Furthermore, the Cathechisms of the Orthodox Church, while stating that prayers for the dead are good (prayers are always good!) say very little beyond that, and I agree with that.
Your explanations on the Immaculate Conception seem equally reasonable, however, if the HVM was given a soul full of Grace, she was unlike any other human being and therefore not someone we can call our own.
On Macabees, is there any source that specifically says Jesus or His Mother actually slaughered sacrifical animals, as you seem to imply? Sacrifice, remember, is not required.
As for St Mark of Ephesus, I believe Agrarian is right in asserting that he was trying to find a "working formula" in order to satisfy the Emperor's desire under duress, but remember that no Father individually has monopoly on what the Churches, as from what I gather from Orthodox Catechisms the Church is silent on what happens to them while asleep in the Lord, except that they foretaste the bliss.
Although we Orthodox certainly do not accept "Sola Scriptura" arguments, and while we certainly believe that the Church's teachings are right on this issue, Kosta still makes an important point. We have the specific witness of St. John Chrysostom that the practice of prayers for and commemorating the dead at the Liturgy was handed down from the Apostles of Christ themselves. But the absence of direct evidence in the Scriptures themselves argues strongly for the more judicious Orthodox approach of not defining, dogmatizing, or systematizing the specifics of this. There are very few doctrines of the Church that do not have at least some direct Scriptural appeal, and the Orthodox Church tends to carefully stick to ancient patristic formulations in these cases, accepting ambiguity and unanswered questions.
Furthermore, the Cathechisms of the Orthodox Church, while stating that prayers for the dead are good (prayers are always good!) say very little beyond that, and I agree with that.
For the benefit of our Catholic brethren, I will spell out something that Kosta and the other Orthodox on this forum know: any Catechisms published within the Orthodox Church have a very different role and function than they do in the Catholic church or in Protestant denominations. There is no Orthodox Catechism -- the very form itself is a Protestant one. Luther's Catechism predates the first Roman catechism by nearly 40 years, and the early Reformed/Calvinist catechisms predate the first Roman catechism by about 25. The first Orthodox catechisms appeared (as I recall) under the influence of Peter Moghila in eastern Rus under pressure from Catholic inroads during the 17th century, and spread only slowly into the remainder of the Slavic world. The catechism form didn't make an appearance in the Greek speaking world until the 19th century.
It is not that the various Orthodox catechisms in circulation do not have usefulness in certain situations, it is just that they are local (or even personal) expressions of faith in "manual" form that do not have any particular authority of any kind and are not really in the Orthodox tradition.
I have never actually seen an Orthodox catechism used for catechesis, and only rarely will one encounter an Orthodox writer citing the contents of a catechism as backing for a particular view.
What Orthodox view as authoritative is the "consensus patrum," and that is something that simply cannot be codified, summarized or distilled into a catechism. It is rather taken as an entire body, and sorted out and discussed as particular needs arise, much as we do here on FR.
A Catholic asked on another thread yesterday about Orthodox "canon law," and the same thing applies there -- we really don't have anything that is the equivalent of Catholic canon law that is codified and up to date in an authoritative form. To ask what the Orthodox canons say about this or that is to invite quite a discussion!
That said, the things that Kosta says about the contents of the Catechisms that he refers to are correct: the Orthodox Church says very little specific about the how's and what's of prayers, commemorations, and almsgiving for the dead, and says very little about the specifics of what happens to departed souls while they are in the "intermediate state" of being temporarily separated from the body.
This is not a small matter, since we consider it important not to delve into unrevealed matters using our intellect, just as we consider it important to speak correctly and patristically about those things that *have* been revealed to the Church.
"Torment" - I think a lot of misemphasis went into this from some Theologians. One of our newer old Doctors, St. Catherine of Genoa, noted that the pains of purgatory are incomparably more desirable than the most ecstatic pleasures on earth ("Purgatory, the Spiritual Dialog"). Purgatory is part of heaven, since those there are saved and therefore are not in eternal punishment; joyful, since those there know that they are saved and are therefore caught up in that unending joy despite the pain of longing to see God face to face and not yet being able to do so; sanctifying, where remaining faults and demerits are removed from those who are justified; and educational, where we come to a full understanding of remaining faults so that Christ might heal them as opposed to the false concept of the dead gaining merit after the judgement through the deed of suffering.
We don't think of our prayers "rescuing" the holy souls, as if they are in danger of damnation. Instead they are a "comfort" to them and they "relieve" them when they receive them.
if the HVM was given a soul full of Grace, she was unlike any other human being and therefore not someone we can call our own.
Are you saying we cannot become full of grace? What then is the purpose of the Sacraments?
On Macabees, is there any source that specifically says Jesus or His Mother actually slaughered sacrifical animals, as you seem to imply? Sacrifice, remember, is not required.
"And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons:" (St. Luke 2.24)