The Debate Over Aerial Toll-Houses
Extract from the Minutes of the Session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside or Russia
On 19 November/2 December, 1980, the Synod of the Bishops of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia heard: the extensive correspondence connected with
the controversy raised by Deacon Lev. Puhalo [(Ed. now Archbishop Lazarus of New Ostrog
Monastery (Synaxis Press)] with regard to a book by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose on life
after death. In the book in question a great many false teachings concerning the soul
outside the body are investigated, with however, the purpose of contrasting an Orthodox
explanation with them. However, entering a domain which has not been fully revealed to us,
and furthermore, unwillingly employing non-Orthodox materials. Hieromonk Seraphim, despite
various reservations, initiated a controversy, in which his opponent, Deacon Lev Puhalo,
paying no heed to the disclaimers, with yet greater persistence, and with a spirit of
condemnation, wrongly accuses him of heresy. This controversy can cause great harm to the
souls of the faithful.
They directed: Theologically evaluating the book of Deacon Lev Puhalo, Bishop
Gregory, in the review he made for the Synod of Bishops, reports the following:
Fearing, as is natural for an Orthodox person, the possibility of an Western or other
non-Orthodox influence, Deacon Lev Puhalo has gone to the opposite extreme and contradicts
a number of teachings which have long been accepted in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Thus
for example, fearing lest the teaching concerning the "Toll-Stations" be likened
to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory, he leaves almost no place for what in Orthodox
dogmatic theology is referred to as the "particular judgment", after which the
soul experiences a foretaste of the blessedness or the eternal torment which awaits it
after the resurrection.
The state of the soul after death Deacon Lev Puhalo represents as its utter inability
to function in any way whatsoever other than with the assistance of the body (p.7). As he
understands the matter, after its departure from the body, the soul finds itself in a
state of mute and blind repose. "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" (p.9). "…Without the body, the soul… is not even a person,
but only something 'of ' a person… the soul without the body cannot speak, nor
remember, nor discern, nor think, nor be roused, nor see… " (p.23)
Such a concept of the soul separated from the body does not correspond in the least to
the Orthodox concept. To begin with, it is at variance with the teaching concerning the
preaching of the Forerunner in Hades prior to the arrival of the Saviour there, as well as
the possibility of the souls of the Old Testament personages of heeding the preaching of
the Saviour in Hades or their going with Him in paradise. Likewise, the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus contradicts Fr. Lev's teaching. The synaxarion for Meatfare Sunday
says: "Be it known that there all shall know one another—them that they know,
and them that they have never seen, as saith Chrysostom… " The same synaxarion
teaches concerning St. Basil the Great that he "saith in his discourse on the
departed that before the general resurrection it hath been given to the saints to know one
another and to rejoice together." The very appearance of Moses on Mt. Tabor reveals
his soul as active and capable of taking part in conversation with the Saviour concerning
His redemption of the Human Race. The state and life of people beyond the grave are not
all the same, but depend upon the degree of sanctity or sinfulness of their life on earth.
After death, some souls can in no wise manifest themselves on earth, but the saints
receive such boldness that they can do good unto us in answer to our prayer.
While expressing certain healthy and good thoughts concerning life after death, Deacon
Lev Puhalo has allowed himself to become too keen on battling that which appears to him to
be scholastic, and from which he strives to free Orthodox theology. However, even such
ascetics as St. Dimitry of Rostov, or Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Bishop Sylvester
and other prominent Russian theologians as times managed to express genuinely Orthodox
truth employing the outwardly scholastic expression of the theological science of their
times, inasmuch as they drew such truth forth from the rich well of the Tradition of the
Church. Among such ancient traditions is the tradition of the so-called toll-stations,
which Deacon Lev Puhalo so determinedly dismisses, stating this doctrine, however, in an
exaggerated manner. Actually, no one can dogmatically establish the existence of the
toll-houses precisely in accordance with the form described in the dream (of Gregory
recounted in the life) of Basil the New, insofar as no direct indication thereto is to be
found in the Scriptures. However, this tradition has been preserved, with varying details,
from profound antiquity and contains nothing that is contrary to piety. It is cited in all
texts of dogmatic theology. The unorthodox explanation of Deacon Lev Puhalo, that the
soul, separated from the body can neither see nor hear, that it cannot be subjected to the
"particular judgment" of God without the body, and his very understanding of the
toll-stations as mere bargaining between the angels and the demons indicates the hastiness
of his judgments. Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), the most recent author in the field of
dogmatic theology, writes of the toll-stations in the same spirit as they are described in
the dream (of Gregory recounted in the life) of Basil the New. Archpriest Malinovsky, the
author of a dogmatic theology text valued highly by Metropolitan Anthony, writes on the
question: "How is the particular judgment conducted? What are the forms and manners
of its implementation? The Scriptures do not speak of this. A trial has two aspects: the
investigation of the innocence or guilt of the one being tried and the pronouncement of
the sentence over him. But when the trial is conducted by the by the Omniscient God, for
Whom the mortal state and worthiness of a man are ever apparent, the first aspect of the
trial must be understood exclusively in the bringing of the soul to an awareness of its
mortal state. For man's individual awareness is revealed by means of his conscience, that
incorruptible judge established by God Himself within the soul. It is exactly in this
way that one cannot accept the pronouncement of the sentence by the Almighty Being only in
the sense of the announcing of the Judge's decision to the soul; the word of God is also
the activity of His will, and for this reason the decision of the Almighty Judge is also
the blessing of a soul or the refusal to permit its entry into the Kingdom of eternal
life. Doubtless, the justice of God's judgment which determines its fate will be clearly
acknowledged by the soul itself which is judged by its own conscience" (Archpriest N.
Malinovsky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Sergiev Posad, 1909, Vol. IV, pp. 448-450).
Malinovsky mentions that even the ancient teachers, citing the account of the
toll-stations, saw it only a "weak depiction of the heavenly things" (ibid., pp.
453-454). However, in the prayer of the Church there is considerable mention of the
toll-stations themselves as attempts of the powers of darkness to affect the souls of the
departed after their departure after their departure of the body. Thus, in the canon
chanted at the parting of the soul from the body, we read: "The prince of the air,
the oppressor, the tyrant who standeth on the dread paths, the relentless accountant
thereof, do thou vouchsafe me who am departing from the earth to pass [O Theotokos]"
(Ode IV, troparia 4; also Ode VIII, troparion 2). Mention of them is also made in the
Octoechos of St. John Damascene.
In this encounter with the powers of darkness, that have caused a man to stumble in the
course of life and strive also to suggest to his soul that by its constitution it belongs
to them and not to the Kingdom of Heaven, is the particular judgment accomplished. On the
other hand, in accordance with the Savior's words, the righteous can pass through these
toll-stations unhindered" "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth My
word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation, but is passed from death unto life" (Jn 5:24). The soul of one who on
earth has completed the course of the faith, thereby frees itself from evil. The demons
have nothing in common with it and cannot touch it. Between these two aspects of
souls—of the sinful and the holy—there still stand various degrees of sanctity
or sinfulness, and in various degrees, the demons may harry them. These actions, which
must in no way be accepted as the participation of the demons in the preliminary judgment,
are what are referred to as the toll-stations. Rejection of possibility of their existence
contradicts the consciousness of the ancient Church, as this is apparent from the Canon of
Departure of the Soul.
Minimizing the significance of the fear in the face of the consequences of a sinful
life and after the departure of the soul from the body, teaching of Fr. Lev. can weaken in
the souls of his readers one of the stimuli to do battle with sin.
To maintain that the soul, having been separated from the body, finds itself in some
state of sleep, since without the body it cannot experience either blessedness or
suffering, or hear, or speak, and that the demons also cannot even see it, is contrary to
our Faith. The Church has never taught this. In certain cases the citations made by Fr.
