22 responses to “Two Eastern Fathers Whose Views Conflict with Purgatory”

1. There is a pious story of a disciple of a monk, who pondered about God's justice. His righteous elder was devoured by a wild beast, and -at about the same time- a notoriously rich and sinful man was burried with much pomp and honor. An angel is sent by God to accompany him on his way, in the form of a young monk. At the end, he explains to the disciple that the rich, sinful man got his reward from God for the few good deeds that he did in his life by having a beautiful funeral, because there can be no reward for them in the afterlife, since he is in hell; and the elder was cleaned of the few sins that he did in this life by the pain of being eaten alive by the lion, and so gained even greater glory in the Kingdom of Heaven.

2. There is a pious story of a disciple of a monk, who pondered about God's justice. His righteous elder was devoured by a wild beast, and -at about the same time- a notoriously rich and sinful man was burried with much pomp and honor. An angel is sent by God to accompany him on his way, in the form of a young monk. At the end, he explains to the disciple that the rich, sinful man got his reward from God for the few good deeds that he did in his life by having a beautiful funeral, because there can be no reward for them in the afterlife, since he is in hell; and the elder was cleaned of the few sins that he did in this life by the pain of being eaten alive by the lion, and so gained even greater glory in the Kingdom of Heaven.

3. So Lvka, I would take that as a proof that EOs do not believe in post-mortem Purgatory?

4. So Lvka, I would take that as a proof that EOs do not believe in post-mortem Purgatory?

5. The church in the days of Chrysostom did indeed "pray for the dead" – a thing that strict Protestants would object to, seeing from history how it set up a slippery slope to praying TO the dead.(One could argue that the error of Purgatory was the "logical" end result of praying for the dead, and that post-Nicene church fathers were saved from it by "blessed inconsistency.")And yet, Protestant scholars already long time ago proved that this practice was nonetheless still very different from the late-medieval RC doctrine of Purgatory – for example, they used to pray FOR Virgin Mary!Anglican archbishop Ussher (famous today for his dating of creation at 4004 BC) thus argued against a Jesuit:http://www.archive.org/details/answertojesuitwi00usshuoftpp. 170-172"Fifthly, by the forms of prayers that are found in the ancient Liturgies. As in that of the churches of Syria, attributed unto St Basil: "Be mindful, O Lord, of them which are dead, and are departed out of this life, and of the orthodox Bishops, which, from Peter and James the Apostles until this day, have clearly professed the right word of faith; and namely, of Ignatius, Dionysius, Julius, and the rest of the saints of worthy memory. Be mindful, O Lord, of them also which have stood unto blood for religion, and by righteousness and holiness have fed thy holy flock." And in the Liturgy fathered upon the Apostles: "We offer unto thee for all the saints which have pleased thee from the beginning of the world, patriarchs, prophets, just men, apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, priests, deacons," &c. And in the Liturgies of the churches of Egypt, which carry the title of St Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria: "Be mindful, O Lord, of thy saints; vouchsafe to remember all thy saints which have pleased thee from the beginning, our holy fathers, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, preachers, evangelists, and all the souls of the just which have died in the faith; and especially the holy, glorious, the evermore Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; and St John the forerunner, the Baptist and martyr; St Stephen, the first deacon and martyr ; St Mark the apostle, evangelist, and martyr," &c. And in the Liturgy of the church of Constantinople, ascribed to St Chrysostom: "We offer unto thee this reasonable service for those who are at rest in the faith, our forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, religious persons, and every spirit perfected in the faith, but especially for our most holy, immaculate, most blessed Lady, the Mother of God and aye Virgin Mary." Which kind of oblation for the saints, sounding somewhat harshly in the ears of the Latins, Leo Thuscus, in his translation, thought best to express it to their better liking after this manner: "We offer unto thee this reason – able service for the faithfully deceased, for our fathers and forefathers, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, and all the saints interceding" for them. As if the phrase "offering for the martyrs" were not to be found in St Chrysostom's own works; and more universally "for the just, both the fathers and the patriarchs, the prophets and apostles, and evangelists, and martyrs, and confessors, the bishops, and such as led a solitary life, and the whole order," in the suffrages of the Church rehearsed by Epiphanius. Yea, and in the Western Church itself: "for the spirits of those that are at rest, Hilary, Athanasius, Martin, Ambrose, Augustine, Fulgentius, Leander, Isidorus," &c. As may be seen in the Muzarabical Office used in Spain."

6. The church in the days of Chrysostom did indeed “pray for the dead” – a thing that strict Protestants would object to, seeing from history how it set up a slippery slope to praying TO the dead.(One could argue that the error of Purgatory was the “logical” end result of praying for the dead, and that post-Nicene church fathers were saved from it by “blessed inconsistency.”)And yet, Protestant scholars already long time ago proved that this practice was nonetheless still very different from the late-medieval RC doctrine of Purgatory – for example, they used to pray FOR Virgin Mary!Anglican archbishop Ussher (famous today for his dating of creation at 4004 BC) thus argued against a Jesuit:http://www.archive.org/details/answertojesuitwi00usshuoftpp. 170-172″Fifthly, by the forms of prayers that are found in the ancient Liturgies. As in that of the churches of Syria, attributed unto St Basil: “Be mindful, O Lord, of them which are dead, and are departed out of this life, and of the orthodox Bishops, which, from Peter and James the Apostles until this day, have clearly professed the right word of faith; and namely, of Ignatius, Dionysius, Julius, and the rest of the saints of worthy memory. Be mindful, O Lord, of them also which have stood unto blood for religion, and by righteousness and holiness have fed thy holy flock.” And in the Liturgy fathered upon the Apostles: “We offer unto thee for all the saints which have pleased thee from the beginning of the world, patriarchs, prophets, just men, apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, priests, deacons,” &c. And in the Liturgies of the churches of Egypt, which carry the title of St Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Cyril of Alexandria: “Be mindful, O Lord, of thy saints; vouchsafe to remember all thy saints which have pleased thee from the beginning, our holy fathers, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, preachers, evangelists, and all the souls of the just which have died in the faith; and especially the holy, glorious, the evermore Virgin Mary, the Mother of God; and St John the forerunner, the Baptist and martyr; St Stephen, the first deacon and martyr ; St Mark the apostle, evangelist, and martyr,” &c. And in the Liturgy of the church of Constantinople, ascribed to St Chrysostom: “We offer unto thee this reasonable service for those who are at rest in the faith, our forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, religious persons, and every spirit perfected in the faith, but especially for our most holy, immaculate, most blessed Lady, the Mother of God and aye Virgin Mary.” Which kind of oblation for the saints, sounding somewhat harshly in the ears of the Latins, Leo Thuscus, in his translation, thought best to express it to their better liking after this manner: “We offer unto thee this reason – able service for the faithfully deceased, for our fathers and forefathers, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, and all the saints interceding” for them. As if the phrase “offering for the martyrs” were not to be found in St Chrysostom's own works; and more universally “for the just, both the fathers and the patriarchs, the prophets and apostles, and evangelists, and martyrs, and confessors, the bishops, and such as led a solitary life, and the whole order,” in the suffrages of the Church rehearsed by Epiphanius. Yea, and in the Western Church itself: “for the spirits of those that are at rest, Hilary, Athanasius, Martin, Ambrose, Augustine, Fulgentius, Leander, Isidorus,” &c. As may be seen in the Muzarabical Office used in Spain.”

