St Albert the Great and women

UPDATE: This quote in question is from a work attributed to St Albert the Great but written by one of students (see below)

There is a quote that is presented by some journalists like Salon.com, academics, memes and feminists to demonstrate Christianity has a long history of misogyny. It is attributed to St Albert the Great and goes as follows:

Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.—Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

Like all good internet quotes, no source is cited. 

Fortunately, searching the quote one author did cite his source, though sadly it is obvious he did not read the context. The quote roughly taken from Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q 11. The name of the writing properly in English is "Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals." 

First, it should be noted that Albert the Great's Questions concerning "On Animals" was not written by Albert. The modern introduction to the work states:

In addition to his commentary on De animalibus, however, we have another work attributed to Albert the Great under the title Quaestiones super de animalibus (Questions concerning On Animals). This text represents a series of disputed questions on Aristotle's De animalibus, conducted in Cologne in 1258 and preserved in the report of Conrad of Austria from perhaps about the year 1260. Historians had long known of this work from medieval catalogues. Until 1922, however, it was thought to be lost to us. In 1922 a manuscript containing the Quaestiones was discovered in the Milanese Bibliotheca Ambrosiana. Additional manuscripts containing this work, or fragments of it, were uncovered between 1932 and 1952 in other libraries. A critical edition of the Latin text was prepared by Ephrem Filthaut and appeared in 1955 in volume 12 of the Opera omnia .. Alberti Magni in preparation in Cologne. 

In one sense, the Quaestiones super de animalibus (QDA) can be viewed as a useful companion piece to Albert's commentary on De animalibus. It represents Albert's attempt to introduce Aristotle's material to students in Cologne in his lectures during the year 1258. As such, QDA antedates his slightly later (and vastly larger) commentary, De animalibus. Although Albert did write down his commentary on De animalibusindeed, Stadler's Latin edition is based on an autograph copy Albert did not himself write down these lectures that form the QDA, and this presents the historian with an interesting problem. Although attributed to Albert the Great, the work is in fact a reportatio; that is, it contains what Albert taught about Aristotle's books on animals in Cologne in 1258, but the QDA itself represents the notes of Albert's student, Conrad of Austria, who heard Albert teaching. A few years later these questions were collected and redacted. Albert the Great can be considered the author of the work, but his imprint on the work is indirect rather than direct, and is mediated by Conrad of Austria. This means that one cannot properly distinguish the words of Albert from the words of the one reporting them. In addition, insofar as the text presents a quasi-Scholastic series of disputed questions based on Aristotle's De animalibus with a question posed, followed in most instances by evidence pro et contra and some sort of response or solution to the question neither is it always a simple matter to identify Albert's own position on a given question or to distinguish Albert's doctrine from other, contemporary sources for his discussion of this material. --INTRODUCTION Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9), pages 5-6

In short, the work is by Conrad, a student of Albert, and is based on St Albert's lectures, but the thoughts of Albert and Conrad cannot be distinguished. Since it's based on St Albert's lectures, the work is attributed to St Albert. What St Albert's position was is unclear. Perhaps investigating the work actually written by him. On Animals, might give clues.

Reading the section cited reveals a major problem with the quote--it's a hypothetical argument posed to St Albert, and not his own thoughts on the subject. As noted in the introduction, the format is similar to scholastic such as St Thomas Aquinas' Summa--question, evidence for and against, then a solution. This book is primarily about science as it was understood the Middle Ages, so it contains a lot of error, it's not meant to be theological, but more philosophical and biological.

The whole question reads as follows:

Whether the male is better suited for proper behavior [mores] than the female.

One inquires further whether the male is better suited for proper behavior than the female.

1. And it seems not. For an animal that is more teachable for proper behavior is more suitable. But according to the Philosopher in the beginning of the ninth book, the female is more teachable toward proper behavior than is the male. And this seems to be because of the argument that females resemble children, according to the Philosopher in this chapter. But children are more teachable than old people, as the Philosopher wishes in the second book of the Ethics. Therefore, etc.

2. In addition, prudence is an intellectual virtue. Without it, moral virtue cannot be perfected. But females are more prudent than males, as the Philosopher wishes. Therefore, etc.

The opposite is stated in the ninth book of this work, and this is clear. For generally, proverbially, and commonly it is affirmed that women are more mendacious and fragile, more diffident, more shameless, more deceptively eloquent, and, in brief, a woman is nothing but a devil fashioned into a human appearance. Thus I saw one like this at Cologne, who seemed to be a saint and yet, in brief, ensnared everyone with her love.

To this, one must reply that a female is less suited for proper behavior than is a male. For a female's complexion is moister than a male's, but it belongs to a moist complexion to receive [impressions] easily but to retain them poorly. For moisture is easily mobile and this is why women are inconstant and always seeking after new things. Therefore, when she is engaged in the act under one man, at that very moment she would wish, were it possible, to lie under another. Therefore, there is no faithfulness in a woman.

Believe me: if you believe her you will be deceived. Believe a teacher who has experienced it.

Moreover, an indication of this is that wise men almost never disclose their plans and their doings to their wives. For a woman is a flawed male and, in comparison to the male, has the nature of defect and privation, and this is why naturally she mistrusts herself. And this is why whatever she cannot acquire on her own she strives to acquire through mendacity and diabolical deceptions. Therefore, to speak briefly, one must be as mistrustful of every woman as of a venomous serpent and a horned devil, and if it were allowed to say what I know about women, it would stupefy the entire world.

1. On to the arguments. To the first, one must reply that instruction is of two types: for one is given concerning things that can be done [operabilibus] with respect to affect, and the other is given concerning things subject to cognition [intelligibilibus], and this consists in understanding and deliberating. As far as the first is concerned, the female is more teachable than the male, because she is more easily moved to different affects, toward which she is disposed. But as far as the second is concerned, the contrary obtains because the sensible powers are weaker in a woman owing to the coldness of her complexion, since she has a poorer sense of touch and, as a result, a weaker intellect.

