Dear Readers,

We notice that on one or two of the "Old Calendarist" websites, the question of the "Toll-House" debate has been reopened from a quite one-sided point of view. Ordinarily, we do not respond to material that comes from "Old Calendarists," who spend much of their energy attacking each other and creating ever new schisms and ever more jurisdictions with a constant "defrocking" and excommunicating of each other. However, we are going to respond to this one.

For the first time, we learned of a curious and, to say the least, uncanonical action taken, it seems by a Synod. It is peculiar in many ways, and we are going to ask some reputable theologians to respond to it. We learned, from these "Old Calendarist" websites that a secret, clandestine "court" of some sort was held in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which appears to have enumerated some perceived (by them) heresies in my book, The Soul, The Body and Death. The three most peculiar aspects of this clandestine court are: (1) the accused was not a member of that jurisdiction at the time; (2) the accused was not informed that the hearing was to take place and not invited to be present to make a defence (quite uncanonical) and, (3) Bishop Gregory Grabbe had informed me somewhat earlier that he found nothing wrong with my book. In fact, it had been on sale in the Synod Bookstore, and Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory had informed me, in the presence of Archpriest Konstantine Fedoroff, that the second edition of my book had been approved by the Russian Synod. Therefore, the action cited on the "Old Calendarist" website could only have been a vengeful and malicious action taken because I had withdrawn from the Russian Church Abroad because of some very, very serious matters relating to their mission in Juneau, Alaska and other equally serious matters. The action was, it seems, as malicious as it was anti-canonical.

I mentioned that we will present refutations of the charges made by this kangaroo court, provided by reputable theologians. In the meanwhile, we are offering to any of interested readers a free copy of The Soul, The Body and Death so that they can examine the subjects mentioned and determine if, indeed the charges have any even vague merit. I will also invite those interested to return to the website regularly to read the refutations that will appear. We will begin with the preface comments of Rev. Dr. George Papademetriou, professor of theology at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary.

Moreover, since the letter on this subject, by Fr Michael Pomazansky to me, is mentioned on the "Old Calendarist" website, we are scanning that letter into this website, in its original. I want to ask you to read it carefully. Notice that in the discussion about the "Toll-House" question, Fr Michael Pomazansky clearly identifies it as an allegory, and not at all as a doctrine of faith. Note that Fr Michael says that the "toll houses" would be understood as an allegory for our own conscience, while the demons of the toll houses would be an allegory for our own evil deeds. My question in response was: if these things are allegories for something we so clearly understand, then why confuse the faithful with an allegory borrowed from Gnostic sects when we can just give them the clear, direct understanding and information. Actually, I do not see what the "Old Calendarist" sect is trying to get at mentioning this letter on their website, because it is clear that Fr Michael, in this letter, agrees precisely with what I said in my book: that the judgment takes place in our own consciences and that only our unrepented sins accuse us within our own conscience. Actually, there is more to it that this, because our salvation does not consist only in a kind of moral fascism, rather our salvation depends also upon the acquisition by us of selfless love, something which Rev Dr John Romanides speaks much about. Thus, our lack of selfless love also accuses us in our own consciences when we depart this life. This is, in fact, exactly what the "partial judgment" consists in. The judgment is called "partial" because only a part of us is present, that is, only the soul, and not the whole person. Surely not even the "Old Calendarist" sect would wish to refute so many great Holy Fathers who tell us that the soul alone is not the person, but only a part of the person. If they do, then they fall under the same condemnation that the Manicheans did, being refuted by those same Holy Fathers.

If you are interested in making an objective comparison and examination for yourself of the book The Soul, the Body and Death, please E-Mail us and we will send you a free copy. Meanwhile, let us begin the refutation of the kangaroo charges against the book with this preface of Rev. Dr. George Papademetriou, an assessment by Rev Dr S. Harakas, then Dean of Holy Cross, and assessments by Dr Alexandre Kalomiros and Fr Panagiotis Karras, and we will add considerably more later!

The Apostle Paul, teaching his disciple the Apostle Timothy, "how one ought to conduct himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God" (1Tim 3:15), writes to him in the second epistle: "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some do honour, and some do dishonour (or base usage)" (2Tim 2:20). The Apostle has in mind the people in the Church when he speaks of vessels, but we have the right of employing his thought in a simpler and more literal, yet still a broader, sense.

The history of the Orthodox Christian Church, continuing from the Apostles, has now come to the end of its second millennium of existence. Throughout the process of her broad and many-sided growth, the Church has diligently preserved only the truths of the faith, the dogma of faith. Upon their foundation the tree of the Church developed in all directions, nourished by the grace of the Spirit of God. The wealth of its spiritual contents on its own increased, and at the same time its material contents also grew, and often the one would give place to the other. Much was acquired simply for preservation; other things have been carried away by the river of time into the realm of the forgotten, and now on certain rare occasions, something may float to the surface, thanks to the efforts and searches of special investigators and researchers. The Church herself regards everything conservatively and patiently (indulgently), and it has no persons who are assigned to the task of separating the valuable from that which is not so valuable. It has been forced only at certain times to uproot the tares from the field of wheat, both in the spiritual and in the material sense. From such a conservative attitude, the Church does not suffer any harm. It happens sometimes that something which seemed of little value later turns out to be both beneficial and important. The Church, as it were, says, those losses suffered as a result of the persecutions of the Church and of Christianity, wars and the destructive elements of nature are sufficient. If we are to speak of literature (written works), the Church rejects only that which is an evilly-intended forgery or a heretical concoction.

Let us speak a bit concerning genuine Church literature. Of course, all the various forms of literature are not of the same value; among them there is a gradation of value passing from sanctity all the way to simple usefulness.

Here, approximately, are these gradations:

1. The Four Gospels. They are kept in the altar of the Temple on the Holy Table. Before readings from them we hear: "Wisdom, Aright!"

2. The Epistles and Paremia (primarily from the Old Testament). The exclamation: "Wisdom!", but one may sit while listening.

3. The various service books.

These forms of literature are the legacy of the Temple.

4. Patristic literature.

5. Lives of saints.

These, while they are used for reading in the church services, are primarily for private reading (in monasteries - in the refectory).

6. Theological science, academic theology and various theological literature.

7. Ecclesiastical and historical sciences, practical textbooks and reference manuals.

8. Pious accounts, edifying parables. This is simply morally edifying reading in an easy form that is accessible to all.

We ask to be excused for such a lengthy introduction. Let us now pass on to the questions concerning prayer for the dead in the article in question.

One must agree with the author of the letter, The article has essential weaknesses.

We are talking about the Church's commemoration of the dead. Part of the material in the article is concerned with the teaching of the Church, dogmatic theology; but another part with pious accounts and, finally, with Church and popular customs. In the article there is no distinction made concerning the dignity of the material presented, and thus matters which do not concern the dogma of the Church are dogmatized. Let us point out what we have in view:

We find an appropriate example of this in the footnotes of the author. There is no need to discuss the prayerful or liturgical meaning of "kolyva", as an offering for the dead. For it is simply an expression of the desire to treat those who participated in the prayers for the dead, thank them for their love, as the Apostle says: "all is good and there is nothing worthy of condemnation that is done with the word of God and prayer". Even more so, there is no use in explaining the "meaning" of wheat in the kolyva or what the honey and sugar in it "mean" or "symbolize" But of course, these thoughts were all placed in a footnote.

In accordance with ancient views, it is accepted to offer special prayers on the third and fortieth days; these days, these very numbers in the Scriptures, in general, represent something sacred. But the Church does not teach that commemoration on these days, as on the ninth day, is "indispensable". "Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man." The days are not the important point.

In such points of the article as the quantity of commemorations, of their ritual forms (candles, prosphora), the skeptical reader could even read in the material interests of the clergy or the parish church; people are given to such criticism.

"The Church established" we read here. But in fact only one thing is necessary and required from the believer. Other things are offered and regulated by the Church for good order and benefit. A third category is permitted as a good intention or custom which has arises among the people of the Church, and these are given their proper forms for the Church.

In connection with this, there arises a question which the author of the letter himself does not pose, but which is essential.

Do the dead need prayers from us? Can the sins of a man be removed by the prayers of other men? The answer is simple. We know that the Church is, in all its depth "a bond of love", where there is One for all - Christ. Therefore in His Body, the Church, one must pray for all and all for each one. This idea is expressed in our services, especially in the prayers of the priest. We pray for those close to us as a duty of love regardless of whether our brother or sister needs our prayers or even wants them.

Much regarding prayers for the dead can appear illogical. We note that the more devoted a person was, the more prayers are offered for his repose. The Church is, as it were, indifferent to great sinners and apostates. Why is this? And in general, do the dead need our prayers? God Himself is merciful and loves mankind, and would He not forgive the dead person without our praying for him? The answer is given in the Gospel and the Epistles of the Apostles. In them there are given three axioms of Christianity. Death does not exist. Pray for one another. Love never ceases. (Rom. 14; James 5; 1Cor 13). "Acquire friends," the Saviour commanded, "so that when you are in poverty, they might receive you into eternal dwelling places." In the parable of our Lord concerning the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man had no one to pray for him when he died and to care for his brothers on the earth. Why? He had not acquired love toward himself on earth.

To forgive sins - this is only within God's will and God's power. "Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow" (Ps 50). And yet we pray for them, for their repose. Why? First of all, we ask for mercy from God, and secondly, for the sake of that grace-filled fire which burned and warmed, to a greater or lesser degree, the reposed, that this fire be maintained, sustained through the change into another form of being; that the fear of God and contrition not be overcome by the fear of one's own unworthiness, of one's own sins. In the prayers of one's own brothers on earth and even more so in the prayers of the saints of the heavenly Church, love is at work, it is the necessary sustenance for the dead person, and therefore the Church not only prays for him itself but constantly calls upon the saints in heaven entreating prayers for all the reposed members of the Church.

Let us now go on to the material in the article which specifically called forth the concern of the author of the letter. We think it possible that this concern expresses also the concern of others. We allow the thought that our Eastern, traditional Church in the sphere of religious psychology is not so strict in the demand for being logical as the Western, which is brought up in a more rationalistic direction. However, allow us to state our understanding of the matter.

We mentioned at the beginning "pious accounts" which are in the article. Our Eastern, pious readers from ancient times have loved to read anthologies of brief, easy stories from the lives of the ascetics, the desert fathers, concerning their journeys, their struggles, their meetings with one another, their conversations, their relation to the desert around them, and to the humble and at the same time miraculous revelations in their lives and acts. Up to the most recent times, such anthologies have been popular, such as "The Spiritual Meadow", the "Lasiac History". These little stories often contain in their naive simplicity much that is allegorical and moral instruction. They are not historical material, and therefore it is not so important as to who is named in the account or whom specifically it concerned. And there is no insult to a person if he is named by mistake.

For example, the account of the conversation of St. Macarius with the skull he found. This conversation attracts attention because of its originality. The skull says that is was formerly that of a pagan priest. But what is its meaning? In the way of life of the person whose brain once worked in the skull? Hardly. "Macarius listened and placed the skull on the earth and buried it." Did Macarius not think to pray for that man? To make the sign of the cross over him? Or to sympathize with him? Why? Because this is hopeless. And this would have been sinful even. But he does not throw his discovery on the ground, but buries it; in this way he expressed his respect for the man. And this is edifying. But what about the conversation? It is an allegory, a parable. But it also might be the spiritual insight of a holy person. Do the Holy Scriptures not offer us examples of such spiritual insight?

A separate question and perhaps even a protest was evoked from the author of the letter by the account of the dream of Blessed Theodora concerning the toll houses, in the life of St. Basil the New. What is this dream needed for, when it introduces into the heavenly sphere concepts and actions which are purely earthly - the image of toll houses or custom stations in heaven, images of arguments for the soul between angels and demons? Let us reply that all this is expressed as a dream, the dream of the disciple of Basil the New, and it is given as an account of what the disciple saw in this dream. Our dreams are also in the form of real and earthly images. And at the same time our dreams can be allegorical. They can express our emotional state, our imagination, and often our illness both of body and soul, dressing them in the form of living beings.

In this instance the dream is recounted just as it was. We might allow that the narrator of the life of St. Basil the New put it into a certain order, put the sins of people into a certain scheme, as this is generally accepted among ascetic writers. But regardless, it is thanks to this full scheme of the falls and weaknesses of men that the account attracted such attention and became so popular among persons seeking moral perfection. But of course this dream is allegorical and is made up of a series of symbols. We are earthly, and we cannot speak of heavenly things with any other language than our earthly tongue; we do not know the tongues of angels. In the Psalms we address the Ruler of All: "Incline Thine ear' stretch forth Thy right hand; draw out Thy sword; chastise and defend with Thy high arm." The Metropolitan of Moscow, Makary, reminds us that we should understand such accounts in as lofty (spiritual) a manner as possible. We can only accept his advice.

Let us take this earthly side of the symbolism into the spiritual understanding. Theodora is the soul of man; the angels - its virtues; the demons - its sins. Both are in the soul of a man and perhaps after death are found, as it were, on the scales of a balance. Is this image inconsistent with our religious concepts? Talking about the "balance" we imitate the symbolism contained in our hymns: "Thy Cross is found as the measure between the two thieves; for the one was brought down to hades by the weight of his blasphemy, but the other was lightened of his sins unto the knowledge of theology: O Christ God, glory to Thee" (Troparion of the 9th Hour).

The consummation of our redemption was actualized for us by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Cross, and our beatitude or condemnation will be realized after our own death. Our Holy Orthodox Church speaks of Christ's authority on the doctrine of the last things or eschata. The Church communicates the message of the Holy Scripture as delivered by the Holy Fathers.

In our day, there are numerous false doctrines and spiritually detrimental teachings about ; death, from atheistic ideologies and philosophies to cults and sects that pervert the authentic message of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as manifested in the Holy Scriptures. The Church, through its pastors and archpastors, guides the people in the correct doctrines of our Holy Faith. The Holy Spirit guides those who dwell in the household of God to discern the 1 true faith and preach it to God's people.

This present work by Archbishop Lazar is a handbook on the Orthodox doctrine of the eschata and life after death. This study is very impressive, for it is based on the Sacred Scriptures as interpreted by our Holy Fathers. The text is greatly enriched with patristic quotations and appendices of long texts on the topic from the Orthodox Fathers. This book is extremely important in communicating our Holy Orthodox faith to contemporary people who seek authentic Christian teachings and a healthy spiritual guidance to attain beatitude. I highly recommend this book to Orthodox and non-Orthodox readers alike, for spiritual edification and a greater understanding of the hope we have in the everlasting life.

Rev. Dr. George Papademetriou
Professor of Theology, Director of the Library,
Greek Orthodox School of Theology

In this continuing discussion about the so-called "aerial toll houses" and the commemoration of the reposed, it is inevitable that we must address the question of the heretical, but much publicised book "The Soul After Death." Rather than review it ourselves, we are offering the reviews of two Greek theologians. The first review is actually a series of answers to questions about the book by the noted Greek theologian and professor of Holy Cross Orthodox Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Stanley Harakas. The second review is an official report made to one Orthodox Jurisdiction regarding the book. We believe these two documents will give an accurate and fairly complete review of the book.

In the December 6, 1984 edition of THE HELLENIC CHRONICLE, Rev Dr Stanley Harakas, then dean of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary, wrote the following answer to a question to the editor concerning Fr Rose's heretical book, and the teaching about "aerial toll houses" in general:

Dear Father,

I recently read a book by Rev. Seraphim Rose entitled, The Soul After Death. There were many, many teachings that I read for the first time. My question is: "Are these valid Orthodox interpretations and teachings?" (There follow the four questions listed below, which I will briefly respond to.) (D.S. North Royalton, Ohio)

REV DR HARAKAS' ANSWER:

1. Does the soul linger near the body or earth for the first three days?

Though this is a commonly held opinion among Mediterranean peoples, including the Greek people, it finds no answer in the formal teaching of doctrine in the Orthodox Church. We do not know if such is the case, probably because it is not important that this view be accepted in regard to our salvation. Since there is no clear doctrinal teaching regarding it, there is no reason why we would have to accept it.

2. Is the soul met by angels at the moment of death?

Sometimes poetic and sermonic language used in the Church does indicate this. Again, however, most doctrinal treatments of angelology with which I am familiar, do not support this as a formal teaching of the Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, iconography does include the presence of angels at the last judgment, but only sometimes are angels depicted as present at the moment of death. Again, there does not seem to be enough evidence to consider this a doctrinal teaching of the Church.

3. Are prayers and almsgiving able to bring relief to the souls of the deceased?

This is clearly the teaching of the Orthodox Church. We do not know what kind of relief, or to what extent our prayers can help the deceased, for our Church teaches that all progress in our life as persons growing in God's image and likeness ends with our lives in this world, and upon our death. Nevertheless, the unity of the Church, between the Church Militant (the faithful living) and the Church Triumphant (the faithful dead) permits and calls for prayer for our beloved dead.

Some efforts were made during the 17th century to work out a more detailed understanding of the nature of the "help" provided for the dead by our good works and our prayers, but these views have not been widely accepted or taught in our Church. As a result, as one writer puts it, "The exact bounds of this relationship, and the conception of the state of such persons and of their condition before the General Judgment does not seem to be very clear from current Orthodox teaching." What is clear from late Jewish history (2 Maccabees 12:43) was that "a sin offering for the dead" was made, and the earliest liturgical practices of the Church, especially in the earliest Divine Liturgies which we have, and the writings of the Holy Fathers, that "through charitable works, the prayers of the Church, the Holy Eucharist, help and comfort are afforded to those who have died in the faith." (Androutsos, Dogmatike, p.427).

4. And the big question, "What about the toll houses?"

I don't think that it is such a "big question." The idea that when we die we have to go past a number of "toll houses," detaining the soul for testing of the sins which it has committed and requiring payment for them," is certainly a dramatic way of indicating our moral and spiritual responsibility for our lives in this world. However, the overwhelming doctrinal teaching of the Church does not see these statements as anything more than rhetorical devices. "Toll houses" at most, might be called a "theologoumenon" (that is, an optional theological opinion), but for the vast majority of Orthodox teachers of the faith of a the Church, such views are either unknown (not mentioned), acknowledged as having some minor elements of tradition supporting them, but not official doctrine, or, finally, simply erroneous misinterpretations, to be condemned. It is this last opinion that many of Fr Rose's "old calendarist" critics have adopted. I tend to agree with them on this matter.

I would suggest that you rather read the following accounts of the Orthodox teachings regarding eschatology (the doctrine of the last things) rather than this quite controversial book, for an authoritative understanding of the Church's doctrine on the last things. .... A bit polemical, but theologically on target, it appears to me, is Fr Lev Puhalo's (now Archbishop Lazar) The Soul, The Body, and Death. For a rather full and middle of the road, generally accepted perspective, read Constantine Callinicos' Beyond the Grave. For two very short summaries of Orthodox teaching on eschatology, read Bishop Maximos Aghiorgoussis' The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, pp.166-168, in A Companion to the Greek Orthodox Church and John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, chapter 11.

Dr Alexandre Kalomiros,
Od. Paulos Melos
Thessaloniki, Greece.

Thessaloniki, Dec. 19/Jan.l, 1981
St Martyr Bonifatius

Reverend Father Lev (now Archbishop Lazar),

I received your "open Response to the St Herman Brotherhood" and thank you. It would be unjust to pass in silence the great personal benefit from the study of your book, "The Soul, the Body and Death." You brought to us, in texts of the Holy Fathers, what I always felt was the truth on the subject of death. Your work is of great importance to the world today, because it reveals the teaching of the Church to mankind whose thought has been distorted by so many false teachings and traditions of men.

I think that our most important task today is to be absolutely honest towards the apostolic and patristic teaching in all respects and to be courageously bold in the struggle against human traditions, not permitting ourselves to give way for the sake of a false unity in the Church. There is no other base for unity but truth; all the rest is nothing but minor ecumenism.

Human traditions have adulterated our faith. Orthodoxy, alas, has become for too many, actually some kind of Old Believerism. Many fight with teeth and nail to defend what they received from their respected, and sometimes holy, elders and teachers, but in reality they propagate the very teachings which are responsible for the repulsive darkness of the Western world, which brought humanity to apostasy, atheism and the gates of Hades.

We must realize that we, present-day Orthodox, carry with us a dark heritage, so perfectly mixed with the light of Holy Tradition that it makes it all the more dangerous. What a catastrophe if we ourselves drink poisoned water and give it to the thirsty world also. What a catastrophe if the world, sick from this half-truth, gives up hope!

Is it not true that our own "Orthodox" teachers, in Universities, seminaries and even monasteries have taught us to believe in a revengeful God, and to consider Orthodox all the unOrthodox Western teachings on satisfaction of God; justice; or to believe that we can make an ikon of God-hood; or to believe that God needs time to create, even if this time is only 6 times 24 hours? Did they not teach us to consider matter, which is created by God, as something bad, as the reason of our mischief, and the soul as a self-existent and, by its nature, co-eternal god!

How can we say that we are Orthodox and that we fight against the heresy of our times, Ecumenism, in order to remain Orthodox, when we have distorted understanding on the most fundamental truths of God, man and creation!

But Holy Tradition of the Church of Christ is living in spite of all "Orthodox" teachers of Western mentality. And this living Tradition is proved by written Tradition: the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers. We must adhere to this Holy Tradition in spite of all opposite currents which will try to drown us. This confession is the only sacrifice we sinners can offer to our loving Creator and to our fellow men.

So your struggle is crucial, because without true faith monasticism becomes a vain struggle without spiritual fruits, and confession of Orthodoxy an empty word for clergy and laity. What use it is to confess Orthodoxy to the outside when we demolish it from the inside!

To be afraid to answer the truth, when distorted teachings appear publicly, because of the danger to scandalize some of the faithful and from fear to create divisions, is not only a veiling and obscuration of truth but also a tactic of over protectionism, which is keeping the great numbers of the faithful in a state of immaturity, unable to digest their own food and always in need of already digested food from the mouth of their spiritual fathers.

It was your imperative duty to answer, since you knew the answer which the Sacred Scripture and the Holy Fathers give. But it was not only your duty, it is the duty of all those who know the truth on the subject to reply to the falsehood. The fathers of the Church acted in the same way. They did not remain silent when false teachings began to be spread.

So, I must express my gratitude for your courage, your straightness and the hard work you did searching, writing and publishing the truth, and my hope that many will be enlightened and that our brothers who were led into error by the false traditions of men, and thought it their duty to defend them, will realize the mistake and will no more insist.

As for St Makarios the Egyptian and his fifty homilies, it is really regretful that such an important father of the Church, with so sweet teaching full of the living water of the Holy Spirit, was darkened by the ignorance and irresponsibility of some early editors, who thought it their duty to add an appendix to the fifty homilies of the father, the controversial text of an unknown writer with the title: "The revelation of an angel about apocryphal and ineffable mysteries, and about the commemoration of those fallen asleep", which they falsely attributed to St Makarios. This is really an inadmissible text, but it has nothing to do with St Makarios.

It is a fact, which began to be recognized in historical and archeological sciences, that archaeologists and historians had the tendency to correct the ancient historians when they said things which did not correspond to the modern conceptions and beliefs which were universally admitted. Little by little, however, the remnants of the ancient world came to light and they always prove that the ancient writers were exact and that the correction made to them by modern science was incorrect. I think that something parallel is happening with the fathers of the Church and modern theology. As we begin to understand again the fathers and their mentality, their point of view, their whole way of thinking, which is so different from the way of thinking of the rationalistic world in which we grew up, we little by little stop our habit to correct them and to find contradictions amongst them, which they never mention as such themselves. On the contrary, they always tried to explain the seeming contradictions and differences by bringing in evidence the different point of view of the other father and his purpose in writing.

This is how I see things. I would be grateful to hear your remarks.

/s/

Alexandre Kalomiros