7. pp. 176-178"Now, having thus declared, unto what kind of persons the commemorations ordained by the ancient Church did extend, the next thing that cometh to consideration is, what we are to conceive of the primary intention of those prayers that were appointed to be made therein. And here we are to understand, that first prayers of praise and thanksgiving were presented unto God for the blessed estate that the party deceased was now entered upon; whereunto were afterwards added prayers of deprecation and petition, that God would be pleased to forgive him his sins, to keep him from hell, and to place him in the kingdom of heaven. Which kind of intercessions, howsoever at first they were well meant, as we shall hear, yet in process of time they proved an occasion of confirming men in divers errors; especially when they began once to be applied not only to the good, but to evil livers also, unto whom by the first institution they never were intended. The term of ev-)(apicrTiipio9 ev'xt^y, "a thanksgiving prayer", I borrow from the writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite); who, in the description of the funeral observances used of old in the Church, informeth us, first, that the friends of the dead "accounted him to be, as he was, blessed, because that, according to his wish, he had obtained a victorious end;" and thereupon "sent forth hymns of thanksgiving to the Author of that victory; desiring withal that they themselves might come unto the like end." And then that the Bishop likewise offered up a prayer of thanksgiving unto God, when the dead was afterward brought unto him, to receive, as it were, at his hands a sacred coronation. Thus at the funeral of Fabiola, the praising of God by singing of Psalms and resounding of Hallelujah is specially mentioned by St Jerome; and the general practice and intention of the Church therein is expressed and earnestly urged by St Chrysostom in this manner: "Do not we praise God and give thanks unto him, for that he hath now crowned him that is departed, for that he hath freed him from his labours, for that quitting him from fear, he keepeth him with himself? Are not the hymns for this end? Is not the singing of psalms for this purpose? All these be tokens of rejoicing." Whereupon he thus presseth them that used immoderate mourning for the dead: "Thou sayest, `Return, O my soul, unto thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee`; and dost thou weep? is not this a stage-play? is it not mere simulation? For if thou dost indeed believe the things that thou sayest, thou lamentest idly; but if thou playest, and dissemblest, and thinkest these things to be fables, why dost thou then sing? why dost thou suffer those things that are done? Wherefore dost thou not drive away them that sing?" And in the end he concludeth somewhat prophetically, that he "very much feared lest by this means some grievous disease should creep in upon the Church." Whether the doctrine now maintained in the Church of Rome, that the children of God, presently after their departure out of this life, are cast into a lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, be not a spice of this disease, and whether their practice in chanting of psalms, appointed for the expression of joy and thankfulness, over them whom they esteem to be tormented in so lamentable a fashion, be not a part of that scene and pageant at which St Chrysostom doth so take on, I leave it unto others to judge."Indeed, although modern RCs do not liked to emphasize it, it seems that Rome used to teach that the sufferings of Purgatory are just the same as those of Hell, differing from them only in duration. Needless to say, Chrysostom did not believe that faithful departed could end up in such a place.

