of the heavenly Church, love is at work, it is the necessary sustenance for the dead person, and therefore the Church not only prays for him itself but constantly calls upon the saints in heaven entreating prayers for all the reposed members of the Church.
Let us now go on to the material in the article which specifically called forth the concern of the author of the letter. We think it possible that this concern expresses also the concern of others. We allow the thought that our Eastern, traditional Church in the sphere of religious psychology is not so strict in the demand for being logical as the Western, which is brought up in a more rationalistic direction. However, allow us to state our understanding of the matter.
We mentioned at the beginning “pious accounts” which are in the article. Our Eastern, pious readers from ancient times have loved to read anthologies of brief, easy stories from the lives of the ascetics, the desert fathers, concerning their journeys, their struggles, their meetings with one another, their conversations, their relation to the desert around them, and to the humble and at the same time miraculous revelations in their lives and acts. Up to the most recent times, such anthologies have been popular, such as “The Spiritual Meadow”, the “Lasiac History”. These little stories often contain in their naive simplicity much that is allegorical and moral instruction. They are not historical material, and therefore it is not so important as to who is named in the account or whom specifically it concerned. And there is no insult to a person if he is named by mistake.
For example, the account of the conversation of St. Macarius with the skull he found. This conversation attracts attention because of its originality. The skull says that is was formerly that of a pagan priest. But what is its meaning? In the way of life of the person whose brain once worked in the skull? Hardly. “Macarius listened and placed the skull on the earth and buried it.” Did Macarius not think to pray for that man? To make the sign of the cross over him? Or to sympathize with him? Why? Because this is hopeless. And this would have been sinful even. But he does not throw his discovery on the ground, but buries it; in this way he expressed his respect for the man. And this is edifying. But what about the conversation? It is an allegory, a parable. But it also might be the spiritual insight of a holy person. Do the Holy Scriptures not offer us examples of such spiritual insight?
A separate question and perhaps even a protest was evoked from the author of the letter by the account of the dream of Blessed Theodora concerning the toll houses, in the life of St. Basil the New. What is this dream needed for, when it introduces into the heavenly sphere concepts and actions which are purely earthly – the image of toll houses or custom stations in heaven, images of arguments for the soul between angels and demons? Let us reply that all this is expressed as a dream, the dream of the disciple of Basil the New, and it is given as an account of what the disciple saw in this dream. Our dreams are also in the form of real and earthly images. And at the same time our dreams can be allegorical. They can express our emotional state, our imagination, and often our illness both of body and soul, dressing them in the form of living beings.
In this instance the dream is recounted just as it was. We might allow that the narrator of the life of St. Basil the New put it into a certain order, put the sins of people into a certain scheme, as this is generally accepted among ascetic writers. But regardless, it is thanks to this full scheme of the falls and weaknesses of men that the account attracted such attention and became so popular among persons seeking moral perfection. But of course this dream is allegorical and is made up of a series of symbols. We are earthly, and we cannot speak of heavenly things with any other language than our earthly tongue; we do not know the tongues of angels. In the Psalms we address the Ruler of All: “Incline Thine ear’ stretch forth Thy right hand; draw out Thy sword; chastise and defend with Thy high arm.” The Metropolitan of Moscow, Makary, reminds us that we should understand such accounts in as lofty (spiritual) a manner as possible. We can only accept his advice.
Let us take this earthly side of the symbolism into the spiritual understanding. Theodora is the soul of man; the angels – its virtues; the demons – its sins. Both are in the soul of a man and perhaps after death are found, as it were, on the scales of a balance. Is this image inconsistent with our religious concepts? Talking about the “balance” we imitate the symbolism contained in our hymns: “Thy Cross is found as the measure between the two thieves; for the one was brought down to hades by the weight of his blasphemy, but the other was lightened of his sins unto the knowledge of theology: O Christ God, glory to Thee” (Troparion of the 9th Hour).
A Preface by V.Rev. Dr George Papademetriou
The consummation of our redemption was actualized for us by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Cross, and our beatitude or condemnation will be realized after our own death. Our Holy Orthodox Church speaks of Christ’s authority on the doctrine of the last things or eschata. The Church communicates the message of the Holy Scripture as delivered by the Holy Fathers.
In our day, there are numerous false doctrines and spiritually detrimental teachings about ; death, from atheistic ideologies and philosophies to cults and sects that pervert the authentic message of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as manifested in the Holy Scriptures. The Church, through its pastors and archpastors, guides the people in the correct doctrines of our Holy Faith. The Holy Spirit guides those who dwell in the household of God to discern the 1 true faith and preach it to God’s people.
This present work by Archbishop Lazar is a handbook on the Orthodox doctrine of the eschata and life after death. This study is very impressive, for it is based on the Sacred Scriptures as interpreted by our Holy Fathers. The text is greatly enriched with patristic quotations and appendices of long texts on the topic from the Orthodox Fathers. This book is extremely important in communicating our Holy Orthodox faith to contemporary people who seek authentic Christian teachings and a healthy spiritual guidance to attain beatitude. I highly recommend this book to Orthodox and non-Orthodox readers alike, for spiritual edification and a greater understanding of the hope we have in the everlasting life.
Rev. Dr. George Papademetriou
Professor of Theology, Director of the Library,
Greek Orthodox School of Theology
Dean of Holy Cross Seminary.
In this continuing discussion about the so-called “aerial toll houses” and the commemoration of the reposed, it is inevitable that we must address the question of the heretical, but much publicised book “The Soul After Death.” Rather than review it ourselves, we are offering the reviews of two Greek theologians. The first review is actually a series of answers to questions about the book by the noted Greek theologian and professor of Holy Cross Orthodox Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Stanley Harakas. The second review is an official report made to one Orthodox Jurisdiction regarding the book. We believe these two documents will give an accurate and fairly complete review of the book.
In the December 6, 1984 edition of THE HELLENIC CHRONICLE, Rev Dr Stanley Harakas, then dean of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary, wrote the following answer to a question to the editor concerning Fr Rose’s heretical book, and the teaching about “aerial toll houses” in general:
Dear Father,
I recently read a book by Rev. Seraphim Rose entitled, The Soul After Death. There were many, many teachings that I read for the first time. My question is: “Are these valid Orthodox interpretations and teachings?” (There follow the four questions listed below, which I will briefly respond to.) (D.S. North Royalton, Ohio)
REV DR HARAKAS’ ANSWER:
1. Does the soul linger near the body or earth for the first three days?
Though this is a commonly held opinion among Mediterranean peoples, including the Greek people, it finds no answer in the formal teaching of doctrine in the Orthodox Church. We do not know if such is the case, probably because it is not important that this view be accepted in regard to our salvation. Since there is no clear doctrinal teaching regarding it, there is no reason why we would have to accept it.
2. Is the soul met by angels at the moment of death?
Sometimes poetic and sermonic language used in the Church does indicate this. Again, however, most doctrinal treatments of angelology with which I am familiar, do not support this as a formal teaching of the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, iconography does include the presence of angels at the last judgment, but only sometimes are angels depicted as present at the moment of death. Again, there does not seem to be enough evidence to consider this a doctrinal teaching of the Church.
3. Are prayers and almsgiving able to bring relief to the souls of the deceased?
This is clearly the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We do not know what kind of relief, or to what extent our prayers can help the deceased, for our Church teaches that all progress in our life as persons growing in God’s image and likeness ends with our lives in this world, and upon our death. Nevertheless, the unity of the Church, between the Church Militant (the faithful living) and the Church Triumphant (the faithful dead) permits and calls for prayer for our beloved dead.
Some efforts were made during the 17th century to work out a more detailed understanding of the nature of the “help” provided for the dead by our good works and our prayers, but these views have not been widely accepted or taught in our Church. As a result, as one writer puts it, “The exact bounds of this relationship, and the conception of the state of such persons and of their condition before the General Judgment does not seem to be very clear from current Orthodox teaching.” What is clear from late Jewish history (2 Maccabees 12:43) was that “a sin offering for the dead” was made, and the earliest liturgical practices of the Church, especially in the earliest Divine Liturgies which we have, and the writings of the Holy Fathers, that “through charitable works, the prayers of the Church, the Holy Eucharist, help and comfort are afforded to those who have died in the faith.” (Androutsos, Dogmatike, p.427).
4. And the big question, “What about the toll houses?”
I don’t think that it is such a “big question.” The idea that when we die we have to go past a number of “toll houses,” detaining the soul for testing of the sins which it has committed and requiring payment for them,” is certainly a dramatic way of indicating our moral and spiritual responsibility for our lives in this world. However, the overwhelming doctrinal teaching of the Church does not see these statements as anything more than rhetorical devices. “Toll houses” at most, might be called a “theologoumenon” (that is, an optional theological opinion), but for the vast majority of Orthodox teachers of the faith of a the Church, such views are either unknown (not mentioned), acknowledged as having some minor elements of tradition supporting them, but not official doctrine, or, finally, simply erroneous misinterpretations, to be condemned. It is this last opinion that many of Fr Rose’s “old calendarist” critics have adopted. I tend to agree with them on this matter.
I would suggest that you rather read the following accounts of the Orthodox teachings regarding eschatology (the doctrine of the last things) rather than this quite controversial book, for an authoritative understanding of the Church’s doctrine on the last things. …. A bit polemical, but theologically on target, it appears to me, is Fr Lev Puhalo’s (now Archbishop Lazar) The Soul, The Body, and Death. For a rather full and middle of the road, generally accepted perspective, read Constantine Callinicos’ Beyond the Grave. For two very short summaries of Orthodox teaching on eschatology, read Bishop Maximos Aghiorgoussis’ The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, pp.166-168, in A Companion to the Greek Orthodox Church and John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, chapter 11.
Dr Alexandre Kalomiros,
Od. Paulos Melos
Thessaloniki, Greece.
Thessaloniki, Dec. 19/Jan.l, 1981
St Martyr Bonifatius
Reverend Father Lev (now Archbishop Lazar),
I received your “open Response to the St Herman Brotherhood” and thank you. It would be unjust to pass in silence the great personal benefit from the study of your book, “The Soul, the Body and Death.” You brought to us, in texts of the Holy Fathers, what I always felt was the truth on the subject of death. Your work is of great importance to the world today, because it reveals the teaching of the Church to mankind whose thought has been distorted by so many false teachings and traditions of men.
I think that our most important task today is to be absolutely honest towards the apostolic and patristic teaching in all respects and to be courageously bold in the struggle against human traditions, not permitting ourselves to give way for the sake of a false unity in the Church. There is no other base for unity but truth; all the rest is nothing but minor ecumenism.
Human traditions have adulterated our faith. Orthodoxy, alas, has become for too many, actually some kind of Old Believerism. Many fight with teeth and nail to defend what they received from their respected, and sometimes holy, elders and teachers, but in reality they propagate the very teachings which are responsible for the repulsive darkness of the Western world, which brought humanity to apostasy, atheism and the gates of Hades.
We must realize that we, present-day Orthodox, carry with us a dark heritage, so perfectly mixed with the light of Holy Tradition that it makes it all the more dangerous. What a catastrophe if we ourselves drink poisoned water and give it to the thirsty world also. What a catastrophe if the world, sick from this half-truth, gives up hope!
Is it not true that our own “Orthodox” teachers, in Universities, seminaries and even monasteries have taught us to believe in a revengeful God, and to consider Orthodox all the unOrthodox Western teachings on satisfaction of God; justice; or to believe that we can make an ikon of God-hood; or to believe that God needs time to create, even if this time is only 6 times 24 hours? Did they not teach us to consider matter, which is created by God, as something bad, as the reason of our mischief, and the soul as a self-existent and, by its nature, co-eternal god!
How can we say that we are Orthodox and that we fight against the heresy of our times, Ecumenism, in order to remain Orthodox, when we have distorted understanding on the most fundamental truths of God, man and creation!
But Holy Tradition of the Church of Christ is living in spite of all “Orthodox” teachers of Western mentality. And this living Tradition is proved by written Tradition: the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers. We must adhere to this Holy Tradition in spite of all opposite currents which will try to drown us. This confession is the only sacrifice we sinners can offer to our loving Creator and to our fellow men.
So your struggle is crucial, because without true faith monasticism becomes a vain struggle without spiritual fruits, and confession of Orthodoxy an empty word for clergy and laity. What use it is to confess Orthodoxy to the outside when we demolish it from the inside!
To be afraid to answer the truth, when distorted teachings appear publicly, because of the danger to scandalize some of the faithful and from fear to create divisions, is not only a veiling and obscuration of truth but also a tactic of over protectionism, which is keeping the great numbers of the faithful in a state of immaturity, unable to digest their own food and always in need of already digested food from the mouth of their spiritual fathers.
It was your imperative duty to answer, since you knew the answer which the Sacred Scripture and the Holy Fathers give. But it was not only your duty, it is the duty of all those who know the truth on the subject to reply to the falsehood. The fathers of the Church acted in the same way. They did not remain silent when false teachings began to be spread.
So, I must express my gratitude for your courage, your straightness and the hard work you did searching, writing and publishing the truth, and my hope that many will be enlightened and that our brothers who were led into error by the false traditions of men, and thought it their duty to defend them, will realize the mistake and will no more insist.
***
As for St Makarios the Egyptian and his fifty homilies, it is really regretful that such an important father of the Church, with so sweet teaching full of the living water of the Holy Spirit, was darkened by the ignorance and irresponsibility of some early editors, who thought it their duty to add an appendix to the fifty homilies of the father, the controversial text of an unknown writer with the title: “The revelation of an angel about apocryphal and ineffable mysteries, and about the commemoration of those fallen asleep”, which they falsely attributed to St Makarios. This is really an inadmissible text, but it has nothing to do with St Makarios.
It is a fact, which began to be recognized in historical and archeological sciences, that archaeologists and historians had the tendency to correct the ancient historians when they said things which did not correspond to the modern conceptions and beliefs which were universally admitted. Little by little, however, the remnants of the ancient world came to light and they always prove that the ancient writers were exact and that the correction made to them by modern science was incorrect. I think that something parallel is happening with the fathers of the Church and modern theology. As we begin to understand again the fathers and their mentality, their point of view, their whole way of thinking, which is so different from the way of thinking of the rationalistic world in which we grew up, we little by little stop our habit to correct them and to find contradictions amongst them, which they never mention as such themselves. On the contrary, they always tried to explain the seeming contradictions and differences by bringing in evidence the different point of view of the other father and his purpose in writing.
This is how I see things. I would be grateful to hear your remarks.
With respect and love in Christ,
/s/
Alexandre Kalomiros