Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Rite

[ronyodish]

A BEAUTIFUL and AWESOME defense of the true teaching of the Catholic Church, brother Rony!!!

I would just like to add that at Vatican 1, we had the first draft of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ. As noted in another place, it was prepared and discussed, but was not voted on at V1 due to the Council being prematurely prorogated because of the Franco-Prussian War (though V2 completed V1). The Dogmatic Constitution asserted:
"The only-begotten Son of God who enlightens every man who comes into this world and who has never in any age failed to proffer his help,appeared visibly in the assumed form of our body so that carnal men of this earth might put on the new man…and form a mystical body whose head would be Christ Himself…And this is the magnificent beauty of the Church, whose head is Christ…from Whom the whole body takes its growth."

Why non-Catholics think the idea that Jesus is the head of the Church somehow diminishes the headship of the Pope of Rome among the episcopate is beyond me. It seems, imo, to demonstrate a weak understanding of incarnational/sacramental theology to think that Christ, the Head, cannot work through the head servant of His household.

Abundant blessings.

God bless!

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
You may recall that some time ago I quoted from the Catechism illustrating the Catholic belief in true deification of redeemed man beginning with baptism. I would argue that Dominican theology has an even stronger tradition of deification than does Byzantine theology. I believe, as do others on this board, that the Orthodox and Catholics fundamentally agree on this issue (despite different theological language) and disagree with the Protestants. It was, in part, a rejection of total deptavity and an understanding that we are MADE righteous, not simply declared righteous, that led me from Protestantism to Catholicism.

I agree. Eastern Orthodox and Catholics believe that God not only declares us righteous, He makes us righteous. Both Luther and Calvin studied law before they got into theology. As a result Protestant theology is overly legalistic. The Protestant separation of justification from sanctification is artificial and un-Biblical.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s Trent +Orange, much of which is repeated from the Council Orange.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT5.HTM

reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html

Seems to me guilt was added once at Trent and is used in relation to iniquity as the encyclopedia suggests above.

 

[Richca]

You are treating ancestral sin too legalistically. Ancestral sin something that we inherit and is the condition caused by Adam’s rebellion against God, that condition is mortality and corruption. The sinful acts that we commit are the result of our inherited corrupted condition. An infant or child is still born infected with mortality which came into the world as a result of the sin of Adam. It is like any other inherited disease or genetic defect. Because we are born corrupted with ancestral sin, we commit sinful acts and become guilty of our own sins. Thus salvation is healing of the disease of mortality. That is the great mistake of the Protestants who treat salvation solely in legalistic terms of forensic justification instead of healing of the disease of sin which leads to deification.

Fr. John

Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matt 5:17-18).
Further, the rich young man approached Jesus and said "“Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” And Jesus replied "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt 19:16-17).
So you see the keeping of God’s law is fundamental to gaining eternal life. God’s law, indeed, all moral law is based on justice and justice is one of the cardinal virtues. So the practice of justice is virtuous especially if it is quickened by charity.

Richca

 

[frjohnmorris]

Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matt 5:17-18).
Further, the rich young man approached Jesus and said "“Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” And Jesus replied "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt 19:16-17).
So you see the keeping of God’s law is fundamental to gaining eternal life. God’s law, indeed, all moral law is based on justice and justice is one of the cardinal virtues. So the practice of justice is virtuous especially if it is quickened by charity.

Richca

You can also quote the Epistle of St. James which clearly states that “faith without works is dead.” Significantly, Luther dismissed the Epistle of St. James as an Epistle of straw because he could not reconcile it with his theology. He also added the word “alone” to Romans 5:1 that states that we are justified by grace. The original text does not have the word “alone” in it. But Luther added the word to make it fit into his theology. Calvinists are even worse. They redefine the meanings of Greek words to make the New Testament fit into their theology. For example, St. John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world…” they argue that the word “kosmos” does not really mean world, but means only the elect which is a false translation of the original Greek.

Fr. John

 

[Tomdstone]

You can also quote the Epistle of St. James which clearly states that “faith without works is dead.” Significantly, Luther dismissed the Epistle of St. James as an Epistle of straw because he could not reconcile it with his theology. He also added the word “alone” to Romans 5:1 that states that we are justified by grace. The original text does not have the word “alone” in it. But Luther added the word to make it fit into his theology. Calvinists are even worse. They redefine the meanings of Greek words to make the New Testament fit into their theology. For example, St. John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world…” they argue that the word “kosmos” does not really mean world, but means only the elect which is a false translation of the original Greek.

Fr. John

Does the Eastern Orthodox Church accept the Epistle of St. James as canonical? More generally, does the Eastern Orthodox Church accept all the books of the Roman Catholic Bible as canonical, including the book of Maccabees?

 

[prodromos]

Does the Eastern Orthodox Church accept the Epistle of St. James as canonical? More generally, does the Eastern Orthodox Church accept all the books of the Roman Catholic Bible as canonical, including the book of Maccabees?

Below is a list of the books in the Septuagint (“seventy”), which is the old testament canon used in the Eastern Orthodox Church

GENESIS
EXODUS
LEVITICUS
NUMBERS
DEUTERONOMY
JOSHUA OF NAVI
JUDGES
RUTH
KINGS I (SAMUEL I)
KINGS II (SAMUEL II)
KINGS III
KINGS IV
CHRONICLES I
CHRONICLES II
ESDRAS I
ESDRAS II
NEHEMIAH
TOBIT
JUDITH
ESTHER
MACCABEES I
MACCABEES II
MACCABEES III
PSALMS
JOB
PROVERBS OF SOLOMON
ECCLESIASTES
SONG OF SONGS
WISDOM OF SOLOMON
WISDOM OF SIRACH
OSEE
AMOS
MICHAEAS
JOEL
OBDIAS
JONAS
NAUM
AMBACUM
SOPHONIAS
AGGAEUS
ZACHARIAS
MALACHIAS
ESAIAS
JEREMIAS
BARUCH
LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAS
EPISTLE OF JEREMIAS
JEZEKIEL
SUSANNA
DANIEL
MACCABEES IV

ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp

 

[GaryTaylor]

"Jeremias points out, quoting Basil, that grace will not be given to those who do not live virtuous lives and that faith without works is not true faith.

The sixth article he warns the Germans not to presume on grace nor despair of it. He makes it clear that he disapproves of anything that might suggest predestined election.

Jeremias concurred with the eighth and ninth articles in the Confession.

Jeremias on the seventh article clarified, suspecting that the Lutherans held baptism and the Eucharist to be the only Sacraments insists that there are at least seven Sacraments.

The tenth article was more controversial he may have learned that the original Confession added the words “in the form of the bread and the wine,” words omitted in the Latin and Greek

Jeremias asks for further details, saying: “for we have heard of certain things about your views, of which it is impossible for us to approve.” The doctrine of the Holy Church, he maintains, is that at the Lord’s Supper the bread is changed into the very body of Christ and the wine into His very blood. He points out that Christ did not say “This is bread,” or even “This is the figure of my body,” but “This is My body.” It would indeed be blasphemy to say that the Lord gave to His disciples the flesh that He bore to eat or the blood in His veins to drink, or that He descends physically from heaven when the mysteries are celebrated. It is, he says, by the grace and invocation of the Holy Spirit, which operates and consummates the change, and by our sacred prayers and by the Lord’s own words that the bread and wine are transformed and transmuted into the very flesh and blood of Christ.

The eleventh article of the Confession advocates the use of private confession, though it is not absolutely necessary; nor can one enumerate all one’s petty sins. The Patriarch agrees but thinks that more should be said about the value of confession as spiritual medicine and as leading to true acts of penitence, to him the act of penitence ranked as a sacrament.

The twelfth article teaches that sinners who have lapsed from grace can receive it again if they repent. It disavows both the Anabaptist view that the saved can never fall from grace and the Novatian view that the lapsed can never recover it. The Patriarch concurs but adds that repentance must be shown by works.

To the fourteenth, which states that only ordained priests should preach or administer the Sacraments, the Patriarch agrees, so long as the ordination has been correctly performed and the hierarchy canonically organized.

The fifteenth article pleased him less. It approves of such rites and festivals as are conducive to giving peace and order to the Church but denies that any of them are necessary for salvation or provide the means for acquiring grace. The Patriarch, quoting at length from the early Fathers, emphasizes that these holy days and the ceremonies attached to them are lasting reminders of the life of Christ on earth and of the witness of the saints. To deny them any spiritual value is narrow-minded and wrong.

He concurs with the sixteenth article, which says that it is not contrary to the Gospel to obey civil magistrates or to engage in warfare if they should order it. He adds that one should remember, all the same, that obedience to the laws of God and to His ministers is a higher duty, and that no true Christian seeks for worldly power.

He concurs also with the seventeenth article, which foretells the coming of Christ to judge the world and to reward the faithful with eternal life and punish the wicked with eternal torment.

The eighteenth article deals with free will. The Lutherans maintained that, while a man may by the exercise of free will lead a good life, it will avail him nothing unless God gives him grace. This is too close to the doctrine of complete predestination for the Patriarch, who points out, with long quotations from St John Chrysostom, that only those freely willing to be saved can be saved. Good deeds conform with the grace of God, but that grace is withdrawn concurrently with an evil deed.

The nineteenth article/acceptable

The twentieth returns to the problem of faith and works, repeating that, though good works are necessary and indispensable, and it is a libel to say that the Lutherans ignore them, yet they cannot purchase the remission of sins without faith and its accompanying grace. The Patriarch agrees about the dual need for faith and works; but why, he asks, if the Lutherans really value good works, do they censure feasts and fasts, brotherhoods and monasteries? Are these not good deeds done in honor of God and in obedience to His commands? Is a fast not an act of self-discipline? Is not a monastic fraternity an expression of fellowship? Above all, is not the taking of monastic vows an attempt to carry out Christ’s demand that we should rid ourselves of our worldly entanglements?

The Patriarch was shocked by the twenty-first and last article, which says that, while congregations should be told of the lives of the saints as examples to be followed, it is contrary to the Scriptures to invoke the saints as mediators before God.

Jeremias, after citing the special powers given by Christ to the disciples, answers that true worship should indeed be given to God alone, but that the saints, and above all, the Mother of God, who by their holiness have been raised to heaven, may lawfully and helpfully be invoked. We can ask the Mother of God, owing to her special relationship, to intercede for us and the archangels and angels to pray for us; and all the saints may be asked for their mediation. It is a sign of humility that we sinners should be shy of making a direct approach to God and should seek the intervention of mortal men and women who have earned salvation."

from-Christian Information Center.

 

[Peter_J]

I see you’ve already gotten an answer concerning the Old Testament, but I’ll chime in concerning

Does the Eastern Orthodox Church accept the Epistle of St. James as canonical?

Pretty much all Christians (Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, even Calvinists and Baptists, etc.) agree on the list of 27 New Testament books that were chosen by the early church (which includes James).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s an article I had saved from a Catholic perspective with scripture.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.HTM

 

[vames]

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin is that we are born cursed with the consequences of the sin of Adam, which is mortality and the corruption that causes it, not that we are born deprived of God’s grace.

What happens with the soul of an unbaptized child who dies, let’s say, a day after being born? Does the EO doctrine say that such souls go to heaven or hell?
And can he be buried in the same part of the cemetery with the baptized ones?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholics generally agree that the soul of the unbaptized child is entirely entrusted to God’s mercy. We pray for the child, and offer the Divine Liturgy and incense prayers. They may be buried with the rest of the family.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Does the Eastern Orthodox Church accept the Epistle of St. James as canonical? More generally, does the Eastern Orthodox Church accept all the books of the Roman Catholic Bible as canonical, including the book of Maccabees?

Of course we accept the Epistle of St. James as canonical.
The canonical version of the Old Testament accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Septuagint, which actually has more books than the Roman Catholic Bible. There are 4 Books of Maccabees. However, we consider those not found in the Hebrew canon Readable Books, not quote on the same level as the other books.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

Hi frjohn,
Although the exact rendering of Romans 5:12 may be a matter of dispute, the understanding of Romans 5 within the Church’s tradition and the entire bible is what is important to the Church’s doctrine on original sin. As far as Romans 5:12 meaning that we all die because we all sin does not make a whole lot of sense since St Paul says in the same chapter that all men die because of Adam’s sin; death came on all men through Adam’s sin. This is seen quite clearly in Genesis too. Also, infants and children die without having committed any personal sin so how can it be said that they die as a result of committing a sin? St Paul also compares Adam’s one transgression which brought death to all men with Christ’s one righteous act which brought life and acquittal to all.

Richca

The translation of Romans 5:12 is not a matter of dispute. It is simply a matter of correctly translating the original Greek, which the Latin translation did not. As a result Augustine developed a theology that is un Biblical and included total depravity, and the loss of free will. Although Catholicism had the benefit of the other Fathers to use to balance its theology to overcome the excesses of Augustine, the Protestants did not and built their theology exclusively on Augustine. The result was a legalistic doctrine that treats salvation solely in terms of justification. The Lutherans go so far as to speak of justification as a legal fiction that changes out status, but not our condition. Luther even used the term “Simul Justus Et Peccator” which means at once a sinner, yet justified. Such a belief is a major distortion of the teachings of the New Testament, which tell us that God not only declares us righteous, he makes us righteous.
We inherit mortality from Adam and Eve. Your last statement is correct. Adam’s transgression brought death to all his descendents. Because we are mortal, we are born in corruption. Because we are born in corruption, we all sin. Because we are born mortal infants die, although they have committed no personal sins. Ancestral sin is the inheritance of the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve which is mortality. God only judges us guilty of our own sins not the sins of Adam and Eve.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

God only judges us guilty of our own sins not the sins of Adam and Eve.

Fr. John

Amen, So what do you say about the particular judgment and the general judgment?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Amen, So what do you say about the particular judgment and the general judgment?

It is not really that difficult to understand. When we die, our souls separate from our bodies. Our soul is judged and sent to Heaven or Hell depending on how we have lived our lies. A person who has repented of their sins and accepted Christ will be saved, even if they do so on their death bead. If a person rejects Christ and lives their lives according to their own selfish desires, will go to Hell. God in His mercy may save a non Christian who tries to follow God to the best of their knowledge and ability, but if such a person is saved, they are saved only through Christ. Although Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of purgatory, because we reject the doctrine of temporal punishment upon which it is based, we do believe that our spiritual growth continues following death in heaven. This is the particular judgment.
At the end of time, when Christ comes again. Our souls will be reunited with our risen bodies and the particular judgment will be confirmed. Then there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth. That is the General Judgement.

Fr. John

 

[tdgesq]

The translation of Romans 5:12 is not a matter of dispute. It is simply a matter of correctly translating the original Greek, which the Latin translation did not. As a result Augustine developed a theology that is un Biblical and included total depravity, and the loss of free will. Although Catholicism had the benefit of the other Fathers to use to balance its theology to overcome the excesses of Augustine, the Protestants did not and built their theology exclusively on Augustine.

Father, I don’t think this is a balanced assessment of Augustine’s theology of grace. In his treatises against the Manichæans, total depravity is forcefully rejected. Everything that is from God is good, including every spirit and every physical body. Augustine explicitly affirms freedom of the will, even when he is combating the Pelagian heresy and is focused almost entirely on unmerited grace.

It is interesting that while Augustine insisted upon the necessity of baptism for salvation, the Reformers ultimately disagreed. They instead took up their own interpretation of original sin, making the transmission by natural descent essentially a permanent condition of mankind; albeit “covered” by God’s unmerited grace just as a dunghill is covered by snow.

These are all perversions of Saint Augustine’s teachings by the Reformers. He could be criticized for not bringing clarity to what original sin actually is (deprivation of sanctifying grace) and for speculating on the fate of unbaptized infants; but adopting the position of the Reformers as accurately reflecting Augustinian theology cannot seriously be maintained.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, I don’t think this is a balanced assessment of Augustine’s theology of grace. In his treatises against the Manichæans, total depravity is forcefully rejected. Everything that is from God is good, including every spirit and every physical body. Augustine explicitly affirms freedom of the will, even when he is combating the Pelagian heresy and is focused almost entirely on unmerited grace.

I RESPOND: You are right. I do not give a balanced assessment of Blessed Augustine, because Augustine contradicts himself. At times he affirms free will, but other times, he denies it. That is one of the problems with Augustine. People can read different and conflicting teachings from Augustine.
For example, he is very close if not identical to Calvin when he wrote:
Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so. “On the Predestination of the Saints,” Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series I, vol. 5, p. 515

He also wrote the following which certainly seems to deny free will, “It came by the freedom of choice that man was with sin; but a penal corruption closely followed thereon, and out of the liberty produced necessity. Hence the cry of faith to God, “Lead Thou me out of my necessities.” With these necessities upon us, we are either unable to understand what we want, or else (while having the wish) we are not strong enough to accomplish what we have come to understand. Now it is just liberty itself that is promised to believers by the Liberator. “If the Son,” says He, “shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”For, vanquished by the sin into which it fell by its volition, nature has lost liberty. “ “On Man’s Perfection In Righteousness” Ibid, p. 162

However, you are right, in other works Blessed Augustine taught free will. There is no doubt that Augustine’s writings led to a major controversy in the West because many read his writings to deny free will. St. Vincent believed that some of Augustine’s writings were contrary to the teaching of the Fathers. That is why he developed his famous canon, “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” St. John Cassian wrote his 13th Conference, to counter the influence of Augustine. Eastern Orthodox believe that the 13th Conference of St. John Cassian expresses the teachings of the Holy Fathers which affirms free will. Calvinists dismiss St. John Cassian as a “Semi-Pelagian.”

It is interesting that while Augustine insisted upon the necessity of baptism for salvation, the Reformers ultimately disagreed. They instead took up their own interpretation of original sin, making the transmission by natural descent essentially a permanent condition of mankind; albeit “covered” by God’s unmerited grace just as a dunghill is covered by snow.

I RESPOND Luther and Calvin did teach on the necessity of Baptism for salvation. Only the Anabapists denied infant Baptism. Later some Calvinists fell under Anabaptist influence and invented the Baptist religion which is a combination of Calvinism and Anabaptism.
You have touched on one of the major problems with Protestantism. They define grace as “unmerited favor,” or “undeserved merit.” That makes grace an attitude of God towards the believer and something created instead of a real transforming experience of communion with God.

These are all perversions of Saint Augustine’s teachings by the Reformers.

I RESPOND: I thank a more accurate statement would be that the founders of Protestantism took some parts of Augustine and ignored others. But, it cannot be denied that they were highly influenced by some of Augustine’s writings.
They also twisted Augustine to fit their theology. I do not have time to find the exact citation, but there are followers of the Reformed Movement who quote Augustine to justify their denial of the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. However, I once looked up their reference and found that they had taken Augustine completely out of context. Because as we all know Augustine believed in the correct doctrine that the bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ during the Eucharist.

He could be criticized for not bringing clarity to what original sin actually is (deprivation of sanctifying grace) and for speculating on the fate of unbaptized infants; but adopting the position of the Reformers as accurately reflecting Augustinian theology cannot seriously be maintained.

I RESPOND: Followers of both Luther and Calvin will tell you that their beliefs are straight from Augustine. From his reading of Augustine, Luther got his teaching of total depravity as he expressed in his work “The Bondage of the Will.”
Blessed Augustine is a very complex man. He wrote some good things, but when he was in the heat of debate with Pelagius went to extremes. What saves him is that at the end of his life he wrote a series of retractions that admitted that he sometimes went to extremes and renounced anything that he wrote that did not conform to the teachings of the Church.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

What happens with the soul of an unbaptized child who dies, let’s say, a day after being born? Does the EO doctrine say that such souls go to heaven or hell?
And can he be buried in the same part of the cemetery with the baptized ones?

It all depends on the circumstances. If the baby dies before its parents had the opportunity to Baptize it, there is the category of Baptism by intention. If the parents would have Baptized the baby had they had the opportunity, it would count as if the baby had been Baptized. Like the Catholics, we also recognize emergency Baptism performed by a layperson. I would not do as one Catholic Priest told me that he once did. He reached into the woman’s body to somehow Baptize the child. I think that in the case of an unborn child the category of baptism by intention would suffice. I am quite sure that the Catholics have the same category of Baptism by intention. In the case of others, we trust them to the mercy of God.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is not really that difficult to understand. When we die, our souls separate from our bodies. Our soul is judged and sent to Heaven or Hell depending on how we have lived our lies. A person who has repented of their sins and accepted Christ will be saved, even if they do so on their death bead. If a person rejects Christ and lives their lives according to their own selfish desires, will go to Hell. God in His mercy may save a non Christian who tries to follow God to the best of their knowledge and ability, but if such a person is saved, they are saved only through Christ. Although Eastern Orthodox reject the doctrine of purgatory, because we reject the doctrine of temporal punishment upon which it is based, we do believe that our spiritual growth continues following death in heaven. This is the particular judgment.
At the end of time, when Christ comes again. Our souls will be reunited with our risen bodies and the particular judgment will be confirmed. Then there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth. That is the General Judgement.

Fr. John

I don’t disagree with you. My problem here is at the particular judgment. Heaven/hell at this point would be in relation to the particular individual and how we lived our lives. I agree this indeed is how the Church’s describe this point, God all knowing immediately knows all right, wrong, good, evil and judges the Soul.

Ok if we are to agree at least on the simplicity of the above then we would have to acknowledge the Saints and communion of Saints which at this point they would be in Heaven within the communion of Saints. Those that are not Saints, and not condemned, for example those who just missed the mark. We would agree there is a continuation of divinization? Also why is it as far as Saints, only some are assumed body and soul and others just soul?

Aside from this, the general judgement at least from my understanding is a judgment of all mankind, thus each individual also in how the effected society with their interaction, be it right, wrong, good, evil.

Perhaps I’m missing something with the entire concept. I can’t see how one is not the same as the other, not in sequence of scripture, but in dynamics of each judgment. I understand one is personal or particular and the other general. But the dynamics are difficult.

Would not our particular judgment including our personal aspects be one of the same of the general. Someone commits a homicide for example, its true they are responsible for their transaction, but what are we saying here? Are we saying that they are only judged at the particular for their own action, but not for the victims or those interrelated to the aggressor be it the victims family or his own?

Also how do the Saints or even further those assumed body and soul into heaven work in the sequence of the particular and general judgment. Its a beautiful thought all would be Saints, but that’s not true, yet we all know these souls who did receive the sacraments of the Church, and while they may not be Saints, they also are not at least from our view condemnable material. So there is a continued divinization of the Divine energies.

Also no one anywhere as I see it was not given free-will. From Lucifer on down the free-will existed. So all these souls would have free-will regardless of the state they find themselves in.

Being this is the case with free-will and Gods Grace, how would these souls not be able to do both, pray to God and on the other hand pray for you and I. How could we say that in this state their intercession has no value? Or that only our intercession could assist them and not visa-versa.

I pretty much understand East/West thinking here, I think there are many more questions than answers though either way.

Pain is only contingent in a physical sense to this physical state. One could also describe pain and hurt in the emotional sense which we can then relate to the Souls. This I believe would have to continue. For example in Revelations 6:10 "They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”

There has to be emotion here for there is emotion in the words. Let me leave you with those thoughts for now.