Sayings St. Gregory the Dialogist ~ Unclean Intentions

   If the intention is unclean, the deed that follows from it will also be evil, even if it seems good.



(St. Gregory the Dialogist, Conversations, 1.10)


Source:

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm

Sayings St. Mark the Ascetic ~ Deeds according to their intention

   God values deeds according to their intentions. For it is said, "The Lord grant unto you according to your heart" (Ps. 19:5) ... Therefore, whoever wants to do something but can't is considered as having done it by God, who sees the intentions of our hearts. This applies to both good and evil deeds alike.



(St. Mark the Ascetic, Homilies, 1.184, 2.16)


Source:

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm

Sayings St. Maximus the Confessor ~ Intention

   In all of our deeds God looks at the intention, whether we do it for His sake, or for the sake of some other intention.


(St. Maximus the Confessor, Chapters on Love, 2:36)


source:

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm

St. Gregory the Theologian the Archbishop of Constantinople

Commemorated on January 25

Troparion & Kontakion

Saint Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople, a great Father and teacher of the Church, was born into a Christian family of eminent lineage in the year 329, at Arianzos (not far from the city of Cappadocian Nazianzos). His father, also named Gregory (January 1), was Bishop of Nazianzus. The son is the Saint Gregory Nazianzus encountered in Patristic theology. His pious mother, Saint Nonna (August 5), prayed to God for a son, vowing to dedicate him to the Lord. Her prayer was answered, and she named her child Gregory.When the child learned to read, his mother presented him with the Holy Scripture. Saint Gregory received a complete and extensive education: after working at home with his uncle Saint Amphilochius (November 23), an experienced teacher of rhetoric, he then studied in the schools of Nazianzos, Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Alexandria. Then the saint decided to go to Athens to complete his education. On the way from Alexandria to Greece, a terrible storm raged for many days. Saint Gregory, who was just a catechumen at that time, feared that he would perish in the sea before being cleansed in the waters of Baptism. Saint Gregory lay in the ship’s stern for twenty days, beseeching the merciful God for salvation. He vowed to dedicate himself to God, and was saved when he invoked the name of the Lord.Saint Gregory spent six years in Athens studying rhetoric, poetry, geometry, and astronomy. His teachers were the renowned pagan rhetoricians Gymorias and Proeresias. Saint Basil, the future Archbishop of Caesarea (January 1) also studied in Athens with Saint Gregory. They were such close friends that they seemed to be one soul in two bodies. Julian, the future emperor (361-363) and apostate from the Christian Faith, was studying philosophy in Athens at the same time.Upon completing his education, Saint Gregory remained for a certain while at Athens as a teacher of rhetoric. He was also familiar with pagan philosophy and literature.In 358 Saint Gregory quietly left Athens and returned to his parents at Nazianzus. At thirty-three years of age, he received Baptism from his father, who had been appointed Bishop of Nazianzus. Against his will, Saint Gregory was ordained to the holy priesthood by his father. However, when the elder Gregory wished to make him a bishop, he fled to join his friend Basil in Pontus. Saint Basil had organized a monastery in Pontus and had written to Gregory inviting him to come.Saint Gregory remained with Saint Basil for several years. When his brother Saint Caesarius (March 9) died, he returned home to help his father administer his diocese. The local church was also in turmoil because of the Arian heresy. Saint Gregory had the difficult task of reconciling the bishop with his flock, who condemned their pastor for signing an ambiguous interpretation of the dogmas of the faith.Saint Gregory convinced his father of the pernicious nature of Arianism, and strengthened him in Orthodoxy. At this time, Bishop Anthimus, who pretended to be Orthodox but was really a heretic, became Metropolitan of Tyana. Saint Basil had been consecrated as the Archbishop of Caesarea, Cappadocia. Anthimus wished to separate from Saint Basil and to divide the province of Cappadocia. Saint Basil the Great made Saint Gregory bishop of the city of Sasima, a small town between Caesarea and Tyana. However, Saint Gregory remained at Nazianzos in order to assist his dying father, and he guided the flock of this city for a while after the death of his father in 374.Upon the death of Patriarch Valentus of Constantinople in the year 378, a council of bishops invited Saint Gregory to help the Church of Constantinople, which at this time was ravaged by heretics. Obtaining the consent of Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory came to Constantinople to combat heresy. In the year 379 he began to serve and preach in a small church called “Anastasis” (“Resurrection”). Like David fighting the Philistines with a sling, Saint Gregory battled against impossible odds to defeat false doctrine.Heretics were in the majority in the capital: Arians, Macedonians, and Appolinarians. The more he preached, the more did the number of heretics decrease, and the number of the Orthodox increased. On the night of Pascha (April 21, 379) when Saint Gregory was baptizing catechumens, a mob of armed heretics burst into the church and cast stones at the Orthodox, killing one bishop and wounding Saint Gregory. But the fortitude and mildness of the saint were his armor, and his words converted many to the Orthodox Church.Saint Gregory’s literary works (orations, letters, poems) show him as a worthy preacher of the truth of Christ. He had a literary gift, and the saint sought to offer his talent to God the Word: “I offer this gift to my God, I dedicate this gift to Him. Only this remains to me as my treasure. I gave up everything else at the command of the Spirit. I gave all that I had to obtain the pearl of great price. Only in words do I master it, as a servant of the Word. I would never intentionally wish to disdain this wealth. I esteem it, I set value by it, I am comforted by it more than others are comforted by all the treasures of the world. It is the companion of all my life, a good counselor and converser; a guide on the way to Heaven and a fervent co-ascetic.” In order to preach the Word of God properly, the saint carefully prepared and revised his works.In five sermons, or “Theological Orations,” Saint Gregory first of all defines the characteristics of a theologian, and who may theologize. Only those who are experienced can properly reason about God, those who are successful at contemplation and, most importantly, who are pure in soul and body, and utterly selfless. To reason about God properly is possible only for one who enters into it with fervor and reverence.Explaining that God has concealed His Essence from mankind, Saint Gregory demonstrates that it is impossible for those in the flesh to view mental objects without a mixture of the corporeal. Talking about God in a positive sense is possible only when we become free from the external impressions of things and from their effects, when our guide, the mind, does not adhere to impure transitory images. Answering the Eunomians, who would presume to grasp God’s Essence through logical speculation, the saint declared that man perceives God when the mind and reason become godlike and divine, i.e. when the image ascends to its Archetype. (Or. 28:17). Furthermore, the example of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets and also the Apostles has demonstrated, that the Essence of God is incomprehensible for mortal man. Saint Gregory cited the futile sophistry of Eunomios: “God begat the Son either through His will, or contrary to will. If He begat contrary to will, then He underwent constraint. If by His will, then the Son is the Son of His intent.”Confuting such reasoning, Saint Gregory points out the harm it does to man: “You yourself, who speak so thoughtlessly, were you begotten voluntarily or involuntarily by your father? If involuntarily, then your father was under the sway of some tyrant. Who? You can hardly say it was nature, for nature is tolerant of chastity. If it was voluntarily, then by a few syllables you deprive yourself of your father, for thus you are shown to be the son of Will, and not of your father” (Or. 29:6).Saint Gregory then turns to Holy Scripture, with particular attention examining a place where it points out the Divine Nature of the Son of God. Saint Gregory’s interpretations of Holy Scripture are devoted to revealing that the divine power of the Savior was actualized even when He assumed an impaired human nature for the salvation of mankind.The first of Saint Gregory’s Five Theological Orations is devoted to arguments against the Eunomians for their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Closely examining everything that is said in the Gospel about the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the saint refutes the heresy of Eunomios, which rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He comes to two fundamental conclusions. First, in reading Holy Scripture, it is necessary to reject blind literalism and to try and understand its spiritual sense. Second, in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit operated in a hidden way. “Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us and makes the manifestation of Himself more certain. It was not safe, as long as they did not acknowledge the divinity of the Father, to proclaim openly that of the Son; and as long as the divinity of the Son was not accepted, they could not, to express it somewhat boldly, impose on us the burden of the Holy Spirit” (Or. 31:26).The divinity of the Holy Spirit is a sublime subject. “Look at these facts: Christ is born, the Holy Spirit is His Forerunner. Christ is baptized, the Spirit bears witness to this... Christ works miracles, the Spirit accompanies them. Christ ascends, the Spirit takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God which are not in His power? What titles appertaining to God do not apply also to Him, except for Unbegotten and Begotten? I tremble when I think of such an abundance of titles, and how many Names they blaspheme, those who revolt against the Spirit!” (Or. 31:29).The Orations of Saint Gregory are not limited only to this topic. He also wrote Panegyrics on Saints, Festal Orations, two invectives against Julian the Apostate, “two pillars, on which the impiety of Julian is indelibly written for posterity,” and various orations on other topics. In all, forty-five of Saint Gregory’s orations have been preserved. The letters of the saint compare favorably with his best theological works. All of them are clear, yet concise. In his poems as in all things, Saint Gregory focused on Christ. “If the lengthy tracts of the heretics are new Psalters at variance with David, and the pretty verses they honor are like a third testament, then we also shall sing Psalms, and begin to write much and compose poetic meters,” said the saint. Of his poetic gift the saint wrote: “I am an organ of the Lord, and sweetly... do I glorify the King, all atremble before Him.”The fame of the Orthodox preacher spread through East and West. But the saint lived in the capital as though he still lived in the wilderness: “his food was food of the wilderness; his clothing was whatever necessary. He made visitations without pretense, and though in proximity of the court, he sought nothing from the court.” The saint received a shock when he was ill. One whom he considered as his friend, the philosopher Maximus, was consecrated at Constantinople in Saint Gregory’s place. Struck by the ingratitude of Maximus, the saint decided to resign the cathedra, but his faithful flock restrained him from it. The people threw the usurper out of the city. On November 24, 380 the holy emperor Theodosius arrived in the capital and, in enforcing his decree against the heretics, the main church was returned to the Orthodox, with Saint Gregory making a solemn entrance. An attempt on the life of Saint Gregory was planned, but instead the assassin appeared before the saint with tears of repentance.At the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, Saint Gregory was chosen as Patriarch of Constantinople. After the death of Patriarch Meletius of Antioch, Saint Gregory presided at the Council. Hoping to reconcile the West with the East, he offered to recognize Paulinus as Patriarch of Antioch.Those who had acted against Saint Gregory on behalf of Maximus, particularly Egyptian and Macedonian bishops, arrived late for the Council. They did not want to acknowledge the saint as Patriarch of Constantinople, since he was elected in their absence.Saint Gregory decided to resign his office for the sake of peace in the Church: “Let me be as the Prophet Jonah! I was responsible for the storm, but I would sacrifice myself for the salvation of the ship. Seize me and throw me... I was not happy when I ascended the throne, and gladly would I descend it.” After telling the emperor of his desire to quit the capital, Saint Gregory appeared again at the Council to deliver a farewell address (Or. 42) asking to be allowed to depart in peace.Upon his return to his native region, Saint Gregory turned his attention to the incursion of Appolinarian heretics into the flock of Nazianzus, and he established the pious Eulalius there as bishop, while he himself withdrew into the solitude of Arianzos so dear to his heart. The saint, zealous for the truth of Christ, continued to affirm Orthodoxy through his letters and poems, while remaining in the wilderness. He died on January 25, 389, and is honored with the title “Theologian,” also given to the holy Apostle and Evangelist John.In his works Saint Gregory, like that other Theologian Saint John, directs everything toward the Pre-eternal Word. Saint John of Damascus (December 4), in the first part of his book AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, followed the lead of Saint Gregory the Theologian.Saint Gregory was buried at Nazianzos. In the year 950, his holy relics were transferred to Constantinople into the church of the Holy Apostles. Later on, a portion of his relics was transferred to Rome.In appearance, the saint was of medium height and somewhat pale. He had thick eyebrows, and a short beard. His contemporaries already called the archpastor a saint. The Orthodox Church, honors Saint Gregory as a second Theologian and insightful writer on the Holy Trinity. “O glorious Father Gregory, Your knowledge has overcome the pride of false wisdom. The church is clothed with your teaching as a robe of righteousness. We your children celebrate your memory crying out: Rejoice, O father of unsurpassable wisdom!” [Kontakion].

