Many of my posts have been critical to claims made by Orthodox apologists, and one apologist told me “I do protest too much” (though no one bothers to tell the guys at OrthodoxBridge the same thing. Most of their posts are about how wrong Protestants are. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). I don’t want to sound like one always harping on the same thing, so I decided to say something nice. (Unfortunately, I realize some of the people I mention are associated with groups that will embarrass mainline Orthodoxy. Too bad for mainline then. It’s hard to see Tsar Lazar or anyone predating the Nikonian Revolution–and it, along with the later “reforms” by Masonic Satanist Peter the Great was a Revolution as thorough as the Bolsheviks’–would be appreciated by World Orthodoxy. See if you can dig up Fr Raphael Johnson’s essay on the Serbian leadership’s de facto, but not de jure, recognition of Kosovo)
- Joseph P Farrell: I know Farrell is no longer Orthodox, but still. One can only stand in awe of his research. He is a remarkably clear thinker and he teaches you to reason your way through a topic.
- Orthodox Nationalist: I listened to Fr Matt Johnson every week for three years. He does a good job summarizing different aims of the New World Order and he is remarkably good on exposing the occult and freemasonry. I bring up on Orthodox boards how different mainline Orthodox (former SCOBA and the non-American equivalents) groups are openly affiliated with Freemasony and Ecumenism and no one will touch that issue.
- Sergius Bulgakov: Bulgakov’s Sophiology is dangerously close to Gnosticism and I understand why Maximovitch’s group condemned him. The problem is that few people in today’s Orthodoxy can say why Bulgakov is wrong (which is probably why yet another Russian Church council exonerated him–so who’s right? Don’t answer that). He is valuable in giving us an honest reading of the Fathers. A lot of times you will meet the claim that the Fathers are united in saying x. Bulgakov takes the Fathers on the development of Christology and Pneumatology and completely blows that claim out of the water. And that’s what I love about Bulgakov–he thinks through the tradition. I had a discussion with some Orthodox apologists I brought up tensions within Cyril’s Christology, and they responded, “Well, Cyril is part of the inspired tradition.” Maybe he is, but simply asserting that doesn’t make the problems go away.
- Fr Seraphim Rose: His biography is awe-inspiring, yet he is an embarrassment to World Orthodoxy. At a time when Orthodox thinkers wanted to show how relevant Orthodoxy was to the modern world, Fr Seraphim moved to the wilderness, resurrected Holy Russia on American soil, and loudly proclaimed a few key distinctives: six-day creationism and toll-houses! It was great. He then added insult to injury, albeit in a generous manner: he documented how the fathers believed in these topics. This unspoken inference is silent but deafening: any Orthodox thinker who disagreed with him on this points was specifically out of line from what the Fathers taught. Inference number two: if you find Fathers who disagree with Rose then you must also posit a division in the patrum consensus. I don’t agree with him on toll-houses (though CS Lewis taught something similar in The Screwtape Letters) and I am not as pro-Russia as I used to be, but it is interesting to watch the bourgeoisie hem and haw.