8. pp. 176-178″Now, having thus declared, unto what kind of persons the commemorations ordained by the ancient Church did extend, the next thing that cometh to consideration is, what we are to conceive of the primary intention of those prayers that were appointed to be made therein. And here we are to understand, that first prayers of praise and thanksgiving were presented unto God for the blessed estate that the party deceased was now entered upon; whereunto were afterwards added prayers of deprecation and petition, that God would be pleased to forgive him his sins, to keep him from hell, and to place him in the kingdom of heaven. Which kind of intercessions, howsoever at first they were well meant, as we shall hear, yet in process of time they proved an occasion of confirming men in divers errors; especially when they began once to be applied not only to the good, but to evil livers also, unto whom by the first institution they never were intended. The term of ev-)(apicrTiipio9 ev'xt^y, “a thanksgiving prayer”, I borrow from the writer of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite); who, in the description of the funeral observances used of old in the Church, informeth us, first, that the friends of the dead “accounted him to be, as he was, blessed, because that, according to his wish, he had obtained a victorious end;” and thereupon “sent forth hymns of thanksgiving to the Author of that victory; desiring withal that they themselves might come unto the like end.” And then that the Bishop likewise offered up a prayer of thanksgiving unto God, when the dead was afterward brought unto him, to receive, as it were, at his hands a sacred coronation. Thus at the funeral of Fabiola, the praising of God by singing of Psalms and resounding of Hallelujah is specially mentioned by St Jerome; and the general practice and intention of the Church therein is expressed and earnestly urged by St Chrysostom in this manner: “Do not we praise God and give thanks unto him, for that he hath now crowned him that is departed, for that he hath freed him from his labours, for that quitting him from fear, he keepeth him with himself? Are not the hymns for this end? Is not the singing of psalms for this purpose? All these be tokens of rejoicing.” Whereupon he thus presseth them that used immoderate mourning for the dead: “Thou sayest, Return, O my soul, unto thy rest, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee; and dost thou weep? is not this a stage-play? is it not mere simulation? For if thou dost indeed believe the things that thou sayest, thou lamentest idly; but if thou playest, and dissemblest, and thinkest these things to be fables, why dost thou then sing? why dost thou suffer those things that are done? Wherefore dost thou not drive away them that sing?” And in the end he concludeth somewhat prophetically, that he “very much feared lest by this means some grievous disease should creep in upon the Church.” Whether the doctrine now maintained in the Church of Rome, that the children of God, presently after their departure out of this life, are cast into a lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, be not a spice of this disease, and whether their practice in chanting of psalms, appointed for the expression of joy and thankfulness, over them whom they esteem to be tormented in so lamentable a fashion, be not a part of that scene and pageant at which St Chrysostom doth so take on, I leave it unto others to judge.”Indeed, although modern RCs do not liked to emphasize it, it seems that Rome used to teach that the sufferings of Purgatory are just the same as those of Hell, differing from them only in duration. Needless to say, Chrysostom did not believe that faithful departed could end up in such a place.

9. for example, they used to pray FOR Virgin Mary!Why the past tense?

10. for example, they used to pray FOR Virgin Mary!Why the past tense?

11. Ussher also showed lawyer-like cleverness (though not of shyster-variety) when dealing with a case of heresy-hunter Epiphanius condemning certain Aerius for opposing prayers for the dead. He proved that even this case (which is a great favorite of RC/EO apologists), when observed in detail, gives us indirect proof against the later RC dogma of Purgatory.(Btw, this Ussher-book contains loads of citations in original Greek and Latin; most of them I will not transcibe, curious people can check out the link themselves.)http://www.archive.org/details/answertojesuitwi00usshuoftpp. 230-232We are to consider, then, that the prayers and oblations, for rejecting whereof Aerius was reproved, were not such as are used in the Church of Rome at this day, but such as were used by the ancient Church at that time, and for the most part retained by the Greek Church at this present. And therefore as we, in condemning of the one, have nothing to do with Aerius or his cause, so the Romanists, who dislike the other as much as ever Aerius did, must be content to let us alone, and take the charge of Aerianism home unto themselves. Popish prayers and oblations for the dead, we know, do wholly depend upon the belief of purgatory: if those of the ancient Church did so too, how cometh it to pass that Epiphanius doth not directly answer Aerius, as a Papist would do now, that they brought singular profit to the dead by delivering their tormented souls out of the flames of purgatory; but forgetting as much as once to make mention of purgatory, (the sole foundation of these suffrages for the dead, in our adversary's judgment,) doth trouble himself and his cause with bringing in such far-fetched reasons as these: That they who performed this duty did intend to signify thereby that their brethren departed were not perished, but remained still alive with the Lord; and to put a difference betwixt the high perfection of our Saviour Christ and the general frailty of the best of all his servants. Take away popish purgatory on the other side, (which in the days of Aerius and Epiphanius needed not to be taken away, because it was not as yet hatched,) and all the reasons produced by Epiphanius will not withhold our Romanists from absolutely subscribing to the opinion of Aerius; this being a case with them resolved, that "if purgatory be not admitted after death, prayer for the dead must be unprofitable." 236236. "Ad hoc etiani est universalis ecclesiae consuetudo, quae pro defunctis oral; quae quidem oratio inutilis esset, si purgatorium post mortem non ponatur." Thom, contra Gentiles, lib. xiv- cap. 91. VII ,] But though Thomas Aquinas and his abettors determined so, we must not therefore think that Epiphanius was of the same mind, who lived in a time wherein prayers were usually made for them that never were dreamed to have been in purgatory, and yieldeth those reasons of that usage, which overthrow the former consequence of Thomas every whit as much as the supposition of Aerius.

