Talk:Aerial Toll-Houses

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Unilateral edits asserting this is a fringe teaching)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
According to Fr. Thomas Hopko, it is a universally held Orthodox idea:
 
According to Fr. Thomas Hopko, it is a universally held Orthodox idea:
 
[http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/hopko_tolls.mp3 http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/hopko_tolls.mp3]
 
[http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/hopko_tolls.mp3 http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/hopko_tolls.mp3]
 +
 +
: Fr. Thomas Hopko actually says that the idea of a struggle with demons at death as a final purification is a widely held idea. He does not even mention many of the doctrines being supported on this page, like bargaining for sins. And he explicitly denies that the number or "physical form" of the toll-houses should be taken literally.[[User:Mad2physicist|Mad2physicist]] 15:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
  
 
Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos agrees.  The very most retired Archbishop Lazar Puhalo disagrees.  That does not disprove the point.  Nothing is universally held if by that we mean that one cannot cite an example of someone who doesn't hold it.  Criticism of the Toll Houses is very recent, and frankly flies in the face of the Patristic, liturgical, and iconographic tradition of the Church. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 19:05, January 31, 2009 (UTC)
 
Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos agrees.  The very most retired Archbishop Lazar Puhalo disagrees.  That does not disprove the point.  Nothing is universally held if by that we mean that one cannot cite an example of someone who doesn't hold it.  Criticism of the Toll Houses is very recent, and frankly flies in the face of the Patristic, liturgical, and iconographic tradition of the Church. [[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 19:05, January 31, 2009 (UTC)
Line 9: Line 11:
  
 
: It would probably be worth it at least to state as much, as well as to add nuance to the "pro" side of the question, e.g., whether it is to be understood strictly literally, etc.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 21:08, January 31, 2009 (UTC)
 
: It would probably be worth it at least to state as much, as well as to add nuance to the "pro" side of the question, e.g., whether it is to be understood strictly literally, etc.  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 21:08, January 31, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
I think that there should at least be a section discussing the fact that many of the supporters of this notion do not support the detailed vision of Gregory as being in any way literal. Also that many of them do not support the idea that sins can be "bargained for" with good deeds. In fact Gregory's vision deals with unconfessed sin in a way that contradicts the Mystery of Confession, since in the prayer there the priest prays for the forgiveness of sins "both confessed and unconfessed." In any case, many of those who support the idea are really only supporting the earlier Patristic sayings about a struggle with demons at death, and not at all supporting Gregory's version. This is not at all clear in the current article.[[User:Mad2physicist|Mad2physicist]] 15:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
  
 
== Unilateral edits asserting this is a fringe teaching ==
 
== Unilateral edits asserting this is a fringe teaching ==
Line 14: Line 18:
 
If presbyer3 wants to add some material showing that there are those who disagree with the Toll-Houses, then let him do so.  But to claim that this is a "fringe" teaching is absolutely nonsense.
 
If presbyer3 wants to add some material showing that there are those who disagree with the Toll-Houses, then let him do so.  But to claim that this is a "fringe" teaching is absolutely nonsense.
 
[[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:42, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 
[[User:Frjohnwhiteford|Frjohnwhiteford]] 18:42, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
:Do you have actual evidence that this is universally held within the Church? The fact that several Russian bishops support it and that ROCOR censored the idea of "soul sleep" hardly means that the full Gregorian version of this is widely held. As I said above, there's good reason to believe that the idea of some kind of struggle with demons at death is widely held, but nothing more. Especially not the "bargaining for sins" with good deeds, an idea which does not show up in any other part of Orthodox doctrine except here.[[User:Mad2physicist|Mad2physicist]] 15:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
  
 
It is apparent from multiple forums and writings that there is no universally held position regarding the "Toll Houses" in the Orthodox Church, therefore, until such time that a council is held by the Church to issue an stand on the issue, it is a matter of personal opinion.
 
It is apparent from multiple forums and writings that there is no universally held position regarding the "Toll Houses" in the Orthodox Church, therefore, until such time that a council is held by the Church to issue an stand on the issue, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Revision as of 07:31, July 10, 2010

Universally held?

According to Fr. Thomas Hopko, it is a universally held Orthodox idea: http://audio.ancientfaith.com/illuminedheart/hopko_tolls.mp3

Fr. Thomas Hopko actually says that the idea of a struggle with demons at death as a final purification is a widely held idea. He does not even mention many of the doctrines being supported on this page, like bargaining for sins. And he explicitly denies that the number or "physical form" of the toll-houses should be taken literally.Mad2physicist 15:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos agrees. The very most retired Archbishop Lazar Puhalo disagrees. That does not disprove the point. Nothing is universally held if by that we mean that one cannot cite an example of someone who doesn't hold it. Criticism of the Toll Houses is very recent, and frankly flies in the face of the Patristic, liturgical, and iconographic tradition of the Church. Frjohnwhiteford 19:05, January 31, 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know enough about it to make a ruling either way, myself. But I do know that this is controversial in our time. Much of the article reads as though it is not.
It would probably be worth it at least to state as much, as well as to add nuance to the "pro" side of the question, e.g., whether it is to be understood strictly literally, etc. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 21:08, January 31, 2009 (UTC)

I think that there should at least be a section discussing the fact that many of the supporters of this notion do not support the detailed vision of Gregory as being in any way literal. Also that many of them do not support the idea that sins can be "bargained for" with good deeds. In fact Gregory's vision deals with unconfessed sin in a way that contradicts the Mystery of Confession, since in the prayer there the priest prays for the forgiveness of sins "both confessed and unconfessed." In any case, many of those who support the idea are really only supporting the earlier Patristic sayings about a struggle with demons at death, and not at all supporting Gregory's version. This is not at all clear in the current article.Mad2physicist 15:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral edits asserting this is a fringe teaching

If presbyer3 wants to add some material showing that there are those who disagree with the Toll-Houses, then let him do so. But to claim that this is a "fringe" teaching is absolutely nonsense. Frjohnwhiteford 18:42, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Do you have actual evidence that this is universally held within the Church? The fact that several Russian bishops support it and that ROCOR censored the idea of "soul sleep" hardly means that the full Gregorian version of this is widely held. As I said above, there's good reason to believe that the idea of some kind of struggle with demons at death is widely held, but nothing more. Especially not the "bargaining for sins" with good deeds, an idea which does not show up in any other part of Orthodox doctrine except here.Mad2physicist 15:31, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent from multiple forums and writings that there is no universally held position regarding the "Toll Houses" in the Orthodox Church, therefore, until such time that a council is held by the Church to issue an stand on the issue, it is a matter of personal opinion. [unsigned comment User:Peteprint

There are people in the Orthodox Church who believe that some people are born homosexuals, and that living in a committed homosexual relationship is not a sin. Do we have to wait for an Ecumenical council to tell us whether it is or not? I don't think so. That's not how we approach the Orthodox Tradition. Frjohnwhiteford 12:13, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox