Old Calendarists in Communion with the EP switch Calendars??

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I think part of the disagreement is in the way the "Toll Houses" are represented today. The fact that they have even been given a name is, while convenient, part of a tendency towards rationalizing what we don't fully understand.

[Bogatyr]

St. Athanasius the Great, in the Life of St. Anthony the Great:

"For once, when about to eat, having risen up to pray about the ninth
hour, he perceived that he was caught up in the spirit, and,
wonderful to tell, he stood and saw himself, as it were, from outside
himself, and that he was led in the air by certain ones. Next certain
bitter and terrible beings stood in the air and wished to hinder him
from passing through. But when his conductors opposed them, they
demanded whether he was not accountable to them. And when they wished
to sum up the account from his birth, Antony's conductors stopped
them, saying, 'The Lord hath wiped out the sins from his birth, but
from the time he became a monk, and devoted himself to God, it is
permitted you to make a reckoning.' Then when they accused him and
could not convict him, his way was free and unhindered. And
immediately he saw himself, as it were, coming and standing by
himself, and again he was Antony as before. Then forgetful of eating,
he remained the rest of the day and through the whole of the night
groaning and praying. For he was astonished when he saw against what
mighty opponents our wrestling is, and by what labours we have to
pass through the air. And he remembered that this is what the Apostle
said, 'according to the prince of the power of the air [10].' For in
it the enemy hath power to fight and to attempt to hinder those who
pass through. Wherefore most earnestly he exhorted, 'Take up the
whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day
[11],' that the enemy, 'having no evil thing to say against us, may
be ashamed [12].' And we who have learned this, let us be mindful of
the Apostle when he says, 'whether in the body I know not, or whether
out of the body I know not; God knoweth [13].' But Paul was caught up
unto the third heaven, and having heard things unspeakable he came
down; while Antony saw that he had come to the air, and contended
until he was free. . And he had also this favour granted him. For as
he was sitting alone on the mountain, if ever he was in perplexity in
his meditations, this was revealed to him by Providence in prayer.
And the happy man, as it is written, was taught of God [14]. After
this, when he once had a discussion with certain men who had come to
him concerning the state of the soul and of what nature its place
will be after this life, the following night one from above called
him, saying, 'Antony, rise, go out and look.' Having gone out
therefore (for he knew whom he ought to obey) looking up, he beheld
one standing and reaching to the clouds, tall, hideous, and fearful,
and others ascending as though they were winged. And the figure
stretched forth his hands, and some of those who were ascending were
stayed by him, while others flew above, and having escaped
heavenward, were borne aloft free from care. At such, therefore, the
giant gnashed his teeth, but rejoiced over those who fell back. And
forthwith a voice came to Antony, 'Understandest thou what thou
seest?' And his understanding was opened, and he understood that it
was the passing of souls, and that the tall being who stood was the
enemy who envies the faithful. And those whom he caught and stopped
from passing through are accountable to him, while those whom he was
unable to hold as they passed upwards had not been subservient to
him. So having seen this, and as it were being reminded, he struggled
the more daily to advance towards those things which were before. And
these visions he was unwilling to tell, but as he spent much time in
prayer, and was amazed, when those who were with him pressed him with
questions and forced him, he was compelled to speak, as a father who
cannot withhold ought from his children. And he thought that as his
conscience was clear, the account would be beneficial for them, that
they might learn that discipline bore good fruit, and that visions
were oftentimes the solace of their labours" (Chapters 65-66).

http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/vita-antony.htm

St Adamnan (Eunan) who recorded the life of St. Columba:

http://www.usu.edu/history/norm/bk3ch7.html

"AT another time while the holy man was tarrying in the Iouan island
(Hy, now Iona), one of his monks called Brito, a person given to all
good works, being seized with bodily illness, was reduced to the last
extremity. When the venerable man went to visit him at the hour of
his departure, he stood for a few moments at his bedside, and after
giving him his blessing, retired quickly from the house, not wishing
to see him die, and the very moment after the holy man left the house
the monk closed this present life. Then the eminent man walking in
the little court of his monastery, with his eyes upraised to heaven,
was for a long time lost in wonder and admiration. But a certain
brother named Aidan, the son of Libir, a truly virtuous and religious
man, who was the only one of the brethren present at the time, fell
upon his knees and asked the saint to tell him the reason of so great
astonishment. The saint said to him in reply: "I have this moment
seen the holy angels contending in the air against the hostile
powers; and I return thanks to Christ, the Judge, because the
victorious angels have carried off to the joys of our heavenly
country the soul of this stranger, who is the first person that hath
died among us in this island. But I beseech thee not to reveal this
secret to any one during my life."

St. John Climacus:

In Step 7, section 50 of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, St. John gives
the account of a

monastic who was dying, and who had begun to pass from this life to
the next, and to experience the accusations of the demons. The
account ends with statement:

"And while, thus being called to account he was parted from his body,
leaving us in uncertainty as to his judgment, or end, or sentence, or
how the trial ended."

Liturgical Evidence

In both the Greek and Slavonic Euchologion, in the canon for the
departure of the soul by St. Andrew , we find in Ode 7:

"All holy angels of the Almighty God, have mercy upon me and save me
from all the evil toll-houses [telonion poneron]."

For an English translation of this canon, see page 90, vol 3, of "The
Book of Needs" published by St. Tikhon Seminary.

Also in the Greek Euchologion, in the same canon, we find in the
first Ode:

"Behold a crowd of evil spirits has gathered bearing the record of my
sins, and they are shouting aloud and demanding shamelessly my humble
soul" (Quoted in the Mystery of Death, p. 391, by Nikolaos P.
Vassiliadis).

The prayer to the Theotokos at small compline:

".at the time of my departure taking care of my miserable soul, and
driving far away from it the dark countenances of the evil demons."

The Octoechos:

"When my soul is about to be forcibly parted from my body's limbs,
then stand by my side and scatter the counsels of my bodiless foes
and smash the teeth of those who implacably seek to swallow me down,
so that I may pass unhindered through the rulers of darkness who wait
in the air, O Bride of God." Octoechos, Tone Two, Friday Vespers

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/weekday_vespers1.htm

"Pilot my wretched soul, pure Virgin, and have compassion on it, as
it slides under a multitude of offences into the deep of destruction;
and at the fearful hour of death snatch me from the accusing demons
and from every punishment." Ode 6, Tone 1 Midnight Office for Sunday

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/weekday_vespers1.htm

The prayer of St. Eustratius, which is said in the Midnight Office
for Saturdays:

"And now, O Master, let Thy hand shelter me and let Thy mercy descend
upon me, for my soul is distracted and pained at its departure from
this my wretched and filthy body, lest the evil design of the
adversary overtake it and make it stumble into the darkness for the
unknown and known sins amassed by me in this life. Be merciful unto
me, O Master, and let not my soul see the dark countenances of the
evil spirits, but let it be received by Thine Angels bright and
shining. Glorify Thy holy name and by Thy might set me before Thy
divine judgment seat. When I am being judged, suffer not that the
hand of the prince of this world should take hold of me to throw me,
a sinner, into the depths of hades, but stand by me and be unto me a
savior and mediator…"

[fserafim]

Dear Rdr Constantine,

I never speak evil of authoriities and especially hierarchs. Therefore I take exception to the misnomer of 'Archbishop" being used to address a defrocked deacon, whose teaching has poisoned the minds of many people I have met. and heard from on the internet. That the modernist OCA accepted him is their concern and no doubt they have their motives.
Since we are in communion with the OCA, I would have to take a blessing from him, which I would do in deference to the discipline of the church. I believe many saints did this, even taking a blessing from heretics, prior to the latters' expulsion from the Church.

As the Greeks say: the beard does not make the priest. I say this for converts and those interested in Orthodoxy. Beware of the outward appearances and honeyed tongues of those who pose as Orthodox clergy. Examine their lives and teachings if you can and don't let 'official' connections fool you into following heretics. We have a Yorkshire saying: ...if the cap fits.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

p.s. thank you Rostislav for your erudiition.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Father Seraphim,

You said: "I believe many saints did this, even taking a blessing from heretics, prior to the latters' expulsion from the Church."

Of course this is Cyprianism.

