He used "theology." He first introduced a slight alteration in theology which, once it was accepted, he managed to increase more and more to the degree that Christianity became completely unrecognizable...Did you ever try to pinpoint what is the principal characteristic of Western [Protestant] theology? Well, its principal characteristic is that it considers God as the real cause of all evil."
Why did you add that bracket, Kosta? Here is the sentence that follows:
"What is evil? Is it not the estrangement from God Who is Life?1 Is it not death? What does Western theology teach about death? All Roman Catholics and most Protestants consider death as a punishment from God." [emphasis mine]
Whatever Kalomiros had to say about Protestants, he said the same or worse about Roman Catholics. All Roman Catholics??? Where I come from, that quantifier has a precise, logical meaning. In fact, he was attacking Western Christianity in general, not just Protestants*. Kalomiros had some great things to say--taken straight from the Fathers--about the fire of God's unconditional love, so it's a shame that he turned his address into a broad, over-generalized screed against the entire West because that made it almost unpalatable.
Incidentally, I had found Kalomiros' River of Fire on the same site where I found C.S. Lewis' Introduction to +Athanasius. One of life's little coincidences, I suppose...
I think this goes back to the point that MD keeps making about trying to understand where we're all coming from and being precise** about what it is we're arguing for or against so that we really understand our similarities and differences before launching into invectives. These threads on the Religion Forum tend to turn into one giant and prolonged game of "Gotcha!" and this same "game" is played over and over and over, with no progress in sight. I am guilty of the same, and so I ask anyone who happens to read this for forgiveness for my own lack of charity and patience.
* The term "Protestant" is itself often used vaguely and imprecisely, especially on this thread. "Protestant" is not a religion (except perhaps for those who make an idol of their rejection of Rome's claims); it is simply the name for Western Christians who are not in communion with Rome.
** On a side note, MD, this is why I insisted a while back that--in this sense--precision is necessary for accuracy.
Kalomiros, like Fr. Romanides of eternal memory, reflect a particularly “in your face” sort of Orthodoxy that irenicists and ecumenists especially find off putting. That said, they argue nothing which is not generally held in Orthodoxy. Their theology is, as you have observed with Prof. Kalomiros, patristic and as such theological contrasts of greater, as with Protestants, or lesser, as with Latins, degrees are drawn. That's really no big deal and doesn't call for the sort of commentary you find disturbing. What that commentary does do, and no one in the modern era does it better than Fr. John or Prof. Kalomiros, is demonstrate the truly profound difference between an Orthodox phronema or mindset and that of all the Western churches and ecclesial groups. For the Western Christian, a reading of the writings of those men will lead one to the interesting notion that Anglicanism and possibly Lutheranism are actually closer in mindset to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism. Certainly observation of the course of converts from those three to Orthodoxy seems to bear this out which is fascinating in and of itself since the theology of Rome and the theology of Orthodoxy are virtually identical, certainly far more so than that of Orthodoxy with those of Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Maybe this is a demonstration of how ecclesiology can drive phronema and how even a seemingly tiny theological difference can have major ecclesiological consequences.
Personally, I think your finding The River of Fire next to Lewis’ magnificent introduction to “On the Incarnation” is a coincidence of the “delicious” kind. :)
Because the RCC has made great strides in returning to its patristic roots since Dr. Kalomiros' 1970's address. The same cannot be said of the Protestant part of Western Christianity. What he wrote then still applies to various Protetsant sects.