Deconstructing Kalomiros

I read the first chapter and some of the rest of
Kalomiros' "On False Union." I cut and pasted the first chapter
and put in my annotations about his errors. Clearly, his and
Khomiakov's concepts of the Church revolves more around
externals than Christ. There is a vituperation that is applauded
by his iconographer friend as indicative of love of truth, but the
level of falsehood that is at issue is so much less than what
drew such reactions in earlier times, that it seems ill placed.

The more I read, the more I want to vomit. There is such an
intertwining of truth and lies in his analyses, and in his concerns
about the Calendar, he misses the Paschal issue and sees only
the entirety of the liturgical calendar. Tradition and tradition
he sees no difference in.

The error of rejecting Atonement is found in ecumenist and
anti ecumenist people, as is Kalomiros' related rejection of
hell as real and rejection of God's justice.

It seems that those who focus on shared liturgical actions
are amenable to heresies that are closer to the core, and those
who fear justice and want only bland love seeming stuff, and
like Orthodox externals regardless of ecumenism or not, like
the denial of hell. Indeed, the denial of God's wrath and justice,
starting with a rejection of the Atonement, logically play out in
Kalomiros' River of Fire heresy.

The idea that God's justice bespeaks hatefilledness on God's
part, is a blasphemous parody of the Atonement doctrine,
clearly God's love makes the call, because He did not leave
us to disintegrate on our own, both out of love for His
Creation and pity for us, He in the Person of Jesus the
Second Person of The Trinity Who is One God in Three
Persons stepped in and became human and suffered in our
place what we deserve so we can become children of God,
and while dead crippled the devil and conquered hell and
death and then came back to life, never to die again.

The allergy to the idea of God's justice often takes the
form of some warped version of atonement that doesn't
even resemble the doctrine. Or ideas like, a wronged
person comes to a judge seeking justice, and the judge
lets the evil doer go free and punishes a whipping boy.
No, the judge and the plaintiff are the same, the judge
takes the punishment due to the one who offended Him,
and gives the penitent offender another chance.