2. To the second argument one must reply that a woman is not more prudent than a male, properly speaking, but she is cleverer. Therefore, prudence smacks of good, and cleverness smacks of evil. Therefore, the female is more prudent, that is, cleverer, than the male with respect to evil and perverse deeds, because the more nature departs from the one operation, the more it inclines toward the other. In this way, the woman falls short in intellectual operations, which consist in the apprehension of the good and in knowledge of truth and flight from evil. This is why one who inclines to evil inclines more to sensitive appetite, unless she is ruled by reason, as is apparent in the seventh book of the Ethics. Therefore, sense moves the female to every evil, just as intellect moves a man to every good. And this is why, etc.---St Albert the Great, Quaestiones super de animalibus XV q 11 also Questions Concerning Aristotle's On Animals (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9)  pages 453-455

As we see, the original quote provided by the anonyomous citation was an argument provided by the questioner, then an ellipse was placed that skipped to the "St Albert's" supposed response to the claim. The writer's views are not without problem nonetheless, saying women are generally less intelligent. The statements about venomous serpent, horned devil, etc are part of an argument that is responded to. Whether St Albert actually said anything or what part of this in 1258 is uncertain.

Conclusion: This is actually the work of St Albert's student based on lectures by the saint. What St Albert said and agree with is uncertain. 

Tetelestai "paid in full" receipt update!

Part of the Calvinist (and evangelical) claim for penal substitution is invoking John 19:30 and indicating tetelestai is used, (although translated "it is finished" by virtually every translation) insisting the word is used in financial documents where its stamped or written at the top to indicate a debt was paid off. Therefore, it is concluded Christ was saying He just paid off the debt of the elect. Some older dictionaries did seem to indicate this, however, corrections have been made to the sources cited, showing...

TETELESTAI was not actually written at all.

I first became aware of this evidence though a reply on stackexchange. Linked is an article produced by a Lutheran journal on the matter, though the author agrees Christ "paid it in full" he states the tetelestai evidence is false, the phrase does not especially indicate paying a debt. contrary to many claims.

The stackexchange comment by Ryan S. states:

According to Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, "Receipts are often introduced by the phrase τετέλεσται, usually written in an abbreviated manner, e.g., P Grenf II. 50(a)(b)(c) al., mostly belonging to ii/A.D."

You can view Bernard Grenfell's (and Arthur Hunt's) publication of these receipts online: https://archive.org/details/newclassicalfrag00gren/page/78/mode/2up. They are customs tax receipts from the second and third centuries C.E. for transporting goods between the Fayoum and Memphis, Egypt. As the lexicon indicates, these customs tax receipts begin with the abbreviation τετελ, "tetel", except for P Grenf II. 50 f 2, which contains the word fully written. This publication transcribes the word as τετέλεσται, "tetelestai", and appears to be the basis for reading the abbreviation on the other receipts as τετέλ(εσται), "tetel(estai)". (The transcription is on p. 82 of the publication and labeled as Bodl. MSS. Gr. class g. 27 (P).)

However, a correction has been made to this reading since the publication. The fully written word is now transcribed as τετελώνιται, "tetelonitai," which is a different verb meaning "tax has been paid": http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.grenf;2;50f. As such, the abbreviated word is now transcribed as τετελ(ώνιται), "tetel(onitai)": E.g., http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.grenf;2;50a. 

I have not been able to find a picture of P Grenf II. 50 f 2 available online yet, but there are other customs tax receipts published since P Grenf II. 50 f 2 that have the fully written word as τετελώνιται, "tetelonitai"—-or the correct spelling of τετελώνηται "tetelonitai"—-and they are viewable online: E.g., https://berlpap.smb.museum/02707/; http://berlpap.smb.museum/02710/; and http://berlpap.smb.museum/04802/?lang=en. 

In my assessment, because (1) these receipts are specifically customs duty receipts and not receipts for a debt or bill payment, and (2) the abbreviated and fully written word indicating that the tax has been paid appears to actually be τετελώνηται "tetelonitai" rather than τετέλεσται, "tetelestai", it does not seem that there is a connection between these receipts and John 19:30, or Col 2:13–14 for that matter.

First the entry from Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament page 30 can be seen below:

The papyri P Grenf II. 50(a) (and c and d) shown below evidence cited was originally based on the below work with what was presumed then to be tetelestai abbreviated as tetel with the ending shown as (estai):

However, these papyri have been re-evaluated and words were corrected since its first publication. Below we can see the reading for P Grenf II. 50(a) was corrected and a note for the previous reading:

As you can see per note 1 which reads:

1. BL 1.188 : τετέλ(εσται) prev. ed.

Showing that (εσται) was replaced with (ώνηται). This is the case for the others in the papyri listed as examples by Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.

Below is P Grenf II. 50(b)

and so on.

Needless to say, the tetelestai claim was based in part outdated scholarship.

Even if, hypothetically, tetelestai meant "paid in full" it does not change it does not fit the context of John 19 considering John 19:28 uses the word in reference to the fulfilment of prophecy, not mention of paying debts. In fact, the sources cited refer to paying a tax for importing goods, the only time the root is used in the NT for money is when paying taxes. 

Phillip Stallings

 An individual I used to debate with on the online forum paltalk who went by the screen name Mrparadox has been charged with several counts of  "SECOND DEGREE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION MINOR" among other charges.

Years back there was a blog and several other posts dedicated to exposing his crimes, he was successfully able to convince these people to take down their articles and posts exposing the crimes he committed sometimes to minors by sending unsolicited nudes photos of himself. 

Stallings was a staunch apologists for Calvinism who espoused lordship salvation, the idea that those who are saved will live in such a way as to show Jesus is their Lord. Unfortunately for Stallings, he did not display this. I recall incidents in chat rooms, even Calvinist run ones, where Stallings would be slurring his words, people suspected he was on medication, drugs or drunk--occasionally people would be drunk on the microphone. Prior to his arrest, I recall in addition to advocating Calvinism, he moved on to geocentrism, and even more absurdly flat earth and ran a flat earth society website. He insisted the south pole is like the outer rim of a plate and that Australian flights around Antarctica are dishonest. About this time he was exposed as a deviant who was sending his nude photos to several women on facebook and other means. After apologizing, convincing people to remove their exposes of him, he adopted a theological position advocating for the institution of death penalty for crimes like homosexuality, seeing no irony or hypocrisy with his own depravity. 

The joke on the chatroom despite Mrparadox adopting geocentrism, flat earth, etc, was it is still more reasonable than his Calvinism.

A defunct website that catalogued several of Stallings' depravities including screenshots of Stallings' photos he sent to young women.

Does an unbaptized priest need to be reordained?

Canon Law seems to suggest so:

Present 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

THOSE TO BE ORDAINED 

Can.  1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

The old CIC 1917 stating the same:-

De subiecto sacrae ordinationis.      

Can. 968. § 1. Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus vir baptizatus...

 However, noted in Denzinger Pope Innocent II wrote:

741 Dz 388 [From the letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, of uncertain time]

To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine's "City of God" * where among other things it is written, "Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian * where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers' and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned.--Denzinger 741

Taken from Patrologia Latina: 

Apostolicam sedem, venerabilis frater noster, ut debuisti, consulere decrevisti. (Et infra:) Unde inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, presbyterum, quem sine unda baptismatis extremum diem clausisse literis tuis significasti, quia in sanctae matris ecclesiae fide et Christi nominis confessione perseveravit, ab originali peccato solutum, et coelestis patriae gaudium esse adeptum, ex auctoritate sanctorum Patrum Augustini atique Ambrosii asserimus incunctanter. Lege, frater, super octavo libro Augustini de civitate Dei, ubi inter cetera legitur: “Baptismus invisibiliter ministratur, quem non contemptus religionis, sed terminus necessitatis excludit.” Librum etiam B. Ambrosii de obitu Valentiniani idem asserentis revolve. Sopitis igitur quaestionibus doctorum Patrum sententias teneas, et in ecclesia tua iuges preces hostiasque Deo offerri iubeas pro presbytero memorato.--PL 624

Granted, this is an argument from silence. It can be noted that Pope Innocent does not call into question the priest's ordination, although this was not the main subject. The Pope however does continue to call the unbaptized man a priest.

More investigation will be needed for the origins and interpretation of the Canons on a baptized male being needed for a valid ordination. Certainly for a sacramental marriage both parties need to be baptized, however does it follow for the priesthood which requires the physical contact of a bishop and words, analogous to baptism. In Acts 10 we see the people received the equivalent of Confirmation before water baptism.

Bishop Barron's inconsistency on Vatican II and Hell

Previously, I wrote at length concerning Bishop Barron's page defending reasonable hope as a possibility (including its many misleading, bad or flat out wrong references among which were theologians condemned for heresy like Origen, or were never Catholic like Isaac the Syrian)

Recently, Bishop Barron's outfit Word on Fire produced a page with Q&A on the legitimacy of the Second Vatican council. I would critique it as not being nuanced enough, but that would be for another article. As stated before the fathers of the Second Vatican council did not accept von Balthasar's absurd notion that Hell might be empty, rather Lumen Gentium was worded so as to remove this as a possibility. Prior to Bishop Barron removing comments to his video on reasonable hope that all be saved, I provided Barron with that statement by Lumen Gentium, a document of Vatican II and the fathers' drafting notes on it, in all likelihood the Bishop ignored the comment since he could not answer the claim, though its possible did not see it, though he responded to my other statements. I bring this up because the Bishop in his new page on Vatican II states:

7. Could parts of Vatican II’s doctrine be removed or reversed in the future?

No.....
The doctrine articulated by Vatican II is, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, part of the Catholic Church’s official magisterial teaching. It may be deepened or clarified in the future, but it cannot be removed or reversed.

Considering the bishop said Vatican II's doctrine cannot be removed or reverses, Bishop Barron needs to explain Lumen Gentium 49's drafting notes where the following question and answer occurred:

One father wanted a sentence to be introduced from which it would be clear that there are damned defacto, lest damnation remain as a mere hypothesis. 

Answer:  The proposal does not square with this context. In no. 48 there are cited the words of the Gospel in which the Lord Himself speaks about the damned in a form which is grammatically future.

The full article on Lumen Gentium with the reference is found here. We are indebted to James T O'Conner for this find.

The question is to be asked: Will Bishop Barron be consistent with his position on Vatican II and recant his position that it is possible no humans will be in Hell? Will Bishop Barron admit he erred in teaching that reasonable hope that all be saved is theologoumenon rather than heresy?

Until the Bishop Barron acknowledges the Second Vatican Council taught a Hell populated with humans is a certainty rather than a possibility, he cannot be taken too seriously on Vatican II.
Bishop Barron likely does not admit it is heresy  because of his education where Balthasar was treated as orthodox, even the prior popes largely treated him as orthodox, though Pope John Paul II explicitly named von Balthasar in the issue of Hell, and stated the gospels were clear (ie people will go to Hell). There is precedent in church history for a theology to a heavy weight like Origen, only to be condemn centuries later. The same can be said of Theodore of Mopsuestia who was seen as orthodox by the Chalcedonian father, but when Constantinople II came around his writings were condemned (and controversially he was post humously anathematized).

Rev Moon and Pseudoscience

Recently, I was challenged by a member of the Unification movement to read the scripture unique to the movement before dismissing it as just another Korean cult lead by a man claiming to be the returned Jesus Christ in Korean form, like the World Mission Society Church of God and others do.

Reading the first chapter, it is reminiscent of Scientology--another religion that attempts to inject a semblance of science and psychology into a belief system in part inspired by eastern philosophy.

In the very first chapter of Divine Principle, Sun Myung Moon states:

"Let us take human beings as an example. A human being is composed of an outer form, the body, and an inner quality, the mind. The body is a visible reflection of the invisible mind. Because the mind possesses a certain structure, the body which reflects it also takes on a particular appearance. This is the idea behind a person’s character and destiny being perceived through examining his outward appearance by such methods as physiognomy or palm reading. Here, mind is the internal nature and body is the external form. Mind and body are two correlative aspects of a human being; hence, the body may be understood as a second mind. Together, they constitute the dual characteristics of a human being. Similarly, all beings exist through the reciprocal relationships between their dual characteristics of internal nature and external form."--Divine Principle 1.1

Curious enough this portion of the text is not highlighted in the literature. Reverend Moon seemed to believe in the pseudoscientific physiognomy and palm reading. We see in his other writings and speeches he referred to physiognomy:

"I cannot remember anyone saying, though, that my small eyes make me any less attractive. In fact, people who know something about physiognomy, the art of understanding a person’s characteristics and fortune by studying facial features, say my small eyes give me the right disposition to be a religious leader. I think it is similar to the way a camera is able to focus on objects farther away as the aperture of its iris diaphragm is reduced. A religious leader needs to be able to see farther into the future than do other people, and perhaps small eyes are an indication of such a quality. My nose is rather unusual as well. Just one look and it is obvious that this is the nose of a stubborn and determined man. There must be something to physiognomy, because when I look back on my life, these features of my face seem to parallel the way I have lived my life."--

AS A PEACE-LOVING GLOBAL CITIZEN, The Joy of Giving Food to Other, Ch 1.2

In an address he stated:

"American women have a high nose and large deep eyes. A high nose indicates that you are so proud of yourself. Your large and deep eyes indicate your arrogance. You have the hidden mind of thieves. Because your eyes are set deep it means you don’t want people to observe you from the side. It is as if you are hiding in a way. It is true. It is fearful actually. Father’s way of interpretation of the Western features is that your nose represents Satan’s spear tip. Your eyes represent Satan’s warehouse. Don’t you agree that you are greedy? If any struggle or feud goes on in your town you never want to lose."--TRUE PARENTS’ DAY ADDRESS TRUE PARENTS’ DAY IS MY TRUE SON’S DAY, April 18, 1996. World Mission Center.

It would be hilarious if these were not the words of a religious leader. Rev'd Moon seems to simply be a product of his place and time. Physiognomy has long been a part of Korean culture

To be continued.....

Pope Gregory the Great, Emperor Trajan and praying for the damned

This article discusses the legend that Pope Gregory prayed for the salvation of the damned soul of the long dead Emperor Trajan--resulting in the Emperor's salvation. The legend, which seems almost certainly apocryphal, has had a big impact in the Orthodox Church's doctrines and practices concerning the dead and Hell. This implication seem to justify practices like rejecting private revelation as basis for doctrine, and making such things only private devotions, and would seem to be another reason the Second Vatican Council's efforts to remove legends (especially ones for the basis for certain saints) from the Roman Calendar was justified (though Gregory the Great is recognized as a saint without respect to this story).

In the Middle Ages a story floated around that Pope Gregory the Great (died March 12, AD 604) when thinking about the pagan Emperor Trajan was so moved by his justice and morality that cried for the Emperor and he was released from Hell or got a mitigated damnation, some say the Emperor resurrected, accepted the faith, then died again and went to heaven. The earliest, most well-known accounts (Whitby, Pseudo-Paul the Deacon, Pseudo-Damascene) has God telling the Pope to not make this request for a pagan/impious ever again.

However, Eastern Orthodox apologists and some theologians appeal to this story (in addition to the Nestorian bishop "St" Isaac the Syrian's comments on Hell, despite his comments being based on the writings of the anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia) as evidence the doctrine of universal reconciliation was not totally condemned at the time of Justinian in the synod of Constantinople 543, or that at least some of those that are damned, having died in mortal sin, can be saved after death by prayers, though the story says not to do this.

The earliest written account attributed to an anonymous monk from the Whitby Abbey in England several generations later reads:

"Some of our people also tell a story related by the Romans of how the soul of the Emperor Trajan was refreshed and even baptized by St. Gregory's tears, a story marvelous to tell and marvelous to hear. Let no one be surprised that we say he was baptized, for without baptism none will ever see God; and a third kind of baptism is by tears. One day as he was crossing the Forum, a magnificent piece of work for which Trajan is said to have been responsible, he found on examining it carefully that Trajan, though a pagan, had done a deed so charitable that it seemed more likely to have been the deed of a Christian than a pagan. For it is related that, as he was leading his army in great haste against the enemy, he was moved to pity by the words of a widow, and the emperor of the whole world came to a halt. She said, 'Lord Trajan, here are the men who killed my son and are unwilling to pay me recompense.' He answered, 'Tell me about it when I return. and I will make them recompense you.' But she replied, 'Lord, if you never return, there will be no-one to help me.' Then, armed as he was, he made the defendants pay forthwith the compensation they owed her, in his presence. When Gregory discovered this story, he recognized that this was just what we read about in the Bible, 'judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord.' Since Gregory did not know what to do to comfort the soul of this man who brought the words of Christ to his mind, he went to St Peter's Church and wept floods of tears, as was his custom, until he gained at last by divine revelation the assurance this his prayers were answered, seeing that he had never presumed to ask this for any other pagan.--The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great, Chapter 29. page 127. Written by an Anonymous Whitby monk c. AD 680-704. Translated by Bertram Colgrave. 1985.

This, the oldest version of the account extant, is largely unknown to modern audiences Orthodox or Catholic. Notice this account points to the virtues of Emperor Trajan and seems ignorant of his atrocities in killing Christians. A commentary suggests the story of the widow demanding recompense is out of place:

""Her son, she says, has been murdered; she has the perpetrators in hand; but they refuse to pay the recompense: we are in the realm of the Germanic wergeld."--The Unbounded Community: Papers in Christian Ecumenism in Honor of Jaroslav Pelikan The Virtuous Pagan, Page 47 

 A version of the story was retold by John the Deacon in a biography about Pope Gregory the Great commissioned by Pope John VIII in the ninth century is as follows (unfortunately I cannot find a translation):

It's read also in the hands of the same English Churches, that Gregory going forth through Trajan's forum, at one time he made beautiful with the most beautiful buildings, his judgement where a widow had been comforted is to be remembered and wondered: what is certainly just as previously received, so he himself had.  At a certain time, Trajan was in a great haste to prepare for an impending war, a certain widow approached [him] mournfully saying: My innocent son, you reign, he is destroyed; I beseech that, because he is to pay me you are not able, his blood legally fit to be avenged.   And Trajan, if he returns safe from battle, will himself use his legal authority for everything in the response. The widow said: If you die in battle, who will give it to me?  Trajan said: He who will rule after me.  The widow said: And what does it profit you if another renders me justice?  Trajan answered: Certainly, nothing.  And the widow: Is it not better for you that you render me justice, and in exchange for that you receive a fee, rather than assign it to another? Then Trajan, moved at the same time by reason and by pity, got down from the horse and did not depart before himself having concluded the trial on the side of the widow. Therefore this kind judgement, they assert Gregory remembered arriving to St Peter the Apostle's basilica; and there so long concerning a wondering as most merciful leader lamenting, till when he encountered a response the following night, for Trajan was heard, tantum for no other pagan offer prayer.  But with concern to the supreme miracle of the Romans which nobody doubts, concerning this it is read among the Saxons, this petition freed Trajan's soul from the torment of hell, for which also is to be seen with very much doubt, which such a size of a doctor in no wise certainly presumes to pray for a pagan; which his fourth book of Dialogues teaches the same is the reason why saints should not pray in future judgement for sinners are condemned to eternal fire; Nor do saintly men on earth pray for deceased infidels and godless people. not considering that it is not read Gregory prayed for Trajan, but only he wept.  For thus with no praying Gregory, wailing could be heard, as Moses with suffering quietly, he could be seen crying, the Lord said to his silent lips: "Why do you cry to me?" (Exodus 14:15).  Without a doubt Almighty God searches unraveling hearts, and often He gives pity, which men although as the flesh desires, but yet do not presume to ask.  Hence the Psalmist: "The Lord has heard the desire of the poor, and the desires of their heart you have heard" (Psalm 9:38).   And it should be noted that it is not read Gregory offered prayers for Trajan's soul to be freed from hell, and placed in paradise, which is completely not credible discern according to that which is written, "unless m a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:5);" but simply said, freed only from the torment of hell (inferno). Which is to say, it could be seen credibly, seeing as in this manner the soul in Hell were availed, and through the mercy of God, Hell's torment is not felt, as a single Gehenna's fire prevails equally detaining all sinners, thus through God's justice all are not able in a like manner burned. But as far as each one deserves blame, God's just judgement only he will feel and punishment.--John the Deacon , S. Gregorii Papae Vita (Life of Pope St Gregory) II.44 Patrologia Latina (Migne): Volume 75, 105-106 (written between AD 872-882) (in process of translating--I am not fluent by any stretch)

Legitur etiam penes easdem Anglorum Ecclesias, quod Gregorius per forum Traiani, quod ipse quondam pulcherrimis aedificiis venustarat, procedens, iudicii eius quo viduam consolatus fuerat recordatus atque miratus sit: quod scilicet sicut a prioribus traditur, ita se habet.  Quodam tempore, Traiano ad imminentis belli procinctum festinanti vehementissime, vidua quaedam processit flebiliter dicens: Filius meus innocens, te regnante, peremptus est; obsecro ut, quia eum mihi reddere non vales, sanguinem eius legaliter vindicare digneris.   Cumque Traianus, si sanus reverteretur a praelio, hunc se vindicaturum per omnia responderet, vidua dixit: Si tu in praelio mortuus fueris, quis mihi praestabit?  Traianus dixit: Ille qui post me imperabit.  Vidua dixit: Et tibi quid proderit, si alter mihi iustitiam fecerit?  Traianus respondit: Utique nihil.  Et vidua: Nonne, inquit, melius tibi est ut tu mihi iustitiam facias, et tu pro hoc mercedem tuam recipias, quam alteri hanc transmittas? Tunc Traianus ratione pariter pietateque commotus, equo descendit, nec ante discessit quam iudicium viduae per semet imminens profligaret. Huius ergo mansuetudinem iudicis asserunt Gregorium recordatum ad sancti Petri apostoli basilicam pervenisse; ibique tandiu super errore tam clementissimi principis deflevisse, quousque responsum sequenti nocte cepisset, se pro Traiano fuisse auditum, tantum pro nullo ulterius pagano preces effunderet.  Sed cum de superioribus miraculis Romanorum sit nemo qui dubitet, de hoc quod apud Saxones legitur, huius precibus Traiani animam ab inferni cruciatibus liberatam, ob id vel maxime dubitari videtur, quod tantus doctor nequaquam praesumeret pro pagano prorsus orare; qui quarto Dialogorum suorum libro docuerit eamdem causam esse cur non oretur a sanctis in futuro iudicio pro peccatoribus aeterno igne damnatis; quae nunc etiam causa est ut non orent sancti homines pro hominibus infidelibus impiisque defunctis; non advertentes quia non legitur pro Traiano Gregorium exorasse, sed tantum flevisse.  Sic enim cum non oraverit Gregorius, plangendo potuit exaudiri, sicuti Moyses cum dolendo taceret, potuit clamasse videri, cui Dominus tacenti labiis: Quid clamas, inquit, ad me (Exod. XIV, 15)?  Nimirum Deus omnipotens corda renesque scrutatur, et frequenter ea misertus concedit, quae homo quamvis ut carnalis desideret, tamen petere non praesumit.  Unde Psalmista: Desiderium pauperum exaudivit Dominus, et desideria cordis eorum audivit auris tua (Psal. XIX, 17).   Et notandum quia non legitur Gregorii precibus Traiani anima ab inferno liberata, et in paradiso reposita, quod omnino incredibile videtur propter illud quod scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non intrabit in regnum coelorum (Ioan. III, 3); sed simpliciter dicitur, ab inferni solummodo cruciatibus liberata. Quod videlicet potest videri credibile quippe cum ita valeat anima in inferno existere, et inferni cruciatus per Dei misericordiam non sentire, sicuti unus gehennae ignis valet omnes peccatores pariter detinere, sic per Dei iustitiam cunctos non valet aequaliter exurere. Nam uniuscuiusque quantum meruit culpa, iusto Dei iudicio tantum sentietur et poena.--John the Deacon , S. Gregorii Papae Vita (Life of Pope St Gregory) II.44 Patrologia Latina (Migne): Volume 75, 105-106 (written between AD 872-882)

What is clear from John the Deacon is that he cites the fourth book of the Dialogues by Pope Gregory where he says the damned in Gehenna are not to be prayed for--he quotes it as I do later in this article. John the Deacon certainly doesn't believe the Pope prayed for the Emperor.

The story as attributed to Paul the Deacon has been determined to have not but written by him but about 50 years later it was inserted into his text on Gregory the Great, this portion of text is sometimes called "pseudo-Paul":.

"The first edition of this work (Paul the Deacon's vita of Gregory) was published in 1887 and it says nothing about Trajan. The vita of Gregory ascribed to Paul in both the Acta Sanctorum and Migne's Patrologia latina is a pseudonymous and interpolated version written a century later which draws on the intervening vita of Gregory by John the Deacon..."--The Unbounded Community: Papers in Christian Ecumenism in Honor of Jaroslav Pelikan The Virtuous Pagan, Page 47

The interpolated text is translated as follows:

"Also, this same priest, who was very fervent and acceptable to God, on a certain day proceeded through the forum of Trajan, which he knew had been built in an extraordinary manner. And he viewed the monuments of Trajan's clemency, especially that memorable one which commemorates the fact that when this earthly prince surrounded by a group of soldiers once was going on an expedition he had met a very old widow. She was worn out with old age as well as with sorrow and poverty, and he was stopped by her tears and wails. "O most loyal Prince Trajan, behold here are men who have killed my only son, my support and my only comfort. And, wishing to kill me along with him, they refused to pay me any restitution for him." Being in a hurry, he said to her as he passed on, "When I return, tell me this, and I shall render you full justice." Then she said, "Master, and if you do not return, what shall I do?" He listened to this plea and ordered the accused to be brought before him.  Nor, when it was suggested by everyone that he hastened the business, did he move a step from the place until he had arranged that the widow be paid from his purse whatever was decreed by law. And, at length, by prayers and tears of supplication, sorrowing over his misdeeds and moved by inward mercy, he freed the accused from their praetorial bonds not much by his power as by his devotion and leniency. Then the venerable pontiff, moved by grace, began with tearful sighs and supplicant words to quote these prophecies and evangelical maxims; "Thou, O Lord. hast said: 'Judge for the fatherless, defend the widow; and come, and accuse me.' And elsewhere, 'Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you;' be no unmindful, I beseech Thee, that I a most unworthy sinner, on account of the glory of Thy name and on Thy most faithful promise in the case of this devoted man do humbly implore Thy clemency."  And arriving at the tomb of Saint Peter, he prayed there for a long time and wept and was, as it were, overcome by sleep and rapt in ecstacy in which he learned through a revelation that he had been graciously heard. And lest in the future he should presume to seek favors for anyone who had died without holy baptism he was deservedly reproved. In this connection he was allowed to be asked certain things by inquisitive people of imperfect faith and more things by those who believe the truth when it is spoken faithfully. And he was allowed to explain that the things which are or seem impossible to men are easy to God. In this act of divine goodness and power, nevertheless, it seemed desirable that his opinion be honored and disputed by no one."--Pseudo-Paul the Deacon (c 810-840) interpolated in "The Life of Saint Gregory the Great" by Paul the Deacon,c. AD 770-780 translation by SISTER MARY EMMANUEL JONES, R.S.M,

Idem vero perfectissimus et acceptabilis Deo sacerdos, cum quadam die per forum Trajani, quod opere mirifico constat esse exstructum, procederet, et insignia misericordiae ejus conspiceret, inter quae memorabile illud comperiret, videlicet quod cum idem orbis princeps in expeditionem, circumvallatus militum cuneis, pergeret, ibidem obviam habuerit vetustissimam viduam, senio simulque dolore ac paupertate confectam, cujus lacrymis atque vocibus sic compellatur: Princeps piissime Trajane, ecce hic sunt homines qui modo mihi unicum filium, senectutis scilicet meae baculum et omne solatium, occiderunt; meque una cum eo volentes occidere, dedignantur etiam mihi pro eo rationem aliquam reddere. Cui ille festinato, ut res exigebat, pertransiens: Cum rediero, inquit, dicito mihi, et faciam tibi omnem justitiam. Tum illa: Domine, inquit, et si tu non redieris, ego quid faciam? Ad quam vocem substitit, et reos coram se adduci fecit. Neque, cum suggereretur a cunctis accelerare negotium, gressum a loco movit, quousque et viduae a fisco, quod juridicis sanctionibus decretum est, persolvi pro re fecit; demumque supplicationum precibus et fletibus super factis suis poenitentes viscerali clementia flexus, non tam potestate quam precatu et lenitate vinctos, praetorialibus catenis absolvit. Hujus rei gratia compunctus venerabilis pontifex, coepit lacrymosis gemitibus secum inter verba precantia, haec siquidem prophetica et Evangelica revolvere oracula: Tu, Domine, dixisti: Judicate pupillo, defendite viduam; et venite, et arguite me (Isa. I, 17). Et alibi: Dimittite, et dimittetur vobis; ne immemor sis, quaeso, peccator ego indignissimus, propter nomen gloriae tuae, et fidelissimae promissionis tuae, in hujus devotissimi viri facto, pietati tuae humiliter supplico (Marc. VI, 27). Perveniensque ad sepulcrum beati Petri, ibi diutius oravit, et flevit, atque veluti somno correptus in exstasim est raptus, quo se per revelationem exauditum discit; et ne ulterius jam talia de quoquam sine baptismate sacro defuncto praesumeret petere, promeruit castigari. Qua in re, licet a minus perfectae fidei et curiosis quaedam valeant quaeri, et plura ab his qui credunt veritati fideliter dicenti, quae apud homines impossibilia sunt vel videntur, facilia sunt apud Dominum, salubriter explanari, tutius tamen videtur in hoc actu divinae pietatis et potestatis judicium venerari, et a nemine discuti--Pseudo Paul the Deacon, Vita S. Gregorii Magni, Section 27

The most known version of the story is found in pseudo-Damascene, a work previously attributed to St John of Damascus, it goes as follows:

"...Gregory the Dialogist, the senior bishop of Rome, as everybody knows, was a man well known for his righteousness and knowledge. They even say that the divine angel assisted him when he was conducting the liturgy. One day this Gregory, while taking a walk among the stones, stood carefully still and uttered a mighty prayer directed toward the soul-loving Lord for the forgiveness of the sins of Trajan the king. Immediately after saying these things he heard a voice borne to him from God: "I have heard your prayer, and I grant forgiveness to Trajan. But you (singular) should not again put forward prayers addressed to me on behalf of pagans (ασεβων)." And that this story is true and blameless, the whole East and West is witness. Look, this even surpasses what happened to Falconilla. For she was a party to no other evil (beyond idolatry), but Trajan brought about the deaths of many martyrs. You are marvelous, Lord, and marvelous are your works. We praise your incredible goodness of heart, because you always incline toward the love of human beings."--Pseudo-Damascene, "Homily for Meat-Fare Saturday" PGM 95. 261-64 Translated by Jeffrey A. Trumbower in Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity. Page 145.

Eventually, this story has largely been forgotten in the West. It is mentioned by Dante and St Thomas Aquinas and several other writings up until around the Renaissance, but largely doubted or rejected as absurd by then. The story was discounted by John the Deacon.

It must be noted the story is of similar nature and absurdity to the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus (which was a popular Christian legend that the Quran took up as true), and the legend of St Brenan the Navigator where he tells of Judas being placed on a rock in the Atlantic Ocean as a temporary reprieve from Hell on holy days (only to be thrown back in the rest of the year!).

First and most importantly, it must be noted that Pope Gregory the Great (St Gregory the Dialogist as he is called in the East) explicitly rejected praying for the damned.

The saints in heaven, therefore, do not offer prayers for the damned in hell for the same reason that we do not pray for the Devil and his angels. Nor do saintly men on earth pray for deceased infidels and godless people. And why? Because they do not wish to waste their prayers in the sight of a just God by offering them for souls who are known to be condemned. But if the saints, while still alive and conscious of their own failings, have no compassion on the unjust sinners in hell, if they show no compassion whatever at a time when they realize that their own sins and imperfections are worthy of God's punishment, how much more severely will they look upon the torments of the damned once they are freed from sin and corruption and stand near to their eternal Judge, closely united with Him? In their intimate association with the most just of all judges, the force of His severity will penetrate their minds, and they will be utterly displeased with anything that is out of harmony with the least detail of the eternal law. --Pope Gregory the Great, Dialogue IV, 44 (taken from The Fathers of the Church, Volume 39, translated by Odo John Zimmerman, O.S,B. book four, page 257)

Commenting on this same passage one translator notes:

CHAPTER XLIV. p. 240. This doctrine of St. Gregory's, that the faithful do not pray for the souls of those whom they suppose to be in Hell, is more explicitly stated in the Moralia (lib. xxxiv, cap.19):"The Saints do not pray for the unbelieving and impious that are dead, because they shrink from the merit of their prayer, concerning those whom they already know to be condemned to eternal punishment, being made void before that countenances of the just Judge."  This is curiously inconsistent with the popular legend, first heard in the eight century, that St Gregory, moved by the tale of the Justice and humility of Trajan towards the poor widow whose son had been slain, prayed and obtained that the soul of the Emperor might return from Hell to his body to win his salvation. This inconsistency is noticed by St Thomas Aquinas, who discusses the story at some length (Summa Theologica, III Suppl Q 71, A. 5)----The Dialogues of Saint Gregory the Great Re-edited with an Introduction and Notes by Edmund G Gardner, 2010.notes, page 275

The above mentioned Moralia, Pope Gregory at length argues that Hell is unending,then concerning praying for the damned he states:

"But they say, And where then is their saintship, if they will not pray for their enemies, whom they will then see burning, though it is expressly said to them, Pray for your enemies? (Matthew 5:44) But we reply at once, They pray for their enemies at that time when they are able to convert their hearts to fruitful penitence, and save them by this very conversion. For what else must we pray for our enemies, except that which the Apostle says, That God may give them repentance, and that they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive unto his will? (2 Timothy 2:25-26) And how will prayers be made at that time for them, when they can no longer be in any degree turned from iniquity to works of righteousness? There is, therefore, the same reason for not praying then for men condemned to eternal fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who have been consigned to eternal punishment. And this is now the reason for holy men not praying for unbelieving and ungodly men who are dead; for they are unwilling that the merit of their prayer should be set aside, in that presence of the righteous Judge, when in behalf of those whom they know to be already consigned to eternal punishment. But if even now the just when alive do not sympathize with the unjust who are dead and condemned, (when they know that they themselves are still enduring from their flesh that which will be called into judgement,) how much more severely do they then regard the torments of the wicked, when, stripped of every sin of corruption, they will themselves cleave more closely and firmly to righteousness? For the power of severity so absorbs their minds, by means of their cleaving to the most righteous Judge, that they take no pleasure whatever in any thing which is at variance with the strictness of that inward rule.  But because we have made these brief remarks against the followers of Origen, as the opportunity occurred, let us go to the course of exposition...."--St Gregory the Dialogist (Pope Gregory the Great), Moralia, Book XXXIV, XIX, 38 (page 647)

I should also note that Pope Gregory the Great's doctrine on purgatory was that it was solely for venial (minor) sins:

"Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgement, because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ, the Truth, say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come'(Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions."--Gregory the Great[regn. A.D. 590-604], Dialogues, 4:39 (A.D. 594),in FC,39:248

Concerning the eternal nature of damnation, he denounces those that say damnation and punishment ends as making Christ a liar by issuing false threats, which makes it reasonable His promise of rewards are also lies:

"For there are those even now, who neglect to put an end to their sins, for the very reason that they suspect that the future judgements upon them will, some time or another, have an end. To whom we briefly reply, If the punishments of the reprobate will at any time be ended, the joys of the blessed will also be ended at last. For the Truth says by His own mouth, These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:45) If, therefore, this is not true which He has threatened, neither is that true which is promised. But they say, He threatened eternal punishment to sinners, in order to restrain them from the perpetration of sins; because He ought to threaten, not inflict, eternal punishments on His creature. To whom we reply at once: If He has made false threats in order to withdraw from unrighteousness, He has also made false promises, in order to encourage to righteousness. And who can tolerate this madness of theirs, who, while they assert in their hair offers that they punishments of the reprobate are terminated, overthrow by their assertion the rewards, and recompenses, of the Elect also? Who can tolerate their madness, who endeavor to establish that that is not true which the Truth has threatened concerning eternal fire, and who, while busy in declaring God to be merciful, are not ashamed to proclaim Him to be false?

But they said, A fault, which has an end, ought not to be punished without end. Almighty God is doubtless just, and that which is not committed with eternal sin, ought not to be punished with eternal torment. To whom we reply at once, that they would say rightly, if the just and strict Judge at His coming considered not the hearts, but only the doings of men. For the wicked have sinned with a limit, because their life had a limit. For they would have wished to live without end, in order that they might continue in their sins without end. For they are more eager to sin than to live; and they therefore wish to live for ever here, in order that they may never cease to sin, as long as they live. It pertains then to the justice of the strict Judge, that they should never be free from punishment, whose mind desired when in this life never to be free from sin; and that no end of punishment should be granted to the wicked, because as long as he was able he wished to have no end to his sin....."--St Gregory the Dialogist (Pope Gregory the Great), Moralia, Book XXXIV: XIX, 38 (page 644)

Secondly, it must be noted that in none of St Gregory's extant writings does he ever mention this miraculous event. Why would he omit such a great work of God, if this in fact happened? Painstaking work efforts have been taken to preserve this writing!

Thirdly, this story appears to have been invented by an anonymous Whitby (England) monk. The version of the story found on Eastern Orthodox websites citing St John of Damascus is actually a pseudopigraphical writing from the 9th to 10th century called now Pseudo-Damascene. This era has a lot of forgeries, this was the same era that the False Decretals were written including the famous "Donation of Constantine." 

"The Unbounded Community: Papers in Christian Ecumenism in Honor of Jaroslav Pelikan" deals at length with the Gregory-Trajan legend and its dubious sources. 

"In the next chapter of the Gregory-Trajan legend we move to the Greek church, to a work erroneously ascribed to the eighth-century theologian John of Damascus but which must date to the late ninth or early tenth century because of it makes use of the vitae Gregorii of both John the Deacon and Pseudo-Paul. The author clearly prefer Pseudo-Paul's version. The text is a sermon encouraging prayer for the dead. Pseudo-Damascene brings forward Thecla and Trajan to make the same points. In each case, the person prayed into heaven was a pagan. Second, God will hear the prayers of ordinary Christians not just those of great saints. And third, the efficacy of the prayers of Thecla and Gregory for their respective pagans is not to be doubted. Given John the Deacon's challenge to the credibility of the Trajan legend, Pseudo-Damascene takes pains to stress its appearance by everyone in the east and west alike. With respect to Trajan, he emphasizes the emperor's virtue; incorrect belief was the only blot on his record. Still, since such pagans can be prayed out of hell and into heaven, how much the more can Christians who have died in the faith be helped by the prayers of their co-religionists. In addition, in opposition to people who say that few were saved in Christ's harrowing of hell, Pseudo-Damascene thinks that the reverse was the case. Many were saved thereby, he asserts, so as long as they lived upright lives...…"--The Unbounded Community: Papers in Christian Ecumenism in Honor of Jaroslav Pelikan The Virtuous Pagan, Page 49

 and, noting the effects of Pseudo-Damascene in Eastern theology:

"...the confusion between this author and the John of Damascus revered as an authority in the Greek church helps to explain what happened next, the institutionalization of prayers for the dead, including the damned, by the Greek church and its Slavic daughter churches. By the thirteenth century, these churches had set aside the third Saturday before Lent for prayer for the dead of all sorts, in a formal liturgy whose perdurance can be documented until the sixteenth century. Aside from this influence on the liturgy, Pseudo-Damascene also had a marked influence on the eschatology of the eastern churches. From the eleventh century onward, the belief that the prayers of living Christians could save pagans who were damned, or mitigate their sufferings, received support from eastern theologians; and Trajan was even enrolled in their calendar of saints. These developments are related to the fact that the doctrine of purgatory was not taught in the eastern churches. That fact, paradoxical in the light of the Latin ancestry of the Gregory-Trajan legend, in turn became a stumbling block impeding the hoped-for reunion of the Greek and Romans churches at the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-39."--The Unbounded Community: Papers in Christian Ecumenism in Honor of Jaroslav Pelikan The Virtuous Pagan, Page 50

The book also notes the effects in the West, many believed virtuous pagans were saved, a few believed some would eventually be saved, however, unlike the East--the West did not develop prayers for the damned, but rather dogmatized further that those who die in original sin alone or moral sin will be in Hell forever. The only effect in the West is it asked the question of the moral people who live a good life but die without baptism.  Even before this at least in the case of catechumen and martyrs, was that they would be regenerate before they die and be taken in to heaven.

St Thomas Aquinas on the case of Emperor Trajan and Pope Gregory the Great denies it proves prayers for the damned will benefit them:

Reply to Objection 5. Concerning the incident of Trajan it may be supposed with probability that he was recalled to life at the prayers of Blessed Gregory, and thus obtained the grace whereby he received the pardon of his sins and in consequence was freed from punishment. The same applies to all those who were miraculously raised from the dead, many of whom were evidently idolaters and damned. For we must needs say likewise of all such persons that they were consigned to hell, not finally, but as was actually due to their own merits according to justice: and that according to higher causes, in view of which it was foreseen that they would be recalled to life, they were to be disposed of otherwise.

Or we may say with some that Trajan's soul was not simply freed from the debt of eternal punishment, but that his punishment was suspended for a time, that is, until the judgment day. Nor does it follow that this is the general result of suffrages, because things happen differently in accordance with the general law from that which is permitted in particular cases and by privilege. Even so the bounds of human affairs differ from those of the miracles of the Divine power as Augustine says (De Cura pro Mort. xvi). --St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III Suppl Q 71, A. 5

In addition, I should note that praying for the damned was generally in the West condemned, rejected or discouraged in part because the West generally saw mortal sin and original sin as things one cannot repent of after death, therefore Hell is not escapable. One of the great Eastern theologians, St John of Damascus, who is at times cited in the debate over praying for the damned (see Pseudo-Damascene, "Homily for Meat-Fare Saturday" above), stated neither angels nor humans can repent after a certain point:

All wickedness, then, and all impure passions are the work of their mind. But while the liberty to attack man has been granted to them, they have not the strength to over-master any one: for we have it in our power to receive or not to receive the attack. Wherefore there has been prepared for the devil and his demons, and those who follow him, fire unquenchable and everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:41). 

Note, further, that what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance.--St John of Damascus, PG 94,877. An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book II), Chapter II

If St John Damascene believed there will be no repentance after death, how can the wicked be rehabilitated? If Hell makes them just, apart from repentance, won't that just man be repentant for this wickedness that landed him in Hell in the first place?

Being revised and to be continued....