source:

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2014/01/25/100298-st-gregory-the-theologian-the-archbishop-of-constantinople

Holy, Righteous Ancestor of God, Anna

Commemorated on September 9

Troparion & Kontakion

Saint Anna was the daughter of Matthan the priest, who was of the tribe of Levi. Saint Anna’s family came from Bethlehem.Saint Anna lived with her husband Joachim at Nazareth in Galilee. They were childless into their old age and all their life they grieved over this. They had to endure derision and scorn, since at that time childlessness was considered a disgrace. They never grumbled, but fervently prayed to God, humbly trusting in Him. Once, during a great feast, the gifts which Joachim took to Jerusalem as an offering to God were not accepted by the priest Reuben, who considered that a childless man was not worthy to offer sacrifice to God. This pained the old man very much, and he, regarding himself the most sinful of people, decided not to return home, but to settle in solitude in a desolate place. When Saint Anna learned what humiliation her husband had endured, she sorrowfully entreated God with prayer and fasting to grant her a child. In his desolate solitude the righteous Joachim also asked God for this. The prayer of the saintly couple was heard. An angel told them that a daughter would be born to them, Who would be blessed above all other women. He also told them that She would remain a virgin, would be dedicated to the Lord and live in the Temple, and would give birth to the Savior. Obeying the instructions of the heavenly messenger, Saints Joachim and Anna met at the Golden Gate in Jerusalem. Then, as God promised, a daughter was born to them and they named her Mary. Saint Joachim died a few years later at the age of 80, after his daughter went to live in the Temple. Saint Anna died at the age of 70, two years after her husband. Saints Joachim and Anna are often invoked by couples trying to have children.

