Search Results for: popovic

On St. Justin Popovich and Communion with the Serbian Patriarch

In response to a question we received…

Bp. Athansije, retired Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina

We were closely acquainted with the Blessed Father Justin and we know that he had never broke communion with any of the Orthodox Churches or a Bishop or a Patriarch, not even with the Serbian Patriarch Germanos (1958-1990)– as some zealots ‘shamelessly lie’ — not even when the Patriarch Germanos was one of the ‘presidents of the WCC’ (a formal and honorary title without any binding conditions or duties as indeed was the participation of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the WCC). As a free and responsible member of the Church of Christ, Justin prophetically reproved and, when necessary, criticized in written form (having written a couple of criticism letters to Patriarch Germanos and the Synod, inter alia, the letters pertaining to superficial western ecumenism). But on no account did he ever create a schism, but on the contrary used to say: “Schisms are easily made but they are enormously difficult to heal” (therefore he opposed the unwisely made and increasingly deepening ‘American Schism’ just as he was against ‘the Macedonian Schism’). (St. Justin Popovich, Notes on Ecumenism. Commentary on Father Justin’s Notes, pp. 36-37)

St. Justin Popovich on Orthodox Ecumenism

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

You have raised many questions and asked my opinion on various issues; whole books can be written on each of them; therefore, I have to be very brief, as brief as possible.

The attitude towards the non-orthodox Christian world, first and foremost, one must establish oneself in Orthodoxy with one’s mind and heart and life: in it’s Holy Mysteries and holy virtues; thereby catholicizing oneself, one’s mind and heart and life; living constantly with “all the saints” for this is only way to know divine-human depths and heights and breadth of everything belonging to Christ: to live “with all the saints” = to think “with all the saints” = to feel “with all the saints” = to pray “with all the saints” = to love “with all the saints”. Only in this way the holy and infallible criterion of Truth is provided = of the Church of Christ which invariably is the Hypostatic Truth of Christ the God-man, neither anyone or anything other than Him: “the fullness of Him who fills all in all.”

…”Ecumenisms” are in fashion. But, it seems to me, the most important thing therein is being overlooked: Ecumenism of the Theanthropic Truth is heart of Theanthropic Orthodox ecumenism, which invariably is the Hypostasis of the God-man Christ, in its cosmic, pan-cosmic, above-cosmic and all-embracing omneity as well as in its historical concreteness. On no account can man, or anything human, be a criterion, a symbol, or a concretum of ecumenism. Man, whoever he may be, can never be a criterion, for this but only and always the God-man. The entire tragedy of the West resides in its rejection of Christ’s God-manhood, both as modus vivendi and modus cognoscendi, through various kinds of hominisms and humanisms. (Letter Dec. 25, 1964)

St. Justin Popovich on Intercommunion

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

Intercommunion, that is to say participating with heretics in the Holy Sacraments, and especially in the Holy Eucharist, is the most shameless betrayal of our Lord Jesus Christ, Judas’ betrayal. It is especially the betrayal of the whole of the one and unique Church of Christ, of the Holy Tradition of the Church. One would have to rid oneself of one’s Christlike way of thinking and one’s conscience before the various sacraments, before their holy meanings, and the holy commandments in order to do this.

First of all we would have to ask ourselves on what Ecclesiology and on what Theology of the Church is “intercommunion” based? This is because all of Orthodox Theology is not founded on or based on “inter-communion,” but upon the theanthropic reality of communion, that is to say upon theanthropic Communion itself. (cf. 1 Cor. 1: 9; 10: 16-17; 2 Cor. 13: 13; Heb. 2: 14; 3: 14; Jn. 1: 3) The idea of inter-communion is contradictory in itself and totally inconceivable for the Orthodox Catholic conscience.

The second fact, indeed a sacred fact of Orthodox faith, is the following: In Orthodox teaching about the Church and the Sacraments, the single most unique mystery is the Church itself, the Body of the God-man Christ, so that she is the only source and the content of all divine Sacraments. Outside of this theanthropic and inclusive Mystery of the Church, the Pan-Mystery itself, there are no and cannot be any “mysteries”; therefore, there can be no inter-communion of Mysteries. Consequently we can only speak about Mysteries within the Context of this unique Pan-Mystery which is the Church. This is because the Orthodox Church, as the Body Christ, is the source and the foundation of the Sacraments and not the other way around. The Mysteries, Sacraments, cannot be elevated above the church, or examined outside the Body of the Church.

Because of this, in accordance with the mind of the Catholic Church of Christ, and in accordance with the whole of Orthodox Tradition, the Orthodox Church does not recognize the existence of other mysteries or sacraments outside of itself, neither does it recognize them as being mysteries, and one cannot receive the sacraments until one comes away from the heretical “Churches,” that is to say the pseudo-Churches, through repentance to the Orthodox Church of Christ. (Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ, pp. 172-174)

From the Second Vatican Council (1965) to the Pan Orthodox Council (2016)

Holy and Great Council Logo

                 Holy and Great Council Logo

Signposts on the Way to Crete [1]

by Protopresbyter Peter Heers

It is an overused but necessary cliché to state that the Orthodox Church is the Church of the Oecumenical Councils. It is more essential to state that the Orthodox Church not only held and lived through those Councils, it also lives daily by the words spoken by the Holy Apostles in that first of all Church Councils in Jerusalem: it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15:28); first to the Holy Spirit and then to the Apostles, and all the successors of the Apostles. This theanthropic way of being, which began in earnest in council on the day of Pentecost, is integral to, irremovable from, the life of the Orthodox Church and of Orthodox Christians.

It is the implication of this reality, or rather the absence of evidence thereof among those at the highest levels of the Church, which makes my presentation to you tonight all the more difficult, even painful.

The Orthodox Church stands just weeks away from the long awaited “Great and Holy Council,” which will convene in Crete on the Feast of Pentecost. This Council is unique in the history of the Church for the length of time it has been under preparation, but also for another first: the degree to which its preparatory meetings, organization and certain of its texts have, under the influence of a council of the heterodox, the Second Vatican Council, diverted from the Orthodox way.

This is the reason that, immediately upon the publication of the pre-synodical texts, a wave of objections arose on a pan-Orthodox level. Certain among the more fanatical enthusiasts of ecumenism have attempted to downplay the serious and studied critiques which have been levelled against the pre-synodical texts and the Council itself asserting the criticism is coming from “extremists” and “fanatics” who are “against the council,” have no respect for the conciliar system or an ecclesiastical ethos. These critics neglect the fact that objections to the ecclesiologically abysmal texts have been expressed on a pan-Orthodox level by:

  1. Professors of Theology from Orthodox Theological Schools.
  2. Monastic Brotherhoods, including the Holy Community of Mt. Athos, monasteries in Moldavia, which have also ceased commemoration of their chief hierarch because he accepted, under pressure from the Patriarch of Moscow, the pre-synodical texts, and monasteries in Greece, Georgia and Bulgaria have expressed sharp disagreement.
  3. Dozens of bishops from throughout the Orthodox world have expressed their categorical opposition to the texts as they presently stand. Among these are more than twenty hierarchs from the Church of Greece which have issued forceful statements opposing aspects not only of the pre-synodical texts but also the Council itself, some of which have, for reasons of conscience, declined to participate. In the much-embattled Orthodox Church of the Ukraine, the exceptionally beloved and highly honoured Bishop Longin ceased commemoration of the Patriarch of Russia after he pushed through the Holy Synod acceptance of the pre-synodical texts.
  4. Finally, but most importantly, the Holy Synods of Local Churches, such as the Church of Cyprus, have expressed sharp criticism of aspects of the pre-synodical texts. The hierarchy of the Church of Greece will meet next week to consider the objections of many hierarchs and publish either their rejection of the texts or recommendations for substantial changes. The Holy Synods of the Churches of Bulgaria and Georgia, in spite of intense external pressure exerted against them, have issued unanimous decisions which reject aspects of the pre-synodical texts. And the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has issued an extensive and well-documented critique of the pre-synodical texts along the same lines as the Local Churches mentioned above.

Hence, in our examination of the Council we do not stand alone but join a large and growing segment of the Orthodox hierarchy and clergy who are calling attention to serious problems with the Council and the texts hierarchs are being asked to endorse.

Let us now turn our attention to the matter at hand. In our analysis we will revisit a number of historical and theological “signposts” the Church has passed on its way to Crete, after which we believe the following will be clear: the way of the Pan Orthodox Council does not resemble the theanthropic way of the Apostles; and the ecclesiology the Council is being asked to embrace has never been recognized as “good to the Holy Spirit” or to the preceding successors of the Apostles, the Holy Fathers.

Signposts on The Way of the Pan Orthodox Council

1. The Beginning

The Second Vatican Council was announced by Pope John XXIII on January 25, 1959, and held 178 meetings in the autumn of four successive years. The first gathering was on October 11, 1962, and the last on December 8, 1965.

The first Pan Orthodox Conference, which was called in order to begin preparations for Pan-Orthodox Council, took place in 1961, just three years after the announcement of the Second Vatican Council by the Pope and one year before its commencement.

While today, “it is, in the final analysis, impossible to ascertain for certain which side influenced the other,” [2] that the two councils began in earnest together and the Orthodox side regularly compares its work to Vatican II is undoubtedly a signpost of significance.

2. Methodological Similarities

Although it may be contested that the Patriarchate, in calling the First Pan Orthodox Conference in Rhodes, was reacting to the calling of the Second Vatican Council, what is quite clear is that the methodology adopted in Rhodes and henceforth, was wholly taken from Vatican II. Indeed, it is undisputed in ecumenical circles that the organizers of the Pan Orthodox Council had as their model for the pre-synodical committees and the functioning of the Council itself the modus operandi of the Second Vatican Council.

This is the second signpost on the way to Crete which alerts us to a foreign source of inspiration for the Council.

As researcher Maria Brun, a Roman Catholic specialist on the Pan-Orthodox Council at the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Center in Chambessy, has written: “it is well known that the way in which the Second Vatican Council was carried served as the prototype for the work of the preparatory commission of the Pan Orthodox Council” and that “the Orthodox Church . . . had recourse to the Second Vatican Council for its inspiration.” [3]

Roman Catholic researchers of the Second Vatican Council and the Pan Orthodox Council are not alone in reaching this conclusion. The great Professor of Dogmatics and Saint of the Church, Justin Popovich likewise came to this conclusion. Far from praising matters, St Justin Popovich, in his 1976 memorandum to the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, saw in this approach to convening and organizing the Council a sure sign of its alienation from Orthodox Tradition and pledge of its falsity.

He wrote:

“In reality, all of this manifests and underscores not only the usual lack of consistency, but also an obvious incapacity and failure to understand the nature of Orthodoxy on the part of those who at the present time, in the current situation, and in such a manner would impose their “Council” on the Orthodox Churches – an ignorance and inability to feel or to comprehend what a true ecumenical council has meant and always means for the Orthodox Church and for the pleroma of its faithful who bear the name of Christ. For if they sensed and realized this, they would first of all know that never in the history and life of the Orthodox Church has a single council, not to mention such an exceptional, grace-filled event (like Pentecost itself) as an ecumenical council, sought and invented topics in this artificial way for its work and sessions; – never have there been summoned such conferences, congresses, pro-synods, and other artificial gatherings, unknown to the Orthodox conciliar tradition, and in reality borrowed from Western organizations alien to the Church of Christ.” [4]

3. Common Aims with the Second Vatican Council

A third signpost which alerts us that the Pan Orthodox Council is not following the Holy Fathers is the stated purpose of the Council. Imitating totally the Second Vatican Council, it shares with it the raison d’être for its calling: renovation or “renewal” of the internal life and organization of the Church. Like Vatican II, the Pan-Orthodox Council is being called not to confront dogmatic error, as has every previous universal council, but to renovate and re-organize the Church.

In an article dating back from when Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was still a Metropolitan, in the journal The National Catholic Reporter, the Patriarch said the following, revealing his intentions for the Pan Orthodox Council:

“Our aims are the same an John’s (Pope John XXIII): to update the Church and promote Christian unity… The Council will also signify the opening of the Orthodox Church to non-Christian religions, to humanity as a whole. This means a new attitude toward Islam, toward Buddhism, toward contemporary culture, toward aspirations for brotherhood free from racial discrimination…in other words, it will mark the end of twelve centuries of isolation of the Orthodox Church.” [5]

4. “Free From Dogmatism”

Moreover, as has been stressed, this is – like Vatican II – a “non-dogmatic” council at which dogmas are not to be removed from the “storehouse,” as Patriarch Athenagoras is famously quoted as saying. [6] With this similarity with Vatican II we have arrived at the forth signpost on our way to Crete.

The First Pan Orthodox Pre-Concilar Conference in 1976 (to which St. Justin wrote in response) decided, perhaps inspired by the example of Vatican II (which the Pope wanted “free from dogmatism”), to not directly address the dogmas and the canons of the Church, but nonetheless to make decisions of a theological and ecclesiological (i.e. essentially dogmatic) nature based upon them. [7]

Thus, we have a double-minded, mixed-message coming from the organizers: one the one hand it is a “non-dogmatic” council (unheard of) and yet, on the other hand, decisions made will be of a theological and ecclesiological nature.

In effect, this sends a message to the faithful, not only to the laymen but also to clergy, even bishops, which mollifies them and neutralizes vigilance. It is as if to say: “nothing to see here, keep calm and move along,” when in actuality there is a new ecclesiology, a new dogmatic teaching as to what constitutes the Church, being expressed and sanctioned.

Contrast this with the approach of the Holy Fathers, both to the need to “dogmatize” in order to confront schism and heresy (there is no shortage of either in our day!) and to the purpose of the Oecumenical Council.

St. Justin explains:

“Historical reality is perfectly clear: the holy Councils of the Holy Fathers, summoned by God, always, always had before them one, or at the most, two or three questions set before them by the extreme gravity of great heresies and schisms that distorted the Orthodox Faith, tore asunder the Church and seriously placed in danger the salvation of human souls, the salvation of the Orthodox people of God, and of the entire creation of God. Therefore, the ecumenical councils always had a Christological, soteriological, ecclesiological character, which means that their sole and central topic – their Good News – was always the God-Man Jesus Christ and our salvation in Him, our deification in Him.”

The irony and tragedy of the matter lies in the fact that we are faced with “the extreme gravity of a great heresy” which has distorted the Orthodox Faith and is tearing asunder the Church and even depriving many of salvation. This heresy is, of course, the pan-heresy of the new ecumenist ecclesiology which denies the Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church. Instead of following Vatican II in embracing this new anti-ecclesiology a council should be called in order to decisively denounce it and clearly proclaim anew the diachronic patristic vision of the Body of Christ.

5. Support of the Ecumenical Movement

In direct opposition to such an appropriate and Orthodox response to syncretistic ecumenism, the Pan Orthodox Council is once again in harmony and in step with Vatican II in not only a positive assessment of ecumenism but continued and deepening participation in the movement. This alignment is the fifth signpost on our way to a proper understanding of the coming Council.

In spite of the fact that Orthodox participation in ecumenism has always been, and is today, a cause of division among Orthodox Christians, that two Local Orthodox Churches have long removed themselves from the World Council of Churches and that many bishops and clergy have consistently called for an end to continued compromise and humiliation of the Orthodox in that body, the organizers of the Council and drafters of its texts are unperturbed and unwavering in their support and promotion of it.

6. The Dominant Role Played by Academic Theologians

The sixth signpost which one can observe on the way Crete is the predominant role of academic theologians in the formation of the texts under consideration.

Following the example of Vatican II, the texts of the Pan-Orthodox Council have been prepared by a committee of academically trained theologians and hierarchs, sent as representatives of the Local Churches.

With regard to the Vatican’s council, it is widely recognized that the academic theologians “were the engineers of the massive reforms that were initiated at Vatican II.” [8] Their contribution “was remarkable. . . . The bishops of Vatican II were aware of the importance of the theologians.” [9] The Council extended official acceptance to their decades of work for the renovation of theology, and in particular, of ecclesiology.[10]

With regard to the Pan Orthodox Council, something very similar is at work. The entire pleroma of the Church – laity, monastics, clergy and even hierarchs and even the hierarchy of the Local Churches – have largely been left out of the process. A small group of academic theologians have been the guiding hand which has shaped the texts to be submitted for ratification in Crete.

Indicative of the limited participation of hierarchs, not to mention monastics or clergy, is the fact that the final texts, although approved in committee in October of last year, were not made known to the hierarchs and faithful until late January of 2016. This, however, did not preclude select academic theologians in Thessaloniki and Athens from gaining access to the final texts and presenting papers on them in December.

While the domination of academic theologians in the West, at the Second Vatican Council cannot be considered either a break with past practice or particularly problematic (indeed it is hailed as a great and positive contribution), for the Orthodox, for whom a theologian is one who prays, to have academic theologians guiding the bishops is an apostasy from Orthodox epistemology and a sign that Barlaamism has once again raised its deluded head. We must not forget that at every turn in the history of the Councils at which orthodoxy was proclaimed “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit” and to ascetic bishops – not to philosophizing scholastics who had no relation to neptic (νηπτική) theology and practice.

Ecclesiological Convergence: Following Vatican II, not the Holy Fathers

Let us now turn our attention to the essence of Pan Orthodox Council and in particular to the convergence one can observe with respect to the two councils’ approach to ecclesiological-dogmatic matters.

To begin with, one is struck with the convergence, or rather, total identification with regard to the stance taken on the various heresies. The texts of the Second Vatican Council, and those of the Pan Orthodox Council, make no reference at all to heresies or delusions, as if the spirit of delusion is no longer at work in our day. [11] The Fathers in every age and at every Local and Ecumenical Council had this one basic task: the awakening of the ecclesiastical conscience. They took care to direct the attention of the fullness of the Church to the adulteration and corruption of the Revelation of the Gospel from “grievous wolves” (Acts 20:29), from those “speaking perverse things” (Acts 20:30), from “false prophets” (2 Pet. 2:1), and from “damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). Both the Second Vatican Council and the Pan Orthodox Council stand opposite this established apostolic, patristic and synodical practice of the Church: they name no delusion, no heresy, no falsification of ecclesiastical teaching and life! On the contrary, in the proposed texts of the Pan Orthodox Council, and in particular, in the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Rest of the Christian World,” heretical diversions from the teaching of the Fathers and Ecumenical Councils are characterized as simply “traditional theological differences” and “possible new disagreements” (§ 11), which the Orthodox Church and the heterodox are called upon to “overcome”! The influence here of the Second Vatican Council and its Decree on Ecumenism is obvious![12]

Secondly, the Pan Orthodox Council, following the Second Vatican Council and moving within “new circumstances” (§ 4) in which supposedly heresies do not exist, took the unprecedented initiative to officially invite to be present as “observers” at the Council, heterodox “representatives of Christian Churches or Confessions, with which the Orthodox Church conducts Bi-Lateral Dialogues, as well as from other Christian organizations.” [13] Never, in the two-thousand year history of the Church, have heterodox “observers” representing heresies which have been condemned by Ecumenical Councils and the ecclesiastical conscience been present at a local or Ecumenical Council. This novel idea of having “observers” was only introduced 50 years ago at the papal council, the Second Vatican Council. A Pan Orthodox Council, however, should not have as its model papal practices, methods and measures.

Another characteristic similarity between the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the Pan Orthodox Council is the use of ambiguous and questionable terminology which allows for varied or even opposing interpretations.

The most famous of such contested phrases from the Second Vatican Council is found in the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium where a decisive change was made to the definition of the Church.

In order to be consistent with a new view of the separated churches, Lumen Gentium dropped an absolute and exclusive identity between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church, as had been traditionally asserted. [14] The preparatory commission to the council in its opening session of 1962 had made the following statements in the schema De Ecclesia: “The Roman Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ . . . and only the one that is Roman Catholic has the right to be called Church.” [15]

This simple identification of the Church of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church, which had also been repeatedly stated in papal encyclicals [16] . . . was replaced with the statement that “the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church.” [17]

Not long ago, fifty years after the council, the head of ecumenical relations at the Vatican, Cardinal Kasper, was forced to admit that “the interpretation of [subsists in] amounts to ‘Desideratum’ [something still desired] and includes amphoteric elements which accept twofold interpretations; it is at once inclusive and exclusive.” [18]

Hence, it is not without reason, then, that many speak of a double standard and a duplicitous stance on the part of the authors of the Council’s texts. It cannot be an accident that the Second Vatican Council, especially in the texts of Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, is claimed as the source for both those who advance an “exclusive” ecclesiology and those who advance an “inclusive” ecclesiology. For, as a leading ecumenist professor in Thessaloniki has written, “they use the same sources, but come to entirely different conclusions.” [19]

Allow me to provide another example from the Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Although Lumen Gentium established new criteria for participation in the Church, even a new view of the Church itself, it did not discard the traditional view of the unity of the Church either; it simply no longer applies it to non–Roman Catholics. In Lumen Gentium, the two views follow one after another.

Hence, full participation in the unity of the Church, for Roman Catholics, is described in article 14 of Lumen Gentium. Immediately following this, in article 15, we read of the unity in Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the mysteries of the Church— the “multiple internal links” that establish the separated brethren in an incomplete communion.

In accord with this twofold unity, Rome continues to view itself as the only “concrete manifestation” of the Church—the Church willed by Christ—while non–Roman Catholic churches are churches only in a diminished way (see UR 3d and e).

However, strangely, no matter how “weakened” or “wounded” (See Dominus Iesus) they are supposed to be, these churches are said to have fully legitimate mysteries. [20] Fully united with Christ, their unity with and in the Church is, nonetheless, imperfect. Such a state, hitherto unheard of, is stated but left unexplained. Whatever may be lacking, they are a part of the Church. Schismatics and heretics can be united to Christ and become members of the Body of Christ without, however, being members of the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all a part of the One Church, even if at varying degrees of fullness.

As Fr. Francis Sullivan writes, summing up the image of the universal Church of Christ created by the new ecclesiology:

One can think of the universal Church as a communion, at various levels of fullness, of bodies that are more or less fully churches. . . . It is a real communion, realized at various degrees of density or fullness, of bodies, all of which, though some more fully than others, have a truly ecclesial character. [21]

It is crucial to keep this idea of the Church in mind when I will read from the pre-synodical draft text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.” In the warped ecumenical ecclesiological double-speak of post-Vatican II ecumenism, the mere identification of the Orthodox Church with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church does not preclude the simultaneous recognition of other Churches as possessing an “ecclesial nature” or even as being “more or less fully churches.” Such an unorthodox reading is, of course, quite likely when the text makes particular references to heterodox confessions as “churches.”

Before we examine the relevant portions of the Pan Orthodox Council texts and the ecclesiological convergence observed therein, allow me to pause and share with you a personal anecdote to throw our subject into relief.

Lest we think that the texts of the Council are rather insignificant and any possible ambiguity in them will play a minor role in the future life of the Church, listen to the following plea I received from a thoughtful Roman Catholic observer.

He wrote:

“To my friends in the Orthodox Christian Church, take extreme care for this Great and Holy Synod…otherwise it will be to Orthodoxy what Vatican II was to the [Roman] Catholic Church of the 1960’s. That is, because of the ambiguity of language of the documents of the Council it was the catalyst for the Apostasy we now face in the West… Most especially it is responsible for the false witness of our hierarchy up to and including this current Pope. Be vigilant, strong, and Faithful to Christ and His Church. Don’t let what happened … as a result of Vatican II, despite the best efforts of some clergy and laity, happen to the [Orthodox] Church. The few who remain Faithful within [our] Church have derisively been labelled “traditional” Catholics …their pre-Vatican II faith and practice is now openly mocked by the main body of the Novus Ordo, (or New Order of the Conciliar Church) and we have been and are increasingly marginalized in our services and fellowship with other [Roman] Catholics. I pray that you remain always faithful to the Orthodox, traditions, doctrines and Dogmas.

Note the order of things according to this observer:

The ambiguity of the texts are seen as the catalyst:

1. for apostasy
2. enabling of a false witness from some hierarchs
3. and a marginalization of the faithful

Let us now turn to the relevant portions of the most problematic text submitted to the Council, “Relations of the Orthodox Church to the rest of the Christian World” to see the same ambiguity at work as in the texts of the Second Vatican Council.

As has already been pointed out by venerable hierarchs and theologians, including Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktou and Professor Demetrios Tselingides, this pre-synodical text displays recurrent theological ambiguity, inconsistency and contradiction.

In the first article it proclaims the ecclesiastical self-identity of the Orthodox Church, considering Her to be the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” In article six, however, a contradictory statement is made, that the “the Orthodox Church recognizes the historic existence of other Christian Churches and Confessions not in communion with Her.”

The question arises: If the Church is “One”, as we confess in the Symbol of Faith, as is commemorated in article 1 this text, then what is meant by referring to other Christian “Churches” in a text purported to express Orthodox ecclesiology?

As Professor Tselingides has written, “Considering things from a dogmatic perspective it is not possible to speak about a plurality of “Churches” with different dogmas, and this, indeed, with regard to many different theological issues. Consequently, as long as these “Churches” remain firm in the erroneous beliefs of their faith, there is no theological justification to grant them ecclesial recognition —and this officially —outside of the “‘One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.’”

In a dogmatic text of this nature it should be obvious that the term “Church” must be used strictly in accordance with the Orthodox meaning of the word, so as to exclude any possible misinterpretation. Given the unorthodox ecclesiological paradigm of post-Vatican II ecumenism, which we alluded to earlier, there is sufficient basis for the hierarchs of the Local Churches to reject this draft text on relations with the Heterodox.

In this same article (#6), we find another instance of serious theological ambiguity and contradiction. At the outset we read that “According to the ontological nature of the Church, it is impossible for [Her] unity to be shattered.” At the end, however, it is written that, by Her participation in the Ecumenical Movement, the Orthodox Church has as its “objective aim the paving of the way which leads toward unity.”

This particular instance of ambiguity and contradiction reminds one of articles 14 and 15 in Lumen Gentium, mentioned earlier, where two opposing visions of the Church are presented successively.

In this instance, the unity of the Church is initially acknowledged as a given, only to be followed by the idea that unity is what is still being sought. Again, to quote Professor Tselingides: “What type of unity of Churches is being sought in the context of the Ecumenical Movement? Does it perhaps mean the return of Western Christians to the ONE and only Church? Such a meaning, though, does not emerge either in the letter or the spirit of the entire text. On the contrary, indeed, the impression is given that there exists a long-established division in the Church and that the prospects of the [Ecumenical] dialogues focus on the disrupted unity of the Church.”

Our final example is the theological confusion caused by the ambiguity in article 20, which reads:

“The prospects of the theological dialogues of the Orthodox Church with the other Christian Churches and Confessions shall always be determined on the basis of Her canonical criteria of the already established ecclesiastical tradition (canon seven of the Second Ecumenical Council and canon 95 of the Quinisext Council).”

Why were these canons cited? These canons address the reception of specific heretics that had demonstrated their desire to join the Orthodox Church. However, as Professor Tselingides has pointed out, “it is apparent from the letter and spirit of the text, as judged from a theological perspective, that there is no discussion whatsoever of the return of the heterodox to the Orthodox Church, the only Church.”

So, why are these canons cited as basis for our theological dialogues with the Heterodox? The answer supplied by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktou and Professor Tselingides is that the aim of this article (#20) is to subtly insert so-called “baptismal theology” through the “back door” into the Council’s texts. Given the great ambiguity of the text, one may think that our answer is based solely upon our deductions. Rather, we were led to this conclusion based upon on the initial explanations given by leading ecumenist theologians Professor Tsompanides of the Theological School of Thessaloniki and Metropolitan Chrysostom of Messenia.

The recent reply of Metropolitan Chrysostom to our original criticisms presents us with another opportunity to show that the academic theologians in service of the Pan Orthodox Council are, like their predecessors at Vatican II, adept in the art of double speak.

Metropolitan Chrysostom, in his memorandum to the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church of Greece [22] regarding the text in question refers to article 20 and angrily insists that in no way is it related to “baptismal theology.”

Metropolitan Chrysostom, having sharply dismissed his critics as “theologically inept” for suggesting any adoption of “baptismal theology” on his part, then writes the following: “The ‘kat’oikonomian’ reception of the heterodox by the Orthodox Church, either by confession of faith or by Chrismation, implies the ‘kat’oikonomian’ acceptance of their baptism as valid and real, not, however, of all of the other mysteries or the particular Confession…”

This is, in fact, a fairly accurate description of “baptismal theology” which the Metropolitan insists he rejects. The Metropolitan could easily be mistaken as describing the common baptism theory of Vatican II, which views non-Roman Catholic baptism not only as preserving the form but as also communicating the reality of the mystery. His words also remind one of the uniquely Augustinian principle that heretics had the sacramentum (sign) but not the res sacramenti (the reality it conveys), with the decisive difference that the Metropolitan rather holds that they had both the sacramentum, or τύπος, and the res sacramentum, or reality of the τύπος.

In any case, what is clear is that Metropolitan Chrysostom and all who may hold that a valid and real baptism exists outside the Church – including the drafters of the pre-synodical text – cannot be mistaken for presenting the Orthodox teaching which refuses to divide Christ, refuses, that is, to separate the Mysteries, since Christ is all in all and every Mystery is an expression of the One Mystery, Who is Christ. Simply put, there can be no acceptance, even ‘kat’oikonomian’, of partial initiation or participation in the One Christ. For the Orthodox, an authentic Mystery takes place within the bounds of the One Church with full, not partial, fidelity to the faith and practice of the Church.

All of the foregoing (and much more which could be cited) supports the statement made by the Abbot and brothers of Karakalou Monastery on Mt. Athos concerning the texts of the Great and Holy Council, namely, that the pre-synodical texts are “ambiguous and allow for interpretations which divert from Orthodox dogma.”

In conclusion allow me to bring to your attention the following judgements made forty years ago by two ecclesiastical men of exceptional insight and discernment of the spirits of this age.

The first, Fr. Seraphim Rose, was at the time but a monk writing from the wilderness of northern California, far from the pre-synodical commissions and committees. Yet, his judgement has withstood the test of time and comes to confirm for us that little has changed from the first to the last with regard to the Council:

He writes in 1976:

“Measured by the sober standard of unchanging, Patristic Orthodoxy, the preparations for an “eighth Ecumenical Council” (now termed Pan-Orthodox Council) are exposed as un-Orthodox, lacking in seriousness, and profoundly unpastoral and irresponsible. Such a Council is a project rooted not in Orthodox wisdom and in heartfelt concern for the salvation of souls, but rather in the “spirit of the times”; it is intended to please, not God, but the world, and in particular the heterodox world. Judging from the experience of the Vatican Council and its effect on Roman Catholicism, such a Council, if it is held, will produce profound disorders and anarchy in the Orthodox world…the proposed “Ecumenical Council,” on the basis of the preparations that have hitherto been made for it, cannot be anything but another “robber council,’ a betrayal of Christ and His Church.”[23]

Writing about the same time (1976) and in total agreement, the great dogmatician and Confessor of the Faith, Saint Justin Popovich pleaded with his hierarchy to abstain not only from the preparations but from the Council itself, foreseeing the most bitter fruits from its convening:

“My conscience once more obliges me to turn with insistence and beseeching to the Holy Council of Bishops of the martyred Serbian Church: let our Serbian Church abstain from participating in the preparations for the “ecumenical council,” indeed from participating in the council itself. For should this council, God forbid, actually come to pass, only one kind of result can be expected from it: schisms, heresies and the loss of many souls. Considering the question from the point of view of the apostolic and patristic and historical experience of the Church, such a council, instead of healing, will but open up new wounds in the body of the Church and inflict upon her new problems and new misfortunes.” [24]

Reverend Fathers, beloved in Christ,

This powerful prophetic voice of the great Confessor of our Faith, Saint Justin, remains today, after forty years, exceptionally relevant and authentic. The events of the last four decades have only confirmed the right judgement of the Saint. Moreover, all that has been presented to you tonight, namely,

· the beginning and the methodology of the Council,

· the insistent avoidance of discussion of the dogmatic challenges facing the Church (including ecumenism),

· the absence of experiential (true) theologians,

· the characterization of heresy as “Churches”, the invitation of the leaders of the heresies to be present as “observers”,

· the recognition of the baptism (and by extension other mysteries) of heretical confessions, as well as their “ecclesial nature”,

confirms the apprehensions of many that the Pan Orthodox Council does not fulfil the presuppositions to be received in the ecclesiastical consciousness as “following the Holy Fathers.”

On the contrary, as we have shown above, the Council has been decisively influenced by the ecclesiological positions and practices of the Vatican and, on this account, tends toward being received by the Faithful as merely “following the Second Vatican Council.”

[1] This lecture was delivered to the Diakideio Institute for the Education of the People in Patra, Greece, May 18, 2016.

[2] «Το ποιός, σε τελική ανάλυση, επηρέασε ποιόν, σήμερα δεν είναι πλέον δυνατόν να διαπιστωθεί.» (Maria Brun, «O αντίκτυπος της Β′ Βατικάνειας Συνόδου στην Όρθόδοξη Εκκλησία», στο περιοδικό Θεολογία, Τόμος 86, Τεύχος 2, Απρίλιος – Ιούνιος 2015).
[3] Brun, «O αντίκτυπος της Β′ Βατικάνειας Συνόδου στην Όρθόδοξη Εκκλησία».

[4] See: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx.

[5] Council Coming for Orthodox”, interview by Desmond O’Grady, The National Catholic Reporter, in the January 21, 1977 edition. See also: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx.

[6] This also reminds one of the famous expression of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, himself responsible for calling the first Pan-Orthodox preparatory meetings: “The age of dogma has passed” (a statement by Patriarch Athenagoras; see Akropolis [29 June 1963]) and “Dogmas are the power of the Church, her wealth, and for this reason we keep our wealth in a vault. But this in no way impedes us from minting a new coinage with the other Churches: ‘the coinage of love….’” (Declared after the meeting between Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI (Jerusalem, January 6, 1964).)

[7] «H Α ΠΠΔ αποφάσισε το 1976 να αφήσει αμετάβλητα τα δόγματα και τους κανόνες…και να λάβει, επί τη βάσει αυτών, θεολογικής και εκκλησιολογικής φύσεως αποφάσει» (Maria Brun).

[8] Swidler, Leonard, ‘The Context: Breaking Reform by Breaking Theologians and Religious,’ in The Church in Anguish: Has the Vatican Betrayed Vatican II?, ed. by Hans Kung and Swidler, ἔκδ. Harper and Row, San Francisco 1987, σσ. 189-192 (σ. 189), ὅπως ἀναφέρεται στὸν Gabriel, Yves Congar’s Vision, σ. 57

[9] Congar, Yves, Le Theologien dans l’Eglise aujourd’hui, σ. 12, as quoted in Gabriel, Yves Congar’s Vision, σ. 57

[10] Βλ: Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie. «[Ἡ ἐπιρροή τους, ὅπως μποροῦμε νὰ δοῦμε ἀπὸ τὶς acta τῆς Συνόδου καὶ τὰ ποικίλα Συνοδικὰ ἡμερολόγια, ἀποδείχθηκε ἐξόχως σημαντικὴ» (σ. 6). Βλ. ἐπίσης: Guarino, Thomas G., Foundations of Systematic Theology. ἔκδ. T&T Clark, New York 2005), σ. 288

[11] The Third Pan Orthodox Conference (Chambessy 1986) did not dare to adopt the phrase “heterodox Christians.” According to the minutes of the meeting, Metropolitan George of Mt. Lebanon stated: “I was ready to suggest the term “heterodox Christians”, but perhaps we are able to find an even more moderate expression.” The president of the meeting, Metropolitan Chrysostom of Myron, responded: “Let us avoid using the term “heterodox.”! (Συνοδικά ΙΧ, σ. 251).

[12] See Unitatis Redintegratio § 3,4 and Protopresbyter Peter Heers, The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II (Uncut Mountain Press, 2015), 271-76.

[13] According to the decision of the Primates (Jan. 21-28, 2016) the following will be invited to be present as representatives: 1) two from the Roman Catholic Church, 2) one from the Coptic Church, 3) one from the Ethiopian Church, 4) one from the Armenian Church, 5) one from the Catholicos of Cilicia, 6) one from the Syro-Jacobite Church, 7) one from the Anglican Church, 8) the Archbishop of the Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht, 9) one from the worldwide Lutheran Federation, 10) the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches and the Head of the Faith and Order Commission, 11) the President of the European Council of Churches, 12) the General Secretary of the Middle Eastern Council of Churches, and 13) the President of the Council of the Evangelical Church of Germany.

[14] The official explanation given to the bishops by the Theological Commission to explain this change shows that it was made to agree with the new consideration of the non–Roman Catholic mysteries and communions as such. The Commission said the change was made “so that the expression might better agree with the affirmation about the ecclesial elements which are found elsewhere.” Sullivan, Francis A., S.J. “The Significance of the Vatican II Declaration that the Church of Christ ‘Subsists in’ the Roman Catholic Church.” In René Latourelle, editor, Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives, Twenty-five Years After (1962– 1987). Volume 2. New York: Paulist Press, 1989, 274.

[15] Sullivan, Significance, 273.

[16] For example, Pope Pius XII, in both Mystici Corporis (1943) and Humani generis (1950), made it very clear that the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church of Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church were one and the same thing.

[17] Lumen Gentium 8.

[18] Τσομπανίδης, Στυλιανός Χ. [Tsombanidis, Stylianos X.]. Η Διακήρυξη “Dominus Iesus” και η Οικουμενική Σημασία της [The declaration “Dominus Iesus” and its ecumenical meaning]. Πουρναρά: Θεσσαλονίκη, 2003, 122– 23.

[19] Τσομπανίδης, Ἡ Διακήρυξη Dominus Iesus, 82.

[20] This is apparent, for example, in UR 15a: “through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these [Orthodox] Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature.”

[21] Sullivan, “The Significance of the Vatican II Declaration that the Church of Christ ‘Subsists in’ the Roman Catholic Church,” 283 (emphasis added). Likewise, according to I. Spiteri, “[ from a reading of the encyclical UUS] a new image of the Church emerges, a Church which is constituted by a communion of Churches, in which, in some way, all Christian Churches belong.” Ἰ. Σπιτέρης, “Ἡ Καθολική Ἐκκλησία καὶ οἱ ἄλλες χριστιανικές Ἐκκλησίες” [The Catholic Church and the other Christian Churches], Θ. Κοντίδης (ἐπιμ.), (Ὁ Καθολικισμος, Ἀθήνα 2000), 246.

[22] See: http://www.amen.gr/article/ypomnima-tou-mitropoliti-messinias-gia-to-panorthodokso-keimeno-sxeseis-tis-orthodoksou-ekklisias-pros-ton-loipon-xristianikon-kosmon.

[23] The Orthodox Word, Nov.-Dec. 1976 (71), 184-195 (http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx).

[24] Ορθόδοξος Τύπος, 304/10.2.1978, σ. 4. In English: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx.

On Initiation into the Church via Baptism and the Eucharist

Every Orthodox should read this outstanding book! Go and get it!

Every Orthodox and Roman Catholic should read this outstanding book! Go and get it!

Protopresbyter Peter Heers D. Th.

“This is a fundamental identity: the Church in the Eucharist and the Eucharist in the Church. Where the God-man is not, the Church is not, and where the Church is not, there is no Eucharist. Everything outside this is heresy, non-church, anti-church, and psuedo-church.” St. Justin Popovich

The identification of the Body applies to the Body as a whole and to each of its aspects simultaneously. Each manifestation of the Body contains within it the fullness of the Body. “Each mystery constitutes a particular aspect or manifestation of a united reality,” [518] of the one mystery of Christ (Eph. 3: 4), “which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints” (Col. 1: 26). We recognize a mystery, such as holy Baptism, only when it is a reflection of the One Church. “No mystery can be conceived of per se, but only in relation to the Mystery, which recapitulates the entire ‘mystery of Christ,’ that is, the Divine Eucharist.” [519]

The Baptism of the Church is not simply form, matter, and intention. It is first of all initiation. That Baptism that we recognize as the one Baptism brings one into the life of the Church, the heart of which is the Eucharist. As Fr. George Florovsky has written: “The entire meaning and strength of the sacrament of Holy Baptism is that the baptized enters into the one Church, ‘the one Church of angels and men,’ [520] taking root and growing into the one Body of Christ, and becomes a ‘fellow citizen of the saints and friend of God’ [Eph. 2: 19], for ‘we are all one Spirit baptized into one body’ [1 Cor. 12: 13]. Holy Baptism is a mysterious initiation into the Church, as into the kingdom of grace.” [521]

Hence, if one is not initiated into the Church, if one does not enter into the one Church, into a particular local church through his parish community, [522] and become a member of the Body by partaking of the Eucharist, it would be impossible for the Orthodox to recognize that he has been truly baptized. Such a Baptism is not the Baptism of and into the Church. Such a Baptism, “a Baptism disconnected from the Holy Eucharist,” “is a death without resurrection.” [523] How does Baptism integrate us into the Church? Precisely by opening us up to the gift of the the Holy Spirit, which then gives us access to the Eucharist. The one presupposes the other, for they all belong together, with the Eucharist being the “self-evident fulfillment” of the others. [524] There is a “sacramental interdependence” such that it is impossible to speak of one without the other two, impossible to speak of someone being baptized without approaching Christ’s table in His Kingdom. In the words of Father Alexander Schmemann, for the Fathers the Eucharist is “the ‘focus,’ the source and the fulfillment of the entire— and not merely the liturgical— life of the Church, the sacrament of the Church’s self-manifestation and edification.” [525]

Baptism as integration, as entry, presupposes communion in the common cup of the Eucharist. For, “if the Church’s ultimate being and essence are revealed in and through the Eucharist, if Eucharist is truly the sacrament of the Church and not only one of the Church’s sacraments, then of necessity to enter the Church is to enter into the Eucharist, then Eucharist is indeed the fulfillment of Baptism.” [526] No mystery is an end in itself— except for the Eucharist. All other mysteries must be placed in the context of the Eucharist. Therefore, the faithful are baptized “so that having died with Christ they might partake of His Risen Life, and it is this Risen Life that the Eucharist manifests and communicates in the Church, making her members into witnesses of the things to come.” [527]

Having this in mind, when we turn to the text of Unitatis Redintegratio 3a, which recognizes those among the “separated brethren” who are not in “full communion” with the Roman Catholic Church as being “truly baptized” and “incorporated into Christ,” members of Christ’s Church, one is at a loss to know what this could mean. What kind of Baptism is this that incorporates into Christ without leading to the fulfillment of Baptism in the Eucharist? Or, what kind of “incorporation” is this that is effected without the Eucharist, since becoming one with the Body of Christ takes place in the Eucharist? [528] For what else could “incomplete communion” mean here except that they have not reached the “summit” of communion, according to Cardinal Kasper’s description of the Eucharist? Certainly, as it pertains to most Protestants who do not have a “valid” Eucharist, this must be what is meant. Thus, it is evident that what the mysteries, Baptism and the Eucharist, are understood to mean by the Orthodox does not coincide with the meaning found in Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium.

The implications for ecclesiology are immense, for the members of the Church are constituted as the Church first and foremost through these mysteries. The separation and independence of Baptism from the Eucharist, on both a theoretical as well as a practical level, is not only unchallenged in Unitatis Redintegratio, it is an important pillar of the new ecclesiology developed therein. [529] This independence of Baptism from the Eucharist signifies much more than simply a liturgical diversion from traditional practice. It touches upon the faith itself and signals “a deep perversion of the identity of the Church with wide-ranging and serious consequences.” [530]

One cannot be incorporated into Christ and become His member in Baptism alone. [531] The Church is not created in the waters of Baptism alone, but, rather, was born from the side of Christ when “forthwith came there out blood and water” (John 19: 34); neither blood alone, nor water alone, but both together. [532] Those born have to be nourished; those baptized partake straightaway of divine food. That is why, for the Orthodox, “every Eucharistic assembly is an assembly of the entire Church,” [533] τὸ πλήρωμα, “the flesh of the Church” [534] which Christ assumed. Those not incorporated into this assembly [535] are not of the fullness, which means they have not been made members of Christ’s Body. For, we know of no such Baptism that is not fulfilled in the Eucharist. (The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church. 2015-11-16. [Kindle Locations 2597-2649]. Uncut Mountain Press. Kindle Edition)

[518]. John Zizioulas (Metropolitan of Pergamon), “Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” in Holy Baptism: Our Incorporation into the Church of Christ [in Greek: “Ἅγιον Βάπτισμα καὶ Θεία Λειτουργία” στό Τό Ἅγιο Βάπτισμα: Ἠ ἔνταξή μας στήν Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Athens: Apostoliki Diakonia, 2002), 11].

[519]. Zizioulas, ibid., 12.

[520]. Paraklitiki (Divine service book), Tone 1, Wednesday morning, aposticha.

[521]. Florovsky, “House of the Father,” 79.

[522]. “The fact that the newly illumined one must immediately gather epi to auto, and not simply commune of the Mysteries, means that with Baptism and Chrismation he is inscribed into a particular local church through his parish community, and is under a particular bishop, who presides at the Eucharist. Just as there are no absolute ordinations, neither can there exist absolute Baptisms.” (Zizioulas, “Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 24).

[523]. Ibid., 20.

[524]. The patristic witness to this unity of the Mysteries of Baptism and the Eucharist is ancient. See, for example: Saint Justin the Philosopher, First Apology, LXV; Psuedo-Clement, 100, 141; Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21; Canons of Hippolytus, 21, § 142– 143; Saint Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, 8; Saint John Chrysostom, Catechetical Homily II. 2 and IV. 6; Saint Basil the Great, Concerning Baptism, 1.3. See the brief treatment of these sources and their witness in John (Zizioulas), Metropolitan of Pergamon (“ Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 13– 15. For a more extensive treatment of these sources see I. Yazigi (Hani), Hierodeacon, Ἠ τελετή τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος, (Ἱστορική, θεολογική καί τελετουργική θεώρησις) [The service of holy Baptism: Historic, theological and liturgical consideration], doctoral thesis, Thessaloniki, 1982).

[525]. Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit, 117.

[526]. Ibid., 117– 18.

[527]. Ibid., p. 119 (emphasis added).

[528]. Stressing that the Divine Eucharist is the perfection of all the mysteries and the image of the Kingdom of God, Met. John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon asks rhetorically: “What benefit is Baptism, when the baptized does not immediately join the Eucharistic synaxis epi to auto? Can he become a son of the Kingdom without this?” (“ Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 23).

[529]. See UR 3 and 22. 530. Zizioulas, “Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 27.

[531]. One cannot stress this point enough. For Orthodox Christians it is an heretical idea to believe, as Fr. John Romanides has written, that “all baptized Christians are members of the body of Christ even though they hardly go to Church to commune and have not the slightest desire to struggle for selfless love and fight against the devil epi to auto as they solemnly swore at Baptism” (“ The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 7: 1 and 2 [1961– 62]). “[ G]race is never given absolutely, but always in the synaxis and in the Church” (Zizioulas, “Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 26).

[532]. See St. Cyril of Alexandria, On John, 12, PG 74.677B, and St. John Chrysostom, On John, 85.3, PG 59.463. “Let it not be forgotten that not only does the Eucharist give meaning to Baptism, but that Baptism constitutes an inexorable presupposition for the Eucharist” (Zizioulas, “Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 26).

[533]. Hieromonk Gregorios, The Divine Liturgy: A Commentary in the Light of the Fathers (Mount Athos: Cell of St. John the Theologian, 2009), 26. “[ A]ccording to St. Dionysius the Aeropagite and the entire Patristic Tradition, at least up until St. Nicholas Cabasilas, the Eucharist alone gives meaning to every ecclesiastical and liturgical action precisely because it is a synaxis of the entire Church . . .” (Zizioulas, “Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 23).

[534]. St. John Chrysostom, Homily before his Exile, 2, PG 52.429.

[535]. “Without the synaxis [of the Eucharist] no liturgical action of any kind can have any meaning whatsoever, nor even the entire Christian life, I would say, including asceticism, the virtues, etc.” (Zizioulas, “Holy Baptism and Divine Liturgy,” 23).

On Applied Orthodox Dogmatics

st.-justin_popovichSt. Justin of Ćelije 1894-1979

Saints are people who live on earth by holy, eternal Divine truths. That is why the Lives of the Saints are actually applied dogmatics, for in them all the holy eternal dogmatic truths are experienced in all their life-creating and creative energies. In the Lives of the Saints it is most evidently shown that dogmas are not only ontological truths in themselves and for themselves, but that each one of them is a wellspring of eternal life and a source of holy spirituality. (Introduction to the Lives of the Saints)

On the Direction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 20th Century

Protopresbyter George Metallinos, Professor Emeritus of Athens University

The 19th century is especially important for every development, spiritual and political. Not merely were the nation states formed and with them the concomitant replacement of Orthodox Ethnarchy with national autocephalous states, but the ravages of multifarious Protestantism, as missionary activity, engulfed the Orthodox East, paving a way towards the Ecumenism of the 20th century. With the opening of this new period, there also began the progressively uncertain stance of Orthodoxy, particularly the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which hovered between Patricity, which had continued under Turkish rule, and the new choices, which would lead to compromise and, today, to identification with that delusion which had for centuries been rebuffed.

…The robust stance on the part of the Orthodox Ecclesiastical Leadership towards the heterodox West changed officially at the beginning of the 20th century, at the time of Patriarch Ioakeim III (+1912). This discontinuation is patently obvious merely from a comparison of the dogmatic and creedal texts from 1902 onwards with those of the 19th century…

The prelude to this change had already appeared in 1865, when the headship of the Theological School in Halki was transferred from the traditional and Patristic Konstantinos Typaldos, titular Metropolitan of Stavroupolis, to Filotheos Vryennios (+1918) who had studied in Germany and was later to become Metropolitan of Didymoteikhos. With Vryennios, a new stage was inaugurated as regards Western Christendom, which also reveals the change of heart within the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with which the School was always in step. “The voice of the School was its voice”, according to the statement of our Ecumenical Patriarch, Vartholomaios. But in what did the change lie? The spirit of admiration for the West and Europeanization intensified, as did the cultivation of ecumenical relations.

The re-evaluation of the attitude of the Ecumenical Patriarchate towards the West was a consequence of the change in the political relations of the Ottoman Empire with Western Governments. This change of tack, however, was not confined to the level of political and social relations, but also, unfortunately, affected theology. The re-adjustment of theology is clear in the path followed by the School, which reflected the policy of the Phanar. And here is the proof: according to the school archives, from 1855, when the institution of “Theses” and “Dissertations” began to function, and until 1862, thirteen of the studies by students were related to the Latin Church and, in particular, to the institution of the Papacy, in a spirit clearly of disputation and censure. In other words, some 1/5 of the student’s academic essays were critical of Papal primacy. This was the spirit of the School and of the Ethnarchy at the time. After Typaldos, the studies on the subject from 1869 to 1907 amount to a total of 21. From 1907, however, until 1922, there are no other texts of this nature, while from 1923 until 1971, when, “on the Lord knows what grounds”, the School closed, only three texts appeared. The complete change in spirit is confirmed by the dissertation by Kyriakos Koutsoumalis in 1968: “The Theological Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church in the Three Pan-Orthodox Conferences”.

But this means that, at the center of the Ethnarchy, a new attitude was inaugurated, in a positive spirit, towards the West, which had until then been repulsed. This spirit was Western-friendly and in favor of “ecumenical relations”. The main point of reference would henceforth not be the East, but the West, with whatever that meant. The boundaries of this change were laid out by three important Texts of the Ecumenical Throne: the Encyclical of Patriarch Ioakeim III in 1902; the Declaration of 1920; and the Encyclical of 1952. The first put into effect the ecumenical overture towards Western Christendom, while the others are of a purely programmatic nature, inaugurating and promoting the path towards Ecumenism with the “Ecumenical Movement”. The participation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in this led to today’s relations, which the Orthodox conscience censures. The change which followed is revealed by the language used. The “tendrils”, as the Western Christian groupings were called in 1902, became “Churches” by 1920, which, of course, is a matter of praise for Ecumenists, both Greek and foreign. But this has meant, however, a gradual equation of Western confessions with the One Church, the Orthodox. At this point, the last Pope was more sincere when, in 2008, he refused to recognize the Protestants as a Church, while he called Orthodoxy “wanting” since it did not accept his primacy.

With the Declaration of 1920, the Ecumenical Patriarchate presented the rule-book for the attitude to be taken by the Orthodox party within the Ecumenical Movement. If the Encyclical of 1902 opened the way for our participation in the Ecumenical Movement, the Declaration of 1920 prepared our entry into the WCC, while the Encyclical of 1952, under the tenure of Patriarch Athenagoras, operated as a completion and ratification of this planned course of action. For this reason, great Orthodox theologians, such as Ioannis Karmiris and Fr. George Florovsky, despite their attachment to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, felt obliged to express their reservations towards these overtures and the developments set in train by them.

For a short time, a brake was applied to this process by the “Resolution of the Conference in Moscow against Papism” in 1948. There, Papism was denounced for all the newly-appeared Roman dogmas. As the Delcaration says, the Popes “corrupted the purity of the teaching of ancient ecumenical Orthodoxy through their newly-introduced dogmas”. Papism is explicitly called “anti- Christian”. This marks a return to the pre-1900 spirit, though there was to be no continuation, as events proved. This was also contributed to by the language used to avoid scandalizing Church-goers. In the Encyclical of 1952, the Ecumenical Patriarchate says that “through its participation so far in the Pan- Christian Movement, the Orthodox Church has sought to bring to the attention of the heterodox and to transmit to them the wealth of its faith, worship and organization, as well as its religious and ascetic experience, and also to become informed itself of their new methods and concepts of ecclesiastical life and action”. Fearing, however, the relativization of the faith, Ioannis Kasimiris felt the need to stress that: “The participation of the Orthodox… and co-operation… has the meaning of communion of love and not communion in dogmatic teaching and the mysteries”, as if a “communion of love” could be possible without unity of faith (“faith working through love” Gal. 5:6). The true aims of inter-Christian Ecumenism are freely revealed by hierarchs of the Ecumenical Throne such as Yermanos, Archbishop of Thyateira (Strinopoulos), who, referring at length to the Declaration of 1920, which he himself wrote, together with other professors of Halki, said: “There is a need for the Churches to realize that, apart from unity, in the strict sense of the term… there is also another, more inclusive concept of unity, according to which anybody who accepts the fundamental teaching of the revelation of God in Christ and receives Him as the Savior and the Lord, should be considered a member of the same body and not a stranger”. “Without going into an examination of the dogmatic differences that separate the Churches”, the Archbishop of Thyateira added, “we should cultivate precisely this idea of broader unity…”. What is clear here is the theory of the broad Church, which demands the marginalization of the faith and of the saving nature of dogma, in contradistinction to the Apostolic and Patristic tradition of all the centuries.

But another equally prominent Hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and one of its leading members, the former Archbishop of America, Iakovos, made this aim even clearer in an interview he gave in 1999: “What really made me cross was all the battles and then the relative failure of the Ecumenical Dialogue, which aimed at the union or rapprochement of the Churches and then, more generally, of all religions”. This is a genuine confession of the aspirations of the Ecumenical Movement and its connection with the inter-religious dialogue, as well as the New Age objectives for the achievement of a Universal Religion. But the Blessed Justin (Popović) expressed a responsible and objective critique, calling Ecumenism: “… a common name for the pseudo-Christianities and for the pseudo-Churches of Western Europe. Within it you will find all the European Humanisms, with Papism in the forefront. All these pseudo- Christians, all these pseudo-Churches are nothing more than heresy upon heresy. Their common evangelical name is All-Embracing Heresy”. And he wonders: “Was it therefore necessary for the Orthodox Church, this most undefiled Theanthropic body and organization of the Theanthropic Christ to be humiliated so monstrously that its theologian representatives, even hierarchs, should seek organic participation and inclusion in the WCC? Alas, unheard of betrayal”.

Fr. Justin was able to foresee the outcome of ecumenical relations, which culminated in the decisions of Balamand (1993) (= confirmation of the Papist heresy as a sister Church and of the Unia, which took part officially in the Dialogue) and of Porto Allegre (2006) (=acceptance of Protestant ecclesiology), as well as the de facto recognition of “baptismal theology”, “common service”, without unity of the faith, of “the expanded Church” and of “cultural pluralism”.

Ecumenism in all its dimensions and versions has proved to be a real Babylonian captivity for the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all the local leaders of the Orthodox Church. The boasting and self-congratulation of our Ecumenists about a supposed “new era” which the Ecumenical Patriarchate opened with the Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1902 and 1920 are not justified because “what has been achieved is to legitimize the heresies and schisms of Papism and Protestantism”. This is the carefully-weighed conclusion of Fr. Theodoros Zisis to which I fully subscribe.

It is therefore clear that Ecumenism has now been proved to be an ecclesiological heresy, a “demonic syncretism”, which seeks to bring Orthodoxy into a federal union with the Western heretical panspermia. But in this way Orthodoxy does not influence the non-Orthodox world soteriologically, because it has itself been trapped in the pitfalls of Ecumenism, in the persons of the local leaderships who are working towards wearing it down and alienating it.

So, instead of following the example of our Holy Fathers in the preservation of Orthodoxy as the sole chance of salvation for mankind and society, our Church leadership is doing exactly the opposite: by confusing Orthodoxy with heresy within the sphere of Ecumenism and, to all intents and purposes, recognizing the heretical delusion, it has brought about the dilution of the criteria of the Orthodox faithful and is depriving them and the world of the chance of salvation.

It is precisely in this direction that the intervention of so-called “Post- Patristic Theology” proves to be demonic, in that it offers theological cover and support to our ecumenist hysteria and to the demolition of our Patristic and traditional foundations. This, of course, is not happening with a direct polemic against the faith of the Synods and the Fathers — on the contrary, this is often praised hypocritically and extolled — but, rather, by casting doubt on its neptic requirements, avoiding any condemnation of heresies, and thus the de facto recognition of them as Churches, i.e. of an equal soteriological weight as Orthodoxy. In this way, the Holy Fathers and their teaching are rejected, supposedly because they have overturned the faith and practice of the ancient Church. Post-Patricity, in other words, is in its essence anti-patricity, because this Protestantizing movement weakens the Patristic tradition, without which Orthodoxy is unable to withstand the maelstrom of Ecumenism and compliance with the plans of the New Age. And, to paraphrase Dostoevsky: “Without the Fathers, everything is permitted”! Whereas according to Saint Gregory Palamas: “In this lies piety: not doubting the God-bearing Fathers”. (From Patricity to Post-Patricity: 
The Self-Destruction of the Orthodox Leadership)

On the Dialogue of Love

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

The “dialogue of love” — but preceded by: the dialogue of Truth. The “dialogue of love” may as well be held by devils: but then it will be the dialogue of lies. The “dialogue of love”, but speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). This is that neotestamental love, Theanthropic love: which defeats sin, kills death, destroys devils, and consequently saves, deifies, theohumanizes and trinitizes man. (Notes on Ecumenism, p. 21)

On Gethsemane

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

Even before Gethsemane, but especially in Gethsemane, the man-befriending Lord experienced all the torments of human nature which had rushed upon it as a result of sin. He suffered all the sufferings which human nature had suffered from Adam until His last descendant; He endured the pain of all human pains as though they were His own; He underwent all human misfortunes as though they were His own. At that moment He had before His all-seeing eyes all the millions of human souls, which as a result of sin are tormented in the embrace of death, pain, and vice… In Him, in the true God–Man, human nature wept and lamented, beholding all which she had done by falling into sin and death (Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Church. Belgrade, 1935. Vol. II, p. 377)

On True Orthodox Patriotism

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

[R]eal Orthodox can never be chauvinists. I recall once, in a conversation with me in 1926, the blessedly reposed metropolitan [A. Khrapovitsky] related to me the following: “On Athos there is a custom that a monk who does not forgive offences is punished by being made to omit the words ‘and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,’ at the reading of the Lord’s Prayer, until such a time when he has forgiven the offence committed against him. And I myself have suggested,” added the great saint, “that the chauvinist-nationalists not read the ninth article of the Symbol of Faith.”

If we were to crystallize this principle of Vladyka, it would read as follows: the Russian, Serbian, and Bulgarian nations can be great only if the goal of their existence be the collective realization of the commandments of the Gospel. Otherwise, “Serbianism”, “Russianism”, and “Bulgarianism”, are reduced to senseless and pernicious chauvinism. If “Serbianism” flourishes not by the power of evangelical podvigs and not to Orthodox catholicity, then it will choke in its own egoistic chauvinism. What is profitable for Serbdom is profitable for other nationalities as well. Nations pass, the Gospel is eternal. Only in so far as a nation is filled with the eternal evangelical truth and righteousness, does it exist, and itself becomes and remains eternal. Only such patriotism can be justified from an evangelical point of view. This is the patriotism of the holy apostles, the holy martyrs, the holy fathers. When the emperor-tormentor asked the holy martyrs Acindynus, Pegasius, and Anempodistus where they were from, they answered: “Are you asking us, O Emperor, about our homeland? Our homeland and our life is the most holy, consubstantial and undivided Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the one God.” (On Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky)

On Trinitization and the Divine Commandments

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

For He is present in every commandment through His grace-filled power (“The Lord is hidden in His commandments,” writes St. Mark the Ascetic), and He helps every struggler to keep the commandments. At the same time, the evangelic principle of theanthropic cooperation is kept; the God-man collaborates with man, while man remains an independent person, even though his entire being is in the Lord Christ, even though he dwelleth in Him. In the same way, the Lord Christ dwelleth in man, and does not lose the fullness of His person. …This means the Christian is never alone; he is the dwelling place and workshop of the Thrice-Holy Godhead. Everything leads to this. Keeping the commandments Trinitizes man, because this Christianizes and Spiritualizes him. A Christian’s life is one unceasing podvig of Christianization, Spiritualization, Divinization – i.e. Trinitization. The entire Christian life is one unceasing, and indivisible struggle to become like Christ, to establish the Spirit in man: theosis = establishing the Trinity within oneself. (Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian)

On the Nature of the Church

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

…[T]he Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of the conciliar principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology. (On a Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church)

On Love, Hate and the Origin of Man

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

If a man hates someone, he in reality hates him because he does not see him as a divine creation. He does not recognize him as a being in the image of God; he has not found the path to his soul because he does not have the true light, which would illumine the soul of his brother, whom he hates, and would show him his eternal and immortal side. In this darkness, in this ignorance about man, lives everyone who reduces man to a mortal being, or just to a body or to a descendant of an animal or just a plain animal.

According to the holy Theologian, the commandment of paradise, the proto-commandment, the commandment ap’ arche (from the beginning) is mutual love. This love indicates that man is of God, that mankind is of God, in origin and by his new, spiritual rebirth. If the love of man is lacking, then the real, ontological, and true origin of man cannot be known; and man then wanders in the dark and seeks his origin among animals, elements, and in other things of this world. (Commentary on 1st John)

On an Orthodox Education

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

A thoughtless faith in the omnipotence of humanistic science and education, of culture and the applied arts, as well as in the omnipotence of humanistic civilization, borders on insanity. Through the tragic influence of this thoughtless faith, European education has also created among us the confrontation between the Church and the School, or rather has exceedingly applied its principles in Orthodox countries having officially expelled God from School. This has been disastrous for our Orthodox people. Our intellectuals who have been cut off from their roots are already carrying from these centuries “the lights” of this humanism in order to “rehabilitate” the Orthodox people. The result has been to transform Orthodox countries into slaughter-houses of souls.

…There is only one way to escape final destruction. What is this way? To accept theanthropic education and to apply it completely in all schools, from the greatest to the smallest, and in all state and national institutions. Theanthropic education radiates, illuminates, enlightens with the only inextinguishable and true Light in the entire world, namely with the God-man Christ. Darkness cannot extinguish or hide this Light, not even the darkness of Europe. Only this is capable of expelling all darkness from man, from society, from the people, and from the state. This, the only true Light, illuminates every man in the nucleus of his being and reveals to each one of us our immortality, our own divine and eternal brother. It teaches us that only then can the problems of man and the problems of society, the problems of the nation and the problems of humanity, be easily understood and solved when they are examined through the God-man Christ.

The main guidelines and characteristics of theanthropic education can be formulated as follows:

1)      Man is a being who can be perfected and completed in the most ideal and real way by the God-man and in the God-man.

2)      The perfection of man by the God-man takes place with the help of the evangelical witnesses.

3)      The illuminated and educated man sees in every man his immortal and eternal brother.

4)      Every human work and action – philosophy, science, geography, art, education, culture, manual labor, etc. – receives its eternal value when it is sanctified and receives meaning from the God-man.

5)      True enlightenment and education is accomplished through a holy life according to the Gospel of Christ.

6)      The saints are the most perfect illuminators and educators; the more holy a man is the better an educator and illuminator he becomes.

7)      School is the second half of the heart of the God-man; the first is the Church.

8)      At the center of all centers and of all ideas and labors stands the God-man Christ and His theanthropic society, the Church. (Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ pp. 62-64)

On Nationalism

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

The Church is God-human, eternity incarnated within the boundaries of time and space. She is here in this world but she is not of this world (John 18:36). She is in the world in order to raise it on high where she herself has her origin. The Church is ecumenical, catholic, God-human, ageless, and it is therefore a blasphemy—an unpardonable blasphemy against Christ and against the Holy Ghost—to turn the Church into a national institution, to narrow her down to petty, transient, time-bound aspirations and ways of doing things. Her purpose is beyond nationality, œcumenical, all-embracing: to unite all men in Christ, all without exception to nation or race or social strata. “There is neither Greek nor Jew, their is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28), because “Christ is all, and in all.” The means and methods of this all-human God-human union of all in Christ have been provided by the Church, through the holy sacraments and in her God-human works (ascetic exertions, virtues). And so it is: in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the ways of Christ and the means of uniting all people are composed and defined and integrated. Through this mystery, man is made organically one with Christ and with all the virtues: faith, prayer, fasting, love, meekness, through compassion and giving alms, a man consolidates in this union and preserves himself in its sanctity, personally experiencing Christ both as the unity of his personality and as the essence of his union with other members of the body of Christ, the Church.

The Church is the personhood of the God-human Christ, a God-human organism and not a human organization. The Church is indivisible, as is the person of the God-human, as is the body of the God-human. For this reason it is a fundamental error to have the God-human organism of the Church divided into little national organizations. In the course of their procession down through history many local Churches have limited themselves to nationalism, to national methods and aspirations, ours being among them. The Church has adapted herself to the people when it should properly be just the reverse: the people adapting themselves to the Church. This mistake has been made many times by our Church here. But we very well know that these were the “tares” of our Church life, tares which the Lord will not uproot, leaving them rather to grow with the wheat until the time of harvest (Matt. 13, 29-30). We also well know (the Lord so taught us) that these tares have their origin in our primeval enemy and enemy of Christ: the devil (Matt. 13, 25-28). But we wield this knowledge in vain if it is not transformed into prayer, the prayer that in time to come Christ will safeguard us from becoming the sowers and cultivators of such tares ourselves.

It is now high time—the twelfth hour—time for our Church representatives to cease being nothing but the servants of nationalism and for them to become bishops and priests of the One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The mission of the Church, given by Christ and put into practice by the Holy Fathers, is this: that in the soul of our people be planted and cultivated a sense and awareness that every member of the Orthodox Church is a Catholic Person, a person who is for ever and ever, and is God-human; that each person is Christ’s, and is therefore a brother to every human being, a ministering servant to all men and all created things. This is the Christ-given objective of the Church. Any other is not an objective of Christ but of the Antichrist. For our local Church to be the Church of Christ, the Church Catholic, this objective must be brought about continuously among our people. And yet what are the means of accomplishing this God-human objective? Once again, the means are themselves God-human because a God-human objective can only be brought about exclusively by God-human means, never by human ones or by any others. It is on this point that the Church differs radically from anything which is human or of this earth. (“The Inward Mission of the Church”, Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ pp. 23-26)

What Defines Orthodoxy?

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

Orthodox Christians are Orthodox because they maintain a continuous sense of divine-human catholicity which they preserve and kindle through prayer and humility. They never preach about themselves; they never boast; they never remain entirely within their base human nature; they never idealize humanism. The holy Christ-bearing Apostles once and for all gave the definition of the eccelesial dimension of divine humanity: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” (Acts 15:28) First, the Holy Spirit, and then, us; “us” in as much as we allow the Holy Spirit to act through us.

Included in this theanthropic apostolic definition is the entire method by which the Church carries out Her divine-human activity in the world. The holy Martyrs and Confessors, the holy Fathers and Ecumenical Synods accepted and continued this method. If someone departs from this method he deaprts from the Holy Spirit as well the holy Apostles, Martyrs, Fathers and Ecumenical Synods. Further, he deviates from the unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of the theanthropic faith of Christ, that is, he is cut off from the Lord Jesus Christ. The Orthodox Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic because it does not deviate from this method. The Church is Orthodox because it continuously confesses, maintains and safeguards not only the theanthropic, apostolic-catholic, ecumenical truth of Christianity but also the theanthropic, apostolic-catholic, ecumenical methodology of Christianity. The Lord Jesus is both the Truth and the Way. If one departs from the theanthropic methodology, one cannot also avoid deviating away from the theanthropic truth and the God-man Christ.

The Orthodox Church contains the complete teaching of the God-man Christ precisely because it does not deviate from the theanthropic methodology of the holy Apostles and the Ecumenical Synods. The believing individual of the Orthodox, apostolic and patristic faith both senses and understands that they are co-workers of the Holy Spirit only, and as such they constantly listen, through prayer, to what the Spirit says, do what the Spirit asks of them, and continually examine their own thoughts and words by the Spirit. Since the catholic unity of the theanthropic Truth is always present in the catholic conscience of the Orthodox Church, the holy Fathers and Teachers continuously participate in the theanthropic life of the Church through the charismatic action of the Holy Spirit. This is reflected in an encyclical issued by the Orthodox Patriarchs a few centuries ago: “We believe that the Holy Spirit instructs the Catholic Church…The Church is most certainly instructed by the life-sustaining Spirit through the holy Fathers and Teachers…We confess that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to err or to be completely mistaken or to choose falsehood instead of truth. The All-Holy Spirit, acting through faithfully serving holy Fathers and spiritual guides delivers the Church from any kind of error.” (Confession of Dositheus, Article 12) (Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ pp. 87-89: Highest Value and Last Criterion in Orthodoxy)

On Communion with Christ

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

Our communion with the Savior establishes the salvation; communion with Him, as Sanctifier, is the sanctification; communion with Him, as God, is the divinization; communion with Him, as Immortal, is the immortality; communion with Him, as Risen, is the resurrection; communion with Him, as Ascended, is the ascension and in the right place of God the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9). (Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ pp. 211-212)

On Internal Missions and Asceticism

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

The Ascetics are Orthodoxy’s only missionaries. Asceticism is her only missionary school. Orthodoxy is ascetic effort and it is life, and it is thus by effort and by life that her mission is broadcast and brought about. The development of asceticism…this ought to be the inward mission of our Church amongst our people. The parish must become an ascetic focal point. But this can only be achieved by an ascetic priest. Prayer and fasting, the Church-oriented life of the parish, a life of liturgy: Orthodoxy holds these as the primary ways of effecting rebirth in its people. The parish, the parish community, must be regenerated and in Christ-like and brotherly love must minister humbly to Him and to all people, meek and lowly and in a spirit of sacrifice and self-denial. And such service must be imbued and nourished by prayer and liturgical life. This much is ground-work and indispensible. But to this end there exists one prerequisite: that our bishops, priests, and our monks become ascetics themselves. That this might be, then: let us beseech the Lord. (Orthodox Faith and Life in Christ: The Inward Mission of Our Church pp. 30-31)

On Apostolic Tradition

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

Apostolic Succession, the apostolic heritage, is theanthropic from first to last. What is it that the holy apostles are transmitting to their successors as their heritage? The Lord Christ, the God-man Himself, with all the imperishable riches of His wondrous theanthropic Personality, Christ—the Head of the Church, her sole Head. If it does not transmit that, Apostolic Succession ceases to be apostolic, and the apostolic Tradition is lost, for there is no longer an apostolic hierarchy and an apostolic Church.

The Holy Tradition is the Gospel of the Lord Christ, and the Lord Christ Himself, Whom the Holy Spirit instills in each and every believing soul, in the entire Church. Whatever is Christ’s, by the power of the Holy Spirit becomes ours, human; but only within the body of the Church. The Holy Spirit—the soul of the Church, incorporates each believer, as a tiny cell, into the body of the Church and makes him a “co-heir” of the God-man (Eph. 3:6). In reality the Holy Spirit makes every believer into a God-man by grace. For what is life in the Church? Nothing other than the transfiguration of each believer into a God-man by grace through his personal, evangelical virtues; it is his growth in Christ, the putting on of Christ by growing in the Church and being a member of the Church. A Christian’s life is a ceaseless, Christ-centered theophany: the Holy Spirit, through the holy mysteries and the holy virtues, transmits Christ the Savior to each believer, renders him a living tradition, a living life: “Christ who is our life” (Col. 3:4). Everything Christ’s thereby becomes ours, ours for all eternity: His truth, His righteousness, His love, His life, and His entire divine Hypostasis.

Holy Tradition? It is the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man Himself, with all the riches of his divine Hypostasis and, through Him and for His sake, those of the Holy Trinity. That is most fully given and articulated in the Holy Eucharist, wherein, for our sake and for our salvation, the Savior’s entire theanthropic economy of salvation is performed and repeated. Therein wholly resides the God-man with all His wondrous and miraculous gifts; He is there, and in the Church’s life of prayer and liturgy. Through all this, the Savior’s philanthropic proclamation ceaselessly resounds: “And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28 20): He is with the apostles and, through the apostles, with all the faithful, world without end. This is the whole of the holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church of the apostles: life in Christ = life in the Holy Trinity; growth in Christ = growth in the Trinity (cf. Mt. 28: 19-20).

Of extraordinary importance is the following: in Christ’s Orthodox Church, the Holy Tradition, ever living and life-giving, comprises: the holy liturgy, all the divine services, all the holy mysteries, all the holy virtues, the totality of eternal truth and eternal righteousness, all love, all eternal life, the whole of the God-man, the Lord Christ, the entire Holy Trinity, and the entire theanthropic life of the Church in its theanthropic fullness, with the All-holy Theotokos and all the saints.

The personality of the Lord Christ the God-man, transfigured within the Church, immersed in the prayerful, liturgical, and boundless sea of grace, wholly contained in the Eucharist, and wholly in the Church—this is holy Tradition. This authentic good news is confessed by the holy fathers and the holy ecumenical councils. By prayer and piety holy Tradition is preserved from all human demonism and devilish humanism, and in it is preserved the entire Lord Christ, He Who is the eternal Tradition of the Church. “Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3 16): He was manifest as a man, as a God-man, as the Church, and by His philanthropic act of salvation and deification of humanity He magnified and exalted man above the holy Cherubim and the most holy Seraphim. (The Attributes of the Church, originally published in Orthodox Life, vol. 31, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb., 1981), pp. 28-33)

Source: http://archangelsbooks.com/articles/church/AttributesofChurch.asp

From Repose to Resurrection: the Intermediate State of Souls

by Jesse Dominick

In a letter to Fr. Thomas Merton, the young Orthodox convert Eugene (later Fr. Seraphim) Rose wrote: “Above all, the Christian in the contemporary world must show his brothers that all the ‘problems of the age’ are of no consequence beside the single central ‘problem of man’: death, and its answer, Christ … Let the contemporary sophisticate prattle of the childishness of seeking ‘future rewards’ and all the rest – life after death is all that matters.”[1] Although modern man enshrines death as supposedly natural he has no understanding of the reality of death. In the Orthodox Church alone is preserved the authentic Christian teaching on man’s paradisiacal condition, his fall and consequent death, Christ’s death-destroying Resurrection, and life after death.

Unfortunately, even in the Church today there is confusion and unawareness of what the Church teaches, clouded by the notion that Orthodoxy has little to say about life after death. In researching the Orthodox doctrines of Heaven and Hell, angels and demons, and life after death St. Ignatius Brianchaninov found that, in fact, the Church is quite precise in what it teaches, as opposed to western teachings that become increasingly vague under the influence of philosophy and man’s growing attachment to the things of this world.[2]

Although the Church provides us with much information on the after-life, it is easily misunderstood. In regards to the soul’s existence after death it is good to remember the advice of the angel to St. Macarius of Alexandria: “Accept earthly things here as the weakest kind of depiction of heavenly things.”[3] Contentions and debates within the Church concerning eschatology often arise out of an overly-literal approach to the ascetic texts that speak of life after death. Concerning this Fr. Seraphim Rose writes:

It is one thing to say … that one must be careful not to read the Orthodox texts on the other world and life after death in too literal or earthly a manner, since that reality is in many obvious ways very different from earthly reality; but it is quite something else to “sweep away” all these texts and deny that they refer to anything at all in an outward way, and are nothing but “allegories” and “fables” … the Orthodox Church and faithful have always accepted these descriptions as corresponding faithfully to reality, even while making allowances for the peculiar, other-worldly nature of this reality.[4]

Upon separation from the body the soul embarks upon a purely spiritual existence which is unknown to us living in the flesh, and this is why the ascetical texts on life after death often seem strange, confusing, or even problematic to us. Only the righteous who have purified themselves and acquired a greater depth of spiritual vision have experienced a taste of such a spiritual life, and thus it is to them that we must look for guidance in understanding revelations on the soul after death. Through Patristic writings, lives of the Saints, hymnography, and even iconography, the Church provides us with no shortage of sources from which to discern the proper Orthodox understanding of the soul’s journey after death.

In the Church’s theology the period between death and the Last Judgment at the return of Christ is known as the intermediate state of souls. During this time the soul is judged and is given a foretaste of the Heaven or Hell that awaits it after the general resurrection at the consummation of time. Orthodox anthropology firmly rejects all forms of dualism and affirms that man naturally consists of both body and soul. Thus the soul that separates from the body at death is in an unnatural state, and for this reason the parting of the soul is a fearful event. Of this St. John of Damascus writes: “Truly most frightening is the mystery of death, how the soul is violently separated from its concord with the body and, by divine decree, the most natural bond of their cohesion is severed,”[5] and a Stichera for the Dead sung at Tone Two Friday evening Vespers reads:

Woe is me! How great a struggle the soul endures at its parting from the body. Woe is me! How many tears it sheds, but there is none to pity it. Turning to the angels, it supplicates in vain; stretching out its hands to men, it finds no one to help. Therefore, my beloved brethren, reflecting on the shortness of our life, let us ask Christ to give rest to the departed and to grant our souls great mercy.[6]

St. Dorotheos of Gaza further adds the truly terrifying thought that “the souls of the dead remember everything that happened here … [it] remembers the passions it gave way to and the sins it committed and the persons with whom it committed them,” and “it is alone with its own passions and, in short, it is tormented by them.”[7] St. Ephraim of Syria teaches the same, that upon death the soul sees “all the works it performed, good and bad, by day and by night.”[8] This is why the Fathers encourage us to remember the day of our impending death, for those who truly take up remembrance of death will never sin again.[9]

It should be noted that for the righteous, the separation of the soul from the body is not frightful, but is in fact joyful, for he has already begun to taste of the spiritual life and the soul goes to dwell in the blessedness of the light of Christ. Again, St. Ephraim teaches that “the righteous and holy, and the ascetics rejoice at the hour of death and separation … Their souls leap up, for they are prepared to go out of their bodies for their rest,” and St. Seraphim of Sarov exclaims: “What joy, what exultation await the soul when God’s Angels come to take it.”[10] The Psalmist states: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 115:6). But for those who have not wholly united themselves to Christ in this life the separation of the soul from the body is fearful because it is unnatural, and furthermore because at death and afterwards the soul is surrounded and attacked by horrid demons. “The death of sinners is evil,” says King David (Psalm 33:22). This reality is referred to repeatedly in our rich liturgical tradition. Every night at Small Compline the Church prays: “And at the time of my departure from this life, care for my wretched soul and drive far away from it the dark forms of evil demons,”[11] and at the Office for the Parting of the Soul from the Body we pray: “O Refuge renowned for the sinful and contrite, make thy mercy known upon me, O Pure One, and deliver me from the hands of demons: For many dogs have compassed me about.”[12] These are but two of the innumerable examples that could be brought forth.[13]

By these attacks of demons is accomplished the Particular Judgment of which St. Paul wrote: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). St. Ignatius Brianchaninov writes that from the time of Adam’s fall until Christ’s harrowing of Hades Satan stood on the path to Paradise blocking the entrance of every soul, and after Christ’s Resurrection he continues to take those souls which incline towards him. He continues:

All who have openly rejected the Redeemer comprise the inheritance of satan: their souls, after the separation from the body, descend straight to hell. But Christians who are inclined to sin are also unworthy of being immediately translated from earthly life to blessed eternity. 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 predominates in it – eternal life or eternal death. The unhypocritical Judgment of God awaits every Christian soul after its departure from the body.[14]

Fallen angels stand guard in the expanse of the air for the testing of souls according to various sins to which the soul may have inclined during its life.[15] These judgment places are known as the toll-houses and the guarding spirits the tax-collectors who “act thus by the right which they have acquired.”[16] Constantine Cavarnos likewise states that this calling to account is a test of the imperfect soul by demons who reproach it with its many sins.[17]

It is important to note that the trials of the toll-houses are chiefly for those who leave this life in a tepid state, for the souls of the righteous are immediately received by holy angels, while the souls of the decidedly unrepentant are taken to Hades by the demons. Psalm 1:5 states: “Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment.” Conversely, John 5:24 teaches that he who hears and believes the word of God shall not come into judgment, and Blessed Theognostos states that the soul of the righteous man “passes through the air without hindrance, without being troubled in the least by the evil spirits.”[18] Archimandrite Vasilios Bakogiannis concludes that “the toll-houses are for those who leave this world in a lukewarm, torpid mortal state. They are for those whose flight from this world takes place in the winter of passions or on a Sabbath (Matthew 24, 20) (i.e. without having cultivated the virtues).”[19] Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos teaches the same of the souls of the righteous and the unrepentant, as does Constantine Cavarnos.[20]

The purpose here is not to offer an in-depth examination and explanation of the teaching of the toll-houses[21], but because the subject is so controversial in the Church in America the evidence will be weighed and certain objections addressed. It is important to note that there are only two “prominent” and vocal opponents to the traditional teaching of the toll-houses: Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, and Fr. Michael Azkoul, both of whom have histories of connections to the much troubled Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston of the so-called “Holy Orthodox Church of North America,” and other schismatic groups.[22] It should also be noted that to be in schism does not necessarily negate one’s teachings (I have already approvingly quoted Abp. Chrysostomos of the “Cyprianite” Holy Synod in Resistance), but it is useful to consider the authority of who denies the existence of the toll-houses, and who affirms it.

Abp. Lazar writes: “Anyone familiar with the Bible will know that the toll-house (telonia) stories … not only have no basis in Scripture, but in general are contradictory to Christian Scripture. They also have no bases in the works of the holy fathers of the Orthodox Church.” Thus it is necessary to see just who it is that the Archbishop considers being unfamiliar with Scripture and Patristics. In the last two centuries the toll-houses have been taught by:

