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. :)
Well said. :)