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