12. Ussher also showed lawyer-like cleverness (though not of shyster-variety) when dealing with a case of heresy-hunter Epiphanius condemning certain Aerius for opposing prayers for the dead. He proved that even this case (which is a great favorite of RC/EO apologists), when observed in detail, gives us indirect proof against the later RC dogma of Purgatory.(Btw, this Ussher-book contains loads of citations in original Greek and Latin; most of them I will not transcibe, curious people can check out the link themselves.)http://www.archive.org/details/answertojesuitwi00usshuoftpp. 230-232We are to consider, then, that the prayers and oblations, for rejecting whereof Aerius was reproved, were not such as are used in the Church of Rome at this day, but such as were used by the ancient Church at that time, and for the most part retained by the Greek Church at this present. And therefore as we, in condemning of the one, have nothing to do with Aerius or his cause, so the Romanists, who dislike the other as much as ever Aerius did, must be content to let us alone, and take the charge of Aerianism home unto themselves. Popish prayers and oblations for the dead, we know, do wholly depend upon the belief of purgatory: if those of the ancient Church did so too, how cometh it to pass that Epiphanius doth not directly answer Aerius, as a Papist would do now, that they brought singular profit to the dead by delivering their tormented souls out of the flames of purgatory; but forgetting as much as once to make mention of purgatory, (the sole foundation of these suffrages for the dead, in our adversary's judgment,) doth trouble himself and his cause with bringing in such far-fetched reasons as these: That they who performed this duty did intend to signify thereby that their brethren departed were not perished, but remained still alive with the Lord; and to put a difference betwixt the high perfection of our Saviour Christ and the general frailty of the best of all his servants. Take away popish purgatory on the other side, (which in the days of Aerius and Epiphanius needed not to be taken away, because it was not as yet hatched,) and all the reasons produced by Epiphanius will not withhold our Romanists from absolutely subscribing to the opinion of Aerius; this being a case with them resolved, that “if purgatory be not admitted after death, prayer for the dead must be unprofitable.” 236236. “Ad hoc etiani est universalis ecclesiae consuetudo, quae pro defunctis oral; quae quidem oratio inutilis esset, si purgatorium post mortem non ponatur.” Thom, contra Gentiles, lib. xiv- cap. 91. VII ,] But though Thomas Aquinas and his abettors determined so, we must not therefore think that Epiphanius was of the same mind, who lived in a time wherein prayers were usually made for them that never were dreamed to have been in purgatory, and yieldeth those reasons of that usage, which overthrow the former consequence of Thomas every whit as much as the supposition of Aerius.

13. (continued)For Aerius and Thomas (Aquinas) both agree in this, that prayer for the dead would be altogether unprofitable if the dead themselves received no special benefit thereby. This doth Epiphanius, defending the ancient use of these prayers in the Church, shew to be untrue, by producing other profits that redound from thence unto the living; partly by the public signification of their faith, hope, and charity toward the deceased; partly by the honour that they did unto the Lord Jesus, in exempting him from the common condition of the rest of mankind. And to make it appear that these things were mainly intended by the Church in her memorials for the dead, and not the cutting off of the sins which they carried with them out of this life, or the releasing of them out of any torment, he allegeth, as we have heard, that not only the meaner sort of Christians, but also the best of them without exception, even the prophets and apostles and martyrs themselves, were comprehended therein. From whence, by our adversary's good leave, we will make bold to frame this syllogism: They who reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the Church in the days of Aerius, are in that point flat Aerians. But the Romanists do reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the Church in the days of Aerius. Therefore the Romanists are in this point flat Aerians. The assumption, or second part of this argument, (for the first, we think, nobody will deny,) is thus proved: They who are of the judgment that prayers and oblations should not be made for such as are believed to be in bliss, do reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the ancient Church. But the Romanists are of this judgment. Therefore they reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the ancient Church. The truth of the first of these propositions doth appear by the testimony of Epiphanius, compared with those many other evidences whereby we have formerly proved, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to make prayers and oblations for them of whose resting in peace and bliss there was no doubt at all conceived. The verity of the second is manifested by the confession of the Romanists themselves, who reckon this for one of their "Catholic Verities," that suffrages should not be offered for the dead that reign with Christ; and, therefore, that an ancient "form of praying for the apostles, martyrs, and the rest of the saints, is by disuse deservedly abolished," saith Alphonsus Mendoza. 238238. "Illa formula precandi pro apostolis, martyribus, &c. merito per desuetudinem exolevit." Alphons. Mendoz. Controvers. Theologic. Quaest. Scholastic, vi. sect. 72 Nay, to offer sacrifices and prayers to God for those that are in bliss, is "plainly absurd and impious," in the judgment of the Jesuit Azorius; 239 who was not aware that thereby he did outstrip Aerius in condemning the practice of the ancient Church, as far as the censuring it only to be "unprofitable" (for "what shall the dead be profited thereby?" was the furthest that Aerius durst to go) cometh short of rejecting it as "absurd and impious." 239. "Graeci sacrificia et preces offerunt Deo pro mortuis; non beatis certe, neque damnatis ad inferos, quod plane esset absurdum et impium." Jo. Azor. Institut. in. Thorn. Disp. xlviii. sect. 4, nuiP. Moral. Tom. i. lib. viii. cap. 20.And therefore our adversaries may do well to purge themselves first from the blot of Aerianism, which sticketh so fast unto them, before they be so ready to cast the aspersion thereof upon others.

14. (continued)For Aerius and Thomas (Aquinas) both agree in this, that prayer for the dead would be altogether unprofitable if the dead themselves received no special benefit thereby. This doth Epiphanius, defending the ancient use of these prayers in the Church, shew to be untrue, by producing other profits that redound from thence unto the living; partly by the public signification of their faith, hope, and charity toward the deceased; partly by the honour that they did unto the Lord Jesus, in exempting him from the common condition of the rest of mankind. And to make it appear that these things were mainly intended by the Church in her memorials for the dead, and not the cutting off of the sins which they carried with them out of this life, or the releasing of them out of any torment, he allegeth, as we have heard, that not only the meaner sort of Christians, but also the best of them without exception, even the prophets and apostles and martyrs themselves, were comprehended therein. From whence, by our adversary's good leave, we will make bold to frame this syllogism: They who reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the Church in the days of Aerius, are in that point flat Aerians. But the Romanists do reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the Church in the days of Aerius. Therefore the Romanists are in this point flat Aerians. The assumption, or second part of this argument, (for the first, we think, nobody will deny,) is thus proved: They who are of the judgment that prayers and oblations should not be made for such as are believed to be in bliss, do reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the ancient Church. But the Romanists are of this judgment. Therefore they reject that kind of praying and offering for the dead which was practised by the ancient Church. The truth of the first of these propositions doth appear by the testimony of Epiphanius, compared with those many other evidences whereby we have formerly proved, that it was the custom of the ancient Church to make prayers and oblations for them of whose resting in peace and bliss there was no doubt at all conceived. The verity of the second is manifested by the confession of the Romanists themselves, who reckon this for one of their “Catholic Verities,” that suffrages should not be offered for the dead that reign with Christ; and, therefore, that an ancient “form of praying for the apostles, martyrs, and the rest of the saints, is by disuse deservedly abolished,” saith Alphonsus Mendoza. 238238. “Illa formula precandi pro apostolis, martyribus, &c. merito per desuetudinem exolevit.” Alphons. Mendoz. Controvers. Theologic. Quaest. Scholastic, vi. sect. 72 Nay, to offer sacrifices and prayers to God for those that are in bliss, is “plainly absurd and impious,” in the judgment of the Jesuit Azorius; 239 who was not aware that thereby he did outstrip Aerius in condemning the practice of the ancient Church, as far as the censuring it only to be “unprofitable” (for “what shall the dead be profited thereby?” was the furthest that Aerius durst to go) cometh short of rejecting it as “absurd and impious.” 239. “Graeci sacrificia et preces offerunt Deo pro mortuis; non beatis certe, neque damnatis ad inferos, quod plane esset absurdum et impium.” Jo. Azor. Institut. in. Thorn. Disp. xlviii. sect. 4, nuiP. Moral. Tom. i. lib. viii. cap. 20.And therefore our adversaries may do well to purge themselves first from the blot of Aerianism, which sticketh so fast unto them, before they be so ready to cast the aspersion thereof upon others.

