/lit/ - Literature

>>20538407
>“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss (CCC 1864).

>>19287698
>How does a sin of another person "defile" the Eucharist and me partaking of it?
I never said the Eucharist is defiled. You are playing with my words to give me a position I do not hold. I clearly said, "Do you not feel uncomfortable sharing in communion with a heretic". I said this because your entire point so far has been the "pristine ancient faith" of orthodoxy, in contrast with Catholicism - and I am just pointing out that, a symptom of the EO church removing itself from the Catholic church is the inability for them to maintain the same level of unified teaching, leading to people like DBH and others leading tons of EO astray with his ideas.
>It's an inconsistent demand from you.
I am only speaking the truth - your personal opinion, based upon your personal interpretation of the councils, leads you to believe that DBH position on soteriology is anathematized - whereas other EO's personal opinion, based upon their personal interpretation of the councils, leads them to believe that DBH position on soteriology is orthodox. Do you get my point?
>divorce is the sin here
I agree. But it was the Byzantine Empire made the Orthodox Church the “only institution with legal competence for the celebration of matrimony…As a consequence the Eastern Church had to conform its practices to State and civil legislation. Then once civil legislation began to allow divorce and successive remarriages, the Eastern Church was obligated to recognize these practices.”
>It doesn't matter if you rename it and find some canonical deficiency in the marriage
Except it does matter. Marriage is a sacramental contract, and contracts must be shown to have certain deficiencies to be invalid (duress, etc). We do not grant annulments to valid sacramental contracts.
>Why do you see this as evil? Please explain to me
I believe that it contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially with cases of incurable illness and one party going to jail. Many EO agree with this orthodox Catholic position, such as Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov.
>It is as much of an opinion as saying if you deny Christ's divinity you are anathema.
No, it is obviously different than that matter, because many EO in good standing, including bishops, accept universal salvation. See Kallistos Ware's "Dare We Hope [...]", and for a layman's reasonable perspective:
https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2021/01/21/orthodoxy-universal-salvation-are-the-two-compatible/
>Show me the council which states this? Because I can show you a council condemning the universalist position.
Again, I feel you are missing my point here. Because you have no centralized authority which interprets those councils, fathers, and canons, you have Bishops, priests, and laymen alike who hold to the orthodoxy of universal salvation.

I'm really trying to level with you here. I mean no ill will, although I do believe that all of these deficiencies in Orthodoxy (and more) are a result of your church leaving the true church in schism.

so is hell actually supposed to be a real thing? did the og christian theologicians believe in it or was it made up later? What about jewish or muslim hell?
Redpill me on hell /lit/