We will complete our discussion of the Patrick Barnes heresy concerning the nature of man with the following article. With this present material, we have presented sufficient proof from the holy fathers that the teaching which the Neo-Platonists in the Orthodox Church officially espouse (recently endorsed by Mr Patrick Barnes of the Orthodox Christian Information Center website, and which appears on that website), that the soul of man alone is the complete person, is a heresy against the expressed anthropology of the Orthodox Church. This heresy is based in Platonism and Gnosticism and is common to most of our modern Augustinian neo-Platonists, but is perhaps worse among the so-called "old calendarist" sects, where scholasticism is also rampant. 

Following this present article, we will discuss the second major heresy of Neo-Platonism, and this one also involves Fr. Alexei Young. This grave error is the heresy of "natural immortality." The teaching that the soul is naturally immortal is a heresy, and it is also a sure pathway to pantheism. The teaching that the soul is is naturally immortal is rooted in both Platonism and Gnosticism, so it is not surprising to find it taught or implicated by followers of Augustine of Hippo, the Western neo-Platonist philosopher responsible for so many of the Western heresies.

We will also look briefly at the Orthodox Christian awareness of the intercessions of the saints and our prayers for the departed, so that no one will be left in doubt about our clear understanding of the efficacy and meaningfulness of both. We are presenting here also a letter which was written some years ago in response to an open letter from the late neo Gnostic philosopher, Fr Seraphim Rose.

We do not wish to repeat here the contents of our book, The Tale of Basil the New: Study of a Gnostic Document, which is an assessment of a primary source of the "tollhouse myth," however that book is available free of charge to anyone who requests it. Also available free is On Out of Body Experiences: An Orthodox Christian Understanding.

"Man, with respect to his nature, is most truly said to be neither soul without body, nor, on the other hand, body without soul; but is composed of the union of body and soul into one form of the beautiful." (St. Methodios of Olympus).

Man was created both body and soul. The body alone, though it was created first, is not the human being, and though the soul gave life to the body, neither is it alone the human being. Man became a living human being when body and soul were united together. As our holy and God-bearing father Gregory Palamas says:

"When God is said to have made man according to His image, the word man means neither the soul by itself nor the body by itself, but the two together."

From love, God created the body and in love He bestowed upon it the soul as the force of life, that it might dwell in harmony with the body and function by means of the body, bearing not only His likeness and image, but man being himself like a type and image of the life of the Holy Church. For God created not without wisdom, but that His love and salvation might be made manifest.

The soul and the body, then, are not two separate entities; they are together a single psychophysical whole, mutually serving one another and mutually dependent upon one another for life and functions, as our holy father Ephraim the Syrian says:

"Behold how both the soul and the body look and attest to one another: even as the body must have the soul so as to live, so must the soul have the body to see and hear."

And St Anastasios of Sinai informs us likewise that:

"Accordingly, when the soul is separated from the entire body, it no longer is able to operate, because it operates through the members of the body...."

The soul is not the prisoner of the body, rather the two were created and composed together in a mutual life, each one harmoniously deriving functions and qualities of existence from the other. If the soul departs the body, the body dies. And the soul, when separated from the body is no longer able to function in any sensual, psychophysical manner, as our holy and God-bearing father Justin the Martyr says:

"For as in the case of a yoke of oxen, if one or other is loosed from the yoke, neither of them can effect anything, if they be unyoked from their communion....For what is man but the rational animal composed of body and soul? Is the soul by itself man? No; but [only] the soul of a man. Would the body be called man? No; but it is called the body of a man....then neither of these is by itself man, but that which is made up of the two together is called man ...."

Thus, the soul and body mutually depend upon, fulfil and provide life and functions to one another. It is sheer carelessness and a great error to misrepresent certain passages of Apostle Paul, using them out of context to establish an idea of a direct conflict between body and soul, and a need for the soul to be liberated from the body. When, for example, the Apostle says, "O wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death," he is referring not to the physical body, but to the power of sin lodged parasitically in the "flesh." To understand the Orthodox Christian anthropology in this respect, one must refer to the Scripture and understand Apostle Paul's teachings, not according to the idea and conceptions of pagan Greece, which made a sharp distinction between body and soul, but rather to the uniform concepts of the entire Old and New Testament in which "body and soul" denote the whole living person, and not at all independent parts of him. The Manicheans held the contrary view, and St Titus of Bostra, in refuting them, observes:

"When the living body is dissolved by death and we should look upon its dust or its bones, or wish to say something about the soul, we say that these things are of a man, but we do not say that they are the man."

And St Photios the Great, refuting Origenism, concurs:

"The name `man', according to the most truthful and natural expression, applies to neither the soul without [its] body, nor to the body without [its] soul, but to that composition of soul and body made into a unique form of beauty. But Origen says that the soul alone is the man, as did Plato."

In both Old Testament Scripture and general Hebrew thought, and in New Testament Scripture and Orthodox Christian thought in general, a living person is consistently regarded as a composite entity of body and soul. Death is an unnatural shattering of this psychophysical entity. As our holy father St Titus of Bostra says:

"But though the soul be immortal [by grace], yet it is not the person, and so the Apostle does not consider [death] to differ in any wise from destruction...."

It was clearly understood in Old Testament Scripture that that which survived in death maintained a continuity of identity and, since Christ had not yet trampled down the bonds of death and appeared in the state of the reposed ("hades" not "hell"), it was conceived of as existing in a state of wordless, sightless repose. The soul evidently had some consciousness of future destiny, some active hope, and thus it was neither dead nor devoid of some sort of spiritual awareness, by grace.

Old Testament anthropology, like that of the New Testament, never conceived of a naturally immortal soul inhabiting a mortal body from which it might be liberated, but always conceived of a simple, non-dualistic anthropology of a single, psychophysical organism. An active, intellectual life or functioning of the soul alone could never be conceived in either Old or New Testament thought. For the soul to function, its restoration with the body as the "whole person" would be absolutely necessary.

sharp conflict between these two concepts: the Scriptural and the Hellenic, was clearly brought forth in the reaction to Paul's sermon to the Greeks, on the resurrection, found at Acts 17:16-34. Apart from the Stoics and a few others, few of the Greeks would have questioned a concept of the soul continuing to exist, and even being rewarded after death, but the idea of a bodily resurrection astounded them. Their astonishment was logical. In general, with some exceptions, they conceived that the soul was a prisoner of the body and escaped, or was liberated from the body by death, and that it gained its highest knowledge and awareness only then. Why, therefore, would anyone want to have the soul reunited with the body in a resurrection.

By contrast, there is a parable in the Talmud (the Hebrew commentaries on the "Old Testament") which gives a good example of the Old Testament understanding of the subject. This parable was given to explain the matter to the simple Jewish people. In it we read:

"There was a ruler who had an orchard. When he saw that the choice first-fruits were ripening, he set two watchmen over the orchard gate. The one was crippled in his legs, and the other was blind. The cripple, seeing the ripe and choice first-fruits, submitted to temptation. He said to the blind man: take me on your shoulders, I will guide you, and we will go to the best tree and take of the first-fruits and eat them. This they did. When the ruler came and saw that the choice first-fruits were gone, he questioned the two watchmen. The blind one replied, `Have I eyes that I could see to take the fruit?' The cripple replied, `Have I legs that I could go and get the fruit?' The ruler, perceiving the matter, made the cripple to sit on the shoulder of the blind man, and he judged the two as one. Even so shall the Holy-One, blessed be He, do on the last day. He will cast the soul back into its body, and He will judge the two as one."

The fathers of the Church have taught the same thing, telling us precisely that the soul cannot receive its reward without the body, as St Ambrose of Milan makes clear, saying:

"And this is the course and ground of justice, that since the actions of body and soul are common to both (for what the soul has conceived, the body has carried out), each should come into judgment...for it would seem almost inconsistent that...the mind guilty of a fault shared by another should be subjected to penalty, and the flesh, the author of the evil, should enjoy rest: and that that alone should suffer which had not sinned alone, or should attain to glory not having fought alone, with the help of grace."

St Irenae of Lyons is like-minded when he says:

"For it is just that in the very same condition in which they (the body and the soul) toiled or were afflicted, being proved in every way by suffering, they should receive the reward of their suffering...."

St Titus of Bostra, rebuking the Manicheans, confirms this thought in words quoted by St John the Damascene:

"For the soul cannot enjoy anything, or possess, or do anything, or suffer, except it be together with the body, being the same as it was created in the beginning, and thus it enjoys that which is proper to it. This state is lost in death through the disobedience of Adam, and again through the obedience of the one Christ, through hope it receives (in the resurrection) again the state of being a person."

ENDNOTES:
The reader is referred to the appendices of the book The Soul, the Body and Death, which contains several more patristic references, quoted at length.

PREFACE

During the debate over the heresies which appeared in Fr Seraphim Rose's book The Soul After Death, Fr Seraphim and Fr Herman issued a public circulation "open letter," in an attempt to defend the Gnostic heresies they were teaching. The Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad were uncertain of the actual Orthodox teaching on several matters, and as they would demonstrate later, many of them actually espoused certain theosophical heresies themselves - none more blatant and shocking than those of Archbishop Antony of Los Angeles, but some of the quite peculiar notions of Archbishop Antony (Medvediev) of San Franciso should at least be noted. The ROCA hierarchs, with their usual arrogance and love of injustice, attempted to prevent a response to the "Open Letter" of Fr Seraphim. Nevertheless, a response was produced. That response is summarized below (the original was nearly forty pages long).

THE LETTER

In Christ, Fathers Seraphim and Herman,

Rejoice in the Lord!

We pray that this letter finds you well and in the peace and joy of our Saviour.

I am writing, fathers, not as to strangers, but to fellow Orthodox Christians and co-strugglers, for, I believe that we are all sincerely aiming at one and the same goal in all our endeavours: the salvation of our souls, the defense of holy Orthodoxy, and the edification of those who read our publications. We have never felt that there was any particular division, enmity or disharmony between us. Disagreements have occurred, it is true, and sometimes these disagreements have been sharp. Yet, love does not demand that one be in full agreement with our every idea and opinion in order for us to be friends and love one another. To the contrary, love rises above all disagreements and misunderstandings, and creates harmony and unity in the faith among even those who are not in complete agreement with one another in every matter. We are united in our love of Orthodoxy and in our desire to defend the faith, in our mutual struggle for our own salvation and for the salvation of our brethren. We are united in Christ and His Holy Church, in the communion of His all-precious Body and Blood, no matter what disagreements or misunderstandings we may have. Since we feel this very deeply, since we have always respected both you and your work, and never felt that there was any disunity or real disharmony between us, we are especially grieved at certain of your recent writings, which seemed actually contrived to stir up and create disunity and disharmony where none had previously existed. Yet, this very feeling of mutual love and unity in the faith encourages me to write to you openly and frankly. This I do not as desiring to offend you, but because I consider you co-strugglers and I feel a strong bond of love and unity with you.