15. "Why the past tense?"Well, here's your chance to shine Lvka. Tell us more about how modern EO churches still pray FOR Mary and the saints.We can clearly see here another case of "dueling traditions", as RCs seem to disapprove…(citing my earlier post)"The verity of the second is manifested by the confession of the Romanists themselves, who reckon this for one of their "Catholic Verities," that suffrages should not be offered for the dead that reign with Christ; and, therefore, that an ancient "form of praying for the apostles, martyrs, and the rest of the saints, is by disuse deservedly abolished," saith Alphonsus Mendoza. 238Nay, to offer sacrifices and prayers to God for those that are in bliss, is "plainly absurd and impious," in the judgment of the Jesuit Azorius;"

16. “Why the past tense?”Well, here's your chance to shine Lvka. Tell us more about how modern EO churches still pray FOR Mary and the saints.We can clearly see here another case of “dueling traditions”, as RCs seem to disapprove…(citing my earlier post)”The verity of the second is manifested by the confession of the Romanists themselves, who reckon this for one of their “Catholic Verities,” that suffrages should not be offered for the dead that reign with Christ; and, therefore, that an ancient “form of praying for the apostles, martyrs, and the rest of the saints, is by disuse deservedly abolished,” saith Alphonsus Mendoza. 238Nay, to offer sacrifices and prayers to God for those that are in bliss, is “plainly absurd and impious,” in the judgment of the Jesuit Azorius;”

17. Lvka is apparentyl EO, so one presumes he follows his church's continued rejection of the Roman fiction of Purgatory.

18. Lvka is apparentyl EO, so one presumes he follows his church's continued rejection of the Roman fiction of Purgatory.

19. Vissaus, you may want to study up on the Eastern Fathers and how they viewed the dead as being in Hades. This may offer some insight as to their mentality of praying for the dead. I offered an explanation of this given by an Orthodox scholar in the last post TF had on purgatory and St. Chrysostom. Hopefully that bit of information was a learning experience for all involved. I am sure those who already know everything learned nothing, but maybe one of two of us gained some insight on the subject.

20. Vissaus, you may want to study up on the Eastern Fathers and how they viewed the dead as being in Hades. This may offer some insight as to their mentality of praying for the dead. I offered an explanation of this given by an Orthodox scholar in the last post TF had on purgatory and St. Chrysostom. Hopefully that bit of information was a learning experience for all involved. I am sure those who already know everything learned nothing, but maybe one of two of us gained some insight on the subject.

21. Tell us more about how modern E.O. churches still pray FOR Mary and the saints.Sorry, I thought you knew. It's in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (served every Sunday):Priest (in a low voice): Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who reposed in the faith: forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith…Priest (aloud): …especially for our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary.

22. Tell us more about how modern E.O. churches still pray FOR Mary and the saints.Sorry, I thought you knew. It's in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (served every Sunday):Priest (in a low voice): Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who reposed in the faith: forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith…Priest (aloud): …especially for our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary.