Here's excerpt from article found on newostrog website which is a critique of the Minutes or, more precisely, the review of The Soul, the Body, and Death made to the Synod by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe).
THE RETURN OF THE TOLLHOUSES
REV. DR. MICHAEL AZKOUL
2
It is a shame when devout Orthodox err in matters of the Faith; but it is a warning that none is free from the vicissitudes of our mortal life. There are no certainties outside the Church, no assurances without diligence. Special care must be taken not to confound personal discoveries with divine communications, nor intellectual trends with ecclesial truth. Therefore, it is disconcerting when they fail to understand the issue raised by Fr Seraphim's book, and persist in pursuing, to the detriment of the Faithful, a matter theologically settled by Archbishop Lazar's refutation. The Soul After Death initiated a controversy with no justification, and now, from quarters sympathetic to him, there is another attempt to redefine the Apostolic Tradition with precisely the same tools. As already mentioned, The Orthodox Christian Information Center has redistributed an extract from the Minutes of the Session of the Russian Church Abroad concerning "controversy" over the theory of "tollhouses" caused by Deacon Lev Puhalo.19 The bulk of this paper is a critique of those Minutes or, more precisely, the review of The Soul, the Body, and Death made to the Synod by Bishop Gregory (Grabbe).
Having read the reviews more than once, I am convinced that His Grace did not give the book the attention it deserves. He drew upon his own learning and background. He did not test the details of Archbishop Lazar's work against its sources. Bishop Gregory makes no mention of the impressive excerpts from the writings of the Greek, Latin and Syriac Fathers, nor is there any reference to the pages of icons of the Last Judgment with their erudite interpretations. There is a certain dishonest cunning in his allusions to "Archpriest Malinovsky, the author of a dogmatic theology,20 valued highly by Metropolitan Anthony" (Khrapovitsky). He presumes to insinuate this saint and perhaps the greatest Orthodox patristic theologian of this century into a "controversy" on the side of his own prejudices. He has no knowledge and, therefore, has no right to even suggest that the Metropolitan professed this theory.21
Bishop Gregory introduces the familiar argument that the "tollhouses" are found in the divine services of the Church. We are not informed where he obtained his translations of the troparia (found also in Fr Rose's book) used to support his contention. "Mention of them is also made in the Octoechos of St John Damascene," His Grace tells us (2 of 4). Where? What is the context? What kind of "tollhouses" - of the ascetic or the Gnostic type? Perhaps, like Fr Rose and Fr Pomazansky, St John equates the "tollhouse" with the Particular Judgment? Likewise, we are to believe that the Damascene and the other Fathers provided us with the Lord's words - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me hath everlasting life and shall not enter into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life" (Jn.5:24) - as evidence that "the righteous can pass through these toll-stations unhindered"? (2 of 4). His Grace, convinced by what he imagines to be the overwhelming proof in favour of the "tollhouse" theory (according to Hieromonk Seraphim), concludes, "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, the teaching of Fr Lev can weaken in the souls of his readers one of the stimuli to do battle with sin" (2 of 4). In fact, the "tollhouse" thanatology could lead some to despair, as indeed it has.
