aerial toll houses.

[Lukaris]

I believe many Orthodox Christians are not even aware of this doctrine. It is acceptable to believe in it or not to believe it; I do not and am personally glad to discard it. It seems wrong to call this doctrine heretical though since some within the church believe it & their right to do so seems valid.

 

[Philothei]

another simplified one....

 

[Emmanuel-A]

Azkoul has published by a notable and credible Orthodox press. I would not think that they would publsh something that was written by a Heretical priest.

Fr. M. Azkoul is a Hocna Priest :

http://hocna.org/parishes.htm

I would not call him an heretic. But most of his theological works consist of denouncing what he believes is wrong in others writings and this without any subtelty nor charity. The limit between personnal attacks and theological debate is not always obvious in his writings.

Example : In his "The teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church", he calls Blessed Augustine of Hippo "a great heresiarch". Though most will admit that some writings of Blessed Augustine can be controversial, he certainly does not deserve to be given such a scornful title.

Definitely not my favourite orthodox author.

 

[Philothei]

He was with the
Antiocheans and then he went with the Russian church abroad (ROCO) so we do not know when the book was writen... Anyways it does not make any difference as what he says is not heretical either. Is Romanides also heretical for stating the same reservations about Augustine ? I do not think so...
Lots of modern theologians do not like Augustinian writings esp. his dogmatical ones. Heresiarch would be an appropriate name calling since he did brought forth heressy to the church... He was never excommunicated but still the title is a saint at least of the GOA church.

In descerning ones teachings or some teachings in this case as heretical or not one has to go to the source... And I do not "respect less" Fr. Azkoul because he calls Augurstine as a heresiarch as ecclesial history has proven that many (not all) of his writings were either distorted by others or they were of themselves heretical in nature ....

 

[Philothei]

But most of his theological works consist of denouncing what he believes is wrong in others writings and this without any subtelty nor charity.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4705171/F...-MythThe-NeoGnosticism-of-Fr-Seraphim?page=20

^ here is the book of Fr. Azkoul. I do find his arguments valid and I have the book of Seraphim Rose. I admit that I have not read all of the book. Just some books that Fr Rose uses in his bibliography turned my stomach... (sorry if I sound offensive but ....)
Green, Celia "Out-of-Body experiences" Ballentine Books, New York, 1975
Evans-Wentz, WY. ed "The Tibetan Boook of the Dead" Oxford university 1970.
.....

I am not going to go on...But his non-orthodox sources are truly ridiculous...and overwhelming........

 

[Philothei]

BTW I am out of this thread "toll house cookies" are fattening for me... I am trying to stay on a diet... and I am fasting *at least I try*.....

 

[Emmanuel-A]

He was with the
Antiocheans and then he went with the Russian church abroad (ROCO) so we do not know when the book was writen... Anyways it does not make any difference as what he says is not heretical either. Is Romanides also heretical for stating the same reservations about Augustine ? I do not think so...
Lots of modern theologians do not like Augustinian writings esp. his dogmatical ones. Heresiarch would be an appropriate name calling since he did brought forth heressy to the church... He was never excommunicated but still the title is a saint at least of the GOA church.

In descerning ones teachings or some teachings in this case as heretical or not one has to go to the source... And I do not "respect less" Fr. Azkoul because he calls Augurstine as a heresiarch as ecclesial history has proven that many (not all) of his writings were either distorted by others or they were of themselves heretical in nature ....

My problem is not his reservations about Augustine. Many orthodox theologians have some, including Fr John Romanides.
It's the way he exposes them.
Blessed augustine was an exemple.
You can disagree with Fr.Seraphim Rose on tool houses without calling him a "gnostic". You can have reservations about Augustine without calling him a "great heresiarch". You can discuss controversial theological questions without outrageously and personnally denigrating those who you believe are wrong.
It seems he's more obsessed by underlining how "wrong" the others are rather than saying anything positive about orthodoxy.

 

[Nickolai]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4705171/F...-MythThe-NeoGnosticism-of-Fr-Seraphim?page=20

^ here is the book of Fr. Azkoul. I do find his arguments valid and I have the book of Seraphim Rose. I admit that I have not read all of the book. Just some books that Fr Rose uses in his bibliography turned my stomach... (sorry if I sound offensive but ....)
Green, Celia "Out-of-Body experiences" Ballentine Books, New York, 1975
Evans-Wentz, WY. ed "The Tibetan Boook of the Dead" Oxford university 1970.
.....

I am not going to go on...But his non-orthodox sources are truly ridiculous...and overwhelming........

No, I agree. SOME of his points are valid. But the vast majority are based on his own interpretation of what Fr. Seraphim said. I happen to disagree with Fr. Seraphim's version of the theory. I tend to think that Metropolitan Hierotheos' explanation makes more sense. But Fr. Azkoul outright dismisses the very idea of toll houses as heretical and neo-gnostic, whether literal or metaphorical.

As for Fr. Seraphim's citing non-Orthodox books. The majority of "the Soul after Death" is a comparison of Orthodox after death experience and a non Orthodox one. So it makes sense that he would cite non-Orthodox sources. Read the book and you'll understand.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

[Just some books that Fr Rose uses in his bibliography turned my stomach... (sorry if I sound offensive but ....)
Green, Celia "Out-of-Body experiences" Ballentine Books, New York, 1975
Evans-Wentz, WY. ed "The Tibetan Boook of the Dead" Oxford university 1970....I am not going to go on...But his non-orthodox sources are truly ridiculous...and overwhelming........[/quote]

It was always my understanding that the book compared different views of life after death and then presented the Orthodox view. Hence "the Tibetan book of the dead" etc...I could be wrong though. When you write a book if you quote another source to disagree or present the reader with a different view point you do have to list it.

Someone else made a criticism of the use of the Old Calendar, why is it a problem? My parish uses the old calendar, they do not teach that everyone ought to use it though.

Sorry to all those irritated by the thread. It just recently came up and I realized I had never even heard of it, as a catechumen I want to understand some of these rather confusing pieces of the Church.

 

[Montalban]

I dare say I have never met an Orthodox that prays to the dead!

That should read 'for'.

 

[Montalban]

Fr. Azkoul's book is nothing but a personal attack on Fr. Seraphim as a person. There was a huge rivalry between the Monastery in Platina and Holy Transfiguration in Boston, when they were both in the Church Abroad. Basically, the Pantaleimonites in Boston disagreed with Fr. Seraphim on the route the Church Abroad should take in relation to other Orthodox Churches. Fr. Seraphim was in the camp that would want reunion with Moscow, and the rest of the Orthodox world. The Pantaleimonites were of the opinion that the Church abroad should cut themselves off, and refuse to recognize grace in any other Orthodox Church other than themselves. We see where that got them, now they have there own Old Calenderist group, the HOCNA. Fr. Azkoul is a member of that Church.

Again, his book "The Aerial Toll-House Myth:" is a pretty severe personal attack on the person of Fr. Seraphim, and he becomes really petty several times in it. Rather than do a real study on toll houses themselves, he just picks apart Fr. Seraphim's particular version on the teaching (which he himself said wasn't literal).

Fr. Azkoul also doesn't touch on the numerous other people that talk about the toll houses. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos teaches them, Nikolaos Vassiliadis does as well, As does Elder Ephraim, and one could hardly call any of them neo-Gnostics. St. John of Shanghai taught it, and did St. Ignaty Brianchaninov and St. Theophan the Recluse. And these are just contemporaries that are off the top of my head. There are certainly enough quotes from the Fathers of the Church to show that the teaching can't be dismissed outright.

Please, stay away from Fr. Azkoul, he's nothing but a petty schismatic.

So because Fr Azkoul addressed Fr Seraphim's version (read, he addressed what Fr. Seraphim said), he's the schismatic???

Wow!

I find your conclusion does not meet the facts YOU present.

Fr. Azkoul shows the selective use of evidence Fr. Seraphim uses, for instance (p28) the brief quote of St Macarius the Great as used by Fr Seraphim, which Fr Azkoul contextualises by showing it in the context (by use of a more lengthy quote). This is not the only occasion, just on St Macarius the Great alone, Fr. Azkoul shows the heavy editing of Fr. Seraphim at work, including using a poor translation when it suits.

You are the one who seems to wish to character assasinate someone - Fr. Azkoul

 

[Montalban]

Fr. M. Azkoul is a Hocna Priest :

http://hocna.org/parishes.htm

I would not call him an heretic. But most of his theological works consist of denouncing what he believes is wrong in others writings and this without any subtelty nor charity. The limit between personnal attacks and theological debate is not always obvious in his writings.

Example : In his "The teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church", he calls Blessed Augustine of Hippo "a great heresiarch". Though most will admit that some writings of Blessed Augustine can be controversial, he certainly does not deserve to be given such a scornful title.

Definitely not my favourite orthodox author.

Many Orthodox believe that the western church was lead into error following Augustine.

I can't comment on Michael Azkoul with regards favourite authors as this is the only work of his I've got. I've got about half a dozen by Fr. Seraphim Rose

 

[Montalban]

No, I agree. SOME of his points are valid. But the vast majority are based on his own interpretation of what Fr. Seraphim said. I happen to disagree with Fr. Seraphim's version of the theory. I tend to think that Metropolitan Hierotheos' explanation makes more sense.

As for Fr. Seraphim's citing non-Orthodox books. The majority of "the Soul after Death" is a comparison of Orthodox after death experience and a non Orthodox one. So it makes sense that he would cite non-Orthodox sources. Read the book and you'll understand.[/QUOTE]
Let’s remain charitable. One needn't read the whole book! Perhaps if you had the book at hand as I do you might do well to read Fr. Seraphim's preface (page xv)
"In this book, in addition to the Orthodox sources and interpretations... we have made considerable use of today's non-Orthodox "after-death" literature, as well as of some occult texts on the subject. In this we have followed Bishop* Ignatius' example in presenting a false teaching as fully and fairly as needed to expose its falsity so that Orthodox Christians will not be tempted by it..."
To that extent I agree with your interpretation of what Fr. Seraphim Rose is attempting, when he uses non-Orthodox texts. However, if he presents a false premise as Orthodox belief then defending an Orthodox (heretical) teaching against other heresies is not a positive point.
It’d be like saying “We Orthodox believe in Martians controlling our lives, BUT not how neo-pagans believe it”
It’s a clever ploy to present your own beliefs as authentic Orthodoxy. And here’s where Fr. Azkoul disagrees, by arguing that the Toll-houses evidence, as used by Fr. Seraphim is selective.

But Fr. Azkoul outright dismisses the very idea of toll houses as heretical and neo-gnostic, whether literal or metaphorical.

And it seems to you odd that he’d call what he believes to be an error, an error?


*-Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, a 19th-century Russian Orthodox Father (the description Fr. Seraphim uses on page xiv)

 

[ma2000]

How about we close this subject during the fast?

 

[Montalban]

How about we close this subject during the fast?

 

[Michael G]

another simplified one....

I would warn against using icons to prove ones point about toll houses. Toll houses are a theological opinion and NOT Orthodox doctrine. Thus anyone who would deliberately paint toll house type scenes into icons has abused iconography.

 

[Mikeb85]

I would warn against using icons to prove ones point about toll houses. Toll houses are a theological opinion and NOT Orthodox doctrine. Thus anyone who would deliberately paint toll house type scenes into icons has abused iconography.

A mere theological opinion which happens to be shared by many ECFs as well as contemporary Saints...

 

[Michael G]

A mere theological opinion which happens to be shared by many ECFs as well as contemporary Saints...

It does NOT matter. Icons are not meant to be socio-political tools. They are not meant to express opinions but only doctrinal truths. Therefor icons can not be made of things that are based purely on speculation, and toll houses are just that. We have no proof from the Church they exist.

 

[Joshua G.]

I used to be vehemently against the opinion of toll houses. Now I find it very helpful and it makes a lot of sense to me in the context of the Gospel, sin and salvation, at least as a metaphor.

However, I agree with others that, if it creates controversy in your heart, it is better to stay away from it as the fathers apparently didn't feel it important to dogmatize what happens in the afterlife apart from the dread judgment seat of Christ and even much about that is considered a mystery.

If a theologumena is faith-affirming, wonderful. If it creates a stumbling block, leave it alone.

Joshua

 

[icxn]

People, let it go. Saint Anthony the Great who first had a vision of this did not readily reveal it to others because he knew people are weak and could not handle it properly and instead of profiting from it they would fall in despair.

- Edit -

I see Joshua and I are on the same wavelength, though he is a tad faster.