Recently, some of our clergy, both Russian and non-Russian, have forwarded to me copies of your "Open Letter" dated 2/15 June, 1980, together with their expressions of agreement with, and gratitude for, our book, The Soul, The Body and Death. These letters have invariably expressed dismay and deep concern over the teaching concerning the soul after death set forth in your journal, "Orthodox Word." We note that, for one or another reason, you did not send us a copy of your "Open Letter."

Of course, this is not the first such "Open Letter" aimed at attacking Fr Neketas and the St Nectarios Parish in Seattle, with which you have been involved. We note, gratefully, that at least this latest "Open Letter" is not so filled with vitriolic language as your past letters to Fr Neketas on this subject have been. The primary subject of your "Open Letter" is not the subject of the soul after death, but the article in the St Nectarios parish bulletin on Fr Dmitry Dudko, an article which some of your own hierarchs and clergy (Russian and non-Russian alike) have praised very highly. Both Fr Neketas and Fr George Macris have answered your open letter very well, and other people have also responded to it. We need not, therefore, dwell on this aspect of your letter.

In the second paragraph of your "Open Letter," however, you do make two assertions to which I must reply briefly. First, you assert that my work, The Soul, The Body and Death "ended so badly for the author." Ended badly in what way? As the author referred to, I am certainly not aware of any "bad ending" of the work. You further assert that I have been "forbidden by our bishops to publish and give lectures....." I do not know from what secret source of information you derived such an idea, but evidently your source is not very reliable as I have not been forbidden to do any such things. Not only did I deliver a talk at the Orthodox Conference in Seattle, with the knowledge and blessing of Bishop Nektary, but our publishing schedule is more full than ever; I have completed my fall lecture tour of our Synod parishes, with the blessing of all the local bishops concerned, and our articles on the soul, the body and death in our journal have resulted in many new subscriptions to it.

We notice that in making these false statements of yours, you did not mention the name of the author of the articles in question, but again directed your attack against the St Nectarios parish in Seattle. You know very well that the St Nectarios parish is neither the publisher nor even the printer of "The Tlingit Herald" [the predecessor of The Canadian Orthodox Missionary]. They are only the distributors of the American edition. But by avoiding naming the author of the articles and mentioning only the parish in an accusatory manner, you once again made slanderous personal attacks on this outstanding and highly respected parish, toward which you have long demonstrated an irrational malice.

Leaving your open letter, we must now turn to a section of your recent book, The Soul After Death, in which you make certain other allegations, naming the journal, "The Tlingit Herald" directly and, incidentally, using the opportunity to make another of your endless personal attacks on the St Nectarios parish in Seattle. We refer to Appendix Four, "Answer to a Critic," found on pages 239-270 of Fr Seraphim's book. In general, we would not feel it necessary to respond to such an article, since in scholarly and even in theological writings, authors often express sharp opinions about other works with which they disagree. In your work, however, you have thoroughly distorted and evidently premeditatedly misrepresented my words to such a degree that one might conclude that you have very intentionally tried to deceive and mislead your readers in this matter. I would rather not, myself, reach such a conclusion, but would prefer instead to think that your conclusions were a result of a failure to actually read my work. Perhaps instead of carefully reading my work, you only skimmed it, searching for isolated sentences which you could seize upon to use for some untoward ends. We see, however, that in a nearly hysterical article in your companion publication, "Nikodemos" (now "Orthodox America"), titled "Warning to the Faithful" (Vol.8, Nr.3, 1979), you accuse me of a certain teaching of "hypnopsychites," which you claim is an ancient heresy. In circular correspondence on the subject, your colleague, the publisher of "Nikodemos" (now "Orthodox America") claims that this "heresy" was refuted by early Church councils. However, as we had occasion to demonstrate already (see pages 130-132 of my book, The Soul, The Body and Death), there has never been any such "heresy," and the word "hypnopsychites" does not so much as appear in a single Orthodox reference work. In fact, the expression seems never to have been heard of in the entire history of the Church, and as nearly as we can discern, this word was coined by the Anglo-Catholic divine, Dr Frank Gavin, a fellow of the Thomas Aquinas House in Nashota, Wisconsin. He used the expression in one of his articles ("The Sleep of the Soul in the Early Syriac Church," "Journal of American Oriental Studies," April 1921, pp.103-120). It appears then, that having come upon this article of the Anglo-Catholic divine, you seized upon this invented term and, not bothering to investigate whether it was authentic or had any meaning or not, or whether Gavin's article had any Orthodox content, you used his expression in an effort to trick your readers into believing that I had espoused some ancient heresy. Frankly, fathers, such an action is neither mature, ethical, nor moral.

We cannot understand your reason for doing this, since, as I said, we believe that both you and we are really aiming in our publications for one and the same goals, and we are united in our faith and by our common communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour. It is true that we had a disagreement, and it has even been sharp at times, but now you have purposely transformed a theological disagreement into an open conflict and division. Why have you done this? It was so unnecessary, so uncalled for. You seem to feel that every time anyone publishes anything which does not completely agree with your own ideas, they are personally attacking you. This is simply not true. In my own work, The Soul, The Body and Death, I am making critical references to a very large number of contemporary writings by many authors, writings which have been referred to us by a number of Orthodox people. These writings which we are critiquing are authored by sectarians, scientists, occultists, psychologists and others, and there is simply no grounds at all for you to conclude that everything I said is directed against you. This is just not true. We did, in fact, take exception to some things you wrote, but then we are not obliged to accept your writings as infallible. Indeed, I would be greatly surprised if there were not some sound, objective and warranted criticisms of my work, The Soul, The Body and Death (I might say that I would be disappointed if there were not because I would then be deprived of the opportunity to make corrections and improvements to the text). Doubtless I have made some mistakes, overstressed or understressed some point, or used a poor choice of words somewhere, and with the help of valid criticism, I can correct future editions of the work.

Since I feel such a strong bond of mutual faith and love with you, and as I respect both of you and your work greatly, it is with genuine sorrow that I feel compelled to respond to Appendix Four of your recent book. Please understand that I do not object to your disagreeing with me or even to your attempts to rebut what I have said. I am responding because you have grossly misrepresented my words and, evidently wilfully misrepresented my conclusions. It is not possible that you did this accidentally, but you could have only done so maliciously and with the intent to deceive your own readers. In my response, I will follow the same general format and chapter divisions which you used in your appendix.

1. PREFACE

Let us begin with my objections to the article in "Orthodox Life," the issue for January-February, 1978. You make an issue of my disagreement, but you fail to mention that Very Rev. Fr. Michael Pomozansky (to whom you refer later) accepted and agreed with my objections to this article [his letter to that effect appears in this section of our website]. Why did you not mention this, inasmuch as later in your work, you refer to Fr. Michael as "probably the greatest living theologian"?

You mention also that I took exception to Bishop Ignaty (Ignatius) Brianchaninov's teaching concerning the soul after death, which teaching you indicate inspired your own book. Why did you not mention also that the famous Russian ascetic and theologian Saint Theophan the Recluse also took very great exception to Rt Rev Ignaty's teaching on this subject? Is it not true that Bishop Theophan the Recluse wrote an impressive rebuttal of a major portion of Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov's work on the soul after death? Is it not also true that the late Archbishop Averky of blessed memory, forbade the reprinting of volume three of Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov's work, which contains his teaching on the soul after death, because Rt Rev Ignaty's teaching on this subject had been refuted not only by Rt Rev Theophan the Recluse, but by other contemporary Russian theologians as well?

For example, when Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov's work Word on Death appeared in 1863, Rt Rev Theophan the Recluse wrote:

"This year, there appeared in print WORD ON DEATH, a very instructive work in which there were, nevertheless, opinions expressed which are little known in the Christian world, such as for example, the opinion about a certain corporality of the nature of the soul and of angels. In `Strannik', for September, 1863, brief but strong remarks were made in response to these novelties. These remarks elicited counter arguments in the form of a separate booklet under the title, SUPPLEMENT TO A WORD ON DEATH.

"The purpose of the SUPPLEMENT was to gather more proof for all the ideas expressed in WORD ON DEATH....Having entered into an argument with spiritualists, he [Bishop Ignaty] spoke against Cardec, who asserted that the soul has a subtle material envelope, in favour of Pierar, who asserted that the soul is that which Cardec asserts is an envelope: the soul is an ethereal body and nothing else. In order to give more weight to his defence of Pierar, the author [Bishop Ignaty] added that this opinion is decisively proved amongst us precisely in the mentioned articles. That is why I conceived a desire to examine [Bishop Ignaty's work] to see if this is proved. I examined all the proofs and presentations of articles in favour of this view, to the smallest details, and nowhere did I find support for it, but on the contrary, everywhere where the articles thought to find a confirmation of their ideas, I found positions which completely contradicted it...." ("Domashniaia Beseda," 1869, Pt.1, pp.5-6).

At the same time, Rev Paul Matveevsky, the reviewer of bibliographic works, in an article in "Strannik" (1863, v.3, Nr.9, Section 3, pp.26-36) took very strong exception to four particular points in Bishop Ignaty's work. These were: 1. the teaching of the corporality of the soul and of spirits; 2. the sensuality of paradise; 3. the location of hades in the interior of the earth, and; the ranging of aerial tollhouses in the air. Fr Matveevsky correctly points out that Rt Rev Ignaty Brianchaninov uses exceptionally arbitrary personal interpretations of the Divine Scripture, disregards the teachings of the greatest fathers of the Church, and teaches directly counter to the decision made in the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on the nature of spirits, in order to insist that his personal opinion is "the teaching of the Orthodox Church." Unfortunately, Rt Rev Ignaty uses the same tactics in his "patristic proof texts," as Rt Rev Theophan pointed out so well in the passage cited above. This is true not only of his teaching about the corporality of the soul, but also about his teaching regarding the "tollhouses," as we shall demonstrate later. As Rev Paul Matveevsky points out:

"Not a single eschatology or part of theology, examining the latter events or touching upon the world and man, has entered into such a detailed conclusion of these questions as has been made by the author [Bishop Ignaty]. Theology as a science, has not taken upon itself the task of solving these questions in such a way as the compiler of WORD ON DEATH resolved them, because, while relegating such and similar questions to the realm of human curiosity which seeks to extend itself beyond the bounds of human limitations, it always offered information about the soul, paradise, hades and evil spirits which was unarguable and based on Holy Scripture and in accord with the teaching of the universal Church."

[We have presented the complete review of Fr Matveevsky in this section of our website so we will not include it here. We note that St Theophan the Recluse gave his full approval to Rev. Matveevsky's review]

It is really ludicrous to argue that Bishop Theophan, in his criticism, was concerned only with Rt Rev Ignaty's ideas about "gases," etc., in relation to the nature of the soul and spirits, and that, therefore, the rest of Bishop Ignaty's work is perfectly all right, as you do in your work. You have asserted more than once that there were no important differences between Bishop Theophan and Bishop Ignaty on the subject at hand, yet we read in Rt Rev Theophan's cited work that his intention in refuting Bishop Ignaty's Word on Death and its supplement, was to, "unmask the falsity of the assertions contained in these brochures, to expunge the revolting impression that they make and to scatter the darkness that they produce." Further he says that his refutation of Bishop Ignaty's work was intended to put down the "scandal created by the novel teaching that these brochures preach, shrouding it in the cloak of Orthodoxy." That is hardly a "difference of no importance." The argument here, put forward by both Saint Theophan the Recluse and Rev Paul Matveevsky is precisely that Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov is declaring as a "teaching of the Orthodox Church" something which is, as a matter of fact, diametrically contrary to the teaching of the Church, and he is misusing and arbitrarily interpreting Scripture and certain patristic texts in order to attempt to justify his opinions. This is a very serious matter, and it is ridiculous to think that Rt Rev Ignaty was guilty of this in only a single, isolated case in this particular work. If one examines his scriptural and patristic proof texts for the rest of this work, particularly his opinions and assertions about "aerial tollhouses," one will find exactly the same pattern and practice. Not only does Bishop Ignaty not prove his theories about the corporality of the soul, the materialistic nature of paradise, the location of hell beneath the earth or the tollhouses, but the proof texts he does use in general prove just the opposite of what he is asserting, as Rt Rev Theophan pointed out in the passage of his, cited above. Indeed, Rev Matveevsky, evidently shocked by Bishop Ignaty's careless and cavalier treatment of the Scripture and patristic texts, responds very sharply and points out that the ancient heretics used the very same tactics to try to justify their teachings.

Rt Rev Theophan the Recluse's book The Soul And Angels Are Spirits, Not Bodies, is precisely a refutation of Bishop Ignaty's teachings regarding the nature of the soul, upon which, as you say, your own book is based. Therefore, I am evidently not alone in questioning this teaching in part or in whole. It will be interesting to see Rt Rev Theophan's book and his dialogues with Bishop Ignaty's followers translated into English. To be fair and honest, why did you not mention to your readers that there was, in Russia, a considerable question about Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov's teaching on the soul after death (upon which you based your own work)? Indeed, why did you not take these very sound criticisms into account when you were preparing your own book? Let us reprint here one of the best of these criticisms:

[There follows here the complete critique by Matveevsky, which already appears in this section of our website. We will not repeat it here].

2. CONTRADICTIONS IN ORTHODOX LITERATURE ON THE SOUL

You make some cogent observations on the "contradictions in patristic literature," but unfortunately, end up denying that there actually are any contradictions. In the preceding section, Fr Paul Matveevsky demonstrates for us a very serious and dramatic contradiction, and demonstrates how a theological writer, in this case, Rt Rev Ignaty Brianchaninov, can be so utterly one-sided in his reading of patristic literature that he even challenges the Divine Scripture in his efforts to prove a point. St Makarios of Egypt, on the surface, appears to have passively accepted the ancient Egyptian and Gnostic idea that the soul is a "subtle body" - an idea that would have been deeply ingrained in the folklore and native Egyptian culture. This is, of course, a pagan Egyptian and Hellenic teaching, which also permeates all the Gnostic sects. It was, no doubt, handed down in the subconscious mythologies of the peoples of these cultures (just as the aerial tollhouse mythology was). However, the consensus of the Holy Church thought otherwise, as Fr Matveevsky shows. Bishop Ignaty, and you yourselves after him, had to attempt to distort the Divine Scripture itself in order to uphold this teaching which is clearly overturned by the Church. Bishop Ignaty did not accept the teaching of the Scripture and the Church (as expressed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council), and evidently, neither do you.

Yes, there are sometimes actual contradictions in the writings of the fathers - even though not on matters of significant dogma - and it is for this very reason that we regard the Divine Scripture itself and the recorded apostolic teachings as testing stones for all teachings in the Church. This is why we seek the consensus of the fathers, together with the testimony of Scripture. It was the tragedy of the Old Believers that they refused to do this, and bound themselves to the "recent teachers and fathers," without verifying these "recent teachers and fathers" with the true criteria of Orthodoxy.

Let us look, for example, at my use of a saying of St John Chrysostom, to which you take exception; his Homily 28:3 on Matthew (p.244 of your text). You assert here that Chrysostom is limiting his words, "nor is it possible for a soul, once torn away from the body to wander here anymore," to a given case at hand, that it is only in one particular case that the souls of the reposed cannot "wander here anymore." In the first place, I did not let this statement stand alone. I offered a whole series of patristic teachings which testify that souls do not remain on earth or "wandering" after their departure from the body. In the second place, the rest of Chrysostom's statement demonstrates very clearly that he is not limiting his teaching to merely this particular case, for he says:

"Nor indeed is it possible for a soul, once torn away from its body, to wander here anymore, for `the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God'....and the souls too of sinners are straightway led away hence....And it cannot be that a soul, when it is gone forth from the body should wander here." (Homily 29:3, on Matthew).

But let us ask, on what authority do you assert that St John Chrysostom is limiting his statement to one or another "given case" (what case?)? The authority you rest your argument on is simply that the saint does not agree with you! That is rather arrogant, don't you think?

The fact is, St John Chrysostom did not just pull this idea out of the air in order to oppose a given pagan belief. He refutes the pagan belief with an already well known teaching of the Church. It was held by some that the souls of certain of the dead can become demons and haunt the earth. St John responds to this that it certainly cannot be so because the souls of the departed cannot at all wander here, but are taken directly to the state of their repose. Here, he speaks directly and precisely about the condition of souls after their departure from the body. But, you see, in your vain efforts to rescue your opinions from the teachings of the fathers, you are applying the same corrupt principles that the ancient heretics applied in trying to rescue their opinions from the Scripture. Rt Rev Ignaty Brianchaninov unfortunately fell into this same trap. He was attempting to claim that, in a certain case, Divine Scripture was speaking "only relatively," and he was wrong. You, now, for unethical reasons, are trying to claim that Chrysostom was speaking "only relatively," and you are no more correct than was Bishop Ignaty. In fact, when we examine your use of patristic texts, we often do find very strained interpretations of them being used. We notice that whenever a patristic text does not say exactly what you want it to, you expand it without justification, and when one contradicts you, you tend to artificially limit it. We will examine this practice of yours a little later, when we discuss the distortions you make of certain patristic quotes in defending your purely Gnostic teaching about an "out of body experiencing of the tollhouses before death."

I think that it is evident from your book and other writings, fathers, that you use patristic and hagiographical texts in a manner which is highly questionable at best. Not only do you frequently run roughshod over the fathers but there are well known instances where you have wilfully, knowingly published erroneous translations of whole works of the fathers. Your novel rendition of St Symeon the New Theologian's work, The Sin of Adam and our Redemption is a case in point. You published this work and attempted to base theological concepts on it, when you had been advised repeatedly by highly competent authorities that your translation from the Russian text omits whole paragraphs of the original work, reverses the meaning of several sentences and elsewhere distorts and even directly contradicts the actual meaning of St Symeon's words. Now, you did this wilfully, with full knowledge of your errors and distortions. Did your consciences not bother you even a little in this? Knowing that you do such unethical and dishonest things with the works of the fathers, just how seriously do you expect us to take you when you produce some opinion which you claim to base on patristic and hagiographical literature?

As to the visions, out of body revelations, etc, which you offer as proof of your doctrines, I do not think we even need to comment on these. You repeatedly use the writings of New Age philosophers, theosophists and modern psychologists who are not Orthodox, and give them the authority of holy fathers.

3. OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCES

You seem to have a desperate need, Father Seraphim, to propagate your doctrine of "out of body experiences." It seems that this is bound up with your unfortunate espousal of the Gnostic doctrine of "subtle bodies," which the Church has rejected (specifically, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council), but which you, nevertheless, insist on holding and teaching publicly. Now, the teaching that the soul is or possesses a "subtle body" is not a theologumenon, because we do have the voice of an Ecumenical Council on it. As Orthodox Christians, we are not permitted to hold this belief. Yet your doctrine of "out of body experiences" is inseparably bound up with it, and you even dare to teach this Gnostic doctrine of "subtle bodies" by name.

In refuting your doctrine of "out of body experiences," which is, frankly, sheer occultism, I offered massive patristic texts and the testimonies of those very fathers who had the deepest and most profound experience in such matters. From them, I think we have very firmly established that actual "out of body experiences" do not occur, but that what seem to be such experiences are either demonic delusions, medical phenomena or, in fact, only the opinions or interpretations of authors or re-writers of various hagiographies. You know yourselves that there are often more than one version of the life of any given saint, and that often there are considerable differences between the versions. Moreover, as in the case of Metaphrastes and St Dmitry of Rostov, translators often become interpreters and re-writers and use considerable license in their particular versions of lives of saints. This is one of the main reasons why these hagiographies must be subject to the theological works of the fathers. It is simply foolish to use them as independent sources of doctrine.

Now, however, let us look at your defence of your doctrine of "out of body experiences." Against the direct and pointed testimonies of the fathers, whose words I cited, you offer the information that Apostle Paul and certain other saints did not know whether they were in the body or out of the body during a certain spiritual experience. But let us compare the experience of St Symeon the New Theologian, related on pages 24-25 of my book, The Soul, The Body and Death, with this information. Here, St Symeon also says that at first he did not know whether he was in the body or not, but as his experience continued, he realized that, yes, he was indeed still in his body. Not withstanding that, surely the direct refutation of "out of body experiences" by those great hesychastic fathers is of more weight than the statements that someone did not know one way or the other, St Symeon's experience completely explains those experiences in which the participant did not take note of the circumstances.

We are amazed that you also attempted to put forth the experience of St Andrew the Fool in defence of your doctrine. St Andrew's testimony is almost identical to that of St Symeon the New Theologian. St Andrew at first did not know whether he was "in the body or out of the body," but says that, "in appearance I was in the body....," and he says quite clearly, "But it seemed to me that with that body of mine, I was such as we shall be after the resurrection, or rather, that with this very body I had secretly slipped in among those there." (Life, p.34). Now compare this description with that of St Symeon the New Theologian whose awareness that he was actually, fully in his body came to him gradually, from the realization that he appeared to be in the body, to the sure understanding that he in fact was and always had been "in the body." I surmise that you would use St Andrew's statement to try to substantiate your adherence to the Gnostic doctrine of "subtle bodies."

