a couple thoughts on the ochlophobist.

[the link above is due to the "your dog (cat) can't actually love you" t-shirt ideas] I don't have the resources to engage in a full exposition of my thoughts on the ochlophobist's four pieces, especially as my thoughts aren't fully exposited. So I will present a short list of points or questions that I might think about later and invite interested and informed readers to comment on them.

• I'm curious about the monasticization of the clerical ranks and the clericization of monasticism in the West and how it relates to what the o.phobe is saying, esp. as the former occurred to some extent in the East as well. For instance, St. John of Kronstadt is pretty much the first Russian married saint who wasn't a martyr [find another and I owe you a Coke]. And he was celibate!
• When the local parishes and communities have connections to the monasteries and the monasteries have connections to the community, I do not think the criticism of a separation between the elite vs. the masses in re monasteries vs. parishes has much purchase. Keeping in mind the many imperfections of Tsarist Russia in the periods most relevant to the uberfromm critique [keyboard set up for French, not German, so no umlauts], at least then monasteries were ubiquitous and would have regular enough contact with the lives of the hoi polloi that I have a hard time swallowing his accusation of gnosticism, though my interpretations [or even knowledge] of history on this point could be woefully inadequate.
• The accusation becomes salient, however, with the industrialization [though there are many urban monasteries even in the Eastern tradition, monasticism is a mostly agrarian phenomenon], the Revolution, and the diaspora. In America, there were almost no monasteries until quite recently and the American way of life combined with the Orthodox population density certainly would not afford many opportunities for the interpenetration of villages with monastic communities as in the Old Country. Hence Schmemann's comments about the falsity of modern monks, Evdokimov's criticisms of modern asceticism and the need for a new monasticism, St. Maria Skobstova's attempts at a new way, and [slightly different, but related to clericalism] Lossky's refusal to be ordained as a testimony to the possibility of a layman being a real theologian.
• Suppose one grants for the moment that Überfrömmigkeit exists as a phenomenon of the same sort as consumerism and that it is satanic. Is it true that it is indeed as widespread as the o.phobist claims it is? Or as big a deal as he claims it is? There are plenty of modern satanic delusions which the Church will pay for in the end and even more sins. Each one is grave, certainly, and we should work by the grace of God to overcome them all, but I'm not seeing how knowledge of this particular phenomenon [as opposed to other popularly-analyzed phenomenon such as "convertitis" or other criticisms of modern Orthodox praxis such as those by Schmemann or Hopko] would have much of an effect on what I am supposed to be doing. Fine. I'm uberfromm to some extent because of my participation in modern forms of Orthodox piety. Mea culpa. Now I'm going to listen to Benoît XVI discuss antitheologies of death and Schmemann's discussion of similar issues and consider how I've swallowed modern American lies about what man is and forget about Überfrömmigkeit 'cause I've got bigger fish to fry.

My main issue is really that his reading of history is considerably more radical than, say, Meyendorff's, and while I'm willing to accept Meyendorff's reading tentatively despite my vast ignorance, I tend to avoid controversial readings of subjects I'm not well-versed in. I'd rather just read about 5th century French monasticism some more its influence on parish life or some other completely irrelevant junk.