Toll-House Doctrine?

[Catholic_Dude]

This thread concerns the “Toll-House” doctrine which had something to do with the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russa) but I don’t know anything more than that. I came across this topic many months ago, but I forgot to make a thread about it.

What exactly does this doctrine teach?
Who proposed/taught it?
Why is it wrong/heretical?

I would prefer official quotes and links to online articles, if possible. I can’t find much doing a regular google search.

This issue caused quite a stir in the Orthodox world, and all I have been able to find is Orthodox condemning it by name but not giving any details.

 

[josephdaniel29]

This thread concerns the “Toll-House” doctrine which had something to do with the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russa) but I don’t know anything more than that. I came across this topic many months ago, but I forgot to make a thread about it.

What exactly does this doctrine teach?
Who proposed/taught it?
Why is it wrong/heretical?

I would prefer official quotes and links to online articles, if possible. I can’t find much doing a regular google search.

This issue caused quite a stir in the Orthodox world, and all I have been able to find is Orthodox condemning it by name but not giving any details.

Although I’m sure this thread will be moved in the meantime here are a couple of resources.

The Debate Over Aerial Toll-Houses

Death and the Toll House Controversy

I don’t personally know a single Orthodox Christian who subscribes to this theory.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Nicholas82]

I don’t believe in this ‘theory’ or whatever you might call it… never met anyone who does either.

 

[Hesychios]

Me neither.

I am sure there are some people who subscribe to it, but not in my acquaintance. Oddly, the subject is of great interest to Catholics.

 

[mardukm]

Father Seraphim Rose, a very popular EO author, considers it a dogma of the EOChurch. He has a book that quotes profusely the patristic belief in the matter, and regards disbelief in it to be heterodox. I will look for it and give you the title (if someone has not done so by the time I return on Sunday).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Badaliyyah]

Is it just me, or is any one else thinking about cookies every time they see this title? Or it could be that I am just really in the mood for some cookies.

salaam.

p.s. sorry its late and I just couldn’t resist.

 

[Nicholas82]

Father Seraphim Rose, a very popular EO author, considers it a dogma of the EOChurch. He has a book that quotes profusely the patristic belief in the matter, and regards disbelief in it to be heterodox. I will look for it and give you the title (if someone has not done so by the time I return on Sunday).

Blessings,
Marduk

I may be one of very few, but I a not a big fan.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

nevermind whopps

 

[Aramis]

This thread concerns the “Toll-House” doctrine which had something to do with the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russa) but I don’t know anything more than that. I came across this topic many months ago, but I forgot to make a thread about it.

What exactly does this doctrine teach?
Who proposed/taught it?
Why is it wrong/heretical?

I would prefer official quotes and links to online articles, if possible. I can’t find much doing a regular google search.

This issue caused quite a stir in the Orthodox world, and all I have been able to find is Orthodox condemning it by name but not giving any details.

The only ascribers I’ve known have been RO Old Believers.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Father Seraphim Rose, a very popular EO author, considers it a dogma of the EOChurch. He has a book that quotes profusely the patristic belief in the matter, and regards disbelief in it to be heterodox. I will look for it and give you the title (if someone has not done so by the time I return on Sunday).

Blessings,
Marduk

“The Soul after Death” by Fr Seraphim Rose.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Although I’m sure this thread will be moved in the meantime here are a couple of resources.

The Debate Over Aerial Toll-Houses

Death and the Toll House Controversy

I don’t personally know a single Orthodox Christian who subscribes to this theory.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Thanks for the links. Not too short, not too long. What is interesting here is that Fr Rose does not appear to be making this up, but rather is quoting Church Fathers. How accurate those quotes are is not clear, at least to me.

Me neither.

I am sure there are some people who subscribe to it, but not in my acquaintance. Oddly, the subject is of great interest to Catholics.

I don’t know where you are getting your statistics from, but I have never seen the topic mentioned in these forums.

Father Seraphim Rose, a very popular EO author, considers it a dogma of the EOChurch. He has a book that quotes profusely the patristic belief in the matter, and regards disbelief in it to be heterodox. I will look for it and give you the title (if someone has not done so by the time I return on Sunday).

