I don't know...Fr. Seraphim Rose thought they were a "big deal." As long as there are Orthodox believers who observe these kinds of traditions, things like this will be an issue, and when I say "these kinds of traditions," I don't mean it derogatorily.
Another issue would be the distinction between God and his "energies" and what the Hesychast claimed they saw as "the uncreated light of Tabor." Again, I find all that fascinating--raised eyebrow--and I make no negative judgment about it; I think that there's remarkable agreement between Eastern and Western contemplatives. Yet, the terminology needs more refinement.
And speaking of Orthodox Traditionalists, there's the case of the Old Calendarist and their ethos; they're more influential in Orthodoxy than the Tridentine Traditionalists in the Roman Catholicism. As far as I can tell, there's a lack or an unwillingness on the part of canonical Orthodoxs to engage them in any meaningful way.
The fracture line is obvious for me to see. Like their Latin counterparts, the Orthodox Traditionalists are awaiting for the rest of the Church to reconcile with them; to agree with their worldview may mean getting ready to pay some tolls here, for clerics to be mandated to wear long hair and beards, to take the pews out of the churches--which I think is kind of cool--and for women to yield their places in line to men.
But this is only external details. What's the inner values, the worldview that would be assumed if the Traditionalists are recognized as the true bearers of Orthodoxy? What attitudes would derive from this?
Push them away, and then, what would be the cost for World Orthodoxy?
My friend, not everything is sweetness and light in Orthodoxy. The questions facing you are as tough as the one facing us: Who are we? What are we? Where's the Royal Path? Who are the extremes? Where and when will Love triumph?
-Theo
"I don't know...Fr. Seraphim Rose thought they were a "big deal."
Yeah, I know he said that, and I mean that derogatorily.
"Another issue would be the distinction between God and his "energies" and what the Hesychast claimed they saw as "the uncreated light of Tabor." Again, I find all that fascinating--raised eyebrow--and I make no negative judgment about it; I think that there's remarkable agreement between Eastern and Western contemplatives. Yet, the terminology needs more refinement."
Why?
"And speaking of Orthodox Traditionalists, there's the case of the Old Calendarist and their ethos; they're more influential in Orthodoxy than the Tridentine Traditionalists in the Roman Catholicism."
They are? Where?
"As far as I can tell, there's a lack or an unwillingness on the part of canonical Orthodoxs to engage them in any meaningful way."
You are right. They are not canonical group. Why should we "engage" with them?
" to agree with their worldview may mean getting ready to pay some tolls here"
Again I ask, why? One could say the same thing about Protestant ecclesial assemnlies and I would respond with the same why.
"What's the inner values, the worldview that would be assumed if the Traditionalists are recognized as the true bearers of Orthodoxy?"
If you mean those groups which go by variations of "The One True Holy Honest to God Orthodox Church", you'd end up with a heretical Christian type Taliban. But they are a tiny, tiny group. It won't happen.
"Push them away, and then, what would be the cost for World Orthodoxy?"
Nothing. Its been done.
"My friend, not everything is sweetness and light in Orthodoxy."
True enough.
"The questions facing you are as tough as the one facing us: Who are we? What are we? Where's the Royal Path? Who are the extremes? Where and when will Love triumph?"
You're kidding, right?