Saying the Church at any time in history forced people, asked people, or even suggested to people, that they commune with heretics or even consider them as part of the Body of Christ is completely unimaginable.

If there is any considerable weight to this suggestion, I would like to know by what examples; All of the saints I have ever read about shunned any such thought.

[costaswright]

Bless Father!

Since we are in communion with the OCA, I would have to take a
blessing from him, which I would do in deference to the discipline of the
church. I believe many saints did this, even taking a blessing from

Since we are in communion with him and the Church he is in, proper discipline also demands that we refer to him respectfully.

I never speak evil of authoriities and especially hierarchs. Therefore I
take exception to the misnomer of 'Archbishop" being used to address a
defrocked deacon, whose teaching has poisoned the minds of many
people I have met. and heard from on the internet.

His defrocking was unjust, an attempt to silence clear Orthodox refutation of un-Orthodox myths which have wormed their way into the Church.

As the Greeks say: the beard does not make the priest. I say this for
converts and those interested in Orthodoxy. Beware of the outward
appearances and honeyed tongues of those who pose as Orthodox
clergy. Examine their lives and teachings if you can and don't let 'official'

This is true, and it is a telling point against those who have alloyed authentic Orthodoxy with false gnostic and western teachings.

And Rostislav wrote:

liturgical structure and witness of the Saints. The fact that a parish
declares itself a "toll house free zone" is like having a parish declare
itself a 40 Day Liturgy and Kollyva free zone. It is pure and simple
protestantism and not Orthodoxy.

Not at all. Of course, in the real sense everywhere is a tollhouse-free zone since the way-stations in which demons judge and condemn, unless sins are paid off by merits (as the tollhouse mythe relates), do not exist. Explicit tollhouse-free zones are those places where this false teaching is exposed and wept away by the authentic Orthodox truth of the Particular Judgment

I'm not going to continue with this here - the battle against the tollhouse myth, I really believe, won't be won so much on the various Internet Lists as by the clear teaching in the parish and mission field - which Hise Eminence, the JP mission of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, myself and others are engaged in. I almost had the opportunty to personally meet Vladyka Lazar there - he was going to visit the parish (with the blessing of the JP exarch) but was called back to the monastery by an emergency.

I'll leave you with a wonderful pearl of true Orthodox teaching, from Elder Cleopa of Romania:

"The first thing that the soul encounters after death of
the body is the judgment. There exists the partial judgment
and then the general (or final) judgment, which will take
place at the end of the world with the common resurrection
of everyone. At the partial judgment the status of a person
in the present life will be examined. If it was good, the
angels escort the soul to divine glory and refreshment,
while if it was evil, it is seized by unclean spirits for
the torments of hell. The spiritual delight and exultation
to which the worthy proceed is called in Holy Scripture
"the bosum of Abraham" or "Paradise." While the torment in
which the sinners moan is called "hell." That this partial
judgment happens directly after our soul's departure we
see in the words of the Saviour when he said to the robber,
"Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in
Paradise." Likewise in the words of the Apostle Paul we
read: "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after
this the Judgment," and elsewhere "For me to live is
Christ, and to die is gain." Among the ancient
ecclesiastical writers we remember Tertullian who spoke the
following concerning the partial and general judgment: "The
soul (after death) first of all must experience the
judgment of God since it was He Who was ssacrificed for all
humanity which He had created. And yet, the soul will also
await the resurrection of the body in order to offer
recompense for whatever good it did with the help of the
body, if it obeyed the commandments of God.""

The Truth of Our Faith, Elder Cleopa of Romania,
(Thessalonica, Greece: Uncut Mountain Press, 2002), pp.
123-124.

In Christ,
Rd. Constantine

[Bogatyr]

Technically, the JP NEVER recognized the oca and oca clerics don't serve in Jerusalem. In any event, after leaving ROCOR, puhalo goes on to the Free Serbs AFTER DEPOSITION IN ROCOR, bides his time and leaves after his wife dies, hops ship WITHOUT a Canonical Release, then he goes on to the Synod of Milan where he is elevated to heirarchical status. ( NO OTHER BODY HAS THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY TO LIFT THE DEPOSITION, SAVE ROCOR in regard to ones THEY LAY AGAINST THEIR CLERICS--IF THEY ARE "just" enough to ordain them, they are "just" enough to defrock them". And any synodeia who would serve with a "bishop" who has been defrocked by another synodeia is subject to LAIZATION ACCORDING TO THE CANONS and at least DEFINITELY a spiritual court to resolve the matter. The UNCANONICAL American "autocephaly" has added ANOTHER uncanonical trait to its history.). He leaves them without a canonical release to join the "kievan patriarchate" of Mr. denisenko, another person "unlawfully deposed" per this reader's logic. There he works to foment schisms in the Russian church and concelebrates with clergy who have been deposed. Mr. denisenko was defrocked for maintaining a common law wife and children, his "wife" a self-styled "schema-nun". He left Mr. denisenko after +tikhon of the oca worked out a way to carve up what he perceived to be "part of the ROCOR legacy". I was privy to +tikhon's former chancellor working out a way to receive Mr. puhalo. As a personage, this nut puhalo has gone so far as to write papers and be arrested in demonstrations in Canada, maintianing the "US wants to invade and conquer Canada" and writes things like the syncretist george lucas' work, star wars, with it mockery of the Virgin Birth, is "perfectly acceptible, even morally edifying for Orthodox believers". Talk about flirting with occult imagery!
But, I must agree with Fr. Seraphim's point that out of obedience to his Bishop, he must show deference to this defrocked charlatan. Charges of "kyprianism" I feel are misplaced and even the term is radical. I think what is meant by it is ecclesiological compromise at the expense of placating new calendarists. Here, the compromise is on the part of the JP Bishop and not Fr. Serafim to whom he shows the obedience. No, canonically, the JP should not be allowing ANYONE to receive this dubious "heirarch's" blessing, much the less allowing "concelebration" or his "advising" of its spiritual children. They should be working to stem the tide of his "influence" in their jurisdiction and disciplining disobedient followers of Mr. puhalo who are fomenting dissensions and attacking the canonical order of the Church--laicizing such people would be a benefit to the JP. However, the recent nonsense with their uncanonical lifting of depositions they did not lay against former clerics of the former Ben Lomond community is just as shocking. They cannot lift depositions they did not lay. The irregular situation is appalling and the only way it can be continanced is by maintaining x body was neither Orthodox in ordination nor deposition. That is the only way it is ecclesiologically tenable. Mind you, a recognized Orthodox assembly/Spiritual Court would have to make that decision and clarify that the Body in question was not Orthodox. The opposite ecclesiological principle of the matthewites which maintains one Synodeia can start speaking as an ecumenical council and place other local churches under interdict/excommunication is known only amongst tertullian and the montanists--it is NOT legitimate Orthodox ecclesiology. The wrong committed is by the JP Bishop. If that is erring out of ecclesiological compromise, then so it is. But Fr. Serafim's obedience to the Bishop absolves him of the offense. I must add, that I find it difficult to swallow the accusations of "kiprianism" simply because the label is a misnomor if not an epithet. The Synod in Resistance, to WHOM I SWEAR MY ALLEGIANCE, has affirmed Orthodox ecclesiology but has not condemned the new calendarists because it does not have the authority to--Patristically and canonically only a council of ecumenical character has this authority.
puhalo's deposition was for DISOBEDIENCE and FOR FOMENTING REBELLION AGAINST CANONICAL HEIRARCHS. That makes it as binding as say, Mr. podmoshensky's deposition. Similarly "mr. pangratios" is as valid a heirarch as Mr. puhalo and a direct historical parallel.
I cited the Services and the Fathers in defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Toll Houses. In future, we DEMAND more than protestant thought based on quasi-orthodox interpretation. WE DEMAND FATHERS who wrote about the toll houses as this neo-makrakisite party does. If they cannot produce them to substantiate their quack theory, KNOW that they are railing AGAINST the Saints. Know that they are introducing innovation. Know that they are acting like protestants to attack the doctrines of the CHURCH. I provided the Patristic witness. I have even forwarded it to Mr. puhalo himself who was at a total loss and said that he would be "referring it to Fr. Azkoul for further study." As yet no study has been produced to revise the Fathers. Some of their party make the contention that we have "taken the Fathers out of context", but TWENTY CENTURIES OF FATHERS SEEM TO SHARE THE SAME CONTEXT AND THE WITNESS OF THE DEIFIED CONFIRMS THIS. Where the true test here is then is WHERE A PATRISTIC CONSENSUS interpreted the Fathers and put them in the context of this protestant, innovationist party. That is utterly lacking and indicts their subversion of doctrine as HETERODOX INNOVATION. Show us the Fathers speak as you do on the topic, define eschatology as you do. No where do they. Indeed, some of the very Fathers who were cognizant and scholars against fighting gnosticism, your party terms "neo-gnostics"! The Holy Spirit has erred in deifying the Saints! ANAXIOS!!! IT IS NOT WORTHY!!! Their memory in the darkened minds of some is "accursed". ANAXIOS!!! IT IS NOT WORTHY!!! We Orthodox affirm the revelation of life eternal as it is in Vision of the UNCREATE LIGHT in affirmation of the Hagioritic Tome and we Orthodox RECOGNIZE THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD NOT CONFIRM THAT REALITY!!! All Orthodox Christians should end this mockery of True Faith and reject political adventurers and quack theories. ANAXIOS!!! IT IS INDEED NOT WORTHY!!!
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[mwoerl]

"abp." lazar is indeed a "retired" bishop of the oca. however, that description is somewhat misleading; he was never conscecrated a bishop by the oca; he has been consecrated a bishop on more than one occasion, left a jurisdiction that would not consecrate him a bishop (that is, the "free serbs." they would not consecrate him becuase they had a policy that they would not make anyone a bishop who was not at least half serbian. i wrote to him after he joined the free serbs, asking why he was no longer with the ROCOR. he told me so he coudl be with his "brother serbs." he even changed his last name to "reflect" a slavinc heritage that apparently was less than he wished it to be) and was defrocked by his "original" jurisdiction (rocor, who defrocked him as a deacon). he was accepted as a bishop by the oca on the grounds that he would be accepted as "retired," in other words, have no influence whatsoever.

his second "episcopal consecration" was carried out by the denisenko ukrianians, a "church" not recognized by any other orthodox jurisdiction, headed by a married hierarch who was defrocked by the mp. his first "episcopal consecration" was carried out by the orthodox church of portugal, who has deemed that some rocor clergy coming to them must be REBAPTIZED! after the second "episcopal consecration," "abp" lazar failed mention the "first" one on his brand new "ukrainian orthodox" website in the section about his "history."

"abp" lazar fought a battle against fr seraphim rose (and called fr. seraphim a "hindu," or accused him of holding "hindu beliefs") concerning the tollhouses. when instructed by the bishops of rocor to cease and desist, he apparently would not, and was eventually defrocked. reader constantine, if i had a dime for every orthodox priest who claims, or who someone else claims, was "unjustly defrocked," i would be rich. he was defrocked for disobedience, not for some exalted upholding of the truth of orthodoxy. oh, if our heroes were only what we fantasize them to be!

so, to simply say "abp lazar is a retired bishop of the oca" is not only misleading, it is leaving out a lot of information that is pertinent to making a judgment on these types . . . not a judgment that "he is bad," but a judgment that answers the question: "do i wanna touch him with a twenty foot pole?" -uh- my answer is, no i do not. stating simply that "abp lazar is a retired bishop of the oca" is akin to stating that "met philaret denisenko was defrocked by the mp," as this was a good thing, and a reason to admire him! and, do we know if "abp" lazar still admires his former chief hierarch? perhaps philaret denisenko shares "abp lazar's" views on the tollhouses? would that make philaret denisenko an orthodox hierarch?

and-a note to the administrators and moderators here-please do not allow YET ANOTHER debate on the tollhouses. once they get going, they are absolutely interminable. reader constantine does not like the tollhouses-ok-we all know that. i think thats enough information-if someone must, check the indiana list archives, or better yet, see what fr seraphim rose wrote on the subject. unless one would choose "abp" lazar or reader constantine as their "authority" on the subject rather than fr seraphim rose.

"common causes" make strange bedfellows!

mwoerl