Lev have in mind the insensibility not of the soul, but of the dead body.
How exactly disembodied souls can speak and be saved has not been revealed to us. The
Church teaches only that without the body the soul does not experience either the fullness
of blessedness or the fullness of torment. However, a pious soul already experiences
repose because it has departed from earthly pangs and testings and may be more closely
united with the Lord than it did on earth. Nevertheless, this blessedness is still only
preliminary to the complete blessedness, which we await after the reuniting of soul and
body at the general resurrection. In reply to question 61 in the Confession of the Eastern
Patriarchs, we find: "Inasmuch as an accounting will not be required of each one
separately on the day of the Last Judgment, since all is known to God; and inasmuch as at
death each one knows his own deeds, after death each one also learns of the recompense for
his deeds. For if each one knows his deeds, the sentence of God upon him is also known, as
Gregory the Theologian says in his discourse on Caesarius, his brother Thus, one must
think of the souls of sinners only from reversed perspective; i.e. that they know and
foresee the torments which await them. Neither the righteous, nor the sinful receive the
full reward for their deeds before the Last Judgment. Moreover, not all souls are found in
the same state, nor are they sent to one and the same place." In connection with this
there is the reservation that "when we say that God does not ask of us an accounting
for our life, this must be understood in the sense that we shall be given an accounting
not in the manner of human accountings" (Ibid.). To put it otherwise, life after
death is not portrayable with sufficient fullness in earthly understandings and
expressions.
Bishop Theophan the Recluse writes well of this. Referring to various visions similar
to that (recounted in the life) of Basil the New and others, he poses the questions:
"Can one definitely suppose that everything presented in them is reality of the
matter, is exactly as is depicted therein? Are they not comparative images for a more
vital and full representation of a reality not contained in such images, which is being
introduced here?… All of these impressionably express the reality, but, I maintain,
one may not think that the reality itself is exactly such, despite the fact that it is
always expressed in no other way than by means of these images… " Calling to
mind that the spiritual world is for us something mysterious, Bishop Theophan maintains
that "these images represent the reality, but are not the reality itself. It is
spiritual, noetic, devoid of anything fleshly. The Apostle Paul was caught up into
Heaven,—and what did he say of his experience? That what is there, he says, "it
is not lawful for a man to utter" (II Cor. 12:4). We have no words to express this.
Our words are crude, bound to our senses, figurative.
Thus, addressing ourselves to contemporary conjectures on the life of the soul after
death, I propose that we ought to follow the advice of Bishop Theophan," to terminate
our speculation as regards the accounts of what takes place in the spiritual world. Read,
delve deeply, be edified, but do not rush to draw any such conclusions therefrom. For that
which is there, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the
heart of man" (I Cor. 2:9) (The Soul and Angels Are Not Body, But Spirit,
Moscow: 1891, pp. 90-92).
Taking all of the forgoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve: In the
deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind that it is not pleased
the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul's
blessedness depends on how much a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and
the degree of a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness. To add
conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial
to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more
so when they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been fully
established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of mutual love turns such an
exchange of opinions from a deliberation into an argument about words. The positive
preaching of truths of the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is
not subject to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions
on questions of importance to our salvation.
In view of this, at the present time of the Synod of Bishop's demands the cessation in
our magazines of controversy on dogmatic questions and, in particular, on questions
concerning life after death. This controversy must be ended on both sides, and Deacon Lev
Puhalo is forbidden to lecture in the parishes until he signs a pledge satisfactory to the
Synod to terminate his public statements on questions of internal disputes between
Orthodox on subjects which may provoke confusion among the faithful.
(Resolved also:) To announce this resolution to Deacon Lev Puhalo and to editors of
religious magazines.
Certified as an accurate translation of the original.
+Bishop Gregory
Secretary of the Synod of Bishops
From Orthodox Life, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan-Feb, 1981), pp. 23-37.
|