Fr. Seraphim Rose on Tollhouses
by Newnameelizabeth
Besides the rationalisitic, this-worldly approach to spiritual texts characteristic of modern man, Fr. Seraphim discerned another, deeper reason why people nowadays (including people who frequently speak about Orthodox “spirituality”) would be inclined to overlook or reinterpret the Orthodox teaching on the afterlife: “The Orthodox teaching on life after death is rather severe and demands a very sober response on our part, full of the fear of God. But mankind today is very pampered and self-centered and would rather not hear of such stern realities as judgment and accountability for sins. One can be much more ‘comfortable’ with an exalted teaching of ‘hesychasm’ that tells us that God is not ‘really’ as stern as the Orthodox ascetic tradition has described Him, that we ‘really’ need have no fear of death and the judgment it brings, that if only we occupy ourselves with exalted spiritual ideas like those in the Philokalia (dismissing as ‘allegories’ all the passages on the toll-houses)* we will be safe.’…
“The true Orthodox teaching on life after death, on the other hand, fills one precisely with the fear of God and the inspiration to struggle for the Kingdom of Heaven against all the unseen enemies who oppose our path. All Orthodox Christians are called to this struggle, and it is a cruel injustice to them to dilute the Orthodox teaching to make them more ‘comfortable.’ Let each one read the Orthodox texts most suited to the spiritual level at which he presently finds himself; but let no one tell him that he can dismiss as ‘fables’ the texts he may find ‘uncomfortable.’ Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it. May we ever be its faithful children!”
[notes]* As Fr. Seraphim pointed out in his “Answer to a Critic,” several Holy Fathers of the Philokalia talk about the toll-houses, including St. Hesychius the Prebyter, St. Diadochos of Photiki, St. John of Karpathos, St. Abba Drotheus of Gaza, St. Theognostos, and St. Peter Damascene. (Fr. Seraphim Rose, His Life and Works p. 898, 899)
After Fr. Seraphim’s repose, more criticisms of the Orthodox teaching contained in his book have been published. In particular, some Orthodox Christians continue to express strong disagreement with the teaching on the toll-houses. Most of these criticisms have come from people living in America; very few have come from people living in Orthodox lands, where The Soul After Death is generally held in high regard. The reason for this was ascertained in advance by Fr. Seraphim himself: the lifestyle in America is so pampered and self-centered that the Orthodox teaching on the afterlife seems too severe by contrast, whereas in Orthodox lands people have a more sober outlook on life and thus have little or no problem in accepting the Orthodox teaching on death.
During Fr. Seraphim’s lifetime, the main defenders of the Orthodox teaching contained in his book were his fellow members of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, especially Fr. Michael Pomazansky. After his death, other expositions of this teaching were made by members of the Orthodox Church in Greece, and also by members of the Greek Archdiocese of America – the same Church whose formerly vague pronouncements on the afterlife ahd helped induce Fr. Seraphim to write his book in the first place. In 1984 the Greek American church writer Constantine Cavarnos published a treatise in Greece, The Future Life According to Orthodox Teaching, in which he stated that the teaching setg forth in Fr. Seraphim’s book is “the traditional Orthodox teaching.”
[…]The following year St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in Florence, Arizona, published an English translation of the counsels of its renowned Elder, Ephraim (formerly the Abbot of Philotheou Monastery, Mount Athos), in which the Orthodox teaching of the toll-houses was set forth unequicovally. In this soul-profiting book, entitled Counsels from the Holy Mountain, it is stated: “Although some modern theologians doubt the existence of the toll-houses, toll-houses are mentioned either explicitly or implicitly by countless saints, including St. Paul, St. Makarios of Egypt, St. Basil the Great, St. Ephraim the Syrian, Abba Isaiah, St. Hesychius the Presbyter, St. Diadochos of Photiki, St. Theognostos, St. Athanasios the Great, St. John Chrisystom, St. John of the Ladder, St. John of Damascus, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. John of Kronstadt, and St. John Maximovitch.” Fr. Seraphim would have been deeply gratified to hear such pronouncements coming from members of the Greek Orthodox Church, and especially of the Greek Archdiocese of America. (p. 904,905)
I do not completely understand the concept of toll-houses, but the impression is given in this book that they are sort of like filters the soul has to go through to be cleansed of sins that have remained from one’s life on earth. I think this teaching is distinct from the idea of wrath and punishment that many ex-Protestant converts to Orthodoxy are running from. It instead emphasizes the need for Orthodox to diligently repent from their sins and to take the consequences seriously. Not the consequences of being poked by an angry God with a hot poker, but the purifying fire from Him to whom Isaiah yeilded his lips.
Isaiah 6
1In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
4And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
5Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
6Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. (KJV, BibleGateway.com)
Words 
Bravo, my friend! It’s ridiculous how many Orthodox Americans either haven’t heard of the toll-houses or think there’s something heretical about them. This hasn’t been helped by the OCA accepting Fr Seraphim’s #1 critic as a canonical bishop after his disobedience and schism from ROCOR.
By the way, I highly recommend Fr Pomazansky’s essay on the toll-houses, published in his Selected Essays (it may be available on orthodoxinfo.com too–I don’t remember).
I thought you’d like this one. 🙂
Up until I read this I had only heard the criticisms, mainly online, not from my Church. I think it is important to be afraid to sin, not only because it separates us from God and darkens our understanding, but because it eventually makes us suffer, not to mention how it causes others to suffer.
I think Dante wrote a book about Purga—I mean, the toll-houses.
Ha ha. (I’ll not take the bait. Besides, I’m so ignorant about the distinctions, you’d win.)
Good move, Andrea Elizabeth. What a ridiculous comment.
Eh, I’m only being pugnacious in a silly way. However, I’m not entirely convinced that there isn’t something problematic about the toll-houses, nor am I sure why we can’t have a sober understanding of the afterlife and/or the consequences of sin without them. My current, toll-house-less thinking is enough to keep me on the wagon, anyways!
Also, while the witness of the Fathers is certainly worthy (demanding?) of closer consideration, I think the fact (assertion?) that the toll-houses are unquestioned in Greece, etc. is not necessarily a good support for the doctrine. There are numerous, shall we say, folk beliefs prevalent in the old countries that are tolerated by the Church, but that in no way proves they are “Orthodox teaching”. I think we would need a stronger witness to the Orthodoxy of the toll-house theory, which would certainly include a careful examination of the consensus of the Fathers.
Dude, it was a joke. There’s no need to call me ridiculous.
Aaron, I think that since toll-houses are controversial, and are compared to purgatory by the Orthodox critics, that ZSDP’s comment wasn’t ridiculous. I was amused. When I write these things, I am thinking out loud about my own problems with the issues, I’m not trying to stir up arguments, but people keep getting all polarized on here. I’m sorry if I’m not handling things well.
Besides, I thought you liked Dante.
From where I stand, you don’t seem to have done anything poorly. If anything, I’m at fault for being flippant. I didn’t mean to cause offense, however—only to be silly—and I wasn’t going to pursue the matter any further after my last comment.
I do like Dante (and often use him to thwart my enemies ;p), despite thinking he’s wrong in a number of significant ways.
I’m probably too flippant too. I’m ambivalent about it (see my BPD post a couple of days ago).
I liked your last comment. As long as you stay on the wagon, I guess that’s the point.
Andrea Elizabeth> I love Dante! I do however agree with the Orthodox Tradition that his belief in purgatory is heretical–unlike the Orthodox teaching on the toll-houses. I don’t consider the opinions of a few quacks, modernist theologians, and insufficiently catechised Protestant converts (which would have described me at one point!) to constitute a legitimate controversy!
I do apologise if my observation offended you or made you uncomfortable. I’m afraid I become impatient with people continuing to question the toll-houses when so much has been written proving that they are Orthodox!
ZSDP> By ‘ridiculous’, I was referring to the comment. I’ve never met you, and thus have no idea whether you yourself are ridiculous are not. The fact that your comment was a joke in itself tells me nothing. I wasn’t sure whether it was a joke in the sense that you didn’t mean it and thought that there was no harm in a sarcastic reference to the teaching of the Church, even an ironic one, or in the sense that you did mean it and thought that a sarcastic joke was a good way to attack the Orthodox tradition. Either way, I thought it inappropriate, but I apologise if you took my remark personally. I also acknowledge and thank you for your apology. ‘Flippant’ is a good way to describe the way the comment struck me.
As for the folk beliefs of the Greek people, the teaching on the toll-houses has nothing to do with these. It is accepted by the people, the clergy, the monks, and the hierarchs of Greece, Russia, Romania, and all of the Orthodox countries. The watered-down ‘Orthodoxy’ of the West is the only context in which there is any doubt about the toll-houses. They are clearly taught by the Holy Fathers, the Lives of the Saints, and the prayers, services, and traditions of the Church. Have you actually read Fr Seraphim’s book on the subject? How about that of Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos? Both of them ‘carefully examine the consensus of the Fathers’.
“I don’t consider the opinions of a few quacks, modernist theologians, and insufficiently catechised Protestant converts (which would have described me at one point!) to constitute a legitimate controversy!”
lol. Nothing like unminced words to clarify a point! I thought this pov was pretty convincing in the book, and is why I want to read Fr. Seraphim’s fuller account of the subject.
If you’re planning to read his book, I should point out that there is one potential controversy about it: Fr Seraphim’s attempt to situate contemporary NDE’s within the context of the Orthodox teaching on the soul after death. Met. Hierotheos seems to be slightly wary about this, but I’m not sure I follow His Eminence at this point. His language is extremely ambivalent.
On the subject of the toll-houses per se, however, they agree entirely. Met. Hierotheos writes, ‘We find this topic in the whole biblico-patristic tradition and it corresponds to a reality which we need to look at in order to prepare ourselves for the dreadful hour of death’ (Life After Death, p. 62). To summarise the teaching, he quotes St Macarius the Great (Homily 43.9):
‘Just as the winds, blowing powerfully, shake all creatures in the sky and produce a very loud sound, so the power of the enemy pummels and carries the thoughts away and stirs up the depths of the heart at will and disperses the thoughts for its own benefit. Liike the tax collectors who sit along the narrow streets and snatch at the passers-by and extort from them, so also the demons watch carefully and grab hold of souls. And when they pass out of the body, if they are not completely purified, they are not permitted to go up into the mansions of Heaven there to meet their Master. For they are driven down by the demons of the air. But if, while they still live in the flesh, they shall, because of their hard toil and much struggle, obtain from the Lord on high grace, they, along with those who through virtuous living are at rest, shall go to the Lord, as he promised.’
I’ve wondered a lot about near death experiences. I thought Fr. Seraphim said they were deluded states. Metropolitan Hierotheos gives more credence to them?
Also, when I see pictures of Fr. Seraphim’s face after his repose where he looks happy, as well as the one of the recently reposed Elder Joseph Vatopedi, I don’t think it looks like they are going through anything unpleasant. But that may be because they lived holy lives. I’ve also heard several stories like the one you posted about your great-grandmother who before she died seem to be lovingly and immediately received by the heavenly hosts, and bodily communicate with them. Stories like these make it seem we need not fear what happens upon death. But we can’t discount judgment day, nor a pre-judgment. Demonic temptations for newly deceased Christians, though, are quite foreign to the Protestant mindset.
I’ve deleted the last few off-topic comments. If anyone has something to say specifically about tollhouse and not each other, I would like to hear it.
ZSDP> At last, something I can laugh at. I get sick of myself sometimes too! 😉
Has anyone listened to Fr. Hopko’s AFR podcast on this subject? It’s been a while since I listened, so I don’t remember anything other than my broad perception that he handled it quite well–neither allowing too literal (Fundamentalist?) an interpretation of the teaching, nor allowing dismissal of the spiritual reality behind it. My own conviction as I’ve grown as a Christian and become Orthodox is that the greater our understanding of the awful purity and holiness of the Love which is God’s Being, the more deeply we will experience compunction for our sins in view of the impending Judgment. However, it seems to me this is a subject in which it is quite easy to introduce misunderstanding and confusion outside of a fully Orthodox context, precisely because in the modern American and western cultural context, the understanding of the inexorably “just” God, His “sovereignty” (monergism), judgment and the nature of hell (a la Jonathan Edwards, for example) ends up more closely resembling the teaching of the Accuser of the brethren! Such a “God” is terrifying and incapable of inspiring a fear that is healthy and holy, only a fearful dread leading to an unhealthy preoccupation with spiritual self-preservation in the most crassly self-interested way. This kind of fear (as I understand the Fathers have suggested) may set one on the path of repentance by allowing one to commence at least an external proximation of the practice of the virtues, and which in turn may ultimately be transformed by the grace of God into a true repentance characterized by a growing love for God and our fellow creatures, but it is not in itself to be confused with genuine repentance, nor is it sufficient for our salvation. For this reason, I think the subject of the toll houses has to be handled with great care and sensitivity to this problem in our culture (particularly among those with Fundamentalist roots or influences). Underlying the unwillingness of many to consider the seriousness of sin and its real consequences in the afterlife is perhaps this distortion in understanding of the nature of God and His judgment. Have you read and considered also Dr. Alexander Kalomiros’ address “The River of Fire?” in light of the modern resistance to the idea of the toll houses? Along with remaining firm in a fully Orthodox teaching of the afterlife, we must perhaps lay a better groundwork for the same in a fully Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Trinity, the Atonement, and God’s Judgement (using the images and work of those in the tradition of St. Isaac the Syrian). Personally, as a former Protestant evangelical turned Orthodox, such an approach has been an invaluable corrective for me.
Karen,
Good thoughts and suggestions.
“This kind of fear (as I understand the Fathers have suggested) may set one on the path of repentance by allowing one to commence at least an external proximation of the practice of the virtues, and which in turn may ultimately be transformed by the grace of God into a true repentance characterized by a growing love for God and our fellow creatures, but it is not in itself to be confused with genuine repentance, nor is it sufficient for our salvation.”
I suppose it’s the difference between practicing and becoming. It reminds me of the advice that the heart follows actions. In other words, we may not feel like doing the right thing, but if we do it anyway, it will become a more natural habit. Then we will be transfigured in synergy with the grace of God. Sounds like St. Maximus!
Karen> I was just going to comment on your reference to Fr Hopko avoiding ‘too literal an interpretation of the teaching’. I think this is one misunderstanding I had when I first heard about the teaching on the toll-houses. That’s why it helped me a great deal to read Fr Pomazansky’s essay, where he says for instance, ‘Of course, the word “toll-house” in itself does not indicate to us any particular religious significance. In patristic language it signifies that short period after death when the Christian soul must account for its moral state. . . . It is perfectly clear to anyone that purely earthly images are applied to a spiritual subject so that the image, being impressed in the memory, might awaken a man’s soul.’ I’m glad to hear Fr Hopko has expressed such a position.
My Bishop told me that Fr. Seraphim’s tollhouse stuff was nonsense.
Still, I think we should have a healthy fear of judgment day.
In a previous post, you said we should approach the ‘throne of grace with confidence’ quoting from Hebrews 4:16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need
Now you seem to be saying we should approach in fear with a dread of Judgement Day – “shaking in our shoes?”.
What is going on? Why the sudden change of mind? This tollhouse thing seems crazy – where did he come up with this idea – staring at the tea leaves?.
Good point, but I don’t remember exactly quoting that verse. I wonder if you are talking about the post where I mention my trepidation in approaching the chalice at the monastery, but that I felt invited. I also mentioned problems with people approaching without being prepared. We are supposed to painstakingly examine ourselves, confessing and seeking repentance from our sins. This is why the Orthodox stress the need for confession. The Abbot of Holy Archangels instructed everyone that they were not to partake unless they had fasted and had a recent confession.
From what I’ve gathered so far, the Toll Houses are a more specific approach to the consequences of unconfessed, unrepented of sins that flourish in a life distant from God.
I ordered Fr. Seraphim’s book on The Soul After Death. I’ll try to share some from it soon.
I’m just going to have to unsubscribe to this post. Sorry Andrea Elizabeth, it’s not your fault, but I can’t take it!
Aaron, I don’t understand why this bothers you so. We live in a Protestant land, full of Protestant ideas. To be upset by this or surprised seems very unrealisitic to me. Orthodox teaching is so very foreign to us, some of it even to a convert of 5 years. We have to cut a little slack, imo, and not expect instant, pure understanding.
I grew up with the idea of “once saved, always saved”, and “eternal security”, so I expect resistance to the idea of not having a ticket to the highest places based on a one-time assent of faith alone. Though as St. Chrysostom says in his Paschal homily, let those who don’t fast also come! We don’t know who Christ will accept in the last day.
Well, I understand a person being uncertain about such things, and I’m perfectly willing to cut them some slack for this. I admitted that I myself was similarly skeptical when I first heard about it. I thought it sounded ‘too Catholic’ or something. But then I talked to a friend about it, read Fr Pomazansky’s essay, Fr Seraphim’s biography, and The Soul After Death, and I saw that it wasn’t Catholic at all, just traditional Christian teaching. I also began to see it for myself all over the place in the last 2000 years of the Orthodox Tradition, and to see that it is simply the accepted teaching among traditional Orthodox everywhere.
But for a person simply to pronounce it ‘nonsense’ without any qualification is not a reasonable way to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Is it only FR SERAPHIM’S ‘tollhouse stuff’ that is nonsense, or does this judgement also apply to the teaching of St Macarius I’ve quoted above, or to the references in the services for the departed, or to St Gregory the Great’s Dialogues, or to St Ignatius Brianchaninov, or Met. Hierotheos, or St Athanasius the Great, or St John Chrysostom, or any of the other countless Fathers that explicitly refer to the tollhouses? In other words, is Fr Seraphim’s teaching supposed to be different from theirs somehow, or is it all ‘nonsense’ no matter where we encounter it or no matter how it is worded or presented?
It’s made worse by the fact that these are Orthodox people attacking this tradition. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to discover Protestants saying it was ‘nonsense’, but Orthodox should either simply know better, or if they use such a description of Fr Seraphim’s presentation of this teaching, they should at least be able to offer some alternative account–however off-base–of what it is that the Fathers mean when they explicitly say that the soul will encounter tollhouses when it leaves the body at death.
I do apologise if my impatience offends or otherwise bothers anyone. In fact, this is part of why I decided to unsubscribe to this particular post. On the one hand, I won’t be annoyed to start reading my e-mail in the morning and discover a blog comment notice bearing the message that tollhouses are ‘nonsense’, and on the other hand, your other readers (and you yourself!) won’t be annoyed when I am overcome by the urge to make a really curmudgeonly comment about it and act like an ‘ass’, as ZSDP so aptly put it! So please don’t hold this against me!
It doesn’t help that clergy disagree on this either. And like you say, it would be nice if the nay-sayers would offer more explanation than just, ‘that’s nonsense’, because there are very reputable people who do teach it.
I appreciate your substantive contributions on this issue and understand the need to avoid getting buttons pushed. No hard feelings!
Aaron,
Your presumption that my Bishop isn’t familiar with Fr. Seraphim Rose or Orthodoxy generally is laughable. Further, your presumption that Fr. Seraphim’s tollhouse stuff is identical with Orthodox belief regarding the afterlife is likewise laughable.
You refer to Fr. Michael (Pomazansky) quite often, but appear to be unfamiliar with Fr. Michael’s careful treatment of the Fathers’ tollhouse imagery.
You may consider expressing your arguments as carefully as Fr. Michael, especially when an Orthodox Bishop contradicts your pet views.
Fr. Seraphim’s views of the afterlife are problematic and controversial, not a settled and accepted reiteration of Orthodox belief.
Visibilium> I suppose I myself am simply laughable. Thank you for reminding me!
Dear Visibilium,
By the way, I am perfectly open to hearing your explanation of the difference between Fr Seraphim’s and Fr Pomazansky’s teaching on the toll-houses. My impression has always been that they are the same, but maybe I’m simply reading Fr Seraphim through the lens of Fr Pomazansky. What I’m concerned with defending is the toll-houses themselves, not so much Fr Seraphim, as much as I like him. If it’s only Fr Seraphim that you and/or your bishop, whoever he is, take issue with, while accepting the toll-houses as taught by Fr Pomazansky (whose views I take to be identical to those of the ROCOR Synod) or others, then by all means tell us exactly HOW Fr Seraphim erred. Maybe you’ll convince us!
Laughably,
Aaron
PS: It doesn’t help that I have no idea who you or your bishop are. There are many people that claim to be ‘Orthodox’ that actually aren’t. I also made no statement about, nor would I presume concerning, the familiarity with any subject of someone whose identity is a complete mystery to me.
Vis,
Throw a dog a bone. Whose your bishop?
Och, sorry buddy. You may know him.
Aaron, if I told you my name, I’d still be a complete mystery to you. More to the point, the Bishop didn’t give me a reason, and, frankly, I wasn’t interested enough to ask him. I don’t know what he thinks of Fr. Michael.
I happen to like Fr. Michael and consider seriously anything he says.
Hmmmm….well that thread ended with a whimper. Someone asks for specifics both in terms of who his bishop is and where Fr. Seraphim and Fr. Michael differ, and no answer is forthcoming.