You also cite St John Chrysostom's statement, "and if anyone should say: How is it possible to be caught up out of the body? I will ask him, `How is it possible to be caught up in the body?'" With all due respect, let me reply: it is easier to imagine someone being caught up in the body because we have the sure testimony that Sts Enoch and Elias were caught up in the body, and because our Saviour ascended in like manner. But we have not a single verified incident of anyone being caught up out of the body, and the most qualified of the Church fathers directly condemn the idea of "out of body experiences."

On the other hand, what about such experiences as those of Apostle Paul, St Andrew the Fool, and St Symeon the New Theologian? If we study the works of the hesychast fathers and discover just how surely the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, in our very depths, and we then read that someone was "caught up into the heavenly kingdom," might we be so bold as to suggest that these people were caught up into the depths of the body, rather than out of the body? For, you see, this is just exactly in what the hesychastic teaching consists. Please forgive me, my dearest fathers, but your doctrine, on the other hand, more closely follows that of Barlaam the Calabrian.

You also suggest (on p.252 of your book) that the appearance of Moses on Mt Tabor at our Saviour's Transfiguration somehow confirms your novel doctrine of "out of body experiences." But are you so certain of that? Why was it that, according to the Scripture, the Archangel contended for the body of Moses? (Jd.9). Was Moses' body, like that of the Theologian, resurrected and "caught up"? Did Moses appear on Mt Tabor actually with his body? St Ephraim the Syrian says of this:

"Now he summoned Elias, who had been caught up, and Moses, who was resurrected, and three witnesses from among the preachers, they who were indeed pillars (Gal.2:4), for they supported the testimony of the Kingdom....And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them saying, `tell the vision to no man.' Why? Because He knew that they would not be believed, but they would be considered madmen. Men would say, `How did you recognize Elias? And lo, Moses is dead and buried and no man knows his grave!' So there would be blasphemy and scandal because of this....and He said, `wait until,' meaning that they should wait until the tombs be rent asunder and the righteous come forth, the recent and the ancient, and enter into Jerusalem (Mt.27:52-53), the city of the great King. And lo, then will they believe that He Who resurrected them also resurrected Moses...." (Commentary on the Diatessaron, 14:5,6,9,10).

Surely, Father Seraphim, you do not consider St Ephraim to be a heretic.

St John Damascene also says:

"Moses represents the community of the saints of old who have fallen asleep, and Elias, the community of the living, for He Who is transfigured is the Lord of the living and the dead. Moses entered into the promised land, because Jesus, the Bestower of the inheritance, brought him in, and those things which he beheld in a type, today shine forth clearly." (On The Transfiguration, PG 96:572)"

Moreover, did the three apostles see Elias and Moses carnally, or noetically, or not even that, but purely spiritually? They were in the Light of God's Glory, a part of that vision, and is the Light of the Glory of the Godhead seen by men physically or noetically, or purely spiritually? Let us see what St Gregory Palamas says of this:

"Do you see how the Unseen One is seen by those who are pure of heart, not however, seen sensibly, nor noetically, nor conceptually, but by some ineffable power?....But I shall tell you openly. The first martyr saw spiritually, even as those who have seen that pure light through revelation....And if you become full of faith and the Holy Spirit, you will see spiritually things which are invisible to the intellect (nous)." (The Triads, 1:3:30).

And as St John Damascene says of the vision on Mt Tabor: "Truly, the abyss of unapproachable light, today the uncircumscribable flood of Divine radiance shines forth upon the Apostles on Mt Tabor....now things unseen by the human eyes are seen...." (ibid).

My beloved fathers, I am not seeking to insult or embarrass you, but you are spreading, in your work, not merely a few misconceptions, but a whole system of thought which is alien to Orthodoxy. It happens that your understanding of the appearance on Mt Tabor is as utterly scholastic as your entire approach to divine phenomena, and you remain bound by the false, Gnostic doctrine of "subtle bodies" which your theological progenitors so unwisely espoused, and so carelessly propagated as a "teaching of the Church" - a phrase which both they and you use with the most careless abandon, cheapening the words into meaninglessness. This matter is far deeper than any sort of scholastic superficiality can penetrate. Personally, I feel that it is sufficient to declare that Moses and Elias were seen by the apostles, but how and in what manner is known to God. It is enough to know that they did appear, and some of the fathers have explained why but few have ventured an explanation of how. We must remember here that we are dealing with an actual revelation of the Glory of the Godhead, of Christ "coming in His Glory." And so we are already not dealing with any sort of physical/material phenomenon (or would you assert that the Light of God's Glory is a physical, thus a created light?) So, we are outside time, space and all physical phenomena, and all on Tabor is taking place within the vision of the Glory of the Godhead and, as St Anastasios of Antioch says, "they [the apostles] went up to so lofty a place so as to be vouchsafed a vision which was called the Kingdom of Heaven by Him Who revealed Himself to them, being transfigured with the prophets." (Homily on the Transfiguration, PG 89:1369). How, St Gregory Palamas asks, did the apostles even recognize the prophets? By revelation, he replies (First Homily on the Transfiguration). And St Anastasios of Antioch concurs, adding, "And certainly the apostles were also prophets" (ibid).

How was Moses there? More surprising, how was Elias there, being in a corrupt body which will some day die a martyr's death? If Elias is still in his carnal, unregenerate body (for it will die) how then is he with God in the spiritual world and appearing in that very immaterial Light of the Glory of the Godhead; how is his sinful, carnal body participating in the Glory of God? This question alone should make you wary of your conclusions concerning Moses. Yet, to a certain degree, I answered both these questions - how was Moses there, and how was Elias there - already on page 16 of my book, The Soul, The Body and Death. About Elias (and Enoch) we can say little, and only look in wonder. Nevertheless, the saints are participants in God. They are freed from the laws of time and place. They are participants already in God's Glory. As participants in God, they are wherever God is. And if, in revealing Himself in that manner in which He does - by the vision of His uncreated, immaterial Glory - what is so marvellous if He, at the same time, also in like manner reveals those who are always with Him, participating in Him and His Glory? Whether Moses is immaterial soul, or resurrected body, he is with God, and Elias, by the will of God is also with God. God is not bound by laws.

Will one insist that Moses had to have a material form (even a "subtle" one) in order to be seen by the apostles? Well, then, will one also insist that, for the purpose of this vision, the Glory of God became material, had a created form? Light is not immaterial. It is physical, measurable, refractable. To insist that God could not reveal Moses on Tabor without his having at least a "subtle" form also, it would seem, implies the Latin doctrine of the material form of God's Glory. If God was unable to reveal Moses on Tabor without his having an external form, how was He able to reveal the Light of His Glory without its having a material form? In other words, the insistence that Moses had some sort of material form on Tabor (other than his own resurrected body, as St Ephraim suggests) forces us to refight the Palamite controversy all over again, because the essence of the question is quite clearly the same as Barlaam the Calabrian's challenge to St Gregory Palamas. Indeed, St Gregory says that Moses was immaterial on Mt Tabor.

Now obviously, the Transfiguration was a super-divine manifestation, something beyond the capabilities of all such scholastic reasoning as you have offered. Time and place do not exist here. The apostles could have even been seeing Moses as after the general resurrection itself, for that matter, unless we are limiting God and His Glory in time and space - for this was that very same Glory in which Christ will appear again at the last day (and look at the Apocalypse of St John the Theologian, for example).

Thus, in examining the fathers, we find a consensus that Moses and Elias were seen and recognized by the apostles by means of revelation. This fact already bars us from seeking definitions or scientific style explanations as to how Moses (or Elias) were seen on Mt Tabor. But we have certainly seen enough to exclude your personal theory that Moses was on Mt Tabor in an "out of body experience." Let us conclude with these words of St Gregory Palamas:

"But why did He separate the chief apostles from the rest and lead them alone up the mountain? Surely to show them something great and mystical. How, then, would the sight of sensible light be something great and mystical, since those who were chosen perceived such light even before being led off, as did the rest? What need would they have had of the power of the Spirit, and of the addition [to nature] by means of this power, or an alteration in their eyes, so as to be able to see light that is sensible and created? How should the glory and Kingdom of the Father and the Spirit be sensible light? And how shall Christ in the future age come in this glory and Kingdom, when there will be no air, no light, nor any need of [physical] place or any such thing, but instead of all this there will be God, as the Apostle says. If God will take the place of all these things, He certainly will take the place of light. Wherefore it is proved that that light was the light of the Godhead. Hence the most theological of the Evangelists, John, makes clear in his "Revelation" that the future and enduring city `had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it, for the glory of the Lord did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof' (Rev.21:23). Has he not, then, clearly shown us here also Jesus Who is now divinely transfigured on Tabor, Who has His own Body as a lamp, and Who instead of light has the glory of the Godhead which became manifest to those who ascended the mountain with Him? Now concerning those who dwell in that city, John says that `They need no lamp, neither the light of the sun, for the Lord God shines upon them, and there shall be no night' (Rev.22:5). What, therefore, is that light, `with which there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning' (Jm.1:17)? What is this immutable and unwaning light? Is it not the light of the Godhead? But how could Moses and Elias - and especially Moses, who was a soul and not something bodily [i.e., not anything material] - appear and be glorified by means of sensible light? They appeared in glory and spoke of the departure which Jesus should accomplish in Jerusalem. But how did the apostles recognize them when they had never seen them before, unless it was by the power of revelation given by that Light?" (First Homily on the Transfiguration, PG 89:1369).

Please do not be offended, dear fathers, but I respectfully invite your attention to the fact that your attempts at propagating your doctrine of "out of body experiences" is nothing else but a continuation of Barlaam the Calabrian's arguments against the Orthodox fathers, it depends completely upon the Gnostic doctrine that the soul is, or has, a "subtle body," and it reveals that you have no understanding at all of the doctrine of theosis, the role of Divine Grace in the experiencing of the Heavenly Kingdom, and that your entire approach to Divine phenomena - indeed to all theology - is heavily scholastic and deeply penetrated by the false bases and concepts of Augustinianism. Unfortunately, there is also a very evident stream of the 19th century Russian theosophy in your expressed spirituality.

4. SOUL SLEEP

In this section of your "appendix," you assert that I am teaching a doctrine that the soul becomes "comatose" after death, that the soul enters into an absolute slumber. This can only mean that you have not even read my work. How you could have reached such a conclusion, I do not know, but let us turn together and look at those places in my book from which you seem to have reached your conclusions that I offer an erroneous teaching of "soul-slumber":

1. Prologue, page 3:

Here, I have correctly observed that, at death, the soul is "assigned to a state of repose proper to itself, by an act of the will of God."