  • St. Seraphim of Sarov: “Two nuns passed on. Both had been abbesses. The Lord revealed to me that their souls were having difficulty getting through the aerial toll-houses. Three days and nights, I, a lowly sinner, prayed and begged the Mother of God for their salvation. The goodness of the Lord, through the prayers of the Most Holy Mother of God, finally had mercy upon them. They passed the aerial toll-houses and received forgiveness of sins.”[23]
  • St. Theophan the Recluse: “No matter how absurd the idea of the toll-houses may seem to our ‘wise men,’ they will not escape passing through them.”[24]
  • St. Ignatius Brianchaninov: “The teaching of the toll-houses is the teaching of the Church.”[25]
  • St. Macarius of Moscow (1879-1882): After quoting numerous examples of Church Fathers who taught the toll-houses he says, “Such an uninterrupted, constant, and universal usage in the Church of the teaching of the toll-houses, especially among the teachers of the 4th century, indisputably testifies that it was handed down to them from the teachers of the preceding centuries and is founded on apostolic tradition.”[26]
  • St. Barsanuphius of Optina: “Pray to the Mother of God. She will intercede for you in this life, and, after death, she will help you pass through the tollhouses and reach the heavenly Kingdom.”[27]
  • St. John of Kronstadt: He teaches the toll-houses according to Elder Ephraim’s Counsels From the Holy Mountain, p. 436.
  • St. Nikolai Veilmirović: “O, let no one speak of the happiness of tomorrow’s day. Behold, yet this night your soul may depart your body and tomorrow you will find yourself surrounded by black demons in the tollhouses!”[28]
  • St. John Maximovitch: On the third after death the soul “passes through legions of evil spirits which obstruct its path and accuse it of various sins, to which they themselves had tempted it. According to various revelations there are twenty such obstacles, the so-called “toll-houses,” at each of which one or another form of sin is tested.”[29]
  • St. Justin Popović: Volume 3 of his Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church (1980) contains the toll-house teaching.[30]
  • Elder Michal of Valaam:“I knew that [the tailor] expected a gift; for a gift he would do anything and he would both know how to do it and do it. But I also know that for even the smallest participation in this type of work – that is, bribe and gratuity – I would have to answer for sin when I go through the toll houses; and so I left him with nothing. One must have caution so as not to give others an example and participate in sins.”[31]
  • Archbishop Theophan of Poltava (ROCOR): A young man who had reposed appeared to the Archbishop and asked him to pray for him to pass safely through the toll-houses, which he did. The man appeared again later to thank the Archbishop and to ask him to offer prayers of thanksgiving.[32]
  • Elder Cleopa of Sihastria: “If you confess thoroughly before your death, your soul is saved. As the soul passes through the tollhouses, any sins that were absolved by the priest on earth have been erased from the record by the Holy Spirit.”[33]
  • Elder Porphyrios: “I didn’t want to think about hell and about tollgates. I didn’t remember my sins, although I had many. I set them aside. I remembered only the love of God and was glad.”[34]
  • Elder Paisios: “When a soul is prepared and ascends to Heaven, the toll booths can’t bother it. However, if it is not prepared, it is tortured by the toll booths. Sometimes God allows the toll houses to be seen for the soul of a person who needs it, at the hour in which it is in agony, to help us who are still alive, that we might struggle to pay our debts here. Do you remember the event with Theodora? God’s compassion, in other words, allowed some things to be seen, to help others to repent.”[35]
  • Fr. Seraphim Rose: See chapters 6, 10, and Appendix III: “Answer to a Critic” in his Soul After Death.  
  • Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica: “In this world it is possible for a person to expend great effort and labor for the good of his fellow men, yet for his soul to remain soiled without sin. A person can pass through most of the toll-houses, yet to be pushed into the abyss as he reaches the toll-house of mercy, for in spite of all his efforts he failed to notice that his heart was firmly bound to the power of hades … Such a person is under the rule of the spirits of wickedness, according to the level of his unmercifulness. Even during his earthly life he is in their power. When his soul departs his body, such a person will be in their power.”[36]
  • Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev: “When a person dies he is met by angels. The angels of God help a person while demons attack him and intimidate him … The demons detain those at the toll houses who are attached to the earth, those who think too much about the earthly.”[37]
  • Fr. Michael Pomazansky: “Based on these indications of Sacred Scripture, from antiquity the Holy Fathers of the Church have depicted the path of the soul after its separation from the body as a path through such spiritual expanses, where the dark powers seek to devour those who are weak spiritually … The path of the soul after its departure from the body is customarily called the “toll houses.”[38]
  • Archbishop Nathanael of Vienna and Austria (ROCOR): He conveys the traditional teaching that Christ received the soul of the Theotokos because she prayed to be spared the vision of the toll-house demons.[39]
  • Bishop Alexander (Mileant) of Buenos Aires (ROCOR): “These wandering spirits of the heavens upon seeing a soul led by an angel approach it from all sides reproaching it for sins committed throughout its life. Being extremely insolent, they attempt to frighten the soul, bring it to despair and thus take hold of it. During this trial the Guardian Angel bolsters the soul and defends it.”[40]
  • Archimandrite Panteleimon (Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville): “When the Christian soul, led by the holy angels, begins its ascent to heaven, then the spirits of darkness remind it of all its sins which have not been made up for by penance.”[41]
  • Constantine Cavarnos: The toll-houses are taught in his The Future Life According to the Orthodox Church, pp. 23-30.
  • Met. Hierotheos Vlachos: “According to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, the soul … senses the presence of the demons who are called customs demons, and is possessed with fear because of having to pass through customs … The holy Fathers teach all these things not from their imagination, but from enlightening experiences. Sometimes other holy men have revealed these things to them, and at other times they themselves, illumined by God, have had such frightening experiences.”[42]
  • Met. Kallistos Ware: “It is the normal teaching in the Orthodox Church that, during the period immediately following death, the soul, accompanied by the guardian angel, passes through a series of twenty-two telonia, celestial toll or custom houses … This teaching about the toll houses has early origins; while not a dogma of the Church, it is far more than mere legend or pious opinion.”[43]
  • Elder Ephraim of Philotheou and Arizona: “Keep this struggle constantly in mind; think and note that we also have to pass the aerial toll-houses which impede souls from ascending as they present the deeds of our life in order to obstruct our souls’ ascent and drag them down into Hades.”[44]
  • Archimandrite Zacharias Zachariou:Rdr. Andreas Moran relates: “when my late wife died, Archimandrite Zacharias said, ‘her soul went straight up – no hindrance’. Being blessed with much grace, this must mean either that she did not endure passage through the toll houses or that the demons had nothing in her.”[45]
  • Archimandrite Vasilios Bakogiannis: See his After Death pp. 59-67.
  • Fr. Thomas Hopko: “So, my opinion is that the teaching is that, when a person dies, a huge battle, it’s the last battle, in a sense, to see whether that person really does believe in God, and accepts the grace of God and the forgiveness of God, or whether they cling to their demons, cling to their sins and passions … it’s a very old teaching; you find the teaching about toll houses is in practically every Church Father: you find it in Saint John Chrysostom, you find it in John of the Ladder; the first development of it was in Saint Cyril of Alexandria.[46]
  • Nikolaos P. Vassiliadis: at death “the soul undergoes a detailed and thorough examination by the demons since an invisible but relentless warfare is waged between the good and the evil angels for the soul’s possession.”[47] 
  • Protopresbyter Vassily Boshchanovskiy: “The universal faith of the Church in the reality of the personal judgment after death finds its illustrative depiction in the Church Patristic teaching about the toll houses beyond the grave.”[48]
  • Fr. Artemy Vladimirov: He relates how happening upon the Tale of St. Theodora led him to offer his first confession and a dramatic conversion to faith in Christ at the age of 18.[49]
  • Fr. Maximos of Simonopetra (formerly Nicholas Constas): “The tradition of the tollgates was firmly established throughout the east long before the end of late antiquity.”[50]
  • Vladimir Moss:“The doctrine of the toll-houses, of the particular judgement [sic] of souls after death, is indeed a fearful doctrine. But it is a true and salutary and Orthodox one. Let us therefore gather this saving fear into our souls, in accordance with the word: “Remember thine end, and thou shalt never sin” (Sirach 7.36).[51]
  • Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna: “A number of poor scholars and pseudo-scholars alike have, over the past several decades, made a case against the Orthodox Church’s teaching on life after death, and especially the “toll house” image used by some Fathers and in many of our worship services. Misrepresenting the Fathers, ignoring liturgical and theological evidence, and overstating their case, some of these critics have made of various theologoumena, unfortunately, matters of intense debate. Likewise misusing philosophy, misrepresenting the Patristic use of classical philosophical ideas and images, and attributing, with a naiveté that would embarrass a first-year philosophy student in the most mediocre of schools, they pontificate about neo-Gnosticism and neo-Platonic influences on Orthodox thinking, artlessly using the very arguments against the teachings to which they object that the most polemical Westerners have used against the Eastern Fathers.”[52]

None of these Saints, holy elders, and respected theologians has relegated the toll-house teaching, based on the testimony of many Fathers[53], to the realm of mere theologumena and many included them in works of dogmatic theology. No Saint or elder has publicly rejected the toll-house teaching. Abp. Lazar and Fr. Michael have focused their polemical attacks on Fr. Seraphim Rose, claiming that he has mistranslated and misinterpreted Patristic texts, but obviously Fr. Seraphim is far from alone in his interpretation; and on the 10th century life of St. Basil the New containing St. Theodora’s vision of the aerial toll-houses,[54] but several of the authors who have written extensively on the toll-houses, including Fr. Seraphim, Met. Hierotheos Vlachos, Constantine Cavarnos, and Archimandrite Vasilios Bakogiannis, and Nikolaos P. Vassiliadis, have done so without appealing to the authority of St. Theodora story which “contains nothing significant that is not to be found in other Orthodox sources on the toll-houses.”[55] To debunk Fr. Seraphim and St. Theodora does nothing to debunk the toll-houses.

Other objections to this traditional teaching of the Church are as easily answered. Against the claim that the teaching as a whole is Gnostic, Met. Hierotheos Vlachos provides the obvious answer. Acknowledging that similar ideas can be found in Gnostic texts, he notes that the teaching about the immortality of the soul, the ecstasy of man and the dispassion of the soul and body, the triparatite soul and many other things also originated outside the Church but were placed in a proper ecclesiastical atmosphere by the God-bearing Fathers.[56] In fact, Origen in his Contra Celsium 6.22 provides and dismisses the Persian Mithraist ascent of the soul, but elsewhere, referencing John 14:30[57] writes that we shall encounter toll collectors who search us to find something that belongs to them at the end of our lives.[58]

Against claims that the toll-house tradition is Latin-influenced, Fr. Seraphim Rose says of the “bag of gold” with which the angels “paid the debts” of St. Theodora that it is clearly a metaphor for the prayers of the Church and critics are simply being too literal-minded.[59] Here it is wise to recall the angel’s admonition to St. Macarius about earthly explanations of spiritual realities. Furthermore, Constantine Cavarnos writes that the deeds which are weighed refer not only to external works but moreso to the “deeds” of repentance, prayer, sobriety, and virtues in general,[60] which aligns with St. Ignatius’ teaching that the deeds are weighed not in any juridical sense but because they demonstrate whether the soul inclines more to eternal life or eternal death.[61] The toll-houses are also sometimes compared to Purgatory[62] which is traditionally a third place, alongside Heaven and Hell, where a material fire causes a satisfactory and purgative suffering of souls which are bound for Heaven.[63] Conversely however, the toll-houses are a journey and not a place of destination, through which souls may end up in either Paradise or Hades. If anything, the journey through the toll-houses would result in a soul’s placement in Purgatory, although this is of course not the Orthodox teaching. Furthermore, while Purgatory purges the soul of sin, the demons of the toll-houses seek to keep a soul entrenched in its sins. The comparison of the toll-houses with Purgatory is simply a straw-man.[64]

Critics such as Archbishop Lazar and Fr. Michael Azkoul also claim that detailed Patristic expositions of the toll-houses, such as the homilies on the departure of the soul by St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Markarios the Great, and St. John Chrysostom are pseudepigraphal and thus lacking authority.[65] However, even was this true the Church has deemed fit to preserve these texts under their names as if they belonged to these great luminaries. St. Cyril’s homily is even traditionally included in the Sequential Psalter.[66] Even those who claim the works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite to be “pseudo” do not therefore question their orthodoxy.

Finally, it is claimed that the trials of the toll-houses make Satan equal to God in the realm of judgment.[67] However, it must be remembered that God is always in charge, although He may sometimes use Satan and/or demons to accomplish His purposes. The most obvious example of this is the entire book of Job, in addition to Judges 9:23, 1 Kings 16:14 and 3 Kings 22:21-23 wherein God sends an evil spirit. Of those souls taken by demons Cavarnos writes: “They are not taken, though, against God’s consent and without divine concession, for God is the Lord of life and death.”[68] Providing an interpretive context, Met. Hierotheos says that the demons are persons with free will who by permission of God and man’s allowance are able to dominate man through his passions and unrepentant heart, and that the demons have no authority over men of God.[69] The demons only have as much power as we give them.

Because so much space has been given to answering objections and those modern authorities who are trusted interpreters of the Patristic tradition, only a few Patristic and liturgical passages concerning the toll-houses will be considered here. Perhaps the earliest instance occurs in St. Justin Martyr who exhorts us to plead for protection at the end of our lives from the sword and lion’s mouth (referencing Ps. 22:20-21) from God  “who is able to turn away every shameless evil angel from taking our souls.”[70] The teaching also appears early in Origen who has already been quoted, although Clement of Alexandria already used the imagery of tolls being exacted on the passions.[71] Perhaps the earliest full exposition is found in St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Homily on the Departure of the Soul which speaks of several different toll-houses where the soul encounters “tax officials guarding the ascent, holding and preventing the souls from ascending.” [72] The teaching of the toll-houses can be found in innumerable other eastern Fathers and even in the pre-schism western Church in the writings of St. Gregory the Dialogist, St. Boniface, and the Life of St. Columba of Iona.[73] The teaching also exists in the Oriental tradition. A prayer to the Theotokos in the Eleventh Hour service of the Coptic tradition reads: “Come to my rescue, when my soul departs from my body, defeat the conspiracies of the enemy, shut the gates of hell lest they swallow my soul,”[74] and following in the tradition of Origen, St. Anthony and St. Cyril, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Theodosius (d. 567) writes of the Dormition of the Theotokos where he has her speak of the powers of light and darkness that seek for the departed soul and of the “merciless avengers, with diverse faces, whom God has set to teach the lawless in the way” who stand on the path whereon the departed soul will trod.[75]

The teaching is also pervasive in the Church’s universal liturgical tradition. At the 8th Ode of the Matins canon on Friday in the 4th tone we sing: “O Virgin, in the hour of my death rescue me from the hands of the demons, and the judgment, and the accusation, and the frightful testing, and the bitter toll-houses, and the fierce prince, and the eternal condemnation, O Mother of God,”[76] and in the Theotokion of the first Kathisma hymns at Matins on the Saturday of Cheesefare week we sing: “We ever give thee thanks and magnify thee, O pure Theotokos; we venerate and praise thy childbearing, O full of grace, and we call upon thee without ceasing: Save us, merciful Virgin, in thy love; deliver us from the fearful scrutiny which we must undergo before the demons, and in the hour of our examination suffer not thy servants to be put to shame.”[77] The universal tradition of the Church has handed to us the teaching of the soul’s journey through the aerial toll-houses.

By now it is clear that the soul remains active and aware after departing from the body. While Archbishop Lazar (then Deacon Lev) writes that “in the Orthodox understanding, at death, the soul is held to be assigned to a state of repose by an act of the Will of God, and enter into a condition of inactivity, a sort of sleep in which it does not function, hear or see,”[78] St. Ambrose of Milan teaches that after death “the soul is not held back by any obstacle placed by death, but is more active, because it is active in its own sphere without any association with the body,”[79] and St. John Cassian writes:

The souls of the dead … become yet more alive and more zealously cling to the glorification of God … on the basis of the testimony of Sacred Scripture … would it not be, I will not say extreme stupidity, but at least folly, to suspect even in the least that the most precious part of man (that is, the soul) … after putting off this fleshly coarseness in which it finds itself in the present life, should become unconscious …?[80]

Indeed, it would be folly to relegate the departed soul to a state of inactivity, lest we deny every appearance and intercession of the Saints.

In the forty days after death this conscious and active soul embarks upon a great journey, at times beautiful and at times frightful.[81] This journey is clearly expounded upon by St. Macarius of Alexandria who received an angelic revelation. For two days the soul is free to wander accompanied by angels. Often the soul will stay near the body and virtuous souls will visit those places where they did good deeds. On the third day when the body is brought into the Church the soul receives some relief from its Guardian Angel because of the prayers offered on his behalf in Church. Following this teaching, St. John Maximovitch states that it is on the third day that the soul passes through the toll-houses.[82] Having successfully passed through the demonic trials, souls are brought to Heaven to do reverence before God Himself in imitation of His Resurrection, and thus the Church offers oblations on the third day. Then the soul is shown the mansions of the Saints and the beauty of Paradise during the course of six days which allows it to forget all its bodily sorrows. After this the Angel again takes the soul to do reverence to God, and thus Church offers oblations on the ninth day. From the ninth until the fortieth day the soul is shown the horrors of Hades which cause souls to groan and gnash lest it be imprisoned there. On the fortieth day the soul again reverences God and only then does the Judge determine its fitting place. Thus the Church remembers the dead on fortieth day. Elder Cleopa teaches the same in his “The Soul’s Journey After Death.”[83] Here it is important to note, as does Fr. Seraphim, that these numbers characterize simply a general rule – they are not dogmatic in and of themselves.[84] Furthermore, this model in no way contradicts or negates the association of the third day memorial with Christ’s Resurrection, the ninth with the ranks of angels, and the fortieth with the period of lamentation over the Prophet Moses as is taught by the holy Apostles.[85]

On this fortieth day the soul undergoes the finality of the Particular Judgment before Christ the just Judge:

And so, if by the verdict of the Righteous Judge the soul be given freedom, then immediately the enemies are put to shame, the luminous Angels seize the soul from them, and with no further obstructions it is led by the Angels to that unutterable joy and glory, to which it will finally be established. If, however, the soul lived carelessly and so was found unworthy of freedom, then it will hear that most terrifying voice: ‘Take this ungodly one away from here, that he see not the glory of the Lord’ (Isaiah 26:10.[86]

Here begins the “intermediate state” proper, when the soul will experience either a foretaste of Heaven in Paradise or a foretaste of Hell in Hades, which will last until the Dread Judgment enacted at the Lord’s return. As Cavarnos notes, many today intentionally speak of Paradise/Heaven and Hades/Hell as “states” rather than “places,” but he emphasizes that the Fathers, our hymns, and the Lord Himself refer to both destinations as places, although he clarifies that both “space” and “time” in the afterlife are not as we know them in the physical world.[87] Fr. Seraphim, following St. John of Damascus’ teaching on the relative physicality of the soul, and St. Ignatius’ statement that “the location of paradise is in the heaven … the location of hell is in the bowels of the earth,”[88] states that “these places and their inhabitants cannot be seen by men until their spiritual eyes are opened … Further, these places are not within the “coordinates” of our space-time system … They are not there, but in a different kind of space that begins right here but extends, as it were, in a different direction.”[89] Vassiliadis teaches the same,[90] but Met. Hierotheos is among those who says that these “places” are used to denote a particular way of life, although he does also refer to them as “noetic” places.[91]

Both the souls of the righteous and the ungodly remain alive in these states of anticipation, and although the separation of body and soul is unnatural the hypostasis is not abolished. St. John of Damascus teaches that “even though the soul is separated from the body in death, the hypostasis of both remains one and the same. For the constitution in itself of each thing at its beginning of being is a hypostasis.”[92] Following St. Gregory of Nyssa, Met. Hierotheos teaches that even after dissolution the soul recognizes the elements that made up its body and with its cognitive power contacts them and draws them nearer until the Lord reunites them at His Second Coming.[93] St. Gregory says: “The soul always recognizes its own, what it was like when it had its form.”[94]

It is difficult for us in the flesh to have any comprehension of what souls experience in either Paradise or Hades, but the Fathers do take care to consistently emphasize that each is but a foretaste of the fullness that is to come after Christ’s return. The souls of the righteous live in communion with God a comfortable life with the angels and Saints while the sinners in Hades live with affliction and great grief. Neither Paradise nor Hades exist from God’s point of view – He did not create them, but rather both are the experience of the uncreated energy of His love. As Met. Hierotheos states, they are not in the form of threat and punishment, but rather of illness and cure. The cured and purified experience the illumination of God’s energies, while the sick experience His love as a caustic energy.[95] Indeed, St. Isaac of Syria maintains that “those who are punished in Gehenna, are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love?” for the sorrow caused by the rejection of God’s love “is more poignant than any fear of punishment.”[96]

However beautiful or terrifying are these experiences respectively, neither is yet the fullness of Heaven or Hell. This distinction can be difficult to understand because “Paradise” and “Heaven” and “Hades” and “Hell” are often used interchangeably in Orthodox literature, but this seems to be because they are in essence describing the same reality. Paradise is the enjoyment of God’s light in the soul and Heaven is the fullness experience by the soul reunited with the body, and Hades is the torture the soul feels by the memories of its passions, its aversion to the light of God, and the threats of the malicious demons, while Hell is the torture experienced by the soul reunited with its body. In any of these “places” the omnipresent God is of course “there” and the soul responds to His illuminating presence as it did in this life. As depicted by the soul’s forty day journey, and as taught by St. Andrew of Crete, all souls pass through Hades although the souls of the righteous do not stay there. The Saint voluntarily lays down his life that He may follow the Lord into Hades and experience yet more the wondrous mystery of the divine economy, and to know the Lord’s victory over Hades and death.[97]

Constantine Cavarnos also puts forth the teaching that Paradise and Hades are not static conditions of equality, but rather, each consists of various levels, corresponding to the virtues and vices of each soul. St. Macarius of Egypt says:

Some say that there is one kingdom and one hell; but we say that there are many levels and differences and measures, both in the kingdom and in hell … God, being a just judge, gives to each a reward according to the measure of faith … For there are superior measures, and there are little measures, and in hell itself appears magicians and robbers, as well as others who have committed only little sins. Those who say that there is one kingdom and one hell, and that there are no levels, say ill.[98]

St. Gregory of Sinai writes likewise of Paradise and Hades, noting that the differing degrees of ascent in the soul are known as “many mansions” in the words of Christ. He says there is one kingdom but many divisions within it corresponding to the varying levels of deification in the soul, just as there is one glory of the sun, another of the moon, and another of the stars.[99] And speaking starkly of the divisions within Hades, St. Ephraim the Syrian writes:

There is an outer darkness, as we hear in the Gospel, and consequently there is an inner one. The Gehenna of fire is one place; the gnashing of teeth, the unsleeping worm, the lake of fire, the inextinguishable fire, and the fiery river are others. The miserable sinners are distributed among these hells, each one according to his sins. And as there are different sins, so also are there different hells. Thus, there is one kind of hell for the adulterer, another for the fornicator, another for the murderer, and another for the thief and drunkard …”[100]

St. Symeon of Thessalonica also says that we are obliged to believe that the souls of sinners and unbelievers are tormented by the demons according to the degree of their sins and unbelief.[101]

As the departed soul retains sight, hearing, speech, memory, feelings and other qualities it had while in the body,[102] so the Church teaches that souls can recognize one another and remember and care for their loved ones yet on the earth. St. Macarius of Egypt teaches that the righteous are blessed to recognize and converse with one another just as men do in the market place, and that they may even come to know those whom they did not know in this life. However, this blessing is withheld from the souls of sinners because Hades is characterized by discord and the rule of hatred. The loathing that we hold for others here is multiplied a thousand times there, for as Dostoyevsky says “Hell is the ordeal of not loving anybody.”[103] St. Athanasius also teaches that righteous souls may meet and rejoice in the expectation of their ultimate Heavenly reward.[104]

It needs no explanation that the souls of the righteous remember us – the ethos of the Church certainly includes prayer to the Saints, and to departed loves ones in private prayer, and there have been countless visitations by the Saints either through their icons and relics or “in person.” The Church teaches adamantly that death does not sever us from the one Body of Christ. Vassiliadis teaches that just as St. Peter knew supernaturally of the dishonesty of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 3:5ff.), so the souls in Heaven are made aware of our needs on earth through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, and Bakogiannis teaches that when a Saint appears it is not the immaterial soul itself which is seen but a form taken by the condescension of God. The appearance of a Saint may even be in truth an angel when the soul is preoccupied in prayer or is appearing elsewhere, for only God is omnipresent.[105] When St. Andrew the Fool-for-Christ was taken to Paradise and the third Heaven he was not able to see the Most-Holy Theotokos because she was serving the suffering world at that time.

According to Bakogiannis, those in Hades also remember us who labor on earth. For this he points foremost to the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man wherein the Rich Man suffering in Hades calls out to Abraham, who represents God, to send Lazarus to warn his family of the suffering that awaits them if they do not repent. He also cites the story of a pagan priest in Hades who recognizes St. Macarius of Egypt on earth praying for the souls of the damned, and says there are innumerable other such examples.[106] However, St. Athanasius teaches that the souls of the unrepentant do not think of us because they are absorbed by the torturous memory of their sins and their coming punishment.[107] Perhaps the story of Lazarus was an exception to the rule for educative purposes, or perhaps there is no “rule” here, but God does what is necessary in each situation. Indeed, Bakogiannis also says that it is impossible for souls in Hades to recognize those in Paradise because they do not partake of the Divine Light, but that God condescended to allow the Rich Man to see Lazarus to teach him that his punishment was just. Those in Hades are unworthy to look upon those in Paradise because they would be burned by the brightness of the glory of God within them.[108] However, again according to Bakogiannis, those in Paradise remember their loved ones and recognize those in Hades but, according to the teaching of St. Gregory the Dialogist, because they have acquired the impassivity of God they are at peace about the justice of God.[109]

This leads to the questions of our prayer for the departed: what is accomplished thereby? Can souls in Hades repent? Can they be moved from Hades to Paradise? In essence this is the same as the question of prayer for the living – if God has His will and we pray that His will be done then of what value are our prayers? The Church teaches that after death the soul is incapable of performing works or repenting in order to find release from Hades. In Bakogiannis’ translation, Psalm 6:5 reads: “In Hades there is no repentance.”[110]  St. John of Damascus teaches that one who has departed in an unrepentant and evil life cannot be helped in any way.[111] This is the meaning of the great chasm between Abraham’s Bosom and Hades in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man – that there is no hope of repentance for the departed sinner. St. John of Kronstadt says that for those who are unworthy of salvation God does not move anyone to pray for them.[112] For whom, and why, then, do we pray?

St. John of Damascus also teaches that he who departed with even the slightest virtue, but for some reason did not do works worthy for repentance (cf. Matt. 3:8, Acts 26:20), the righteous Lord will not forget – even for reasons of indolence, indifference, procrastination or timidity! Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Church to pray for all the departed, for we know not who is able to receive the benefit of our prayers.[113] The Church prays for the departed continuously and in many ways, beginning with the Office at the Parting of the Soul from the Body, and as we have seen on the third, ninth, and fortieth days, and that the soul may pass safely through the toll-houses. Fr. Seraphim recalls how Bishop Savva of Edmonton inspired the faithful to fervent prayer at the funeral for St. John Maximovitch by citing the “fearful toll-houses.”[114]

The intermediate state is dynamic until the return of Christ when each receives his due reward. The righteous go from glory to glory, participating in the light of Christ ever more, but even departed sinners may receive some relief from the pains of Hades, and may even be moved to Paradise by the prayers of the Church and the mercy of God. Bakogiannis teaches that it is certain that the soul feels relief at the very moment of our prayers, while the movement to Paradise is uncertain but not impossible.[115] Concerning relief from suffering, he also writes that after traveling through Hades the Theotokos entreated Christ to have mercy on the souls that suffer there and so they are given respite between Pascha and Pentecost each year, and for this reason the Royal Doors remain open, the Saturday of Pentecost is dedicated to the departed, and the third kneeling prayer of Pentecost is a supplication for the departed.[116] A pagan priest who suffered in Hell revealed to St. Macarius of Egypt in what this relief consists, saying: “When you show pity on those in Hell and pray for them, they find comfort … seeing, in a way, each others’ faces. That is the comfort.”[117] Thus they receive, however temporary, some respite from the discord and hatred that characterizes the sufferings of Hades.

Souls in Hades cannot pray for their own release from that prison, and we do not pray that the souls move from Hades to Paradise, but rather for God to take them to Paradise. A great gulf is fixed between the two which only God can cross. Again according to Bakogiannis, the dead are no longer masters of their own souls and in this sense no longer have free will, and thus our prayers for the departed are even more powerful than those we make for the living. Whereas the living often choose to reject God’s mercy, the dead are unable to make this decision and so it is easier for God to have mercy on them. Thus the Church prays fervently for them in line with the will of God Who desires the salvation of all men. Likewise, Vassiliadis writes: “With our removal to the other life, the door for confession and repentance, that is, for personal decision and action worthy to move the compassion of the impartial Judge, is definitely closed.”[118]

Drawing on the testimony of the Fathers, the Liturgies and the Diptychs of the Church, St. Nektarios notes that for those who have reposed in communion with the Body and Blood of Christ the Church prays that God may forgive their sins and establish their souls where the just repose, but for those who have come to an evil end the Church does not supplicate for their salvation, but only that He will lighten their torments.[119] Vassiliadis concludes the same from the Fathers.[120] That sins may be forgiven during the intermediate state is told us by the Lord Who says in Matthew 12:32: “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come,” which thereby implies that all other sins, however heinous, are possibly forgiven, and this is why the Church offers memorials for the departed. The Church preserves many visions and stories of souls being moved from Hades to Paradise by the mercy of God, including Colonel Andrei Feodorovich Petrov who entered bliss through the prayers and asceticism of his wife St. Ksenia of St. Petersburgh, and the Emperor Trajan who is said to have been “baptized by St. Gregory [the Dialogist’s] tears” who was moved to compassion after learning that the Emperor once ordered recompense be paid to a widow whose son had been murdered.[121]

There are various other means by which the faithful may benefit the departed: through offering charity to the poor on their behalf, the lighting of the candles and oil lamps (which constitute a kind of prayer), and the offering of alter-bread, wine and oil for the performance of the Holy Liturgy. Of course no offering is greater than the Eucharist on the behalf of the departed. However, of charity on behalf of the departed the Apostolic Constitutions teach that “These things we say concerning the pious; for as to the ungodly, if thou givest all the world to the poor, thou wilt not benefit him at all. For to whom the Deity was an enemy while he was alive, it is certain it will be so also when he is departed; for there is no unrighteousness with Him. For ‘the Lord is righteous, and has loved righteousness (Ps. 6:7).’”[122] And here it must absolutely be noted: the Church in no way guarantees the salvation of any soul through its prayers and deeds – nothing replaces repentance in this life! Each man ought to throw himself at the mercy of God in this life and not rely on prayers offered after his repose. This would be folly.

Special mention must be given to St. Mark of Ephesus, the hero of the robber Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439 and great pillar of the Orthodox Church in whom is found perhaps the most concise and authoritative teaching on the fate of the soul after death. Drawing upon the Scriptures, Patristic homilies, Church services, Live of Saints, and visions and revelations of life after death, St. Mark ably defeated the falsities of the Latin Purgatorial doctrine put forth by Julian Cardinal Cesarini at the earlier “Union” Council of Lyons in 1270. Whereas modern “theologians” tend to distrust the lives and visions of the Saints, St. Mark shows that he is quite at home with such sources and accepts them as reliable transmissions of the Apostolic Tradition. St. Mark offered four homilies against the doctrine of Purgatory, but it is in his first Homily that is found the most concise account of the Orthodox doctrine.

The Latin teaching as laid forth by Cardinal Cesarini seems to be a product of precisely that mindset which has been often warned against – of interpreting Scriptural and Patristic passages and Saintly visions too literally and legalistically. By this time the Catholic Church had come to understand Heaven and Hell as finished and unchangeable, thus the souls in them already receive the fullness of reward or punishment. Thus there is no need to pray for those in Heaven whose lot is absolute nor those in Hell who have no hope or chance of cleansing and forgiveness. However, there are the souls who repose in a middle state of imperfection but not so imperfect that they belong in the eternal punishments of Hell. These souls are assigned to Purgatory, a third place wherein they are punished by a material fire in the present time to give satisfaction for even those sins which were forgiven, and to be purified before entering Heaven. For these souls prayers and charities may be offered to lessen their time spent there.[123]

           

By now the errors of this teaching ought to be clear. Firstly, neither the Scriptures nor the Fathers, Greek or Latin, ever posit a third destination for the departed soul or a second fire besides the eternal fire of Gehenna that exists after the Dread Judgment of Christ upon His return. Passages that speak of fire are properly understood allegorically as the purifying uncreated light of God that may grant relief and pardon to souls in Hades or as prophecies of the eternal fire that is to come, but there is certainly no material fire that exists in our present time. And as we have seen, Paradise and Hades are foretastes but not the fullness of Heaven and Hell. Only the soul united to the body in its natural state can know the fullness of joy or pain that comes from God’s love. Furthermore, no payment or satisfaction is due for sins that have been forgiven. In Orthodox theology forgiven sins are truly forgiven. St. Mark states:

To this we say the following, and pay heed how simple and at the same time how just this is: it is generally acknowledged that the remission of sins is at the same time also a deliverance from punishment; for the one who receives remission of them at the same time is delivered from the punishment owed for them. Remission is given in three forms and at different times: (1) during Baptism; (2) after Baptism, through conversion and sorrow and make up (for sins) by good works in the present life; and (3) after death, through prayers and good deeds and thanks to whatever else the Church does for the dead … In the first and last remission of sins the grace of God has the larger part, with the cooperation of prayer, and very little is brought in by us. The middle remission, on the other hand, has little from grace, while the greater part is owing to our labor. The first remission of sins is distinguished from the last by this; that the first is a remission of all sins in an equal degree, while the last is a remission only of those sins which are not mortal and over which a person has repented in life.

Thus does the Church of God think, and when entreating for the departed remission of sins and believing that it is granted them, it does not define as a law any kind of punishment with relation to them, knowing well that the Divine goodness in such matters conquers the idea of justice.[124]

Thus, although there are certain similarities in the Orthodox and Latin understandings of the afterlife, the congruence is often a matter of words alone. As St. Mark of Ephesus ably demonstrates, the Orthodox teaching has nothing to do with the overly literal and legalistic philosophy of the Latins but is rather the pure and unadulterated teaching of the Scriptures and the great Fathers of the Church, both east and west.

Death is the central reality of our lives but the world can give no satisfying answers to this great mystery. It is only to the Orthodox Church that we must turn to understand the origin and meaning of death. The world can only speculate blindly but in the Church we know the divine light of Christ that sweeps away the vanity of speculation. To understand death and the afterlife we turn to “the holy Fathers [who] teach all these things not from their imagination, but from enlightening experiences,” as Met. Hierotheos states.[125] Through the Scriptures, Patristic writings, lives and visions of Saints, hymns and prayers and iconography the Church teaches us the truths of life after death, but it is incumbent to remember that earthly words can provide but a weak description of spiritual realities. However, as Fr. Seraphim Rose teaches, that these words are allegories does not mean they are lacking in substance – the Church and her pious do not sweep these teachings away although they may seem fantastic to those who labor in a fleshly life.[126] Pastorally speaking, a priest must know the teachings of the Church but also understand that for some they may inspire repentance and joy, and for others, despair. Fr. Seraphim wisely observed, speaking of the toll-houses (although his words equally apply to the entire afterlife):

With those who are ready for it, the teaching of the toll-houses is a powerful incentive for repentance and a life lived in the fear of God; but there are those for whom the teaching would be so frightening that I would not even speak of it to them until they were better prepared to accept it. A priest sometimes encounters dying people so little prepared for the other world that it would be pointless to speak to them even of hell, let alone the toll-houses, for fear of removing in them the little hope and awareness they might have of the Kingdom of Heaven.[127]

And he continues “but this does not mean that hell has no part in the teaching of such a priest, or that he would not defend its reality decisively if it were attacked.”[128] As in all things, so in the afterlife the Church’s teachings center on Christ and the reality of His death-destroying Resurrection and His desire for the salvation of all men. Thus the Church calls us to a life of repentance and of prayer on behalf of the departed that they might find rest with the Saints “where sickness and sorrow are no more, neither sighing, but life everlasting.”[129]

http://oldbelieving.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/from-repose-to-resurrection-the-intermediate-state-of-souls/

Works Cited

“Aerial Toll-Houses.” OrthodoxWiki. 29 Oct. 2011. 26 Feb. 2012.

<http://orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses>.

Afanasiev, Viktor. Elder Barsanuphius of Optina. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska

Brotherhood, 2000.

Aliferakis, Fr. Constantine. “From the Pastor.” The Tropeoforos: St. George Greek Orthodox

 Church Monthly Newsletter: Schererville, IN (Aug. 2011). 26 Feb. 2012.

<http://content.seekandfind.com/bulletins/01/1173/20110801N.pdf>.

All Saints Monastery. “ROCOR, Monks, Marriage and Toll Houses.” Youtube. 10 June 2011.

25 Feb. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHSo5HvEtWA&list=UUdv

BZZ1IKEK_gbgA8b590Lg&index =86&feature=plcp>.

Anonymous Monk of Whitby. The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great. Trans. Bertram Colgrave.    Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1968.

Archimandrite Chrysostomos of Etna. Foreword. The Future Life According to Orthodox

            Teaching. By Constantine Cavarnos. Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox

Studies, 1985.

—– Introduction. “On the Question of the “Toll-Houses.”” By Fr. Michael Pomazansky.

Selected Essays. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996. 232-41. Orthodox

            Christian Information Center. 26 Feb. 2012.

<http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx>.

Archimandrite Panteleimon. Eternal Mysteries beyond the Grave: Orthodox Teachings on the

            Existence of God, the Immortality of the Soul, and Life beyond the Grave. Jordanville,

NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1989.

Azkoul, Rev. Dr. Michael. The Aerial Toll-House Myth: The Neo-Gnosticism of Fr Seraphim

            Rose. Dewdney, B.C., Canada: Synaxis Press.

Bakogiannis, Archimandrite Vasilios. After Death. Trans. W. J. Lillie. Katerini: Tertios, 1995.

Bakoyannis, Vasilios. The Mother of Christ: the Mother of God. Athens: Orthodox Book Centre,

2005.

Balan, Ioanichie. Elder Cleopa of Sihastria: In the Tradition of St. Paisius Velichkovsky. Lake

George, CO: New Varatec Pub., 2001.

Brianchaninov, Bishop Ignatius, Collected Works, vol. 3. Ed. Tuzov. St. Petersburg, 1883.

[Russian].

Boshchanovskiy, Protopresbyter Vassily. “Lessons in Dogmatic Theology.” Tserkovnaya Zhizn

            (Church Life) 5-6 (Sept.-Dec. 2001).

Bp. Nathanael of Vienna and Austria. “The Holy Righteous Abraham, Moses and Elias as

Preparers of Man’s Salvation.” Orthodox Life 28.6 (1978).

Cavarnos, Constantine. The Future Life According to Orthodox Teaching. Etna, CA: Center for

Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1985.

Cavarnos, Constantine, and Mary-Barbara Zeldin. St. Seraphim of Sarov. Belmont, MA: Institute

for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1980. Modern Orthodox Saints, vol. 5.

“Concerning Fake Patristic Texts Used by the Toll-House Cult.” All Saints of North America

            Canadian Orthodox Monastery. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://new-ostrog.org/discussion-

on-the-toll-houses>.

Constas, Nicholas. Ed. Alice-Mary Talbot. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, no. 55, 2001. 26 Feb. 2012.

<http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/DOP55/DP55ch06.pdf>.

Dorotheos of Gaza. Discourses and Sayings. Ed. Eric P. Wheeler. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian

Publications, 1977.

Elder Cleopa of Sihastria. “The Soul’s Journey After Death.” Web log post. Valahia: Orthodox

            Words. 17 Nov. 2009. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://valahia.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/the-

soul%E2%80%99s-journey-after-death/>.

Elder Ephraim. Counsels from the Holy Mountain: Selected from the Letters and Homilies of

            Elder Ephraim. Florence, AZ: St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery, 1999.

Elder Paisios. Athonite Fathers and Athonite Matters. Souroti, Thessaloniki: Holy Convent of

the Evangelist John the Theologian, 1999.

—— Words from Elder Paisios the Hagiorite: The Trials of Our Life. Souroti,

Thessaloniki: Holy Monastery “Evangelist John the Theologian, 2002.

Elder Porphyrios. Wounded by Love: The Life and the Wisdom. Limni, Evia: Denise Harvey,

2005.

Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica. Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives: The Life and Teachings of

            Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica. Trans. Ana Smiljanic. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska

Brotherhood, 2009.

Evergetinos vol. 1. Athens, 1981. [Greek].

Every, George. “Toll Gates on the Way.” Eastern Churches Review 8.2 (1976): 139-51.

Hapgood, Isabel F., trans. Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church. 4th ed.

Brooklyn: Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of New York and All North

America, 1965.

Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans. The Menaion: September. Boston, MA: Holy

Transfiguration Monastery, 2005.

Hopko, Fr. Thomas. “The Illumined Heart: Toll Houses: After Death Reality or Heresy?”

Interview by Kevin Allen. Audio blog post. Ancient Faith Radio. 30 Sept. 2007. Web. 26

Feb. 2012. <http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/toll_houses_after_death_reality_or_heresy>.

“Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa.” OrthodoxWiki. 22 June 2011. 25 Feb. 2012.

<http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_%2528Puhalo%2529_of_Ottawa>.

Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1883.

Mileant, Bp. Alexander. Life After Death. Trans. Nicholas Stoltz. Los Angeles: Holy Protection

Russian Orthodox Church, 1999. Web. 19 Feb. 1999. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

<http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/life_after_death.htm>.

Moss, Vladimir. “A Life of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava.” Vladimir Moss: Orthodox

Christianity Author. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/ 212/a-life-archbishop-theophan-poltava/>.

—– “Death and the Toll-Houses.” Vladimir Moss: Orthodox Christianity Author. 27 Nov. 2007.

Web. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/214/death-toll-

houses/>.

Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware. The Lenten Triodion. South Canaan, Penn.: St. Tikhon’s

Seminary, 1994.

—–The Lenten Triodion: Supplementary Texts. South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary, 2007.

Pomazansky, Fr. Michael. “On the Question of the “Toll-Houses”” Selected Essays. Jordanville,

NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1996. 232-41. Orthodox Christian Information Center.

26 Feb. 2012. <http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx>.

—– Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition. Trans. Fr.

Seraphim Rose. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994.

Puhalo, Archbishop Lazar. The Commemoration of the Dead. Dewdney, B.C., Canada: Synaxis

Press.

—– The Tale of Elder Basil “The New” and the Theodora Myth: Study of

 a Gnostic Document and a General Survey of Gnosticism. Dewdney, B.C., Canada:

Synaxis Press.

Puhalo, Dn. Lev. Tlingit Herald 5.6. St. Nektarios American Orthodox Church, Seattle.

Robinson, Forbes. Coptic Apocryphal Gospels. Cambridge: Univ., 1896.

Rose, Fr. Seraphim. “A Prologue of the Orthodox Saints of the West.” Introduction. Vita

Patrum: The Life of the Fathers. By St. Gregory of Tours. Ed. Fr. Seraphim Rose. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1988.

Rose, Fr. Seraphim. The Soul after Death. Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood,

2004.

Scott, Cathy. Seraphim Rose: The True Story and Private Letters. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox, 2000.

Stakhovich, Maria, and Sergius Bolshakoff. Interior Silence: Elder Michael, the Last Great

            Mystic of Valaam. Ouzinkie, AK: New Valaam Monastery, 1992.

St. Athanasius the Great, Library of the Greek Fathers and Ecclesiastical Authors, 33. Athens,

1963. [Greek].

St. Ephraim of Syria, The Ascetic Works. Ed. Mark D. Sakkorrafos, Athens, 1964 [modern Greek

version].

St. Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and the Resurrection. Ed. Catharine P. Roth. Crestwood, NY:

St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2002. Print. Popular Patristics.

St. Isaac the Syrian. The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Boston, MA: Holy

Transfiguration Monastery, 1984.

St. John Cassian, Works of St. John Cassian the Roman. Trans. Bishop Peter, Moscow,

1892. [Russian].

St. John Maximovitch. “Life After Death: A Homily by St. John the Wonderworker.” Footnotes by Fr.John Mack. 25 Feb. 2012. <http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/lifeafterdeath.aspx>.

St. Makarios of Egypt, Spiritual Homilies. Volos, 1954.

St. Mark of Ephesus, First Homily on Purgatorial Fire, in Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin, St.

 Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence. Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY,

1963.

St. Nektarios Kefalas, Met. of Pentapolis, Study Concerning the Immortality of the Soul and the

 Holy Memorial Services. Athens, 1901. [Greek].

St. Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Collected Works. Thessalonica, ca. 1960. [Greek].

St. Theophan the Recluse. The Spiritual Life and How to Be Attuned to It. Trans. Alexandra

Dockham. Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995.

—– The One-Hundred-Eighteenth Psalm (Interpretation). Moscow,

1891 (reprinted by Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY, 1976).

Sysoev, Fr. Daniel. “Serbian Conversations, Part 1.” Interview by Dusanka Zekovic. Web log

post. Incendiary: A Daily Living Reproach Which They Have before Their Eyes. 1 Mar.

2010. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://incendiarious.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/serbian-

conversations-part-1/.>.

The Agpia. Sydney, Australia: Coptic Orthodox Publication and Translation, 2000. 26 Feb. 2012.

<http://www.saint-mary.net/books/agpia/Agpia.pdf>.

The Philokalia of the Holy Neptic Fathers, vol. 1. Athens, 1957, vol. 4, 1961. [Greek].

“Toll houses?” OrthodoxChristianity.net. 23 May 2011. 26 Feb. 2012.

<http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36319.135.html>.

Vassiliadis, Nikolaos P. The Mystery of Death. Trans. Fr. Peter A. Chamberas. Athens, Greece:     Orthodox Brotherhood of Theologians: “The Savior”, 1993.

Velimirović, Nikolaj. The Prologue of Ohrid: Lives of Saints, Hymns, Reflections and Homilies

 for Every Day of the Year. Trans. Fr. T. Timothy Tepsić. Ed. Fr. Janko Trbović. Vol. 1.

Alhambra, CA: Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America, 2002.

Vlachos, Met. Hierotheos. Life after Death. Trans. Esther Williams. Levadia, Greece: Birth of

the Theotokos Monastery, 1995.

Vladimirov, Fr. Artemy, and Mother Nectaria McLees. Bright Faith: Father Artemy Vladimirov

            Talks with Western Orthodox Christians. Indianapolis: Christ the Savior Brotherhood,

2010.

Ware, Kallistos. “‘One Body in Christ’: Death and the Communion of the Saints.” Sobornost 3.2

(1981): 179-91.

Patristic Sources

Apostolic Constitutions.

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata.

Origen, Hom. in Luc., 23, PG 13:1862.

St. Ambrose. Seven Exegetical Works. Trans. Michael P. McHugh. Vol. 65. Catholic University

of America, 1972. Fathers of the Church.

St. Andrew of Crete, Homily 12: On the Dormition of the Virgin, PG 97, 1049-1052.

St. Athanasius the Great, To Antiochus the Ruler, Question 32, 35:108-109.

St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent.

St. John of Damscus, Octoechos.

—– On Those Who Have Fallen Alseep in Faith, 21, PG 95, 268BC.

