Especially when it comes to St. Gregory Palamas. Even if someone is not a fan of Fr. John Romanides, it is an interesting exercise to read Fr. Meyendorf on Palamas, and then read Fr. Romanides' two devastating review-essays that were published originally in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review (Holy Cross Seminary). A major difference between Meyendorf and Romanides is that the former was educated in the cerebral Paris school and had little or no contact with real monasticism, whereas the latter always remained connected with Greek monastic life.
I certainly am in no position to pass judgment on either scholar, rank amateur that I am, but Fr. Romanides seems to "get" St. Gregory and the thinking of the Greek monastic tradition:
THE KEEPER OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN
I would also draw attention to a couple of quotations:
Because she became the mother of Christ, when she gave her flesh to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity to become incarnate, therefore, on the one hand she is a holy of all that is holy, above all the saints, and on the other hand she gives gifts to the saints, since she is the treasurer of the wealth of the goodness of the Lord. On this point St. Gregory Palamas is astonishing.
... this happens because the Theotokos is united with God, because the Logos Christ, who received human flesh from her, gave her great glory. Therefore all who recognise the glory of God and all who partake of the glory of God will also partake of and know the glory of the Theotokos. St. Gregory writes: " All who partake of God partake through her, and all who know God will recognise her as a place of the infinite, and all who praise God will praise her with God".
St. Gregory's love for the Panagia came from his personal partaking of the Grace of God, as he felt gratitude for her who was the cause of Grace, and from the deep feeling that he was living in her 'Garden' on the Holy Mountain and was its citizen. As a Hagiorite [i.e. an Athonite monastic] he cherished great reverence and love for the Panagia. He regarded her as his patron and benefactress. He received rich gifts from her. For she is "the summit and completion of every saint".
I think that the thing to take away from all of this is that Orthodox ways of talking about the Panagia are intimately tied up with the overall spiritual life in Christ. To the extent that one directly experiences the energies of God, one tends to be overwhelmed by the significance of what the Theotokos made possible, and overwhelmed with love, almost beyond words, for her. St. Gregory had dwelt in the uncreated light of God himself -- this was possible because of the Theotokos, who was the instrument of the Incarnation and the summit of the hesychastic life. He loved her more than any man could love his earthly mother -- and why wouldn't he?
For the God-seeing fathers who composed our services which wax so eloquent, the same is true. They love her beyond words, and can hardly reach high enough in their reaching for words to describe this love and the wonder of it all.
The poetic heights of praise and love that the Orthodox services pour out to the Theotokos are moving beyond belief. They are not meant to be dissected, historically analyzed, critiqued, or even dogmatized and systematized -- but prayed and experienced.
I remember the first time I chanted the complete Paraklesis service. I still burn within my chest at the memory, my heart wants to burst just thinking about it. This isn't systematic theology -- it is love: her for us, us for her, Christ for his mother and for us, the Holy Spirit permeating all, the Father the ultimate source of all love.
It is possible that St. Gregory waxed too eloquent and went too far in his words (although I'm not at all convinced that he did) -- but if he did, it was because he had seen God.
Or on the other hand, one can simply take the references made, go to a good seminary library, and look up the sermons themselves and read them.
St. Gregory Palamas was not given over to making mountains of words without meaning. When he spoke as he did, it is simple enough to take the meaning of the words and sentences as literally written, rather than attempting to search for hidden intent behind otherwise intelligible thoughts that is contrary to the literal meaning of what he said. Certainly it is valid to ask, to what purpose does a Saintly Bishop give a discourse to his simple flock where he confuses them with concepts far above their level of education and faith?