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you. Yes, the book has been mentioned in those links and it does not appear Fr Rose is making this doctrine up. I don’t know how widely accepted a view it is.

Is it just me, or is any one else thinking about cookies every time they see this title? Or it could be that I am just really in the mood for some cookies.
salaam.
p.s. sorry its late and I just couldn’t resist.

ROFLOL!

 

[bpbasilphx]

I have seen some Greek Catholic bi-lingual prayer books that say “mytartsvo” (toll house) on the Slavonic side and “purgatory” on the English side.

 

[Ghosty]

I have seen some Greek Catholic bi-lingual prayer books that say “mytartsvo” (toll house) on the Slavonic side and “purgatory” on the English side.

Now that is interesting! Given the discussion on the “Eastern view of Purgatory” thread, and progressing discussion of Eastern Fathers who taught about this cleansing after death, you might be hitting on something here. Especially when you consider that St. Seraphim was citing Fathers himself, and was quite insistent on this being a traditional teaching.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Now that is interesting! Given the discussion on the “Eastern view of Purgatory” thread, and progressing discussion of Eastern Fathers who taught about this cleansing after death, you might be hitting on something here. Especially when you consider that St. Seraphim was citing Fathers himself, and was quite insistent on this being a traditional teaching.

Peace and God bless!

I cannot find a consistent answer as to whether the EO accept purgatory or not. Most EO whom I have read to talked to say it is a purely latin invention, yet the EO Council of Jerusalem in 1672 (Confession of Dositheous) says:
Decree 18

	We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.


	And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not  		departed in despair but while still living in the body,  		though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring  		forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting  		themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their  		neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly  		called satisfaction — **[their souls] depart into  		Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have  		committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and  		are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the  		Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their  		Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; **which each offers particularly for his relatives that have  		fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers  		daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know  		the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from  		their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and  		judgment, but when we know not.

cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

This teaching (and much of the rest of this Confession) was clearly lifted right out of the Decrees of Trent. Here the concept of Purgatory is explicitly affirmed, only the term itself is not used.

 

[Ghosty]

I cannot find a consistent answer as to whether the EO accept purgatory or not. Most EO whom I have read to talked to say it is a purely latin invention, yet the EO Council of Jerusalem in 1672 (Confession of Dositheous) says:Decree 18

     We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.


     And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not          departed in despair but while still living in the body,          though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring          forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting          themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their          neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly          called satisfaction — **[their souls] depart into          Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have          committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and          are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the          Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their          Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; **which each offers particularly for his relatives that have          fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers          daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know          the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from          their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and          judgment, but when we know not.

cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

This teaching (and much of the rest of this Confession) was clearly lifted right out of the Decrees of Trent. Here the concept of Purgatory is explicitly affirmed, only the term itself is not used.

It goes beyond that Council, however, right back into the Patristic era and the Byzantine Divine Liturgies and memorial services.

The bottom line is that, whether the concept of fire and punishment/penances is used or not, the Byzantine tradition is indeed that we must pray for the cleansing of the dead who are not declared Saints. The Byzantine memorial service is especially explicit in this regard, and I’ve prayed it many times over the past couple years practicing as a Melkite.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It goes beyond that Council, however, right back into the Patristic era and the Byzantine Divine Liturgies and memorial services.

The bottom line is that, whether the concept of fire and punishment/penances is used or not, the Byzantine tradition is indeed that we must pray for the cleansing of the dead who are not declared Saints. The Byzantine memorial service is especially explicit in this regard, and I’ve prayed it many times over the past couple years practicing as a Melkite.

Peace and God bless!

Very Good to know. Thanks!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I cannot find a consistent answer as to whether the EO accept purgatory or not. Most EO whom I have read to talked to say it is a purely latin invention, yet the EO Council of Jerusalem in 1672 (Confession of Dositheous) says:
Decree 18

	We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.


	And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not  		departed in despair but while still living in the body,  		though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring  		forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting  		themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their  		neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly  		called satisfaction — **[their souls] depart into  		Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have  		committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and  		are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the  		Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their  		Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; **which each offers particularly for his relatives that have  		fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers  		daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know  		the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from  		their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and  		judgment, but when we know not.

cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

This teaching (and much of the rest of this Confession) was clearly lifted right out of the Decrees of Trent. Here the concept of Purgatory is explicitly affirmed, only the term itself is not used.