source:

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2016/09/09/102547-holy-righteous-ancestor-of-god-anna

The Tough Act of Forgiveness

   It is important to strive and struggle in life against our vices/darkness. Not necessarily beating them always; although, that is good, but continuing to battle our darkness. God sees our struggles regardless if we ever triumph over our vices or not. The theme is that we continue to make an effort. So if a person struggles with cigarettes, but he never fully quits, the striving to quit is as good to God as if the person had thrown his pack of cigarettes away forever. What is not good is if we quit struggling and say it is not possible!
  

   The story of the monk who got his alcohol drinking down to one drink a day from many drinks a day is an example of striving. His fellow monks always accused him of being a drunk and complained of him to the Abbot repeatedly. When the monk died, the Abbot gathered the monks and told them that many of them were foolish in their accusations of this monk because of his drinking. He told them that many of the monks present were heading to hell because of their darkness in criticizing someone that now is with God, in peace with God; yet, not because he ever fully beat his addiction, yet due to he continued to fight and struggle with it. Eventually, through his efforts, the best he could do was one drink. And this was considered worthy to God.


~ anonymous

(This was told to me by a priest years ago and I found it profound)

Fr. Evan Armitas ~ Justice or Mercy?

When you're standing before the Lord, do you want Justice or Mercy?

~ Fr. Evan Armitas


Ancient Faith Radio

On After Death ~ St. John of Damascus, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos & Father Seraphim Rose (St. Mark of Ephesus)

   One who has departed unrepentant and with an evil life cannot be helped by anyone in any way. But the one who has departed even with the slightest virtue, but who had no time to increase this virtue because of indolence, indifference, procrastination, or timidity, the Lord Who is a righteous judge and master will not forget such a one.

—(St John of Damascus)


Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos writes:

   Knowledge of God, as will be explained further on, is not intellectual, but existential. That is, one's whole being is filled with this knowledge of God. But in order to attain it, one's heart must have been purified, that is, the soul, nous and heart must have been healed. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

 

(Orthodox Psychotherapy Section The Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos published by Birth of Theotokos Monastery,Greece (January 1, 2005) ISBN 978-960-7070-27-2)

Kyriacos C. Markides also confirms that purification is necessary in order to "see" God:

   The soul's journey toward God, I explained to Emily that day, must go through three identifiable and distinct stages. At first there is the state of catharsis, or the purification of the soul from egotistical passions It is then followed by the state of fotisis, or the enlightenment of the soul, a gift of the Holy Spirit once the soul has undergone its purification. Finally comes the stage of Theosis, union with God, as the final destination and ultimate home of the human soul. The last two stages are impossible to attain without having the soul first pass through the fires of catharsis from egotistical passions.

 

(Markides, The Mountain of Silence)

Father Seraphim Rose sums up the Patristic doctrine in this way:

   In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful.[6]

Saint Mark of Ephesus:

"But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in they very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell [i.e., Hades], but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard." ^[7]

source:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory

Purgatory from OrthoWiki

Introduction

Purgatory refers to a doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church which posits that those who die in a state of grace undergo a purification in order to achieve the holiness necessary to enter heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1030).^[1] The doctrine is linked to the universal tradition of Prayer for the Dead. St John of Damascus sums up the patristic consensus on the doctrine like this:

One who has departed unrepentant and with an evil life cannot be helped by anyone in any way. But the one who has departed even with the slightest virtue, but who had no time to increase this virtue because of indolence, indifference, procrastination, or timidity, the Lord Who is a righteous judge and master will not forget such a one. —(St John of Damascus)

What St John was saying was that, while there is no forgiveness of sins after death for the unrepentant, for the faithful departed God will make up for what is lacking so that they can be maximally happy with him in heaven forever. It has been the conviction of Christians and Jews throughout history that their prayers for the faithful departed actually benefit them and help them to rest in peace and to finally receive their eternal happiness.
The way of defining purgatory that is most acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox mind is to say that those who are being saved by Repentance and Baptism and participation in the sacramental life of the Church but whose sins, nonetheless, continue to create lasting effects such as passions, addictions, attachments to worldly things which inhibit their spiritual growth and progress toward theosis, are given the grace of having these lasting effects expiated so that they can receive the Vision of God. The way of spiritual progress moves beyond Baptism through three stages, Purification, Illumination, and finally Theosis. For those who die in a state of faith and repentance but before having completed these stages of spiritual progress, their eternal salvation is not in doubt, but this does not abrogate the need to pass through these stages.
That said, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware acknowledges several schools of thought among the Orthodox on the topic of purification after death. This divergence indicates that certain Catholic interpretations of purgatory, specifically the satisfaction model, more than the concept itself, are what is universally rejected. Also, there are Orthodox sources that indicate some sins can be forgiven after death^{[2];(Mt 12:32)} but which also reject the teaching of purgatory because of the doctrine of indulgences and idea of literal purgatorial fire that are tied to it. Still other Orthodox hold to the notion of the Toll Houses and that those who pass through them after death have no assurance of final salvation.
Rather than say that the doctrine of Purgatory is a heresy, it is more accurate to say that it is an ancient ecumenical tradition which, due to the mysterious nature of the subject matter, Christians throughout history have interpreted and explained in a very wide variety of ways, some of which were strongly rejected by Eastern Orthodox Christians.

A Condition of Waiting

Some Eastern Orthodox sources, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate, consider Purgatory to be among "inter-correlated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church" that are not acceptable within Orthodox doctrine,^[3] and hold to a "condition of waiting"^[4] as a more apt description of the period after death for those not borne directly to heaven. This waiting condition does not imply purification, which they see as being linked to the idea "there is no hope of repentance or betterment after death." Prayers for the dead, then, are simply to comfort those in the waiting place.
Concordantly, the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that the souls of the faithful departed detained in purgatory are "shut out for the time being from the sight of God." This is because, only the pure in heart can see God (Mt 5:7, Rev 21:27). Man's ultimate happiness is to know and love God and to be fully united to him forever. Because the soul is given to know this the soul suffers the loss of divine intimacy knowing he is separated even temporarily from the full vision and union with God. However, because in death, the soul becomes incapable of sin (Rom 6:7), the souls in purgatory know they cannot loose eternal life through sinning. Furthermore, being aware that their time in purgatory is only temporary the souls are happy that they are being made ready to enter into the fullness of divine life. The ancient Liturgies and the inscriptions of the catacombs speak of a "sleep of peace", which would be impossible if there was any doubt of ultimate salvation.^[5]

Purification

Going back to the reason for the souls time of waiting, the Catholic Encyclopedia says that this has to do with the souls purity, because, only the pure in heart can see God (Mt 5:7, Rev 21:27). This is entirely consistent, even with modern Orthodox thought. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos writes:

Knowledge of God, as will be explained further on, is not intellectual, but existential. That is, one's whole being is filled with this knowledge of God. But in order to attain it, one's heart must have been purified, that is, the soul, nous and heart must have been healed. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." (Orthodox Psychotherapy Section The Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos published by Birth of Theotokos Monastery,Greece (January 1, 2005) ISBN 978-960-7070-27-2)

Kyriacos C. Markides also confirms that purification is necessary in order to "see" God:

The soul's journey toward God, I explained to Emily that day, must go through three identifiable and distinct stages. At first there is the state of catharsis, or the purification of the soul from egotistical passions It is then followed by the state of fotisis, or the enlightenment of the soul, a gift of the Holy Spirit once the soul has undergone its purification. Finally comes the stage of Theosis, union with God, as the final destination and ultimate home of the human soul. The last two stages are impossible to attain without having the soul first pass through the fires of catharsis from egotistical passions. (Markides, The Mountain of Silence)

He goes on to explain that, according to the Athonite tradition, catharsis or purification is essential in assisting the soul to overcome the obstacles that keep us from the vision of God, namely, “the sum total of our worldly passions and desires. These passions are products of the enchantment and enslavement of our hearts and minds to the gross and transient material universe with its myriads of temptations and seductions.” In life these effects of sin are purified through acts of mortification. (See Romans 8:13-14, I Corinthians 9:25-27, Galatians 5:18-25, Colossians 3:5 “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence and covetousness, which is the service of idols.”)
The doctrine of Purgatory, far from being only concerned with a foreign (to Orthodoxy) legal metaphor, rather explains how a soul that has died prior to completing his or her purification, can finally attain union with God, through the grace of a final post-mortem expiation of the lasting effects of sin. Father Seraphim Rose sums up the Patristic doctrine in this way:

In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful.[6]

Literal Fire or Encounter with Risen Christ

One of the primary objections to the classical Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory is the supposed literal nature of the purgatorial fires. During the middle ages, the Western tradition began to lean more toward a literal interpretation of the fires and even tortur of the souls in Purgatory. A book entitled “St. Patrick's Purgatory” is a particularly egregious example of this tendency. However, medieval Orthodox piety also expressed an overly literal view of the Aerial Toll-Houses. (see below)
However, Roman Catholic teaching does not require a belief in literal fire. In Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Spe Salvi, he writes:

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Savior. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves (Spe Salvi 47, [7]).

Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin writes that the interpetation of purgatory’s fire has been complex. Historically, medieval theologians tried to understand how a physical fire could affect an immaterial soul. However, contemporary theologians including Fr. Joseph Ratzinger have proposed that the purgatorial fire might better be understood as a “symbol of a transforming encounter with Christ.”

In writing his encyclical, Benedict XVI apparently wanted to give the new proposal official recognition without requiring theologians and the faithful to reject other understandings of purgatorial fire. By proposing it as a theological opinion—rather than a Church teaching—he made it clear that this is a permitted and even a favored view but not the only one possible. [8]

Father Seraphim Rose admits that the Latin Church Fathers taught about an allegorical fire which cleanses small unconfessed sins. [9]
Some Church Fathers, such as St. Cyprian and St. Augustine of Hippo, seemed to believe in a purification after death. However, the character of this purification is never clarified, and especially (as St. Mark of Ephesus underlined at the Council of Florence) it seems there is no true distinction between heaven, hell and the so-called purgatory: all souls partake differently in the same mystical fire (which, according to St. Isaac of Syria, is God's Love) but because of their spiritual change they are bound to different reactions: bliss for those who are in communion with him; purification for those in the process of being deified; and remorse for those who hated God during their earthly lives.
Because of this confusion and inability of the human language to understand these realities, the Church refrains from theological speculation. Instead, she affirms the unbroken Tradition of prayers for the dead, the certainty of eternal life, the rejection of reincarnation, and the communion of the Saints (those living and those who have fallen asleep in the Lord) in the same Body of Christ which is the Church. Private speculation is thus still possible as it was in the time of the Church Fathers.

Aerial Toll-Houses

Other Orthodox believe in the "toll gate" theory by which the dead go to successive literal "toll gates" where they meet up with demons who test them to determine whether they have been guilty of various sins during life and/or tempt them to further sin.^[10] If they have not repented and been absolved of those sins, or if they give in to sin after death, they will be taken to Hell.

Pope Shenouda III

The Orthodox Church has neither explicitly recognized the term "purgatory" nor officially accepted such a state, which is distinct from the more general being "asleep in the Lord." In his book entitled Why Do We Reject Purgatory?, Coptic Pope Shenouda III presents many theological and biblical arguments against Purgatory. For example, he refers to 1 Thess 4:16,17, "And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord", in which Paul describes the Last Day saying that those faithful who are still alive will meet the Lord with those who rise from the dead and then remain with Him always, and wonders, "Are these faithful (alive on the Last Day) exempt from Purgatory? Or is God showing partiality towards them?"^[11]
However, a response to this objection from the Catholics is perhaps found in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, in the discussion of the Final Conflagration. The Final Conflagration is the fiery apocalyptic transformation, accepted by the Fathers, of the Old Heaven and Old Earth into the New Heaven and New Earth on the Last Day, immediately preceding the General Resurrection and General Judgment. It is said that for those still living at the time of the Conflagration, it will transform their bodies; thus technically, in Catholic thought, those found living may also die for a brief moment (ie, the "twinkling of an eye" mentioned in 1 Corinthians).
According to the Summa, the Final Conflagration will act as "purgatory" for those found living who still need cleansing/healing: "There are three reasons why those who will be found living will be able to be cleansed suddenly. One is because there will be few things in them to be cleansed, since they will be already cleansed by the previous fears and persecutions. The second is because they will suffer pain both while living and of their own will: and pain suffered in this life voluntarily cleanses much more than pain inflicted after death, as in the case of the martyrs, because "if anything needing to be cleansed be found in them, it is cut off by the sickle of suffering," as Augustine says (De Unic. Bap. xiii), although the pain of martyrdom is of short duration in comparison with the pain endured in purgatory. The third is because the heat will gain in intensity what it loses in shortness of time."^[12]