—– Philosophical Chapters 29, FC 37.

St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho.

Note: Complete citations will be provided in the Works Cited section.

[1] Cathy Scott, Seraphim Rose: The True Story and Private Letters, pp. 180, 181.

[2] Fr. Seraphim Rose, A Prologue of the Orthodox Saints of the West, in Vita Patrum: The Life of the Fathers by St. Gregory of Tours, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (1988), pp. 23-24.

Similarly, Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Chrysostomos of the Holy Synod in Resistance writes: “So it is that many have written of late that Scripture and the Fathers of the Church are silent about the afterlife and reticent in their approach to this topic. Reticent they are, indeed, to speak of the mystical realm of Eternity in words that might make of Heaven the middle-class Protestant songfest so feared by Samuel Clemens, or cast Hell in images, not of metaphysical anguish, but of epic barbecues; but quiet about the afterlife Holy Scripture and the Fathers most certainly are not. Only our departure from Patristic study and from theology which derives from the Patristic mind can account for this great error among our contemporary theologians,” Foreword to Constantine Cavarnos’ The Future Life According to Orthodox  Teaching (1985), p. 8.

[3] Quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, The Soul After Death (2004), p. 67.

[4] Ibid., pp. 234-235.

[5] Idiomelon for the dead in the 4th tone (Octoechos), qtd. in Cavarnos, The Future Life, p. 21.

[6] The Lenten Triodion, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press (1994), p. 144.

[7] Discourses and Sayings, Cisterna Publications (1977), pp. 185,184.

[8] The Ascetic Works, in the modern Greek version by Mark D. Sakkorrafos, Athens, 1964, p. 155, qtd. in Cavarnos, The Future Life, p. 22.

[9] St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, 6:24.

[10] St. Ephraim, The Ascetic Works, p. 9, and Cavarnos and Zeldin, St. Seraphim of Sarov, in Modern Orthodox Saints V (1980), p. 47; both qtd. in Cavarnos, The Future Life, pp. 22, 23.

[11] A Prayer to the Theotokos by Monk Paul

[12] Office at the Parting of the Soul from the Body, Canon of Prayer to the All-undefiled Birth-giver of God, on behalf of a man whose soul is departing, and who cannot speak, in Hapgood, Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic Church (1965), p. 361.

[13] The Office at the Parting of the Soul from the Body alone contains eight references to the assault of demons upon the newly-departed soul. Additionally, from the Menaion for Sept 3rd, the Theotokion on the Praises: “Carelessly reclining in the bed of languor and heedlessness, I most slothfully pass through life; and I fear the hour of death, lest that wicked serpent, like a savage lion, in snatching up my lowly soul, rend it asunder with ruthless villainy; O blameless Theotokos, in thy goodness, hasten before the end to bestir me and raise me up to repentance and change of life,” Holy Transfiguration Monastery, p. 60.

[14] Bishop Ignatius, Collected Works, vol. III, p. 136, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 65. Emphasis added – to highlight that the tests of the toll-houses are not a Latin-inspired juridical affair, but rather are a means by which to determine the love, or lack thereof, for God in the soul of man.

[15] cf. Eph. 2:2, 6:12.

[16] Ibid., p. 136, 133, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 66, 65.

[17] The Future Life, p. 24.

[18] Quoted in Ibid., p. 60.

[19] Ibid., p. 61.

[20] Vlachos, Life After Death (1995), p. 62, 66, 72, 77; Cavarnos, The Future Life, p. 23. Cavarnos quotes St. Maximus the Confessor: “Those who have acquired perfect love of God and have, through their virtues, risen on the wings of the soul, will ‘be caught up in the clouds,’ as the Apostle says, and will not be brought into judgement [sic]. On the other hand, those who have not acquired love in all its perfection, but have both sins and virtues on their account, will appear before the court of judgment. There they will be tried, as it were, by fire. Their good actions will be put in the balance against the bad, and if the good outweighs the bad, they will be delivered from punishment,” Philokalia I, Athens, 1957, p. 273.

[21] Another student has taken up this task.

[22] The Archbishop was formerly Deacon Lev of ROCOR, but he was defrocked by its Synod in 1980 for his persistent and agitated attacks against the teaching of the toll-houses and for entering into the schismatic Free Serbian Church which ordained him to the priesthood in 1981. Puhalo now considers ROCOR to be a heretical synod which had no canonical authority (see his The Tale of Elder Basil “The New” and the Theodora Myth: Study of a Gnostic Document and a General Survey of Gnosticism , p. 10, and his video “ROCOR, Monks, Marriage and Toll Houses,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHSo5HvEtWA&list=UUdvBZZ1IKEK_gbgA8b590Lg&index =86&feature=plcp, beginning at 24:10). In 1988 he joined the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece and was elevated to the rank of Archimandrite; in 1990 he was received into the Holy Synod of Milan and consecrated as a bishop; in 1996 he joined the schismatic Kiev Patriarchate and was elevated to the rank of Archbishop. Finally, in 2003 he was received into the OCA by economia with the title of “Retired Archbishop.” For this history, see his entry on OrthodoxWiki at http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_%28Puhalo%29_of_Ottawa. Fr. Michael Azkoul was a priest in ROCOR but schismed with the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in the 1980s and is now a priest of their “Holy Orthodox Church of North America.”

[23] Quoted by Fr. John Mack in St. John Maximovitch, Life After Death, at http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/lifeafterdeath.aspx.

[24] The One-Hundred Eighteenth Psalm, Interpreted by Bishop Theophan, Moscow, 1891, reprinted by Jordanville, 1976, pp. 289-290, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 86. St. Theophan also uses the Tale of Theodora as a preparation for confession, in The Spiritual Life and How to be Attuned to It, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (1995), pp. 166-169.

[25] Collected Works vol. 3, p. 138, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 268.

[26] Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2 (1883), p. 535, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 74.

[27] Quoted by Fr. Constantine Aliferakis in The Tropeoforos: St. George Greek Orthodox Church Monthly Newsletter: Schererville, IN, Aug. 2011, at http://content.seekandfind.com/bulletins/01/1173/20110801N.pdf. St. Barsanuphius also referred to St. Ignatius Brianchaninov’s Essay on Death which contains the toll-house teaching as “indispensable in its genre,” in Victor Afanasiev, Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, p. 736.

[28] Prologue of Ohrid Vol. 1: January to June, Homily for June 25, p. 654. He also speaks of the toll-houses in his reflections for Sept. 22,  24, 27, Oct. 18, 24, Dec. 23, Aug. 15 and in his homilies for Nov. 7, June 25, and in the lives of Venerable Theodora of Constantinople on Dec. 30, Venerable Basil the New on March 26, and St. Taxiotis on March 28.

[29] Life After Death, at http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/lifeafterdeath.aspx.

[30] http://orthodoxwiki.org/Aerial_Toll-Houses; see post #167 at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36319.135.html.

[31] Nun Maria Stakhovich, Sergius Bolshakoff, Interior Silence, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (1992), p. 109.

[32] Vladimir Moss, A Life of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, at http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/212/a-life-archbishop-theophan-poltava/.

[33] Archimandrite Ioanichie Bolan, Elder Cleopa of Sihastria, p. 152. For a full exposition of the toll-house teaching from Elder Cleopa see “The Soul’s Journey After Death,” at http://valahia.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/the-soul%E2%80%99s-journey-after-death/.

[34] Wounded by Love (2005), p. 226. In saying that he did not want to think about the toll-houses Elder Porphyrios is not denying their existence, just as he is not denying the existence of Hell, but this is consonant with his overall spirituality through which he did not seek to battle the demons but only to cling to Christ.

[35] Words from Elder Paisios the Hagiorite: The Trials of Our Life, Holy Monastery “Evangelist John the Theologian: Souroti, Thessaloniki (2002), chapter 1, quoted in Greek at https://www.facebook.com/groups/167340509648/. See also Athonite Fathers and Athonite Matters, pp. 151-152.

[36] Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives: The Life and Teachings of Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica, p. 198.

[37] Interview conducted by Dusanka Zekovic, at http://incendiarious.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/serbian-conversations-part-1/.

[38] Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (1994), pp. 333, 334. See also his article “On the Question of the “Toll-Houses:”

Our War is not Against Flesh and Blood” at http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx.

[39] “The Holy Righteous Abraham, Moses and Elias as Preparers of Man’s Salvation.” Orthodox Life 28.6 (Nov- Dec. 1978), p. 45.

[40] Life After Death, trans. Nicholas Stoltz, at http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/life_after_death.htm#n6.

[41] Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave, (1989), p. 62.

[42]Life After Death, pp. 62, 70.

[43] “’One Body in Christ’: Death and the Communion of Saints,” in Sobornost vol. 3, no. 2 (1981), p. 182.

[44] Counsels from the Holy Mountain, p. 71. See also pp. 140, 151-153, 156-157, 337, 371, 417, 436.

[45] http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?8794-Clarification-needed-on-the-experience-of-Christians-after-death, post #15.

[46] Illumined Heart podcast on Ancient Faith Radio: “Toll Houses: After Death Reality or Heresy?”, Sept. 30, 2007, http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/toll_houses_after_death_reality_or_heresy.

[47] Mystery of Death, The Orthodox Brotherhood of Theologians: “the Savior”, Athens, Greece, (1993), p. 385. Vassiliadis is a member of this monastic brotherhood.

[48] “Lessons in Dogmatic Theology,” in ROCOR’s official publication Tserkovnaya Zhizn (Church Life), no. 5-6 (Sept.-Dec. 2001), p. 41.

[49] Bright Faith, Christ the Savior Brotherhood, p. 9.

[50] “’To Sleep, Perchance to Dream’: The Middle State of Souls in Patristic and Byzantine Literature,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55, at http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/DOP55/DP55ch06.pdf.

[51] Death and the Toll-Houses, at http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/214/death-toll-houses/.

[52] Introduction to Fr. Michael Pomazanksy’s On the Question of the “Toll-Houses:” Our War is not Against Flesh and Blood, at http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_pomaz.aspx.

[53] Innumerable Patristic and liturgical witnesses are provided in the books cited in this paper. The Fathers, in turn, were pulling from Scriptural sources, most notablyLuke 12:20 which accurately reads: “But God said unto him, You fool, this night they demand of you your soul,” and John 14:30, already cited, in addition to those verses already cited which speak of the spirits of the air. Met. Hierotheos also cites Psalm 7:1-3, and Jer. 20:9-10. See also Zechariah chapter 3 wherein he beholds a vision of the High Priest Joshua standing before the Lord in filthy rags. Although Satan resists him, the angels of the Lord clothe the priest in new garments.

[54] See Abp. Lazar’s The Tale of Elder Basil “The New” and the Theodora Myth: Study of a Gnostic Document and a General Survey of Gnosticism and Fr. Michael Azkoul’s The Aerial Toll-House Myth: The Neo-Gnosticism of Fr Seraphim Rose.

[55] Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 75.

[56] Life After Death, p. 77-78.

[57] “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.”

[58] Hom. in Luc., 23 (PG 13:1862).

[59] Soul After Death, p. 185.

[60] The Future Life, p. 26.

[61] Collected Works, vol. 3, p. 136, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 65

[62] Abp. Lazar Puhalo writes: “We need not even go into detail and offer comparison with the horror-filled Scholastic, Latinized doctrines of aerial purgatories, toll-houses and demonic tribunals,” in The Commemoration of the Dead, Synaxis Press, p. 21.

[63] Met. Kallistos Ware, ‘One Body in Christ,’ p. 184.

[64] Fr. Seraphim writes: “There is no paganism, no occultism, no ‘oriental astrology,’ no ‘purgatory’ whatever to be found in the Orthodox accounts of the toll-houses,” in Soul After Death, p. 243.

[65] Concerning Fake Patristic Texts Used by the Toll-House Cult, at http://new-ostrog.org/discussion-on-the-toll-houses. See also Abp. Lazar, The Tale of Elder Basil “The New,” pp. 73-78.

[66] Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 74.

[67] Archbishop Lazar: “This is the first selected aspect of Gnostic dualism that concerns us here. In a somewhat modified form, it is a necessary element of the aerial toll-house myth, which makes Satan equal with God in the realm of the judgment of the soul,” The Tale of Elder Basil “The New,” pp. 4-5.

[68] The Future Life, p. 26.

[69] Life After Death, p. 79.

[70] Dialogue with Trypho 105.

[71] The Stromata 4.18, although he is not clearly referring to the soul’s after death ascent.

[72] Quoted in Vassiliadis, The Mystery of Death, p. 390.

[73] Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, pp. 72, 76, 77.

[74] From the Coptic prayer book The Agpia, at http://www.saint-mary.net/books/agpia/Agpia.pdf.

[75] Coptic and Apocryphal Gospels, ed. and trans. Forbes Robinson (Cambridge, 1896), pp. 95-99, qtd. in George Every, “Toll Gates on the Way,” Eastern Churches Review vol 8, no. 2, 1976, p. 141.

[76] Quoted in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 73.

[77] Lenten Triodion Supplement, p. 58.

Many other references to the Toll-Houses and the terror of demons at death can be found throughout the Octoechos, Menaion, Triodion, Pentecostarion, and the Office at the Parting of the Soul from the Body, the Canon to the Guardian Angel, The Order at the Parting of The Soul from the Body When One Has Suffered For a Long Time, Another, Similar Prayer for the Assault of Lust in the Book of Needs vol. 3, the funeral services for priests and for laymen, numerous Akathists, and many other prayers and hymns of the Church.

[78] Tlingit Herald, St. Nektarios American Orthodox Church, Seattle, vol. 5, no. 6:3-9, p. 19, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Life After Death, p. 237.

[79] “Death as a Good,” in Seven Exegetical Works (Fathers of the Church  Series vol. 65), 4:15, p. 80, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Life After Death, p. 177.

[80] First Conference, chapter 14, in the Works of St. John Cassian the Roman, Russian tr. by Bishop Peter, Moscow, 1892, pp. 178-179, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Life After Death, p. 178.

[81] This revelation is summarized in Archbishop Lazar’s The Tale of Elder Basil ‘The New,’ pp. 74-76.

[82] Life After Death, http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/lifeafterdeath.aspx.

[83] http://valahia.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/the-soul%E2%80%99s-journey-after-death/.

[84] Soul After Death, p. 187.

[85] Apostolic Constitutions 8.42

[86] Evergetinos 1, p. 161, qtd. in Cavarnos, The Future Life, p. 30.

[87] The Future Life, pp. 34-35.

[88] Collected Works vol. 3, pp. 309, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, p. 130.

[89] Soul After Death, p. 130-131.

[90] The Mystery of Death, p. 399.

[91] Life After Death, p. 90.

[92] Philosophical Chapters 29, FC 37, p. 54, qtd. in Vlachos, Life After Death, pp. 84-85.

[93] Life After Death, pp. 85-86.

[94] On the Soul and Resurrection chap. 5, p. 65-69, SVS, qtd. in Vlachos, Life After Death, p. 86.

[95] Life After Death, p. 265.

[96] The Ascetical Homilies, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, Homily 28, p. 141.

[97] Homily 12: On the Dormition of the Virgin, PG 97, 1049-1052.

[98] Spiritual Homilies, Homily 40, qtd. in Cavarnos, The Future Life, p. 33.

[99] Philokalia vol. 4, Athens, 1961, pp. 36-38.

[100] The Ascetic Works, modern Greek version by Mark D. Sakkorrafos, Athens, 1964, p. 279, qtd. in Cavarnos, The Future Life, pp. 33-34.

[101] Collected Works [in Greek], Athens, c. 1960, pp. 346-347.

[102] Bakogiannis, After Death, p. 69.

[103] Quoted in Ibid., p. 79.

[104] St. Macarius of Egypt, Spiritual Homilies, p. 233; St. Athanasius, Library of the Greek Fathers and Ecclesiastical Authors, 33, p. 195.

[105] After Death, pp. 75-76.

[106] After Death, p. 70.

[107] To Antiochus the Ruler, Question 32, 35:108-109.

[108] After Death, p. 80.

[109] Ibid., pp. 80-81.

[110] After Death, p. 86.

[111] On Those Who Have Fallen Alseep in Faith, 21, PG 95, 268BC.

[112] In Nun Maria Stakhovich, Sergius Bolshakoff, Interior Silence, p. 176.

[113] On Those Who Have Fallen Asleep in Faith 21.

[114] Soul After Death, p. 253.

[115] After Death, p. 87.

[116] Bakoyannis, Mother of Christ: Mother of God p. 111-112 (Archimandrite Vasilios’ last name is spelled differently in the two works cited in this paper.)

[117] Qtd. in Bakogiannis, After Death, p. 90.

[118] The Mystery of Death, p. 430.

[119] Study Concerning the Immortality of the Soul and Holy Memorial Services, Athens, 1901, pp. 83-85.

[120] Mystery of Death, p. 434.

[121] The Earliest Life of St. Gregory the Great, by an anonymous Monk of Whitby, tr. by Bertram Colgrave, Univ. of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 1968, pp. 127-129, referenced in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, pp.  203-204n.

[122] 4.43.

[123] Fr. Seraphim Rose offers a succinct summary of the Latin teaching in The Soul After Death, pp. 197-198.

[124] First Homily: Refutation of the Latin Chapters Concerning Purgatorial Fire, qtd. in Fr. Seraphim Rose, Soul After Death, pp. 209-210.

[125]Life After Death, pp. 70.

[126] Soul After Death, pp. 234-235.

[127] Ibid., p. 267.

[128] Ibid.

[129] Kontakion of the Departed.

On Fundamental Orthodox Exegesis

St. Justin Popovich 1894-1979

The Holy Fathers recommend serious preparation before reading and studying the Bible; but of what does this preparation consist?

First of all in prayer. Pray to the Lord to illuminate your mind–so that you may understand the words of the Bible–and to fill your heart with His grace–so that you may feel the truth and life of those words.

Be aware that these are God’s words, which He is speaking and saying to you personally. Prayer, together with the other virtues found in the Gospel, is the best preparation a person can have for understanding the Bible.

How should we read the Bible? Prayerfully and reverently, for in each word there is another drop of eternal truth, and all the words together make up the boundless ocean of the Eternal Truth.

The Bible is not a book but life; because its words are “spirit and life” (John 6:63). Therefore its words can be comprehended if we study them with the spirit of its spirit, and with the life of its life.

It is a book that must be read with life–by putting it into practice. One should first live it, and then understand it.

Here the words of the Saviour apply: “Whoever is willing to do it–will understand that this teaching is from God” (John 7:17). Do it, so that you may understand it. This is the fun­damental rule of Orthodox exegesis. (How to Read the Bible and Why)

Source: http://www.sv-luka.org/library/howtoread_jp.htm

On Holy Relics

In the God-Man, the Lord Christ, and His Body, all matter has been set on a path toward Christ —the path of deification, transfiguration, sanctification, resurrection, and ascent to an eternal glory surpassing that of the Cherubim. And all of this takes place and will continue to take place through the Divine and human Body of the Church, which is truly the God-Man Christ in the total fullness of His Divine and Human Person, the fullness “that fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23). Through its Divine and human existence in the Church, the human body, as matter, as substance, is sanctified by the Holy Spirit and in this way participates in the life of the Trinity. Matter thus attains its transcendent, divine meaning and goal, its eternal blessedness and its immortal joy in the God-Man.


The holiness of the Saints—both the holiness of their souls and of their bodies—derives from their zealous grace- and virtue-bestowing lives in the Body of the Church of Christ, of the God-Man. In this sense, holiness completely envelopes the human person—the entire soul and body and all that enters into the mystical composition of the human body. The holiness of the Saints does not hold forth only in their souls, but it necessarily extends to their bodies; so it is that both the body and the soul of a saint are sanctified. Thus we, in piously venerating the Saints, also venerate the entire person, in this manner not separating the holy soul from the holy body. Our pious veneration of the Saints’ relics is a natural part of our pious respect for and prayerful entreaty to the Saints. All of this constitutes one indivisible ascetic act, just as the soul and body constitute the single, indivisible person of the Saint. Clearly, during his life on the earth, the Saint, by a continuous and singular grace- and virtue-bestowing synergy of soul and body, attains to the sanctification of his person, filling both the soul and body with the grace of the Holy Spirit and so transforming them into vessels of the holy mysteries and holy virtues. It is completely natural, again, to show pious reverence both to the former and to the latter, both to soul and body, both of them holy vessels of God’s grace. When the charismatic power of Christ issues forth, it makes Grace-filled all the constituent parts of the human person and the person in his entirety. By unceasing enactment of the ascetic efforts set forth in the Gospels, Saints gradually fill themselves with the Holy Spirit, so that their sacred bodies, according to the word of the holy Apostle, become temples of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19; 3:17), Christ dwelling by faith in their hearts (Eph. 3:17) and by fruitful love also fulfilling the commandments of God the Father. Establishing themselves in the Holy Spirit through grace-bestowing ascetic labors, the Saints participate in the life of the Trinity, becoming sons of the Holy Trinity, temples of the Living God (II Cor. 6:16); their whole lives thus flow from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. By piously venerating the holy relics of the Saints, the Church reveres them as temples of the Holy Spirit, temples of the Living God, in which God dwells by Grace even after the earthly death of the Saints. And by His most wise and good Will, God creates miracles in and through these relics. Moreover, the miracles which derive from the holy relics witness also to the fact that their pious veneration by the people is pleasing to God.
All in all, the mystery of holy relics is at the heart of the universal mystery of the New Testament: the incarnation of God. The full mystery of the human body is explained by the incarnation, the embodiment of God in the God-Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. For this reason, then, the Gospel message concerning the body: “The body for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (I Corinthians 6:13). And through a human body also the entire creation, all of matter, received its divine significance, the universal meaning of the God-Man. By man, who is sanctified in the Church by the holy mysteries and the holy virtues, the creation and even matter are sanctified, united to Christ. (The Place of Holy Relics in the Orthodox Church, St. Justin Popovich. From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. VII, No. 1, p. 9. Translated from the Serbian by the Reverend Gregory Telepneff)

2Ki 2:13-14

And he took up the cloak of Elijah that had fallen from him and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the cloak of Elijah that had fallen from him and struck the water, saying, “Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?” And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other, and Elisha went over.

2Ki 13:21 And as a man was being buried, behold, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha, and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.
Sir. 48:13-15 Elias was indeed covered with the whirlwind, and his spirit was filled up in Eliseus: in his days he feared not the prince, and no man was more powerful than he. No word could overcome him, and after death his body prophesied. In his life he did great wonders, and in death he wrought miracles.
Eze 44:19 And when they (the priests) go out into the outer court to the people, they shall put off the garments in which they have been ministering and lay them in the holy chambers. And they shall put on other garments, lest they transmit holiness to the people with their garments.
Mat 14:35-36 And when the men of that place recognized Him, they sent around to all that region and brought to him all who were sick and implored Him that they might only touch the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well.
Act 19:11-12 And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.
St. Ignatius of Antioch ca. 45-115
Then, being immediately thrown in, according to the command of Caesar given some time ago, the public spectacles being just about to close (for it was then a solemn day, as they deemed it, being that which is called the thirteenth in the Roman tongue, on which the people were wont to assemble in more than ordinary numbers), he was thus cast to the wild beasts close, beside the temple,
that so by them the desire of the holy martyr Ignatius should be fulfilled, according to that which is written, “The desire of the righteous is acceptable Prov. 10:24 [to God],” to the effect that he might not be troublesome to any of the brethren by the gathering of his remains, even as he had in his Epistle expressed a wish beforehand that so his end might be. For only the harder portions of his holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr. (Martyrdom of Ignatius 6)
St. Polycarp of Smyrna ca. 69-155
These things then happened with so great speed, quicker than it takes to tell, and the crowd came together immediately, and prepared wood and faggots from the work-shops and baths and the Jews were extremely zealous, as is their custom, in assisting at this. Now when the fire was ready he put off all his clothes, and loosened his girdle and tried also to take off his shoes, though he did not do this before, because each of the faithful was always zealous, which of them might the more quickly touch his flesh. For he had been treated with all respect because of his noble life, even before his martyrdom. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 13)
But the evil one, who is the opponent and envier, who is the enemy to the race of men, beholding both the greatness of his testimony and his conversation blameless from the beginning, how he was crowned with a crown of immortality, and how he carried off a prize that could not be spoken against, contrived that not even a relic of him should be taken by us, though many desired to do this, and to communicate with his holy flesh. He suborned, therefore, Nicetes, the father of Herodes, and the brother of Alce, to make interest with the governor so as not to give his body to the tomb, Lest, said he, they abandon the crucified and begin to worship this man. And these things they said at the suggestion and instance of the Jews, who also kept watch when we were about to take the body from the fire, not knowing that we shall never be able to abandon Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those who are saved, the blameless on behalf of sinners, nor to worship any one else. Him we adore as the Son of God; but the martyrs, as the disciples and imitators of the Lord, we love according to their deserts, on account of their incomparable love for their King and Teacher, with whom may it be our lot to be partners and fellow-disciples.
Therefore, the centurion, seeing the strife that had risen among the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire and burned it. Thus we, having afterwards taken up his bones, more valuable than precious stones, laid them where it was suitable. There, so far as is allowed us, when we are gathered together in exultation and joy, the Lord will enable us to celebrate the birthday of the martyrs, both for the memory of those who have contended, and for the exercise and preparation of those to come. (ibid.,17,18)

Eusebius of Caesarea ca. 263-339
In this way then was he the first to be heralded as above all a fighter against God, and he was raised up to slaughter against the Apostles. It is related that in his time Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified, and the title of Peter and Paul, which is still given to the cemeteries there, confirms the story, no less than does a writer of the church named Gaius, who lived when Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, and who in a written discussion with Proclus, the leader of the opinion among the Phrygians, speaks as follows of the places where the sacred relics of the apostles in question are deposited: But I can point out the trophies of the apostles, for if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who founded this church. (Ecclesiastical History 2.25.5-7)
St. Athanasius the Great ca. 293-373
Of Anthony’s Death
Having said this, when they had kissed him, he lifted up his feet, and as though he saw friends coming to him and was glad because of them— for as he lay his countenance appeared joyful— he died and was gathered to the fathers. And they afterward, according to his commandment, wrapped him up and buried him, hiding his body underground. And no one knows to this day where it was buried, save those two only. But each of those who received the sheepskin of the blessed Antony and the garment worn by him guards it as a precious treasure. For even to look on them is as it were to behold Antony; and he who is clothed in them seems with joy to bear his admonitions. (Life of Anthony, 92)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem ca. 313-386
I speak but in passing of Elias, and the widow’s son whom he raised; of Elisseus also, who raised the dead twice; once in his lifetime, and once after his death. For when alive he wrought the resurrection by means of his own soul 2 Kings 4:34; but that not the souls only of the just might be honoured, but that it might be believed that in the bodies also of the just there lies a power, the corpse which was cast into the sepulchre of Elisseus, when it touched the dead body of the prophet, was quickened, and the dead body of the prophetdid the work of the soul, and that which was dead and buried gave life to the dead, and though it gave life, yet continued itself among the dead. Wherefore? Lest if Elisseus should rise again, the work should be ascribed to his soul alone; and to show, that even though the soul is not present, a virtue resides in the body of the saints, because of the righteous soul which has for so many years dwelt in it, and used it as its minister. And let us not foolishly disbelieve, as though this thing had not happened: for if handkerchiefs and aprons, which are from without, touching the bodies of the diseased, raised up the sick, how much more should the very body of the Prophet raise the dead? (Catechetical Lectures 18.16)
St. Basil the Great ca. 330-379
To Arcadius the Bishop.
I thanked the Holy God when I read your letter, most pious brother. I pray that I may not be unworthy of the expectations you have formed of me, and that you will enjoy a full reward for the honour which you pay me in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I was exceedingly pleased to hear that you have been occupied in a matter eminently becoming a Christian, have raised a house to the glory of God, and have in practical earnest loved, as it is written, the beauty of the house of the Lord, and have so provided for yourself that heavenly mansion which is prepared in His rest for them that love the Lord. If I am able to find any relics of martyrs, I pray that I may take part in your earnest endeavour. If the righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance, I shall without doubt have a share in the good fame which the Holy One will give you. (Letter 49)
St. Gregory of Nyssa ca. 335-394
Should a person come to a place similar to our assemble today where the memory of the just and the rest of the saints is present, first consider this house’s great dignity to which souls are lead. God’s temple is brightly adorned with magnificence and is embellished with decorations, pictures of animals which masons have fashioned with delicate silver figures. It exhibits images of flowers made in the likeness of the martyr’s virtues, his struggles, sufferings, the various savage actions of tyrants, assaults, that fiery furnace, the athlete’s blessed consummation and the human form of Christ presiding over all these events. They are like a book skillfully interpreting by means of colors which express the martyr’s struggles and glorify the temple with resplendent beauty. The pictures located on the walls are eloquent by their silence and offer significant testimony; the pavement on which people tread is combined with small stones and is significant to mention in itself.
These spectacles strike the senses and delight the eye by drawing us near to [the martyr’s] tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing. If anyone takes dust from the martyr’s resting place, it is a gift and a deserving treasure. Should a person have both the good fortune and permission to touch the relics, this experience is a highly valued prize and seems like a dream both to those who were cured and whose wish was fulfilled. The body appears as if it were alive and healthy: the eyes, mouth, ears as well as the other senses are a cause for pouring out tears of reverence and emotion. In this way one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek. (In Praise of the Great-Martyr Theodore)
St. Ambrose of Milan ca. 338-397
For not without reason do many call this the resurrection of the martyrs. I do not say whether they have risen for themselves, for us certainly the martyrs have risen. You know— nay, you have yourselves seen— that many are cleansed from evil spirits, that very many also, having touched with their hands the robe of the saints, are freed from those ailments which oppressed them; you see that the miracles of old time are renewed, when through the coming of the Lord Jesus grace was more largely shed forth upon the earth, and that many bodies are healed as it were by the shadow of the holy bodies. How many napkins are passed about! How many garments, laid upon the holy relics and endowed with healing power, are claimed! All are glad to touch even the outside thread, and whosoever touches will be made whole.
Thanks be to You, Lord Jesus, that at this time You have stirred up for us the spirits of the holy martyrs, when Your Church needs greater protection. (Letter 22. 9-10)
Blessed Jerome ca. 347-420
Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord who Himself says: ..he that receiveth you receiveth me… , I ask Vigilantius, “Are the relics of Peter and of Paul unclean? Was the body of Moses unclean, of which we are told (according to the correct Hebrew text, [Deut. xxxiv. 6]) that it was buried by the Lord Himself? And do we, every time that we enter the basilicas of apostles and prophets and martyrs, pay homage to the shrines of idols? Are the tapers which burn before their tombs only the tokens of idolatry?”
I will go farther still and ask a question which will make this theory recoil upon the head of its inventor and which will either kill or cure that frenzied brain of his, so that simple souls shall be no more subverted by his sacrilegious reasonings. Let him answer me this: Was the Lord’s body unclean when it was placed in the sepulchre? And did the angels clothed in white raiment merely watch over a corpse dead and defiled, that ages afterwards this sleepy fellow might indulge in dreams and vomit forth his filthy surfeit, so as, like the persecutor Julian, either to destroy the basilicas of the saints or to convert them into heathen temples?
…If the relics of the martyrs are not worthy of honour, how comes it that we read Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints, [Ps. cxvi. 15]?
If dead men’s bones defile those that touch them, how came it that the dead Elisha raised another man also dead, and that life came to this latter from the body of the prophet which according to Vigilantius must have been unclean? In that case every encampment of the host of Israel and the people of God was unclean; for they carried the bodies of Joseph and of the patriarchs with them in the wilderness, and carried their unclean ashes even into the holy land. In that case Joseph, who was a type of our Lord and Saviour, was a wicked man; for he carried up Jacob’s bones with great pomp to Hebron merely to put his unclean father beside his unclean grandfather and great-grandfather, that is, one dead body along with others.
…Once more I ask: Are the relics of the martyrs unclean? If so, why did the Apostles allow themselves to walk in that funeral procession before the body — the unclean body — of Stephen, [Acts viii. 2]? Why did they make great lamentation over him, that their grief might be turned into our joy? (Epistle 109)
St. John Chrysostom ca. 349-407
When, therefore, he made an end of life there, yea rather, when he ascended to heaven, he departed henceforward crowned. For this also happened through the dispensation of God, that he restored him again to us, and distributed the martyr to the cities. For that city received his blood as it dropped, but you were honoured with his remains, you enjoyed his episcopate, they enjoyed his martyrdom.
Not only today, therefore, but every day let us go forth to him, plucking spiritual fruits from him. For it is, it is possible for him who comes hither with faith to gather the fruit of many good things. For not the bodies only, but the very sepulchres of the saints have been filled with spiritual grace. For if in the case of Elisha this happened, and a corpse when it touched the sepulchre, burst the bands of death and returned to life again, 2 Kgs 13:21 much rather now, when grace is more abundant, when the energy of the spirit is greater, is it possible that one touching a sepulchre, with faith, should win great power; thence on this account God allowed us the remains of the saints, wishing to lead by them us to the same emulation, and to afford us a kind of haven, and a secure consolation for the evils which are ever overtaking us. Wherefore I beseech you all, if any is in despondency, if in disease, if under insult, if in any other circumstance of this life, if in the depth of sins, let him come hither with faith, and he will lay aside all those things, and will return with much joy, having procured a lighter conscience from the sight alone. (Homily on St. Ignatius)
Blessed Augustine of Hippo ca. 354-430
The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there, and by which a blind man was restored to sight, could come to the knowledge of many; for not only is the city a large one, but also the emperor was there at the time, and the occurrence was witnessed by an immense concourse of people that had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown, but were now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream, and discovered by him. By virtue of these remains the darkness of that blind man was scattered, and he saw the light of day. (City of God Bk. 22.8)
St. John Cassian ca. 360-435
In the district of Palestine near the village of Tekoa which had the honour of producing the prophet Amos, Amos 1:1 there is a vast desert which stretches far and wide as far as Arabia and the dead sea, into which the streams of Jordan enter and are lost, and where are the ashes of Sodom. In this district there lived for a long while monks of the most perfect life and holiness, who were suddenly destroyed by an incursion of Saracen robbers: whose bodies we knew were seized upon with the greatest veneration both by the Bishops of the neighbourhood and by the whole populace of Arabia, and deposited among the relics of the martyrs… (Conferences 6.1)
Apostolic Constitutions compiled ca. 375
Do not therefore keep any such observances about legal and natural purgations, as thinking you are defiled by them. Neither do you seek after Jewish separations, or perpetual washings, or purifications upon the touch of a dead body.

But without such observations assemble in the dormitories, reading the holy books, and singing for the martyrs which are fallen asleep, and for all the saints from the beginning of the world, and for your brethren that are asleep in the Lord, and offer the acceptable Eucharist, the representation of the royal body of Christ, both in your churches and in the dormitories; and in the funerals of the departed, accompany them with singing, if they were faithful in Christ. For “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”
And again: “O my soul, return unto thy rest, for the Lord hath done thee good.”
And elsewhere: “The memory of the just is with encomiums.” And, “The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God.”  For those that have believed in God, although they are asleep, are not dead. For our Saviour says to the Sadducees: “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which is written, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God, therefore, is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to Him.” Wherefore, of those that live with God, even their very relics are not without honour. For even Elisha the prophet, after he was fallen asleep, raised up a dead man who was slain by the pirates of Syria. For his body touched the bones of Elisha, and he arose and revived. Now this would not have happened unless the body of Elisha were holy. And chaste Joseph embraced Jacob after he was dead upon his bed; and Moses and Joshua the son of Nun carried away the relics of Joseph, and did not esteem it a defilement. Whence you also, O bishops, and the rest, who without such observances touch the departed, ought not to think yourselves defiled. Nor abhor the relics of such persons, but avoid such observances, for they are foolish. And adorn yourselves with holiness and chastity, that ye may become partakers of immortality, and partners of the kingdom of God, and may receive the promise of God, and may rest for ever, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. (Book VI, Chap. 30)

Blessed Theodoret of Cyr ca. 393-457

The noble souls of the triumphant are sauntering around heaven, dancing in the choruses of the bodiless; and not one tomb for
each conceals their bodies, but cities and villages divide them up and call them healers and preservers of souls and bodies, and
venerate them a guardians and protectors of cities; and when they intervene as ambassadors before the Master of the universe the
divine gifts are obtained through them; and though the body has been divided, its grace has continued undivided. And that little particle and smallest relic has the same power as the absolutely and utterly undivided martyr. (

The Cure of Pagan Maladies 8.54)

St. Columba of Iona ca. 521-597
After reading these three books, let the diligent reader observe of what and how great merit, of what and how high honour in the sight of God our holy and venerable abbot (Columba) must have been deemed worthy, how great and many were the bright visits of the angels made to him, how full of the prophetic spirit, how great his power of miracles wrought in God, how often and to what great extent, while yet he was abiding in this mortal flesh, he was surrounded by a halo of heavenly light; and how, even after the departure of his most kindly soul from the tabernacle of the body, until the present day the place where his sacred bones repose, as has been clearly shown to certain chosen persons, doth not cease to be frequently visited by the holy angels, and illumined by the same heavenly brightness. And this unusual favour hath been conferred by God on this same man of blessed memory; that though he lived in this small and remote island of the British sea, his name hath not only become illustrious throughout the whole of our own Scotia (Ireland), and Britain, the largest island of the whole world, but hath reached even unto triangular Spain, and into Gaul, and to Italy, which lieth beyond the Penine Alps; and also to the city of Rome itself, the head of all cities. This great and honourable celebrity, amongst other marks of divine favour, is known to have been conferred on this same saint by God, Who loveth those that love Him, and raiseth them to immense honour by glorifying more and more those that magnify and truly praise Him, Who is blessed for evermore. Amen. (St. Adamnan, Life of St. Columba Bk. 3.24)
Pope St. Gregory the Dialogist ca. 540-604

[W]e have handed over, according to your Excellency’s request, with the reverence due to them, certain relics of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. But, that laudable and religious devotion may be more and more conspicuous among you, you must see that these benefits of the saints be deposited with reverence and due honour, and that those who serve in attendance on them be vexed with no burdens or molestations, lest perchance, under the pressure of outward necessity, they be rendered unprofitable and slow in the service of God, and (which God forbid) the benefits of the saints that have been bestowed sustain injury and neglect. (Epistle L: To Queen Brunichild, Queen of the Franks)

Bede the Venerable ca. 673-735
After  this, a certain man, who had the quality of a tribune, came forward with his wife, and presented his blind daughter, ten years of age, for the priests to cure. They ordered her to be set before their adversaries, who, being convinced by guilt of conscience, joined their entreaties to those of the child’s parents, and besought the priests that she might be cured. The priests, therefore, perceiving their adversaries to yield, made a short prayer, and then Germanus, full of the Holy Ghost, invoked the Trinity, and taking into his hands a casket with relics of saints, which hung about his neck, applied it to the girl’s eyes, which were immediately delivered from darkness and filled with the light of truth. The parents rejoiced, and the people were astonished at the miracle; after which, the wicked opinions were so fully obliterated from the minds of all, that they ardently embraced the doctrine of the priests. This damnable heresy being thus suppressed, and the authors thereof confuted, and all the people’s hearts settled in the purity of the faith, the priests repaired to the tomb the martyr, St. Alban, to give thanks to God through him. There Germanus, having with him relics of all the Apostles, and of several martyrs, after offering up his prayers, commanded the tomb to be opened, that he might lay up therein some precious gifts; judging it convenient, that the limbs of saints brought together from several countries, as their equal merits had procured them admission into heaven, should he preserved in one tomb. These being honourably deposited, and laid together, he took up a parcel of dust from the place where the martyr’s blood had been shed, to carry away with him, which dust having retained the blood, it appeared that the slaughter of the martyrs had communicated a redness to it, whilst the persecutor was struck pale. In consequence of these things, an innumerable multitude of people was that day converted to the Lord. (Ecclesiastical History of the English Chap. 18)
St. John Damascene ca. 676-749
These are made treasuries and pure habitations of God: For I will dwell in them, said God, and walk in them, and I will be their God. The divine Scripture likewise saith that the souls of the just are in God’s hand and death cannot lay hold of them. For death is rather the sleep of the saints than their death. For they travailed in this life and shall to the end, and Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. What then, is more precious than to be in the hand of God? For God is Life and Light, and those who are in God’s hand are in life and light.

Further, that God dwelt even in their bodies in spiritual wise, the Apostle tells us, saying, Know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit dwelling in you?, and The Lord is that Spirit, and If any one destroy the temple of God, him will God destroy. Surely, then, we must ascribe honour to the living temples of God, the living tabernacles of God. These while they lived stood with confidence before God.

The Master Christ made the remains of the saints to be fountains of salvation to us, pouring forth manifold blessings and abounding in oil of sweet fragrance: and let no one disbelieve this. For if water burst in the desert from the steep and solid rock at God’s will and from the jaw-bone of an ass to quench Samson’s thirst, is it incredible that fragrant oil should burst forth from the martyrs’ remains? By no means, at least to those who know the power of God and the honour which He accords His saints.

In the law every one who toucheth a dead body was considered impure, but these are not dead. For from the time when He that is Himself life and the Author of life was reckoned among the dead, we do not call those dead who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection and in faith on Him. For how could a dead body work miracles? How, therefore, are demons driven off by them, diseases dispelled, sick persons made well, the blind restored to sight, lepers purified, temptations and troubles overcome, and how does every good gift from the Father of lights come down through them to those who pray with sure faith? How much labour would you not undergo to find a patron to introduce you to a mortal king and speak to him on your behalf? Are not those, then, worthy of honour who are the patrons of the whole race, and make intercession to God for us? Yea, verily, we ought to give honour to them by raising temples to God in their name, bringing them fruit-offerings, honouring their memories and taking spiritual delight in them, in order that the joy of those who call on us may be ours, that in our attempts at worship we may not on the contrary cause them offence. (Bk. 4, Chap. 15)
7th Ecumenical Council 787 a.d.
Paul the divine Apostle says:  “The sins of some are open beforehand, and some they follow after.”  These are their primary sins, and other sins follow these.  Accordingly upon the heels of the heresy of the traducers of the Christians, there followed close other ungodliness.  For as they took out of the churches the presence of the venerable images, so likewise they cast aside other customs which we must now revive and maintain in accordance with the written and unwritten law.  We decree therefore that relics shall be placed with the accustomed service in as many of the sacred temples as have been consecrated without the relics of the Martyrs.  And if any bishop from this time forward is found consecrating a temple without holy relics, he shall be deposed, as a transgressor of the ecclesiastical traditions. (Canon 7)
Patriarch Jeremias II (Tranos) of Constantinople 1530-1595
You reckon the invocation of the saints, their icons, and their sacred relics as futile. You reject their veneration, taking as a pretext the Hebrew source. Moreover, you also reject confession to one another. In addition, you reject the angelic, monastic life. And about these matters we say that the Holy [Scripture] passages concerning them have not been interpreted by such theologians as you are, for neither Saint Chrysostom nor any other of the blessed and true theologians interpreted as if they were dragged along by a torrent. But, indeed, he [Chrysostom] and the holy man after him, being full of the Holy Spirit who performed supernatural miracles while they were living and after they died, interpreted [the Holy Scriptures] as they did; and they received such traditions, and they handed them down successively and gave them to us as indispensable and pious [sacraments]. Some of these even Old Rome also keeps and acquiesces with us. From whence have you reckoned better than Old and New Rome? Indeed, have you forsaken the interpretations of the true theologians and considered your own as more preferable? From the source of the Hebrew tradition we learn from history that contempt for the holy icons and sacred relics had its origin from the Hebrews. (Third Answer to the Lutherans, Issued in the year 1581, June 6. Protonotarios Theodosios)