Some of my critics have objected to this, asserting that it is actually the demons who judge the soul and determine where the soul is to repose (others say that the demons determine this only in the case of those who are "lost" and destined for hades, later for gehenna). In this, they negate the operation of God's will and remove the will of God from the determination of the state of repose of the soul, and God's will becomes subjected to the decisions of the demons.

Further in this paragraph, I employ the word "sleep" as a metaphor to establish a figurative or conceptual basis for comparing the Origenistic concept of the life of the soul after death, with the Christian concept. I had enclosed this word "sleep" in quotation marks to ensure that the reader understands that here I am employing the word in a figurative or metaphorical sense. From what follows, it is clear, I think, that this choice of words is a sound one.

Let us look at the nature of sleep, even if only in its common, material sense. When one falls asleep, his general physical functions cease, and he is no longer functioning in an externally sensual manner. Of course, his vital functions continue because he is still in this life, body and soul are still united. Although the person's physical, sensual functions have been suspended, the mind has not ceased to function. It does not function in the same way, for it does not now have the use of the sensual faculties. The level at which the mind is now functioning is commonly called "dreaming." To "dream" simply refers to the level or mode in which the mind functions when it does not have the full cooperation of the body, when it does not have the use of the sensual faculties.

You see, fathers, my use of this expression "sleep" in this case is perfectly consistent with the general patristic use of the term in all those passages from the fathers which I quoted in my book. More directly, this use of the paradox of sleep in my work is really modelled on the pattern of thought in St Gregory of Nyssa's commentary on Song of Songs. Compare my words on the subject with these words of our holy and God-bearing father Gregory of Nyssa:

"The notion of sleep is admirably suited to express the experience of ecstasy....From this point of view the spiritual life is seen as an awakening, a watching, that withdraws the soul from the illusory dreams of sensual pleasures. Thus after her banquet the bride, too, is overcome with sleep. But this is indeed a strange sleep and foreign to nature's custom. In natural sleep the sleeper is not wide awake, and he who is wide awake is not sleeping. Sleeping and waking are contraries, and they succeed and follow one another. But in this case there is a strange and contradictory fusion of opposites in the same state. for, `I sleep,' she says, `and my heart watches.'

"What meaning ought we to take from these words? Sleep is the image of death. All the body's sensory perception is suspended: in sleep, sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch do not perform their function....

"When all of [the senses] have been lulled into inactivity by a kind of sleep, the heart's functioning becomes pure, the reason looks up to heaven, unshaken and unperturbed by the motion of the senses....Thus the soul, enjoying alone the contemplation of Being, will not awake for anything that arouses sensual pleasure. After lulling to sleep every bodily motion, it receives the vision in a divine wakefulness with pure and naked intuition. May we make ourselves worthy of this vision, achieving by this sleep the awakening of the soul."

Thus, one can readily see that in this question I have been absolutely consistent with and faithful to general patristic thought and the consensus of the fathers.

The Gnostic doctrine of "subtle bodies" ascribes to the soul a sort of substitute body, the sensual faculties of which it can make use of when it is deprived of its actual body. Those of my critics who espouse and propagate this Gnostic doctrine that the soul is or possesses a "subtle body" naturally take offense at my use of the metaphor "sleep." They obviously believe that the soul is still sensual and carnal (although only "subtly" so) even in paradise. In order to defend the Gnostic doctrine of subtle bodies, they accuse me of teaching that the soul becomes comatose, and they themselves understand the word "sleep" in the most crude manner, not even according to its actual worldly meaning.

In my book, I have made it absolutely clear that I am using the term "sleep" figuratively, to demonstrate that after death the soul is no longer carnal and now functions in a different mode, on a different plane and in a different realm. While my critics are very rash and carelessly strive to provide a scholastic definition of the functioning of the soul after death, I have declined to do so. The Church has not given us any definitive descriptions of the soul's state or functioning after its departure from the body, and so I have also refrained from attempting to "fill some gap in the Church's teaching." You, dear fathers, have not been so restrained, but hastily step forth with certain opinions which you baselessly declare to be "the teaching of the Church." It is a pity that you have not attempted to substantiate this latter assertion.

2. Chapter Three, THE SOUL, THE BODY AND DEATH:

This chapter of my book is especially difficult for those who adhere to Gnostic doctrines. It is notable that, while my critics (you, Fathers Seraphim and Herman, and Father Roman Lukianov) accuse me of coarse materialism and of having non-spiritual understandings, precisely the reverse is demonstrated in your accusations. It is you who assert that the life of the soul after death is actually a continuation of the earthly, carnal life. For you, the soul is still bound by a "subtle body," and therefore, not only its functions, but its surroundings and everything which takes place regarding it, must be sensual, "subtly" carnal. For you, even apparitions of saints are carnal, a temporary "thickening" of the "subtle body of the soul." for you, there has to be a scholastic definition of those special revelations of God which we call "appearances of the saints."

On the other hand, I have not been bound by the Gnostic doctrine of subtle bodies and so have not offered scientific explanations and scholastic definitions regarding the state and functions of the soul after death and of the state and appearance of saints.

In this chapter, I again utilize the metaphor of "sleep" to demonstrate that the soul is truly freed from all carnality, liberated, as it were, from the fallen "senses" through which it sinned. In this chapter, I clearly demonstrate, utilizing the very effective and appropriate metaphor of "sleep," that the soul, having departed from the body, no longer functions according to the senses or according to any carnal understandings, but rather according to grace. I do not, however, teach that the soul is "comatose" or without perception. Indeed, "perception" is the term I utilize to refer to the soul's function. I stated that the soul no longer has "any sort of physical or sensual functioning or perception," indicating that the soul no longer operates carnally, but I had explained all this very clearly on pages fourteen and fifteen of my book, and no one who has read those pages of my work could possibly reach the conclusions which you have reached or made the accusations which you are making in the appendix of your own work.

It is in this chapter, too, that I make it absolutely clear just how I am using the term "sleep," and completely overturn the accusations of my critics that I am advocating the teaching of "soul-slumber" of which they accuse me. I am applying the term "sleep" to the "person" and not to only a part of him. I said: "This is why the metaphor `sleep' is commonly used to describe the condition of the person after death" (p.13, The Soul, The Body and Death"). And again, "The primary reason for the use of the term `sleep' to describe the person's state after death is to teach the resurrection...." (ibid).

The accusations of my critics in this regard are further overturned by the fact that I also use "sleep" in precisely the same way to describe the hesychastic experience, and I clearly use it in the identical manner in which I use it to refer to the soul after death (i.e., it is applied to the "person" and relative to sensual, carnal functions). Referring to the hesychastic state, I said:

."...and there, the saints experience something like what they will experience at death: that is, they are asleep and insensitive to things corporeal and free of all sensation and all sense perception, they are asleep to the flesh, but awake to God." (p.22, The Soul, The Body and Death).

In my own published correspondence on this subject (most of which is included as Appendix Three of my book), I have already adequately demonstrated the ludicrousness of the charge that I am teaching some "strange doctrine of soul slumber," but we have turned directly to the text itself here to demonstrate the truth of the matter, from those very places where you claim to have found me guilty. I firmly believe my position and view on this subject to be soundly Orthodox, and I feel that my writing on the matter is well summarized in the words of St John Chrysostom:

"The man who sleeps shall certainly rise up, and death is nothing else save protracted sleep. Do not say to me, `He who has died does not hear, does not speak, does not see, does not feel', since neither does a man who sleeps. If it is necessary to say something wondrous, the soul of a sleeping man somehow sleeps, but not so with him who has died, for [his soul] has awakened" (Homily on Lazarus and the Rich Man).

It would seem, beloved fathers, that you have been led into your farfetched accusations and your own untenable position because of your adherence to the Gnostic doctrine of "subtle bodies." It is evidently this coarse, materialistic doctrine which prevents you from understanding what I have been saying. It is of interest to look briefly at this teaching, and we presented a good discussion of it already on pages 6-11 of this letter.

Perhaps if you ever manage to bring your own personal theology into accord with that of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the consensus of the holy and God-bearing fathers, if you can ever free yourselves from your attachment to Gnostic systems of thought, you will be able to comprehend what I have said in my book, and you will drop your unfounded and ridiculous accusations.

5. CONCERNING THE AERIAL TOLLHOUSES

a

Your exposition of your personal tollhouse theology has been so confused, so vacillating and so filled with ever new qualifications that it is no longer certain what it is that you are trying to defend. Moreover, it is sad to have to observe that you have repeatedly and wilfully attempted to misrepresent what I am teaching in this regard, and you have done this, one is forced to conclude, in order to trick your readers.

The tollhouse allegory appears extremely rarely in any early Christian sources, and these are primarily in Egypt, where one might expect them to appear. It is also a fact that some saints, writing about the struggle with demons in this life, refer to them by the biblical term "publicans," which, of course, translates into Greek as tax collectors. It is also true that you yourselves distorted those references and altered them to make it appear as if the saints were referring to your Gnostic aerial tollhouses. Such concepts as the Gnostic tollhouses as a "dangerous journey of the soul" were subconscious remnants of the pharaonic religion of pagan Egypt, which had become impressed into the folklore and consciousness of the people. We must recall that it was in 5th century Egypt that the heresy of Anthropomorphism arose. This Anthropomorphism was very widespread among the monks of Egypt, and its concepts spread into more areas than those of the original heresy. This heresy was rooted out with some considerable difficulty. The most notable such appearances are in the apocryphal homily which, once upon a time, was attributed to St Cyril of Alexandria (by means of an editorial or collating error in the collection of Migne), and a passage where St John the Almsgiver relates having heard such a story, which he allows could be useful in frightening people into repentance. We note that in the first case, we have a purely spurious source and in the second, the father relates the matter purely as a story he had heard, and not at all as a teaching. The tollhouses are also mentioned in that highly questionable "Life of Basil the New" in a vision, the details of which are dubious at best. These instances and all those cases in which anthropomorphic descriptions of a frightening sequence of after death judgments are given are spoken of in purely earthly terms. In some ascetic literature, these anthropomorphic descriptions are sometimes more strong and frightening, and most of them come, again, from Egypt. And in Egypt, even so great a father as Saint Makarios taught a completely erroneous idea of the very nature of the soul and spirits - an error that was overturned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The reason that in ascetic literature more terrifying and anthropomorphic images were used in connection with sins and judgments, etc, is that monastic elders were dealing with people whose intense struggles benefitted from such terrifying imagery. Moreover, when speaking or writing for people who often were illiterate (many ascetic writings were intended to be read in trapeza to people who could not read for themselves) and whose capacities were simply not sufficient to comprehend theological expressions, more simple, even crude, and anthropomorphic imagery was used to convey certain seemingly abstract concepts. Such descriptions must be called either allegories or parables. You will recall that our Saviour Himself often spoke in parables in very anthropomorphic or earthly terms, making the Kingdom of Heaven like a lost coin or a buried treasure, etc, and later gave the apostles more theological explanations of them, taking the earthly side of His symbolism into the spiritual understanding. And this is exactly the understanding which I have offered of the tollhouse/demonic judgment allegories or parables. What I taught was this:

"We must take this earthly metaphor and symbolism into the realm of spiritual understanding. The soul of man is sometimes represented as departing and being accused by demons and defended by angels, and sometimes, as being weighed in a balance. We ought to understand that the `demons' are the person's vices or sins, the angels are his acquired Grace (or, virtues). Both are in the soul of man and perhaps after death are found, as it were, in the pans of a scale or balance. The `balance' can only be understood as our conscience, our sins as our only accusers and our acquired Grace (or, virtues) our defense before our judge - the conscience." (Comp.p.39, para.3, The Soul, The Body and Death. Could one substitute the word `tollhouses' for `balance' in the above? Ah, forgive me, I neglected to mention that the words I just cited are actually those of Makary of Moscow, and that, in fact, he was referring directly and specifically to the "aerial tollhouses" as they appear in the Tale of Basil the New.

This, I suggest, also explains why some of the saints warned their pupils that they would have to answer for every sin, even ones that seemed insignificant or were committed in ignorance: because the conscience is an impartial judge, because when we are faced with the reality of God's love - face to face, as it were - we will suddenly realize the totality of our sinfulness, and perhaps will suffer bitter torments of conscience and self reproach. (For a fuller discussion of this, see my book, Chapter Five, esp. pages 37 and 38. One ought not to carry even this idea too far, however, since one does not enter the Kingdom of Heaven as a reward for sinlessness, nor by means of any form of after death atoning for each of his "unrepented sins," but by having become a participant in Divine Grace during his lifetime. And here, fathers, I must point out that your writings in this instance, and in general, show a serious lack of basic understanding of, or even a knowledge about, the Doctrine of Theosis and the actual Orthodox teaching about salvation itself).

Having thus set forth more precisely my understanding of the matter, let us examine your accusations and criticisms.

You make a point of questioning the patristic references I used in my own work. You say:

"A collection of `proof texts' makes sense only if it actually proves an issue in dispute, not if it talks about something a little different or does not speak clearly and explicitly to the issue." (p.240 of your text).

Your criterion is not only deceitful, but it defeats almost all your arguments, for you have not only used the fathers out of context, but in some cases, you have knowingly altered their very words, and you never, ever, give complete citations, but only pick out some few words here and there that you might misconstrue as supporting your position. What you are trying to say is that the patristic teachings about the nature of the soul and of judgment cannot be used against your doctrine of tollhouses, because they do not say specifically "the tollhouse teaching is false." In other words, you claim that the fact that the patristic teachings concerning the nature of the soul and of judgment renders the tollhouse teaching impossible and alien and does not count because the fathers did not add the note that "therefore, the tollhouse teaching is false." Thus you accept that there are two completely opposing "Orthodox" teachings of the nature of the soul, the power of demons, the nature of salvation and Grace and of judgment, yours, and that of the fathers of the Church, and that both of them are equal and valid. Yet, if we actually accepted and followed your deceitful dictum, we would have to concede that none of the fathers of the Church, nor even our Saviour confuted the heresy of the filioque when they say repeatedly "the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father," because they are not actually addressing the filioque. Moreover, following your novel rule of "proof texts," Arius cannot be refuted, because Scripture nowhere says that Christ is "consubstantial," "uncreated in essence," etc, for although the fathers pointed out that these things were implied everywhere, they could present nothing which "spoke clearly and explicitly to the issue." This is even more obvious in the case of the refutations of Eunomius, Nestorius, Severus and the ikonoclasts. Have you never noticed what drawn out and complicated arguments the fathers had to employ to prove that the Orthodox doctrine, rather than that of these heretics, is the apostolic teaching? Why is this? Precisely because Scripture "does not speak clearly and explicitly to the issue," as you say. So none of the arguments or references to Scripture presented by the fathers is valid, for, according to your dictum, they "prove nothing."

Nevertheless, let us, for the moment, accept your criterion just as it is. But, this, Father Seraphim, is precisely the weakness of your own writing. So far as I can see, you have presented not a single patristic text which offers any proof or verification of your tollhouse theology. You offer one or two completely apocryphal texts, and the remainder of your "proof texts" of the tollhouse theology depend upon your either omitting key parts of the texts, or qualifying them with elaborate personal interpretations, or even making patent additions to them. Thus, if we examine your "proof texts" even if only with your own criteria, what are we left with? Really nothing but a series of disconnected quotations that require elaborate, imaginative and novel external interpretations to even hint at the teachings you say are there. Let us examine these "proof texts" you offer and compare them with some of mine.

b

On page 258 of your work, you quote Abba John of Raithu's introductory letter to the Ladder of Divine Ascent:

"As a ladder set up, [this book] will lead aspirants to the gates of Heaven pure and blameless, so that they may pass unhindered the spirits of wickedness, and the world rulers of darkness and the princes of the air."

You pretend here that Abba John is relating the Ladder to some sort of after death struggle with aerial demons. This is, of course, the standard Roman Catholic understanding of the Ladder (indeed, they often refer to it as "The Ladder of Judgment"). Father Seraphim, this is dishonest and highly irresponsible, because, unless you have espoused Roman Catholic theology, you know very well that Abba John is referring precisely to our struggle in this life, and there is absolutely no justification at all for your novel and unfounded reinterpretation of these words.

Now you imaginatively assert that your "tollhouses" have been experienced by certain ones who were still alive, by means of "out of body experiences." You imaginatively assert that the monk Stephen mentioned in Step Seven of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, is experiencing the "aerial tollhouses" while still alive and on his deathbed. Never mind the quandary posed for your novel theory by the fact that Stephen is heard speaking through his body while he is supposedly out of it, and that the text very clearly says that Stephen had entered into an "ecstasy of the mind" (theoria), you have already disallowed "proof texts" which do not actually prove an issue "if it talks about something a little different or does not speak clearly and explicitly to the issue." My dearest father, this text you use does not speak even so much as vaguely and remotely to the issue. The idea that Stephen is experiencing the non-existent "aerial tollhouses" in an "out of body experience" is simply a far fetched flight of fancy trying to prove something which is not even hinted at in the narrative, and which is, in fact, clearly contradicted by the text.

As another proof text of your tollhouse theology you offer:

"If the soul has Christ with it, it will not be disgraced by its enemies even at death, when it rises to heaven's entrance; but then, as now, it will boldly confront them. But let it not tire of calling upon the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, day and night until the time of its departure from this mortal life, and He will avenge it....Indeed, He will avenge it both in this present life and after its departure from the body." (St Hesychios the Presbyter).

To draw forth the tollhouse theology from such a statement is certainly extravagant. We know that some people appear to see demons and angels while on their death beds (it is unclear whether this occurs by revelation or as manifestations of their consciences), though by no means is this common, Moreover, on some occasions, a dying person appears to be tempted by demons at the hour of death, before the soul departs the body, and we could easily understand the above statement as referring to the hour of death, or we could understand the "enemies" as being our sins and vices, which would be perfectly in harmony with the consensus of the fathers. This statement certainly does not speak directly and affirmatively about your tollhouse theory. On the other hand, I offered against your tollhouse theology, the following text:

"The devil cannot touch the nature of the soul, nor can he draw nigh it at all to harm it....The devil does not touch or see the soul, but the members of the body only....for indeed if he could draw nigh the soul so as to harm it, then he would also be able to harm it after it departed the body, but this he would have to do while being unable to see it and having no power over it...." (St John the Solitary, Sixth Dialogue with Thomasios).

Certainly the above speaks very directly and specifically to the question of what power or authority the demons can have over the soul, what they can and cannot do to or with it after it departs the body. Moreover, as we shall see, I did not leave this quotation standing alone, but gave precisely the same testimony from other fathers.

You offer as proof of your tollhouse theory:

"Others [of the dying] said dolefully: `Will our soul pass through the irresistible water of the spirits of the air? - not having complete confidence, but looking to see what would happen in that rendering of accounts" (Step 5:22, The Ladder of Divine Ascent).

In the first place we do not have any saint expressing any kind of teaching here, but only the death bed thoughts of a large number of people, being blended and retold in someone else's own words. Second, there is certainly nothing to indicate the tollhouse teaching here, and the words do not specify what or where that "rendering of accounts" is to take place and how. Moreover, let the reader turn to Step Five of The Ladder, read it and see for himself what sort of gross absurdities and blasphemies one would come to by trying to turn these "spiritual pep talks" into theological revelations. It would be anti-Christian theology in the extreme, a theology of utter despair and hopelessness. Yet, from this, you attempt to draw a single, disconnected paragraph, a moral admonition, not at all an expression of teaching, but a demonstration of supreme humility, and turn it into a theological principle, a "teaching of the Church." This is just plain ridiculous at the very best.

Objecting to such a misuse of these texts and to your tollhouse theory, I offered the following "proof texts":

"But if the demons had power not even against swine, much less have they any over men formed in the image of God. So then we ought to fear God only, and despise the demons, and be in no fear of them." (St Antony the Great).

This certainly speaks directly to the point about what power demons may have over us. Remember that here, St Antony is speaking of having already had all his great struggles and battles with demonic temptations, and having already had all his visions of the soul's departures from the body.

Again, you propose as a "proof text" of your legalistic tollhouse theology:

"If we do not confess our involuntary sins as we should, we shall discover an ill defined fear in ourselves at that hour of our death. We who love the Lord should pray that we may be without fear at that time; for if we are afraid then, we will not be able freely to pass the rulers of the lower world. They will have as their advocate to plead against us the fear which our soul experiences because of its own wickedness. But the soul which rejoices in the love of God, at the hour of its departure, is lifted with the angels of peace above all the hosts of darkness." (St Diodochos of Photiki).

It is interesting that this agrees with what I have said on page twenty-two of this very letter, and it also concords very well with what I said in my book, The Soul, The Body and Death, concerning the "particular judgment." It does not, however, offer any credence to your tollhouse theory. You see here that Saint Diodochos also agrees that our only accusers are our own sins and vices. On the other hand, what is the defence of the soul? The love which it has for God. And what is it, according to the saint which hinders (or, judges) us? That fear we feel in ourselves, and that, of course, can only be our conscience. Thus, it happens that this reference from St Diodochos merely serves to prove my point, and certainly offers nothing to your tollhouse opinions.

On the other hand, in direct conjunction with the words of Saint John the Solitary cited above, I offered the following proof text against the tollhouse teaching:

"The demons, though they are extremely polluted, are not concealed from one another in their own orders; howbeit they do not see the two orders [human souls and angels] that are above them" (St Isaak the Syrian).

Basing yourself upon your distortions of your "proof texts," you personally express the following incredible doctrine:

"Justice itself demands that these inclinations to sin, these betrayals of the Redeemer should be weighed and evaluated. A judging and distinguishing are required in order to define the degree of a Christian soul's inclination to sin, in order to define what predemoninates in it - eternal life or eternal death...." (Fr Seraphim Rose).

This is precisely the apology used by the Latins for their doctrine of purgatory. Anselm, Dante and Aquinas would be delighted with such a teaching. Orthodox Christians can justly be appalled by it. St John Cassian and the Elder Senesios, whose words were presented in one of our "proof texts," do not at all agree with it. Saint Cassian says:

."...the demons cannot possibly come near to those thoughts which have not yet come forth from the inmost recesses of the soul. And the thoughts too, which they suggest, whether they are actually or in a kind of way embraced, are discovered by them not from the nature of the soul itself, that is, that inner inclination....but from the motions and signs given by the outward man."

Thus, the fathers we have cited, speaking directly and specifically to the point of the relationship of the demons with the soul, completely overturn even the possibility that the tollhouse teaching could have any substance. We could go on indefinitely, but since we intend to discuss all of your "proof texts" in some detail later, in another paper, we will stop on only one more.

You offer a quotation from the Fifty Spiritual Homilies of St Makarios the Great. This is one of the Egyptian sources I had mentioned earlier in which figurative allegories are drawn from the residual, proverbial expressions left over in the culture from the days of pagan Egypt. We also note that St Makarios' teaching on the nature of the soul was seriously erroneous. Nevertheless, let us look at the homily you refer to and see if it really does say what you assert it does:

"When the soul of a man departs out of the body, a great mystery is there accomplished. If it is under the guilt of sins, there come bands of devils, and angels of the left hand, and powers of darkness take over that soul, and hold it fast on their side. No one ought to be surprised at this. If while alive in this world, the man was subject and compliant to them, and made himself their bondman, how much more, when he departs out of this world, is he kept down and held fast by them...." You stopped here. Let us continue and see what the rest of this paragraph contains. The saint continues: "That this is the case, you ought to understand from what happens on the good side, God's holy servants even now have angels continually beside them, and the holy spirits encompassing and protecting them; and when they depart out of the body, the bands of angels take over their souls to their own side, into the pure world and so they bring them to the Lord; to Whom be glory and might forever. Amen."

How clever of you, father, to leave the last part out, and quote only the first part. If I sound sarcastic it is because your sheer dishonesty has made me a bit cynical about your writings. Nevertheless, even the first part standing alone obviously offers nothing at all to a teaching of a system of aerial demonic judgments, but merely gives some sort of description of an instantaneous event which is decided and fulfilled immediately on death, not by demonic judgment, but by the very content of the soul itself. The second half of this homily, which we quoted above, simply demolished your whole tollhouse scenario and your tollhouse theology with it, because it again teaches that the soul goes immediately and naturally to its proper place, according to whether it has become a participant in Divine Grace in this life or not. Note that the souls of the faithful are, in St Makarios' expression, carried away by the very angels who have always been with them. Compare this with two more of my "proof texts," presented against the tollhouse theology. Our holy and God bearing father John Chrysostom says:

....a soul which departs from the body does not fall under the tyranny of the devil....For if while the soul dwells in the body the devil cannot bring violence upon it, it is obvious that when it departs he likewise cannot." (full text on p.100, The Soul, The Body and Death).*

And St Antony the Great, that great wrestler with demons, who saw visions of the departure of the souls, says profoundly, and to the point:

"We ought not to fear demons or even Satan himself, `For he is a liar and speaks not a word of truth....'and with him are placed the demons his fellows, like serpents and scorpions to be trodden underfoot by us Christians....and let us not fear his visions seeing that they themselves are deceptive....Doubtless they appear; but in a moment disappear again, hurting none of the faithful....Wherefore it is unfitting that we should fear them on account of these things; for through the Grace of Christ all their practices are in vain....

"`From the beginning the devil is a manslayer and a father of vice' (Jn.8:44); while we, though this is so, are alive, and spend our lives all the more in opposing him; it is plain that they [the demons] are powerless. For place is no hindrance to their plots, nor do they look on us as friends that they should spare us; nor are they lovers of good that they should amend. But on the contrary they are evil, and nothing is so much sought after by them as wounding them that love virtue and fear God. But since they have no power to effect anything, they do nought but threaten....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)

We could go on, but let us return to your own criterion (deceitful though it is) for the acceptability of "proof texts." "A collection of `proof texts' makes sense only if it actually proves an issue in dispute, not if it talks about something a little different or does not speak clearly and explicitly to the issue."

Certainly, the issue here is "what power and authority do demons have over the souls of the faithful when they have departed the body." Let anyone examine the comparisons we have made above, and go on to examine the contents of both our respective books, even if only with this deceitful criterion of yours, and see which of the collections of "proof texts" actually verify the teachings they are being used to prove. It is certainly significant that they seek to justify the failure of your own "proof texts" by noting about them that: "Some of these references, it will be noted, are partial and do not give the whole Orthodox teaching on this subject. This is obviously because they are references to a teaching which the ascetical and hymnological writers themselves and their readers are already familiar with and which they accept, and there is no need to `define' it or justify this teaching whenever it is mentioned." (pp.259-260, your text).

This is interesting. When it suited your arguments, you absolutely disallowed any such "proof texts," but, realizing the hopeless weaknesses of your own "proof texts" you suddenly go against yourselves and come up with this lame excuse.

Would it not be more accurate to say that all your references are obscure and isolated, and that they do not offer an Orthodox teaching on the tollhouses because there is no Orthodox teaching of aerial tollhouses, and because your whole theology of an "aerial realm," "disembodied spirits," "astral projection" (because that is exactly what you are teaching with your theosophical/New Age teaching of out of body experiences) are all sheer, unmitigated Gnosticism? The very fact that we nowhere pray for the soul's safe passage through any tollhouses or demonic judgments is of singular significance and ought to have given you a clue of some sort. We find that, in almost all the "proof texts" you use, the writer of them is referring to a vision which takes place on the death bed, at the hour of death, before the soul departs the body. This is why it was necessary for you to fabricate your own theory that these instances testified to a pre death "out of body experience" of the nonexistent aerial tollhouses. That, dearest fathers, is a sheer ghost story.

Finally, you attempted to cite an article of V.Rev. Father Michael Pomozansky in your efforts to misconstrue my words. However, a careful reading of Fr Michael's article (even with the additions you made to it yourself in the translation which appeared in the journal "Nikodemos" - now "Orthodox America") shows that his conclusions far more closely parallel mine than yours.

Before approaching the "Conclusion" section of your Appendix Four, let us pause to ponder why you are, in your present book, indicating to a separate "ascetic tradition" (as opposed to what - to the theological tradition?) of Orthodox teaching. Is it not because you are aware that in some cases, monastic elders often express their moral admonitions in much more strong and allegorical terms to their monks than is found in actual theological writings of the fathers (because, in their purely theological writings, the fathers had to be more precise and circumspect)? But as we have shown, even these stronger, more allegorical monastic forms of expression do not in any way substantiate your "tollhouse theology."

On page 233 of your book, you say: "The critic's greatest wrath is directed against the Orthodox ascetic teaching on the demonic tollhouses encountered by the soul after death." I think that we have already adequately demonstrated that, as a matter of fact, there is no "Orthodox ascetic teaching on demonic tollhouses." Here again, you are putting forth some vague instructive allegories as actual teachings of the Church. We have just looked at the sort of "proof texts" you offer for turning this figurative expression into a teaching of the Church and we need make no further comment on this.

Once again, you refer back to your baseless accusations that I am trying to support some novel teaching of "soul slumber." Now, it is true, as you say, that I referred to the "imaginary after-death tollhouses." I also referred to a "tollhouse myth," by which I meant the mythology which has been built up, based on a literalistic view of the tollhouse allegories, and upon which the tollhouse theology is largely based. The mythology which has grown up around this tollhouse allegory has quite destroyed any useful purpose it may have had. This mythology is derived from sources external to the Church and I did trace the concepts of this mythology to certain named sources (Mazdean Gnosticism and other Gnostic sects).

You make much ado about my refutation of the Theodora tale which appears in the life of a certain "Basil the New." I did offer a refutation of that work and I have yet a great deal more to add to that refutation. I believe the refutation to be sound, just and correct. Reading your work, one can see that you evidently want to accept that document in a most complete sense as it tends to substantiate your own personal tollhouse theology and doctrines of "out of body experiences" and "subtle bodies." (Indeed, it is the only item you offered which did afford you any real support). However, one notices that even you yourself find it necessary to make elaborate "reinterpretations" of the narrative and attempt to explain away much of its content. You place a number of stipulations and heavily laboured excuses for its content yourselves. The fact remains that this Basil the New is not accepted as a saint by the Greek Orthodox Church and never has been.

If one desired to use this "Theodora tale," it would first be necessary to decide which version of this "great revelation" one is to accept and use. For, as you know very well, there are at least two different "authoritative versions" of this "revelation" in Russian alone, and a number of other versions as well, and they do not at all agree among themselves. Moreover, when our own Russian Synod discussed it in May of this year, they stated (through Bishop Gregory) that the Theodora story has never been considered anything other than "a pious story of a dream" even by those who do accept it. It certainly has never been considered the doctrinal touchstone you have made it out to be, and it is very far removed from the usual thought expressed concerning the malice of the opposing demons toward the departing soul.

So, in your writing and "proof texts" you have failed to establish any evidence in favour of your "touchstone of Orthodoxy," the tollhouse doctrine (which you now admit is not a doctrine at all), and you have failed completely to find the remotest support for your occult "out of body experience" theory or any justification for your espousal of the Gnostic doctrine that the soul is or has a "subtle body." On the other hand, by presenting the clear, precise teachings of the fathers, directed specifically at the question in hand, we have shown exactly what the fathers did teach concerning the prayers for those fallen asleep, the state of the soul after its repose, out of body experiences, etc. Your response is to say that the fathers of the Church did not specifically refute the tollhouse theology, so my proof texts do not count. The fathers did not specifically refute this teaching, because no one ever offered it as a teaching. Indeed, the expression, even as a moral allegory, is extremely rare and originated (in Christian literature) in Egypt, where residual ideas from pharaonic religions remained both in art and in general common expressions of the people, left over from pagan times. In other words, the tollhouse imagery, like that of the weighing of souls, was a readily available, commonly understood imagery there because it existed as part of the language of Egypt and North Africa. Doubtless, ancient Egyptian proverbial expressions contained many references to the pharaonic cult "aerial judgment stations" and "weighing of souls." This is why, apart from the apocryphal Theodora tale, it is so difficult to find the tollhouse imagery in any writings outside Egypt, and one certainly does not find the tollhouse theology in any patristic sources. The very fact that there is not the vaguest hint of a reference to "tollhouses" or aerial judgments in the services for the third, ninth and fortieth days, is in itself an eloquent statement. Your attempts to explain away the embarrassing aspects of the Theodora tale and of the tollhouse theology in general are singularly unconvincing. You attempt to reinterpret the elements of this story in such a way as to pretend that they do not exist. But they do exist, and their meaning is all too clear. The purgatorial aspects of the teaching of merits is not merely implicit, but explicit in this story and in the tollhouse theology.

You state that, "For some sixteen centuries, the fathers of the Church have spoken of the tollhouses as a part of the Orthodox ascetic teaching, the final and decisive stage of the `unseen warfare' which each Christian wages upon the earth." We ask, which fathers of the Church have spoken of this? You are claiming here, actually, that all the fathers taught this, but we have found none who have taught such a thing, and you have presented no evidence from any of the fathers that any of them ever taught such a thing. While you have attempted to interpret any references you could find to the activity of demons at the hour of death, or to the "aerial powers" as supporting your novel tollhouse theology, your attempts remain absolutely unconvincing. Often, as we said before, your interpretations require great stretches of the imagination and flights of fancy, and sometimes you literally change the whole context and meaning of the quotation you are using. And this is not the only time you have done such a thing.

6. CONCLUSION

The section of your appendix titled "Conclusion" is largely an expression of your personal opinions and that is your privilege.

We note that in this section, also, you continue your deceitful practice of purposely trying to mislead your readers about what I wrote in my book The Soul, The Body and Death. Again, as before, you attempt to attribute patristic teachings which you do not like, to me in order to trick your readers, so they will not realize that these teachings you are railing against are not mine but actually the works of some Church father. Having the words of the fathers attributed to me would be very flattering if it was not for the fact that you are doing this only for the purpose of tricking your readers. For example, on page 269 of your book, you state, "Indeed, the critic specifically states that, `the things we ask on behalf of the reposed are only proclamations of what they are going to receive anyway'." In this you are correct, but you continue your sentence with a blatant falsehood, pretending that I said what follows. What you fail to mention is that it is not I, but St Dionysios the Areopagite who teaches the correct words you quoted from my text. In his precise and detailed explanation of the purpose of our prayers for the reposed, this great apostolic father teaches us precisely this in section 3, paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of Chapter Seven of his work, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. After enumerating the things asked for in our prayers for the reposed, this apostolic father states precisely that our prayers will not obtain for those fallen asleep a "transfer to another inheritance than that due to the equivalent of his life here." He continues, "Yea, the sure traditions of the Scripture teach us that the prayers, even of the just [righteous] avail only for those who are worthy of pious prayers during this present life, by no means after death...." St Dionysios goes on to instruct us that our prayers obtain for the reposed an increase in what they already have, "Divine gifts....". He continues, "Now, the hierarch knew that these things have been promised by the infallible Scriptures; and he asks that these things may come to pass....knowing that the promises will be unfailing, he makes known clearly to those present that the things asked by him, according to the holy law, will be entirely realized....Therefore, the holy hierarch beseeches things divinely promised and dear to God, and which will, in every aspect, be given, demonstrating both his own likeness to the good loving God, and declaring explicitly the gifts which will be received by the devout."

Moreover, so far from the purgatorial tollhouses of your own tollhouse theology, St Dionysios, having learned from the mouths of the apostles themselves, says simply, "He has learned then, from the God-transmitted Scriptures, that to those who have passed their life piously, the most bright and divine life is given in return....the Divine love toward man overlooking, through its goodness, the stains which have come to them through human infirmity, since no one, as the Scriptures say, is pure of blemish."

Your quarrel, therefore, dear fathers, is not with me; it is with one of the greatest of the God-bearing apostolic fathers. Or do you consider St Dionysios the Areopagite to be in error because he does not agree with the theories of Fr Seraphim Rose?

Ultimately, then, your tollhouse theology and the various teachings which go with it rest not upon patristic sources, but upon the opinions of one or two later writers who gave a particular reinterpretation of certain patristic texts in order to substantiate their own opinions. And here is a very grave difficulty. Throughout this present question, you have repeatedly placed what you refer to as "recent fathers of the Church" in opposition to the apostolic and early fathers. In your letters, and also in references in your publications, you have made a very sharp point of this. Indeed, your associate, Fr Alexey Young, when it was pointed out that some of those you assert are "recent fathers" have strayed greatly from the teachings of the actual fathers of the Church, wrote to me:

"But my main objection is that you make the Holy Fathers, Scripture and Tradition the only authority, as though there have not been Holy Fathers in quite recent times, as though ours is not a truly living tradition, faithfully handing down to each generation that which was received by the previous one...." (Open Letter of 1/14 August, 1979),

And this is practically an echo of your own words. Let us not even consider that "tradition" which was faithfully handed down from the period of the Westernizers, but if we look seriously at this matter, we see clearly that we are being confronted here with the theology of Old Believerism. You are insisting that we accept certain late accretions as actually superior to the Apostolic Tradition itself, and you also insist that people accept your judgment as to who is and who is not a "recent father of the Church," as we see from other of your writings. Just as the Old Believers before you, you are really insisting on the superiority of recent theological accretions to the teachings of the apostles and apostolic fathers (when the latter do not agree with you) and you are, in a manner, forbidding anyone to correct these accretions with reference to the apostolic and ancient fathers.

Yet it is clear that the Scripture and the apostolic legacy is the stone upon which everything which claims to be "tradition" must be tested. It is equally clear that your tollhouse theology has been shattered to pieces on this very stone.

Quite apart from this, beloved father, it is shockingly arrogant of you to take upon yourself the prerogative of insisting that everyone must accept your opinion about who is and who is not a "recent father of the Church." No doubt, you may express the opinion that one or another theologian is a recent Church father (as we do with reference to Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky), but to insist that everyone must accept your opinion is, again, astounding arrogance.

You make much of my criticisms of the obviously purgatorial, "magical prayer" aspect of the tollhouse theology, and you assert that this is an understanding of your theology peculiar to me. This is not so at all. We have received quite a number of letters of strong support for my book from members of our clergy, Russian and non-Russian alike, and you yourselves have received a number of complaints about your book from many of these same people.

Let us turn together now to some of the particular accusations you have made regarding my writings. We cannot look at all these places or else we could end up writing a whole new book just on this subject. We will only look at a few to demonstrate your pattern of wilful misrepresentation and trickery.

You attempt to make much of my using the terms "Origenistic," "moral fables," etc. You do not point out the context in which I used them or that I was very specific in what I referred to as "Origenistic." The teaching that the soul alone is the "person" is indeed Origenistic and Platonic. So, too, is the idea of a form of the soul which corresponds to the form of the body, a type of material substratum or visible spirit-body. Such things were taught in your work and in some of the sources you employed, and they are Origenistic and Platonic. More than one highly qualified observer has mentioned that we should have added the term "Buddhistic" as well, since in some instances, both in your own writing and in at least one of your apocryphal sources, the "yin and yang" doctrine of good and evil is present. I had, however, referred to this concept as Manichean and Mithraic or Mazdean, which have much in common with Buddhism. Perhaps, as some assert, I should have also included "Buddhistic." The fact is, I did not use such terms carelessly or without cause, nor did I refer them only to some concepts which appear in your work, as you seem to assert. There are several current books in which such concepts appear. Moreover, my references to the tollhouse theology in certain terms which did not flatter it are, I think, not altogether unjust. I did not refer such terms to the figurative or allegorical use of "tax collectors" or even "tollhouses" as an instructive device to illustrate the action of the conscience on the departed soul, but to the actual tollhouse theology. And while you are now agreeing that the tollhouse teaching is not at all an Orthodox doctrine, in your "Orthodox Word," you did express it not only as an obligatory doctrine of the faith, but as a "touchstone of Orthodoxy." Nor was I referring, in my comments, to the idea of demonic temptations at the hour of death or to the idea that the demons might like to destroy the soul even after it has left the body. The "tollhouse theology" to which I was referring is, however, something of a different order. The very fact that you base your tollhouse theology on various apocryphal sources, lives of saints who are not even recognized by the Universal Church, certain Western sources of dubious authenticity and value, and stories which were clearly intended as allegorical, leaves this theology open to very serious question. Let us look, for instance, at your doctrine of the third, ninth and fortieth day services for the reposed, which you bring up on page 245 of your book. Your doctrine is based upon a single apocryphal, very questionable saying remotely attributed at one time to St Makarios, and on "common usage." Your doctrine does not, however, find a shred of verification in the Scripture, canons, divine services or fathers of the Church. Indeed, the teachings of the fathers on this subject are very opposite to the labyrinthine, legalistic doctrine you put forth. Yet some of the fathers whose works are quoted in my book The Soul, The Body and Death, are giving very specific explanations of the reasons for these services. Was there some other reason for these services about which the apostles and fathers were ignorant? Were the apostles and fathers simply neglectful in presenting their explanations? Of course not. They did give complete explanations of the reasons for these services, and it is not at all reasonable to add this new doctrine you propose, which is based exclusively upon some spurious Egyptian writing. The fact is, the fathers and the apostles did set forth for us the Orthodox teaching on the third, ninth and fortieth day services, and they did not even hint at your legalistic process of the soul wandering up and down, passing through aerial judgments and not being finally assigned to a resting place until the fortieth day, and one can find no authentic source or reason for believing such a doctrine - and you do present it on the level of an obligatory doctrine of the faith. The fact that by "common folk usage" such an idea passed into certain textbooks and was even repeated by some later saints is merely unfortunate. The idea that it becomes a "teaching of the Church" by common usage is really Old Believerism.

I am deeply grieved and sorry to have had to respond to you so sharply. Had you conducted your polemics in a sincere, honest and mature manner, this would not have been necessary. As it is, your display of arrogance has been startling, your dishonesty has been appalling. We bear you no grudge, we feel no malice or enmity toward you. We consider you dear brothers in the faith, united with us by our common Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. We sincerely hope that when this matter is finally laid to rest, you will once again enter into friendly and loving relations with us.

We love you and hope that we will again be united in mutual love and respect, so that we can aid and support one another in the great struggles for the faith which stand before us all.

With much love and respect in Christ,
your brother and co-struggler,

/s/

Deacon Lev Puhalo.