Source:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory

Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence ~ The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory

     

The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory

Given at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence

In the third sitting of the Council, Julian, after mutual congratulations, showed that the principal points of dispute between the Greeks and Latins were in the doctrine (a) on the procession of the Holy Ghost, (b) on azymes in the Eucharist, (c) on purgatory, and (d) on the Papal supremacy; and then asked them which of these subjects was to be discussed first. The Greeks delayed discussing the first point till the opening of the Œcumenical Council, and promised to give a speedy answer about the others as soon as the Emperor's advice should be heard. The Emperor fixed upon one of the two last subjects to commence discussions upon. [1] The Latins agreed to discuss upon purgatory.
In the fifth sitting (June 4) Cardinal Julian gave the following definition of the Latin doctrine on purgatory: "From the time of the Apostles," he said, "the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint,—namely, the souls of saints,—immediately enter the regions of bliss. The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according, to their sins; and then, after their purification, depart for the land of eternal bliss. The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity conduce much to their purification. The souls of those dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to punishment. [2]
The Greeks demanded a written exposition of this doctrine. When they received it, Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice each wrote their remarks on it, which afterwards served as a general answer to the doctrine of the Latins. [3]
When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward. [4]
In the following sitting the Latins presented a defence of their doctrine on purgatory. As much as can be concluded from the answer given by the Greeks to it, they tried to prove their doctrine by the words of 2 Mac. xii. 42, 46, where it is said that Judas Maccabaeus "sent to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering," remarking at the same time "that it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." They also quoted the words of Jesus Christ, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (S. Matt. xii. 32.) But their especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15): "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Different extracts were also made by the Latins from the works of the Eastern Fathers—Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Damascene, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa; and the Western—Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great. They did not also forget to quote the authority of the Church of Rome in defence of their doctrine, and to make use of their usual sophistries.
To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. [5] They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour's words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.
In explanation of the Apostle's words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner's existence while suffering punishment. Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. "It is very right to suppose," wrote the Orthodox teachers, "that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle's words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities." The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle's words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire. To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part. By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. "Your doctrine," they continued to tell the Latins, "would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he says, 'Every man's work shall be made manifest,’ and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: 'For the day,' he says, 'shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.' Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners. 'This fire,' says he, 'shall try every man's work of what sort it is,' enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these words also, 'If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,' (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour."
In answer to the words quoted by the Latins from Basil the Great (in his prayer for Pentecost), Epiphanius, John Damascene, and Dionysius the Areopagite, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine remarked, that these quotations did not prove anything to the advantage of the Church of Rome. They could not even find the testimony of Theodoret adduced by the Latins. "Only one Father remains," they continued, "Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers." The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: "if such was his idea," and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: "we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia)."
The Eastern teachers said, concerning the testimonies of the Western Fathers, that they were rather ignorant of them, not having any translation in Greek, and tried to excuse them by the circumstances under which they wrote, their misunderstanding the Apostle's words (I Cor. iii. 11, 15), the difficulty of drawing a general conclusion from many circumstances (founded on visions), &c.
As regards the weight of the opinion of the Church of Rome pointed to by the Latins, it was found by the Greeks to be inconsistent with the subject then in hand.
Lastly, to the Latin sophistries, they opposed the more valid conclusions from the principles of the doctrine of Christ, from many works of the Fathers, from the parable of Lazarus, where mention is made of Abraham's bosom,—the place of bliss,—and of hell the place of punishment; and nothing is said of any intermediate place for temporal punishments.
The Greek answer was evidently intended to show the Latins the unsoundness of their newly-invented doctrine on the one side, and the steadfastness of the orthodox party in the faith handed down to them by the Apostles and the holy Fathers, on the other. In the course of the disputes the principal question branched off into so many light and abstract questions, that as a matter of course the solution of the chief one became still more difficult. The Latins for instance asked where and how the angels fly? what was the substance of hell fire? The last question met with the following answer from Jagaris, the imperial officer: "the querist will get a satisfactory solution to his question, when he experiences the nature of that fire himself." [6]
The question on purgatory not being agreed upon, another one was proposed—that about the blissful state of the righteous, alluded to by Bessarion in his treatise on the difference of the doctrines of both Churches on the condition of the departed souls. It was asked: whether the saints, departed from this life, attained entire bliss or not? Before discussing this question, the Greeks found it necessary to have a private conference with the other members of the Council. With this intention all the members assembled in the Patriarch's cell (July 15,) and read over different testimonies of the Fathers; the Emperor bade them collect their votes. Some gave a negative answer to the question, founding it on the Apostle's words, (Heb. xi. 39,) others gave a positive answer. The next day, after a few disputes, the whole Council of Greek Bishops unanimously agreed, that though the souls of the saints, as souls, are already in the enjoyment of bliss, still when, at the general resurrection they will join their bodies, then their bliss will be greater; that then they will he enlightened like the sun. [7] This was their last answer to the Latin doctrine on the state of souls after death.
What then were the fruits of these tedious discussions? Did they conduce in any manner to the solution of the principal question concerning the union of Churches? No! The Latin theologians could neither find firm proofs for their opinions, nor would they give them up. The Greeks again would not receive a doctrine not founded on any good proofs, nor could they incline the Latins to receive the orthodox doctrine.
To the misfortune of the Greeks, their own party also became divided, a circumstance which prognosticated nothing good. Bessarion, generally speaking, was not very earnest in the defence of the orthodox cause, and if he did dispute with the Latins now and then, it was only to show off his powers of speech. [8] But meeting with a rival in Mark of Ephesus, [9] he became still more passive in the cause of orthodoxy, and began to nourish a feeling of hatred towards Mark. Obliged to answer the Latins together with him, he usually left Mark to refute their various objections alone. It was in vain, that many prudent persons tried to reconcile Bessarion to Mark at the very commencement of the former's enmity to the latter, even calling to their aid the authority of the Patriarch, who by his meek reproofs might have ended the quarrel. The invalid Joseph would on no account meddle in this affair. [10] Then again the cunning Gregory, offended that Mark did not find him worthy of being the vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria, [11] did his utmost to set Bessarion against Mark. Apparently he esteemed Mark, sat down lower than he did in the Council, [12] voted after him, notwithstanding the Privileges of a higher patriarchal throne were on his side; when his opinion was the same as Mark's, he never spoke of himself, but always said: "I am of the same opinion as the holy Metropolitan of Ephesus." [13] But this was sheer hypocrisy. In the presence of Bessarion and the Emperor, he placed Mark lower than the Archbishop of Nicaea, [14] and found fault with everything he said, not caring about this self-contradiction. [15]
Thus it was, that as soon as the Greeks commenced discussions, there arose men who, separating from the true members of the Eastern Church, sacrificed the advantages of the Church to their own passions and advantages.
The disputes ended. More than three months had already elapsed since the opening of the Council. The Greeks remaining inactive, and suffering want in everything, [16] began to feel dull and sorry that they had left their homes.
The Emperor, fearing that the discontented would prematurely leave the Council, ordered the city governor not to let any of the Greeks leave the town, nor to give any one passports without his permission and signature. He himself, having shut up the Greeks in Ferrara, settled in a monastery not far from the town, and spent his time in the field, hunting, as if he were even loath to remind himself of a business which had called him away from his Empire. [17]
As soon as the time fixed upon for the opening of the solemn sessions of the Council had arrived, the Greeks asked the Emperor to return to town and make some arrangements about the Council. The Emperor answered, that he would not even think of opening a Council, which was to be an Œcumenical one, without the ambassadors of the Western monarchs, and a more numerous assembly of Bishops than the present one. But the members of the Council instead of increasing only diminished in number. Many fell victims to a frightful epidemic; others, from fear, retired to their homes; so that at the commencement of the solemn session, out of eleven Cardinals only five remained, and out of one hundred and fifty Bishops only fifty were present. It was at this time that the Greeks received a proof of Divine protection. None of them suffered from the epidemic. [18]
One addition only was made to the Council in the person of Isidore, Metropolitan of Russia, who arrived on the 18th of August. He bad returned to Russia after the conclusion of the treaty between the Emperor and the Council of Basle (in the end of 1436). With him was to have returned Jonah, Bishop of Riazan, sent to Greece to be ordained Metropolitan. Arriving at Moscow, Isidore was received by the Grand Duke Vasili Vasilievitch with all due honour. But soon after his arrival, he began telling the Grand Duke that the Greek Church intended to unite with the Church of Rome, that a Council was convened by the Emperor and the Pope with this object in view,—to be followed by the solemn union of the East and West,—and that it was very necessary that a representative of the Russian Church should take part in the Council. The Grand Duke answered, "Our fathers and grandfathers would not even listen to an union of the Greek and Roman laws; I myself do not wish it." Isidore urged him to consent, pleading his oath given to the Patriarch of coming to the Council. "We do not command thee to join the Council in the Latin land," said the Grand Duke at last, "but thou listest not, and wilt go. Remember then the purity of our faith, and bring it back with thee." Isidore swore to remain true to Orthodoxy, and (on Sep. 8, 1437) left Moscow with Abram, Bishop of Suzdal, Vassian the Archimandrite, the Priest Simeon, and other members of the clergy and laity, in all a hundred. On quitting Russia, Isidore very soon evinced a violent inclination to side with the Latins. Received in Livonia by the Bishop of Dorpat, and the Orthodox Clergy, he first saluted the Latin cross and only afterwards kissed the holy Russian icons. The companions of Isidore were horror-struck, and from that very moment lost all their confidence in him. [19]

Endnotes

1. Syr. v. 7, 8. Synod. Flor. p. 30.
2. Syr. v. 13. Synod. Flor. p. 30.
3. Syr. v. 13. The contents of Mark's answer, not published in Greek, are mentioned by Le Quien in one of his treatises, preceding the works of S. John Damascene, edited by him. Dissert. Damas. v. p. 65, et seq. Syropulus, relating the circumstances touching this dispute, refers his readers to the acts and notes of the Council about purgatory (praktika hypomnemata peri tou pyrgatoriou, Syr. v. 5) ; but these are not published separately, and are not even to be found in the Greek manuscripts. The answer of the Greek Fathers to the question on purgatory, given on the 14th of June, 1438, (not to the Basle, but the Florentine Council,) is mentioned in the book of Martin Kruze: Turcograecia, p. 186.
4. Synod. Flor. pp. 33, 35.
5. The answer of the Greeks is usually thought to be the work entitled, peri tou katharteriou pyros biblion hen, edited together with the works of Nilus Cavasilas and the monk Barlaam, without the author's name. (Nili Archiep. Thessalon. de primatu Papae, edit. Salmasii, Hanov. 1603.) As the name of the writer of this answer is not mentioned, it is sometimes referred to Nilus Cavasilas and the monk Barlaam, though the manuscripts give no reason for doing so. (See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Ed. Harl. t. xi. p. 384 and 678.) From the work itself it is evident that it was written (a) not in the name of one person, but many persons, who had undertaken so long a journey, hemin ponon hypostasi kata ten makran tauten apodemian tosouton; (b) that it was written to persons, who had busied themselves about the arrival of the Greeks to the Council; hymin te toson d’ hyper tes prokeimenes hemon seneleuthesthai prokatabainoumenois spoudes; (c) that it was written at the very commencement of the Council discussions, before other questions were settled. This is the reason why the persons who composed this work try to give a peaceful solution not only of this question but, if possible, of all the other ones, ouk epi tou prokeimenou nyni toutou zetematos, alla kai epi panton isos ton allon. All' ekeinon men heineka melei theo kai melesei, ... . (d) that it was written in reply to the defence (apologian) presented of the Romish doctrine on purgatory. All these circumstances direct our attention to the dispute on purgatory which took place in Ferrara, and not to any other one known to us. The writer of the History of the Florentine Council,—Dorotheus of Mitylene, remarks, that the Latins, in their second answer, adduced many testimonies from the saints, examples and arguments, using also the Apostle's words for this purpose,—saved, yet so as by fire. Synod. Flor. pp. 35, 36. All this found place in the defence also, in answer to which the Latins presented the work we have been examining. Syropulus says that it was Mark of Ephesus who wrote the answer to the Latin defence, v. 15. But this answer, as well as the first one, is not published. Le Quien, examining both these answers in his above-mentioned dissertation, quotes the principal ideas contained in this second answer of Mark. The same ideas, and in the same order, are also to be found in the work "On Purgatorial Fire," as well as the words quoted by Le Quien from Mark's second answer, ti gar koinon aphesei te kai katharsei dia pyros kai kolaseos. Dissert. Damasc. v. pp. 8, 9, 66, 67. All these arguments allow us to conclude that the work on purgatorial fire was either entirely or principally composed by Mark of Ephesus, and that it was brought forward by the Greeks in answer to the Latin defence of the doctrine on purgatory.
6. Syr. v. 16, 18; Syn. Flor. p. 35, 37.
7. Synod. Flor. 37-39.
8. It is worthy of notice, that when the Greeks, seeing the obstinate opposition of the Latins to the truth, wished to terminate all the discussions, Bessarion alone insisted that they should be continued, the subject alone being changed. "We can still say many nice things," were his words. (polla kai kala.) Syr. vii. 6.
9. Mark was commissioned to write the Latins an answer about purgatory, and not Bessarion; but Bessarion did nevertheless give in his answer also.
10. Syr. v. 14-17.
11. Syr. iv. 29.
12. Syr. iv. 32.
13. Syr. vii. 10.
14. Syr. v. 14.
15. Syr. v. 15.
16. The first pay-day of the Greeks was the 2nd of April. 691 florins were given them on one month's account, whereas their pay was due for a month and a half. Syr. iv. 28. On the second pay-day (May 12) they received 689 florins (Syr. v. 9); on the third day (June 30th) 689 florins; on Oct. 21, 1218 florins for two months. The fifth and last pay-day was at Ferrara, Jan. 12th, 1439, when 2412 florins were paid for four months (Syr. vii, 14). Thus, three months and twenty days elapsed between the third and fourth pay-day, and as much between the fourth and fifth.
17. Syr. vi. 1, 2.
18. Syr. vi. 3.
19. History of the Russian Empire by Karamzin. Ernerling’s ed. t. v. pp. 161-165.

From The History of the Council of Florence, by Ivan Ostroumoff, trans. from the Russian by Basil Popoff (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1971), pp. 47-60. The footnotes have been renumbered, the Greek text transliterated, and the Greek letters used for itemizing some of the lines in the body were converted to English letters. All else is as original. This is one of the most important books one can read when trying to sort out the differences between the Latins and the Orthodox Church. Let the reader judge for himself who has maintained the true Faith.

+ + +

See also a superb discussion of the Homilies refuting the purgatorial fire given by St. Mark of Ephesus at this same Synod: The Soul After Death, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, App. I, pp. 196-213. Here are Fr. Seraphim's introductory remarks on these homilies:
The Orthodox teaching on the state of souls after death is one that is often not fully understood, even by Orthodox Christians themselves; and the comparatively late Latin teaching of "purgatory" has caused further confusion in people's minds. The Orthodox doctrine itself, however, is not at all ambiguous or imprecise. Perhaps the most concise Orthodox exposition of it is to be found in the writings of St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence in 1439, composed precisely in order to answer the Latin teaching on "purgatory." These writings are especially valuable to us in that coming as they do from the last of the Byzantine Fathers, before the modern era with all its theological confusions, they both point us to the sources of the Orthodox doctrine and instruct us how to approach and understand these sources. These sources are: Scripture, Patristic homilies, church services, Lives of Saints, and certain revelations and visions of life after death, such as those contained in Book IV of the Dialogues of St. Gregory the Great.
Today's academic theologians tend to mistrust the latter two or three kinds of sources, which is why they are often uneasy when speaking on this subject and sometimes prefer to keep an "agnostic reticence" with regard to it (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 259). St. Marks writings, on the other hand, show us how much "at home" with these sources genuine Orthodox theologians are; those who are "uncomfortable" with them perhaps reveal thereby an unsuspected infection with modern unbelief.
Of St. Mark's four replies on purgatory composed at the Council of Florence, the First Homily contains the most concise account of the Orthodox doctrine as against the Latin errors, and it is chiefly from it that this translation has been compiled. The other replies contain mostly illustrative material for the points discussed here, as well as answers to more specific Latin arguments.
The "Latin Chapter" to which St. Mark replies are those written by Julian Cardinal Cesarini (Russian translation in Pogodin, pp. 50-57), giving the Latin teaching, defined at the earlier "Union" Council of Lyons (1270), on the state of souls after death. This teaching strikes the Orthodox reader (as indeed it struck St. Mark) as one of an entirely too "literalistic" and "legalistic" character. The Latins by this time had come to regard heaven and hell as somehow "finished" and "absolute," and those in them as already possessing the fullness of the state they will have after the Last Judgment; thus, there is no need to pray for those in heaven (whose lot is already perfect) or those in hell (for they can never be delivered or cleansed from sin). But since many of the faithful die in a "middle" state—not perfect enough for heaven, but not evil enough for hell—the logic of the Latin arguments required a third place of cleansing (''purgatory"), where even those whose sins had already been forgiven had to be punished or give "satisfaction" for their sins before being sufficiently cleansed to enter heaven. These legalistic arguments of a purely human "justice" (which actually deny God's supreme goodness and love of mankind) the Latins proceeded to support by literalistic interpretations of certain Patristic texts and various visions; almost all of these interpretations are quite contrived and arbitrary, because not even the ancient Latin Fathers spoke of such a place as "purgatory," but only of the "cleansing" from sins after death, which some of them referred to (probably allegorically) as by "fire."
In the Orthodox doctrine, on the other hand, which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also. There is no fire tormenting sinners now, however, either in hell (for the eternal fire will begin to torment them only after the Last Judgment), or much less in any third place like "purgatory"; all visions of fire which are seen by men are as it were images or prophecies of what will be in the future age. All forgiveness of sins after death comes solely from the goodness of God, which extends even to those in hell, with the cooperation of the prayers of men, and no "payment" or "satisfaction" is due for sins which have been forgiven.
It should be noted that St. Mark's writings concern primarily the specific point of the state of souls after death, and barely touch on the history of the events that occur to the soul immediately after death. On the latter point there is an abundant Orthodox literature, but this point was not under discussion at Florence.


Source:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx
 

Sayings St. Silouan the Athonite ~ Need neither money nor reputation

   Many rich and powerful men would pay dearly to see the Lord or His Most Pure Mother, but God does not appear in riches, but in the humble heart... Every one of the poorest men can be humbles and come to know God. It need neither money nor reputation to come to know God, but only humility.


(St. Silouan the Athonite, Writings, I.11,21)



source:
http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm

Sayings St. Silouan the Athonite ~ Saints hear our prayers

  "I love them that love me, and glorify them that glorify me." (Proverbs 8:17, I Kings 2:30,) says the Lord of His saints. The lord gave the Holy Spirit to the saints, and they love us in the Holy Spirit. The saints hear our prayers and have the power from God to help us. The entire Christian race knows this.


(St. Silouan the Athonite, Writings, XII.1,8)

source:

http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm

James 1:19-27 (Epistle)

James 1:19-27 (Epistle)

19

So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath;

20

for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

21

Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

22

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

23

For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror;

24

for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was.

25

But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

26

If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.

27

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich ~ Ethics and Technology

  

Ethics and Technology

by Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich

Originally, religion was the mother of ethics and technology. First of all, religion was a torrential spring flowing from hidden depths, ethic a life carrying river, and technology with the help of artistic channels, carried the water from this river into all the arteries of man's life.
God announced to man the law of faith, the law of behavior, and the knowledge of technology.
By the directions of God, Noah built a boat that traveled one of the longest journeys in the history of navigation.
By God's inspiration Bezalel was filled with wisdom in understanding, in knowledge, and all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship.( Exodus 31:1-11)
In the same way, the Temple of Solomon, one of the greatest architectural wonders of the old world, was built by people taught by the Spirit of God and directed by the hand of the Lord. This is the witness of the Holy Scriptures.
God was the reason of true faith and good behavior and of the knowledge of technology among people.
While people continually felt God above them, before them, and around them, in the same way air and light is felt, they attributed and dedicated all their technological works and handiwork to Him, their Lord and Creator.
When the feeling of God's presence became dulled and spiritual vision darkened, that is when pride entered into tradesmen and technologists, and they started to give glory exclusively to themselves for their buildings, handiwork and intellectual works, and began to misuse their work that is when the shadow of cursedness began to fall on technology.
Many complain against technology.
Many accuse modern technology for all the woes in the world.
Is technology really to blame, or those who create technology and use it?
Is a wooden cross to blame if somebody crucifies someone on it?
Is a hammer to blame if a neighbor breaks his neighbors skull?
Technology does not feel good or evil.
The same pipes can be used for drinking water or the sewer.
Evil does not come from unfeeling, dead technology, but from the dead hearts of people.
Completely conscious of the presence of God and without any pride, Noah built a wondrous ship that was for his salvation and of the new mankinds that was to be born.
In a darkened consciousness regarding God's presence, people filled with pride agreed among themselves, "Let us build a city and a tower whose top shall reach heaven, and make a name for ourselves." That was the building of the tower of Babel.
When King Solomon finished building the glorious Temple of God, he lifted up his hands to heaven, and in humbleness cried out, " Behold, heaven and the heavens above the heavens I cannot comprehend you, let alone this Temple I have built."
This wondrous Temple lasted for eleven generations. It was destroyed to dust and ashes when the godless descendants of King Solomon in deed, turned it  from a "house of prayer, into a house of trade."
Not to the credit of technology did the Temple remain standing for centuries, nor to the blame of technology did it vanish from the face of the earth.
Technology is deaf, mute, and unanswering. It is completely dependant on ethics, as ethics on faith.
Well known is the Biblical story of King Nebuchadnezzar. He built the city of Babylon with palaces, and hanging towers, with such technological workmanship and beauty as the world till then had not seen. The King looked down at the city he had built, standing on the roof of his palace and said pridefully," Is this not Babylon the Great, which I myself have built as a royal residence by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?" While he was yet speaking these conceited words, God smote him with insanity and he became insane, and in insanity he lived for seven years like a beast among the beasts of the forests.
His city Babylon the Great became a heap of rubble and was sneered at, and was a desert without any inhabitants, exactly how the Prophet Jeremiah prophesied. ( Jeremiah 51:37)
Wherever the fear of God vanishes, and the moral law of God is trampled, that is where the mountain of human technology falls into the dust from which it was built.
That is how the Eiffel Tower and the German cathedrals, and the American skyscrapers, the towers of human technology and architecture, will collapse into formless dust if human pride, and that yet even Christian, fight in defiance against God, and pass all measures of pride and sinfulness and succeed in ending the long suffering of God.
Why are so many glorious civilizations buried deep beneath the earth that on top of them the plowers plow the ground not even realizing that their towers and bones are lying beneath the plowed ground?
How is it that out of all the glorious marble buildings of the Greeks nothing is left but the Acropollis?
How has the earth dared to conceal from the sun and the eyes of men the titanic temples in Balbekka and Egypt, as well as the glorious cities Egbata, Perzopolis, Tyre, Sidon, and Troy, that now cows peacefully graze on top of them, and pigs bellow, and shepherds build stables from the scattered marble? Why did the proud cities and temples and castles of King Montezuma vanish without a trace? Also the kingdoms of the very cultured Incas and Peruvians? What unmerciful hand rolled mounds of mud over all these human constructions, who by their strength and design, and beauty, could compete with the best modern constructions?
Why are there breaks and not continuity in the civilizations of mankind?
It is because none of them were pleasing to the One Holy God.
None of those buried civilizations were destroyed by time nor by the lack of solid technological construction, but by sin against holy faith and holy ethics.
Instability of ethics and not technology buried them all in deep darkness.
"And you O Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades." This prophecy of Christ, in the days when Capernaum shined with glory, like a fairytale city beside a lake, was fulfilled. It was so dreadfully fulfilled, that when a traveler finds himself among the thorns and snakes, where once the rich and proud city of Capernaum exalted itself, frightfully asks," Is it possible that this loathsome place was once a dwelling place of men?"
Ethics are long-lasting and unchanging, that is, evangelic ethics, but technology is always changing. Ethics are likened to a lady, and technology like her handmaiden. That is why ethics have to control technology. Eternal values are the territory of ethics and not technology. It is devastating for an entire people to put the purpose of their lives in technology, and all of their labor and sweat they sacrifice to the advancement of technology, dragging behind them ethics, like Achilles dragged the dead Hector tied to a chariot. A people like that can succeed to build all of their cities from ivory and gold, but if people like Ahab and Jezebel live in them, dogs will have the last word and not people. Between honor and skill it is easy to choose. An honest man even without skill is more respected in our time than a skillful man without honesty.
Technology changes man's relation towards nature, but not towards man and God.
Whoever thinks otherwise values things more than people, and dust more than the spirit. A horrible tragedy of our time is the war between men and God.
God wants to raise up and exalt man's identity above dumb and lifeless materiality, while men want to bury their identity and forget their Creator, and make the sole purpose of their lives technology and material wealth.
Many people who are spiritually and morally handicapped by their unbelief in Christ, create out of modern technology idols that they worship, and call upon all peoples and nations to bring sacrifices to those idols.

From the Complete Works of Bishop Nikolai [in Serbian], Book 12, p. 23. Translated from the Serbian by Marija Miljkovic. Sent to the Orthodox Christian Information Center by Fr. Srboljub Jockovic. Although not necessarily from an Orthodox perspective, a very thought-provoking book that is relevant to this article is Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, by Neil Postman. I highly commend it to the reader.

 

source:

 

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/ethics_and_technology.aspx

 

Sayings St. Ignatius Brianchaninov ~ On Reading the Gospel

   Do not undertake to explain the Gospels or the other books of Holy Scripture yourself. The Scriptures were not expressed arbitrarily by the prophets and apostles, but by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How mindless then is it to explain them arbitrarily? The Holy Spirit, having expressed the Word of God through the prophets and apostles, explained it through the Holy Fathers. Both the Word of God and its explanation are a gift of the Holy Spirit. The holy Orthodox Church and its true children accept only this patristic interpretation!


(St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, On Reading the Gospel)


source:

http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm