More Eastern "Orthodox" Nonsense: Theophany Eve’s Blessing of the Water Ritual!

[RamistThomist]

I triggered Jay once when I said that he would eventually follow Jospeh P Farrell right out of the eastern church, leaving it behind like all the other things he tried out. His followers apparently were completely unaware that Farrell was no longer "orthodox."

And Jay will still interview Farrell.

Speaking of which, isn't Farrell some gnostic dude pushing theories about Nazi UFOs in Antarctica or something??? I could see Jay heading in that direction from where he is now.

Farrell is more along the lines of the Cosmic War 300,000 years ago. I have no problem about continuing Nazi technology. Farrell makes a good case for Roswell being neither "aliens" nor a weather balloon. I also agree with him that LBJ killed Kennedy. I'm undecided on the Antarctica claim.

When Farrell deals with stuff from the Renaissance onward, he is generally on solid ground. He knows nothing about Semitic languages and culture and is completely lost on that point.

The real thing with Jay is to see if he follows Aleksandr Dugin into full theosophy. There are youtube videos where Dugin is reading Alistair Crowley in a ritual setting. That was the deal breaker with me. True, I think it is hilariou to watch the NPR types get scared over Dugin, but I can't follow him.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Speaking of EO authors, David Bentley Hart is absolutely brilliant. Just ask him, he’ll tell you.

He had a tiff with NT Wright a few years back. Wright‘s use of reason and Scripture hit hard against Hart’s secret weapon - his ego.

 

[RamistThomist]

Speaking of EO authors, David Bentley Hart is absolutely brilliant. Just ask him, he’ll tell you.

He had a tiff with NT Wright a few years back. Wright‘s use of reason and Scripture hit hard against Hart’s secret weapon - his ego.

Hart represents a split in EO intellectuals. He is a social liberal and all of the liberals at Fordham love him. Yes, Wright destroyed him on bible translations.

 

[lynnie]

I've really enjoyed reading Touchstone Magazine regularly. It seems intelligent and thoughtful and far more aware of what is happening spiritually in the world than a lot of Christians I know. I don't recall any of this weird stuff ever being mentioned by the EO contributors. Are they a different wing of EO, or do they just avoid such controversial subjects in their writings?

Thanks for any imput. Just curious.

 

[RamistThomist]

I've really enjoyed reading Touchstone Magazine regularly. It seems intelligent and thoughtful and far more aware of what is happening spiritually in the world than a lot of Christians I know. I don't recall any of this weird stuff ever being mentioned by the EO contributors. Are they a different wing of EO, or do they just avoid such controversial subjects in their writings?

Thanks for any imput. Just curious.

Many of them are very well-educated and very good writers. They also avoid the particulars of liturgy, mariology, etc. for obvious reasons: it doesn't mesh with common front culture stuff.

 

[arapahoepark]

with some "Crossroads Church" in the 'burbs and claim that the latter is typical worship in Reformation-heritage churches.

It's funny how Crossroads does seem to a common megachurch name...

 

[RamistThomist]

It's funny how Crossroads does seem to a common megachurch name...

https://twitter.com/ChurchPlantBot

 

[Brian T]

Hart represents a split in EO intellectuals. He is a social liberal and all of the liberals at Fordham love him. Yes, Wright destroyed him on bible translations.

After having become orthodox and thinking that I was in some "based" traditional church, it was rather odd then suddenly coming across the likes of Hart, Hopko (who, incidentally, was Alexander Schmemann's son-in-law), Frederica Matthews Green, and a few others who were preaching social liberalism, universalism, and ecumenism (in the bad sense).

I remember once seeing a talk by Green: I thought I was watching Mia Farrow going on about how God was nothing but LOVE and that all that Western stuff about atonement and punishment was all rotten and wrong and that God saves EVERYONE because HE'S PURE LOVE man!!!

Ugh.

 

[Relztrah]

Interesting thread. This article may have been linked previously. I find it a concise, clear Reformed response to the allure of EO.

 

[RamistThomist]

There is a blog called Reformed Ninja. The author there wrote a great response to Josiah Trenham. I can't access it on this server.

 

[Brian T]

Interesting thread. This article may have been linked previously. I find it a concise, clear Reformed response to the allure of EO.

That was really good, thanks for posting that link! There needs to be more articles like that out there so that fewer people end up falling for EO as I once did.

I found myself going "yep, that's exactly what I was told!" more than a few times while reading it.

One of the things that the article touched upon that I think deserves some emphasis is that the EO have an idea of "conciliar infallibility", which many of them freely admit is their analog to Papal infallibility. As a result, they are forced to posit a view that all of these ecumenical councils were the meetings of sage, wise and saintly bishops who were gathering for purely spiritual and doctrinal reasons and were thus as pure as the wind-driven snow.

Anyone who actually looks at the real history...whelp, there's another EO fantasy that evaporates on contact with reality. Finding out about the personal and political shenanigans around their favorite ecumenical council, the 7th where the veneration of icons was made obligatory, was a real eye-opener. The EO won't mention that 33 years prior, there was another council that was considered the 7th EC at the time, where icons were anathematized (and which had the largest attendance of bishops since Chalcedon).

What happened? Emperor Constantine V wanted icons out of the churches....so that council ruled that way in 754. Icons were such a controversial, hot-button issue (contra EO claims that the entire Church had been venerating them since 33 A.D. when Luke himself was cranking out icons of the Theotokos) that they were literally causing political instability on the ground. Best to rid the church of them, in Constantine V's opinion. And thus, it was so decided.

Then, 33 years later after Constantine V had been dead and Empress Irene was running things, she wanted icons back in the churches. So, in 787, she calls another ecumenical council to erase the original 7th council. And to really, really make sure that everyone knew that she meant it, she not only wanted them to be brought back, but she also wanted their "veneration" obligatory.

This council, and the one before it, were driven largely by the personal and political desires of emperors and empresses when it came to the question of icons. And this is not the only council where there were these sorts of shenanigans.

So much for conciliar infallibility.

And it's also funny to hear EO's like Trenham talk about the infallible "canons" produced by the councils.

Um, there are canons stating that if a Christian attends a theater or a house of gambling, he is immediately excommunicated. Pretty sure there wouldn't be any EO's today if they actually abided by those "infallible canons."

 

[retroGRAD3]

There is a blog called Reformed Ninja. The author there wrote a great response to Josiah Trenham. I can't access it on this server.

This one: https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/?

 

[RamistThomist]

This one: https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/?

Yes. I haven't checked it in a month or so, but it did have some good resources on EO a while back.

 

[Brian T]

This one: https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/?

Oh wow.

That's Joshua Schooping.

Joshua Schooping was an American convert to EO and became a Russian Orthodox Priest and was trained at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary.

He wrote a few books while he was still in EO, one of which I read in October 2020 and was the first major crack in the facade of EO for me (and a couple others in my former EO circle): An Existential Soteriology: Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Light of the Mystical Theology of the Church Fathers.

He argued that the EO are making a big mistake in their near universal rejection of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, as it is clearly a biblical doctrine, and numerous Church Fathers as early as Athanasius clearly believed in it. Once I read that book, I started to realize that much of what I was being told just wasn't true, i.e., no, sorry EO's, PSA was NOT a Western heresy invented by Anselm!

I did hear that he left EO sometime in the middle of 2021....good for him.

 

[Brian T]

There is a blog called Reformed Ninja. The author there wrote a great response to Josiah Trenham. I can't access it on this server.

Rock and Sand was considered the absolute REFUTATION of everything "Reformation" by all the EO's in my former circle.

I revisited it recently.

"Weak" is an understatement. Looking forward to reading Schooping's critique.

And when I read it, I just had to say to myself: I highly doubt this guy studied under R.C. Sproul, let alone being his TOP STUDENT!!, as everyone in EO claims. I just don't see how that's the case after having revisited Rock and Sand.

I also don't see how that's the case, in retrospect, when I reflect back on a story he told about how he once lost $800 cash one day when walking out of his bank.

Lost money!?!?

What's an EO to do?

Of course!!! Get out your icon of St. Phanourios and pray for his intercession and he'll get your lost money back! Guaranteed!!

But wait....there's more!!

After the prayers of intercession, you also have to make St. Phanourios a bread offering, so next thing you know, Josiah's in the kitchen baking a loaf of bread to present to the icon. It's obligatory! That missing money won't show up without that bread!! Josiah literally said this.

Um, I think making a bread offering to an image is like textbook idolatry. I mean, it's one thing for an EO to be literally kissing an icon of St. George and folding like a cheap suit before it and then hiding behind the "latreia/doulia" distinction if they're confronted about their behavior. But a literal bread offering? Kinda hard to get around the fact that you are worshipping at that point. It's also noteworthy that this is exactly how pagans interacted with their gods. Make a "deposit" to a pagan idol in exchange for a "favor" from the pagan idol. Yep, that's what Trenham is doing here.

Hey, at least he got his $800 back. And he went on to claim that this shows how EO is the ONE TRUE CHURCH!

I was fresh to EO when I heard him tell that story, and it was one of those things where we all nodded our heads going "yeah, man! EO is so cool! Our icons do magick stuff!! Trenham's right!! We really ARE the ONE TRUE CHURCH!!"

Now I am like screaming IDOLATRY at the top of my lungs.

 

[Brian T]

There is a blog called Reformed Ninja. The author there wrote a great response to Josiah Trenham. I can't access it on this server.

You weren't kidding. He is eviscerating Rock and Sand.

I got about halfway through before realizing that I am supposed to be working.

One thing I gotta say: good thing Trenham is in the Antiochian church. If he were a ROCOR priest right now, I guess he would have to throw the Greek and Alexandrian churches into the same "outside of the Church" basket along with Rome and the Protestants.

What a silly ecclesiology....

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Anyone who actually looks at the real history...whelp, there's another EO fantasy that evaporates on contact with reality. Finding out about the personal and political shenanigans around their favorite ecumenical council, the 7th where the veneration of icons was made obligatory, was a real eye-opener. The EO won't mention that 33 years prior, there was another council that was considered the 7th EC at the time, where icons were anathematized (and which had the largest attendance of bishops since Chalcedon).

I consider the ”1st seventh council” in 754 as true and the “second seventh council” in 787 as the robber council. I think history and facts bear this out. The iconoclast council in 754 should be recognized as Chalcedon II.

( I also tend to view Dort as the 8th council. )

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

One thing I gotta say: good thing Trenham is in the Antiochian church. If he were a ROCOR priest right now, I guess he would have to throw the Greek and Alexandrian churches into the same "outside of the Church" basket along with Rome and the Protestants.

EO “jurisdictions” are as much denominations as ours are (and Romanist orders!)

• Greek = mainline
• Antiochian = evangelical
• Russian = fundamentalist

They make a huge deal about organizational unity, but I’d say I have more unity with my Continental Reformed, Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, nondenominational, and other brethren I’m not organizationally bound to than the average Romanist or EO has with one they only have an “on paper” union with.

 

[Brian T]

I consider the ”1st seventh council” in 754 as true and the “second seventh council” in 787 as the robber council. I think history and facts bear this out. The iconoclast council in 754 should be recognized as Chalcedon II.

( I also tend to view Dort as the 8th council. )

I'd tend to agree, since they got it right the first time, as at least iconoclasm has biblical basis. Worshipping, er, I mean, "venerating" icons, certainly does not. And the arguments presented for icon worship at the 787 council were pretty lame, actually. TLDR: John of Damascus took words from Basil's work on the Holy Spirit completely out of context. When Basil is discussing image and prototype, he is discussing the Son and the Father and was not at all talking about anything remotely like images you pray to, kiss, offer incense, offer bread, and shove dollar bills into all because they're supposedly "windows to heaven."

When I would ask about the 754 council in my polemics with the EO's, they literally had no idea what I was talking about, so they ignored it. Then, continuing to press the issue, they came up with non-sensical, ad hoc rationalizations, then scurried away. They really are forced to defend their idea of conciliar infallibility, and these examples really undermine their position. Even they can implicitly see that, which is why they have to keep them at bay.

And it's not like this is the only one: we also can look at the two "eighth ecumenical councils", which, like the seventh, had a "do-over." And it's funny how Rome considers 8.0 legit, while Constantinople thinks 8.1 is the "real" eighth council.

I think the council that really wrecks them, though, is Ferrara Florence. I have a literal field day with them on that in polemics. I simply start it off with this:

"Ferrara Florence had all the characteristic traits of an Ecumenical Council and was the most representative, as far as its attendance is concerned, in the entire history of Christianity. Delegates from all the churches, including the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Metropolitan of Moscow, were present, not to mention the Byzantine Emperor."

That gets their blood boiling, and they immediately start hurling insults and venom at me.

Problem is (as I then point out to them): those aren't my words: that is a direct quote from Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, who, BTW, may be the next Russian Patriarch.

Then I hit them with this:

"At Ferrara Florence, the Emperor John VIII, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as representatives from the other Orthodox Churches, a formula of union was drawn up, covering the Filioque, Purgatory, azymes, and the Papal claims; and this was signed by all the Orthodox present at the council except one. Thus, in matters of doctrine, the Orthodox accepted the Papal claims...the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit...and the Roman teaching on Purgatory."

^ that is a quote Bishop Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, pp. 70-71.

At this point, they're out of control.

Then I hit them with the punchline. You guys accepted it, it literally was a textbook ecumenical council, but a bunch of monks, priests, and laity in Constantinople went "BOOOO! We would rather be under the Turkish turban than the Roman tiara!!" and started to riot. Well, God granted them that wish. And on Pentecost 1453, their crown jewel Constantinople gets absolutely WRECKED by Muslims. Getting wrecked on Pentecost is a really bad sign BTW!! And, ever since, the eastern church has been largely reduced to ethno-centric, state-run churches, constantly under the thumb of and threatened by Muslims and communists.

 

[Brian T]

EO “jurisdictions” are as much denominations as ours are (and Romanist orders!)

• Greek = mainline
• Antiochian = evangelical
• Russian = fundamentalist

They make a huge deal about organizational unity, but I’d say I have more unity with my Continental Reformed, Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican, nondenominational, and other brethren I’m not organizationally bound to than the average Romanist or EO has with one they only have an “on paper” union with.

I'm sure we've all heard their usual canard that they love to hurl at us:

"We're the ONE TRUE CHURCH while you guys are fractured into 50,000 denominations, heh, heh..."

Um yeah, at least in many of those so-called "50,000 denominations", the Gospel is being preached and people in them aren't worshipping pictures, dead body parts, and praying to Mary, the saints, and the dead. And the fact that the Moscow church has now broken communion with the Greek and Alexandrian churches over the purely geopolitical issue of Ukraine, only shows what a joke their organizational unity is. And those schisms are only going to get worse moving forward.

 

[Phil D.]

"At Ferrara Florence, the Emperor John VIII, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as representatives from the other Orthodox Churches, a formula of union was drawn up, covering the Filioque, Purgatory, azymes, and the Papal claims; and this was signed by all the Orthodox present at the council except one. Thus, in matters of doctrine, the Orthodox accepted the Papal claims...the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit...and the Roman teaching on Purgatory."

Ferrara Florence really underscores the political pragmatism that so often motivates the EO - "the Saracens are threatening to overrun Constantinople, so let's sacrifice our most cherished theological distinctives to curry favor with the militarily more powerful Western church-state."

 

[Brian T]

Ferrara Florence really underscores the political pragmatism that often motivates the EO - "the Saracens are threatening to overrun Constantinople, so let's sacrifice our most cherished theological doctrines to curry favor with the militarily more powerful Western church-state."

Indeed. And that really is why they agreed. It was all about politics. And it made sense to do so. Emperor John knew that, unless they reconciled with the West pronto, their days were very short. You can practically hear them screaming "WE AGREE!! WHERE DO I SIGN!?!"

They HAD to do so in order to survive, so they were all champing at the bit to get 'er done!!

 

[Phil D.]

They HAD to do so in order to survive, so they were all champing at the bit to get 'er done!!

But of course it ultimately did them no good, as the agreement reached with the RCC by the politically-stacked participants at the council were rejected by more conservative EO elements. Constantinople fell fourteen years later...

 

[Brian T]

But of course it ultimately did them no good, as the agreement reached with the RCC by the political-stacked participants at the council were rejected by more conservative EO elements. Constantinople fell four years later...

Yes sir! No good indeed. And, going back to Bishop Ware, he also admits that one of the many consequences of the fall of Constantinople was that there would now be “a sad confusion between Orthodoxy and nationalism . . . the effects of this confusion continue to the present day." The Orthodox Church, p. 98.

Not to mention, the Caesaropapism that was endemic to Constantinople for all those centuries then made its way to Moscow, where, by the time of Peter the Great, the Russian "church" practically becomes an extension of the Russian regime. And it would remain this way until....um, actually, I don't know if it ever ceased, considering that the Russian patriarch (Alexy II) who preceded the current one (Kyrill), was a literal KGB agent.

 

[Phil D.]

In all fairness, of course, it must be said there have been many compromising political shenanigans throughout the history of the Western churches as well......

 

[Brian T]

In all fairness, of course, it must be there have been many compromising political shenanigans throughout the history of the Western churches as well......

Absolutely! At the same time, though, it is interesting to ponder why Caesaropapism was particularly endemic in the East and how quickly and effortlessly the various states took control of their eastern churches and made them extensions of their regimes. Somewhat simplistically, in the West there seemed to be the idea (at the height of the Papacy at least), that the Pope was above it all, kings and emperors included. It's literally the opposite in the East, where the emperor considers everything as being beneath him, including the church, and oh so many of those emperors sitting in Constantinople thought it was their right to oversee and interfere in the church's affairs.

Well, then again, when your ecclesiology isn't biblical, all sorts of degenerate stuff will happen.

 

[Rome2Geneva]

Great thread and great points made. I converted to the EO several years ago and stayed for a couple years before finally going Reformed. I had come to the conclusion that Rome was false and that the "true Church" must be the Orthodox church.

The positives:
Russian Orthodox polyphony is without a doubt the most beautiful liturgical music I have ever heard. I'm not ashamed to admit that.
Many Orthodox Christians have a real zeal and love for God, but not according to knowledge.
I love the "Christus Victor" emphasis of Orthodox soteriology. This is most obvious during the Pascha service. Although since they reject PSA and original sin their doctrine is not only unbalanced but aberrant.

Negatives:
A very confusing doctrine of the Atonement. Since they completely reject Augustinianism and PSA I was often left wondering what exactly Christ did on the cross. I was told he "conquered death." True enough, but how does that satisfy the requirements of the Law? How do the Temple sacrifices make any sense as a foreshadowing since this doctrine of PSA, imputed sin/righteousness is clearly set forth in the Old Testament?

A complete fusing of the ideas of Justification and Sanctification. In fact, Justification is a dirty word in Orthodox circles. We are justified and sanctified simultaneously by degrees. This of course leads to a works salvation system.

A hatred for anything "Western". Augustine is barely tolerated and is often stripped of the title "saint" and replaced with "blessed"

Habitual breaking of the Second Commandment. The constant kissing, prostrating and wafting of incense towards icons is either idolatry or the term has lost all meaning. Icon veneration is an absolute essential of Orthodox worship.

A closed exclusive club in the more ethnic churches such as ROCOR and a bunch of inbalanced Larpers in convert parishes. What do I mean by this? I knew several anglo-American converts to Orthodoxy who would take fake names like Theophilus or Lazarus, grow a beard, learn Russian and start wearing prayer ropes around their wrists 24/7.

Lots of liberals. Despite the "ancient" worship and conservative theology, most American Orthodox parishes are filled with political and social liberals. I was stunned the first time I went to an Orthodox church and saw the number of Obama bumper stickers. This includes the priests as well.

 

[RamistThomist]

True enough, but how does that satisfy the requirements of the Law? How do the Temple sacrifices make any sense as a foreshadowing since this doctrine of PSA

Bingo. I noticed that same thing. I think I made that point in a review I did of Charles Hodge, now that I recall.

 

[Brian T]

Great thread and great points made. I converted to the EO several years ago and stayed for a couple years before finally going Reformed. I had come to the conclusion that Rome was false and that the "true Church" must be the Orthodox church.

The positives:
Russian Orthodox polyphony is without a doubt the most beautiful liturgical music I have ever heard. I'm not ashamed to admit that.
Many Orthodox Christians have a real zeal and love for God, but not according to knowledge.
I love the "Christus Victor" emphasis of Orthodox soteriology. This is most obvious during the Pascha service. Although since they reject PSA and original sin their doctrine is not only unbalanced but aberrant.

Negatives:
A very confusing doctrine of the Atonement. Since they completely reject Augustinianism and PSA I was often left wondering what exactly Christ did on the cross. I was told he "conquered death." True enough, but how does that satisfy the requirements of the Law? How do the Temple sacrifices make any sense as a foreshadowing since this doctrine of PSA, imputed sin/righteousness is clearly set forth in the Old Testament?

A complete fusing of the ideas of Justification and Sanctification. In fact, Justification is a dirty word in Orthodox circles. We are justified and sanctified simultaneously by degrees. This of course leads to a works salvation system.

A hatred for anything "Western". Augustine is barely tolerated and is often stripped of the title "saint" and replaced with "blessed"

Habitual breaking of the Second Commandment. The constant kissing, prostrating and wafting of incense towards icons is either idolatry or the term has lost all meaning. Icon veneration is an absolute essential of Orthodox worship.

A closed exclusive club in the more ethnic churches such as ROCOR and a bunch of inbalanced Larpers in convert parishes. What do I mean by this? I knew several anglo-American converts to Orthodoxy who would take fake names like Theophilus or Lazarus, grow a beard, learn Russian and start wearing prayer ropes around their wrists 24/7.

Lots of liberals. Despite the "ancient" worship and conservative theology, most American Orthodox parishes are filled with political and social liberals. I was stunned the first time I went to an Orthodox church and saw the number of Obama bumper stickers. This includes the priests as well.

^ Solid gold here. This is pretty much exactly what I saw in the few years I spent in EO as well. Couple of points to amplify:

Their rejection of penal substitutionary atonement was probably decisive for my seeing that something was seriously wrong over there. They vociferously deny PSA and insist on Sola Christus Victor, claiming that Christ did a victory dance over death and that's all He did on the Cross, and that's how you're supposed to understand it.

Certainly, Christus Victor is an aspect of what Christ did on the Cross, but, without PSA, their understanding of the Cross makes no sense. And, as you alluded to, then what about all the OT sacrifices? What were they all about? What was even the point? And what about Christ's own suffering on the Cross? What was that all about? If He is not taking punishment, then all that suffering would be a cruel and arbitrary happenstance that accomplishes nothing.

After finally realizing that PSA was NOT a "Western heresy invented by Anselm" and as I started drifting away and started moving toward the Reformed tradition, once I started seeing what they were offering (PSA, justification, sanctification, covenant theology), suddenly, all of Scripture fell into place for me and finally made sense from Genesis to Revelation, seeing the organic whole as the entire sweep of redemptive history. And from there I finally began to appreciate and love God's Word. And looking back on that, I came to see why the EO's in my former circle were wholly ignorant of Scripture. It was an afterthought for them, at best. Serious Bible reading and study was frowned upon as something "those Westerners do!" Just go to liturgy, that's all the "theology" you need. I was literally told that hundreds of times. Expository preaching was non-existent. I suspected that even my priests were pretty much ignorant of Scripture as well.

Now I see why, because those, like myself, who actually bothered to take Scripture seriously enough to actually study it and try to learn from it...ended up leaving. I mean, seriously!

How could one not read Romans and Galatians and still remain EO?

How could one read the book of Hebrews and then not see that the EO have done exactly what the author of Hebrews warned against: going back to the old ways of sacrifices and priesthood that Christ made obsolete? Not only do the EO bring back priests and their sacrifices, right down to the lamb being a loaf of bread being cut with a spear by the priest before the epiklesis, but they also made it a point that their church architecture be patterned along the lines of the Temple.

Why on earth would you do that on this side of the Cross???

How could one not read the Pastoral Epistles and not see that the model of church polity in them in no way, shape, or form resembles ANYTHING like their model, which they INSIST, however, was what "the Church" was like from the moment of Pentecost?

The Bible pretty much wrecks much of what EO believes and practices, and I can see why their Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 forbade reading the Scriptures "in the vulgar tongue" and that you had to be "properly trained and authorized" before being allowed to do so. Look what happens when people actually start to read it!

 

[Brian T]

A hatred for anything "Western". Augustine is barely tolerated and is often stripped of the title "saint" and replaced with "blessed"

So much of EO today (in the States) boils down to this: whatever's associated with the West (PSA, preaching the Word, Augustine, Ambrose, reading the Bible) we reject, so as to make ourselves a unique flavor of Christianity. It's EASTERN!!! (And, by no coincidence, a lot of eastern pagan idolatry is on offer as well, from Toll Houses to hesychasm!) I knew more than a few who used to really be into all the "eastern stuff" (yoga, Zen Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation) who then became EO and took to it like a fish to water (initially, at least). Now it's easy to see why they did so.

Most loathe Augustine. I remember Bishop Jonah Paffhausen once saying that "Augustine would have been declared a heretic had he written in Greek!" I have a book around here somewhere by Sergius Bowyer who dismisses Augustine because he didn't "understand the doctrine of the uncreated divine energies" and that he had a horribly negative view (i.e., total depravity) of human nature. That's not true! We're not that bad! We can attain holiness, contra Augustine, through our own efforts with proper spiritual practices that will enable us to "attain the uncreated light!!" And this is also why PSA is not necessary at all, because Christ overcame death for us on the Cross, reinfusing the human nature with the "divine energies" so that now we can synergistically attain holiness all on our own...or something like that. Like almost all of "eastern orthodox theology", there's nary a single Scriptural reference. None. Instead, it's a whole lot of mystical-metaphysical speculation peppered with quotes from Pseudo Dionysius and some more quotes from Maximus Confessor taken out of context. It's all very....gnostic.

It's also very telling how their rejection of PSA and their talk of how humans aren't really THAT bad...is no different from what all the modernists and liberals have been selling for the past two centuries. These EO's would feel right at home with the likes of Harry Emerson Fosdick. And give it time...as you alluded to, many orthodox parishes are already pretty liberal. The only ones that aren't are the Slavic ones, but their conservatism is basely solely on their culture. They're "BASED Russians!" It's certainly not based on anything Scriptural or confessional.