I think both Orthodox and Catholic acknowledge the fact most people undergo a period of purification after death. However, the difference is the nature of that purification. As I understand it, the Orthodox view is that many go to Hades having not yet completed the process of theosis. The purification, then, is the continuation of theosis. The issue with Catholicism starts with the traditional western conception of Purgatory as a separate physical place from Hades. This is completely inaccurate in an Orthodox view, as we consider the purification more as a state which is experienced by the soul.Therefore, the traditional Catholic conception of Purgatory is rejected by Orthodoxy.

With that said, the Catholic Church has since stated that one need not believe that Purgatory is a physical place. If interpreted metaphorically as a state of being, then it can be understood in a way that is by no means contrary to Orthodoxy. How one personally views Purgatory makes a big difference as to whether it is analogous to, or opposed to, the Orthodox teachings.

I’m not the most knowledgeable in this things, but I hope that helps!

God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Also, as far as I know, only Ecumenical Councils establish Orthodox dogmata. Other councils may state their position on issues, but they are not binding on individual believers. At least, that’s the impression I get.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think both Orthodox and Catholic acknowledge the fact most people undergo a period of purification after death. However, the difference is the nature of that purification. As I understand it, the Orthodox view is that many go to Hades having not yet completed the process of theosis. The purification, then, is the continuation of theosis. The issue with Catholicism starts with the traditional western conception of Purgatory as a separate physical place from Hades. This is completely inaccurate in an Orthodox view, as we consider the purification more as a state which is experienced by the soul.Therefore, the traditional Catholic conception of Purgatory is rejected by Orthodoxy.

With that said, the Catholic Church has since stated that one need not believe that Purgatory is a physical place. If interpreted metaphorically as a state of being, then it can be understood in a way that is by no means contrary to Orthodoxy. How one personally views Purgatory makes a big difference as to whether it is analogous to, or opposed to, the Orthodox teachings.

I’m not the most knowledgeable in this things, but I hope that helps!

God bless!

Thanks for this response. The first paragraph, I would say, is more a matter of different terms (eg “hades” vs “purgatory”) than different concept.

Also, as far as I know, only Ecumenical Councils establish Orthodox dogmata. Other councils may state their position on issues, but they are not binding on individual believers. At least, that’s the impression I get.

While this might be true, and fair, it is also the duty of the Church to point out and even condemn heresy. Truth is truth, error is error. If the Confession of Dositheos contains heresy then it should be condemned, if it is orthodox then (as far as I’m concerned) there should be no EO objections (which I often do encounter) to concepts like purgatory, transubstantiation, original sin, etc.

 

[chrisb]

Thanks for this response. The first paragraph, I would say, is more a matter of different terms (eg “hades” vs “purgatory”) than different concept.

Historically, Purgatory was a ‘place and state’ and thus the distinction between the ‘cleansing’ and ‘punitive’ fires in Medieval Theology of the West. Since Vatican II popular views of Purgatory has been moving to a more, dare I say, ‘orthodox’ interpretation?

My problem, rests in the underpinnings necessary to maintain the doctrine in it’s dogmatic language… venial sin, mortal sin, satisfaction, rigid distinction between ‘cleansing’ fire and ‘punitive’ fire, etc, etc.

I continue not to see how this can be considered anything but a theological opinion of the Latin Church. It is clearly not a ‘dogma’ nor a consensual teachings of the Fathers.

While this might be true, and fair, it is also the duty of the Church to point out and even condemn heresy. Truth is truth, error is error. If the Confession of Dositheos contains heresy then it should be condemned, if it is orthodox then (as far as I’m concerned) there should be no EO objections (which I often do encounter) to concepts like purgatory, transubstantiation, original sin, etc.

I believe ‘the church’ need to be careful in attempting to articulate in detail what has not been illuminated in detail by Holy Tradition. There is a reason to allow certain things to simply rest in the cloud of mystery.