Eastern Orthodox Contradictions Of The Church Fathers

In another thread, Grano1 wrote:

"There is in fact an organic unity between the Orthodoxy of today and the Orthodoxy of the Patristic age -- it is a continuation of the same 'mind.' Which is why we Orthodox are so wary of innovations."

Steve Hays and others have already made some good points in response, such as here. I want to add to what they've said.

Grano1 cites Irenaeus as one of his examples, but Eastern Orthodoxy disagrees with Irenaeus' theology. Some of the most significant references to extra-Biblical tradition in the church fathers are found in book 5 of Irenaeus' treatise Against Heresies. Irenaeus, like many other early fathers, advocates a premillennial eschatology, and he appeals to earlier church tradition, including the teachings of disciples of the apostles, in support of it. Is Grano1 a premillennialist?

Does he agree with the widespread opposition to the veneration of images among the ante-Nicene fathers? If Eastern Orthodox "are so wary of innovations", then why do they so radically differ from the ante-Nicene fathers' view of the veneration of images?

What about praying to the deceased and angels? There are many passages on prayer in the church fathers, and the earliest fathers say nothing of praying to the deceased and angels. To the contrary, some refer to how Christians pray only to God, and praying to other beings is repeatedly condemned.

What about infant baptism? The earliest references to baptism discuss the practice as if only non-infants are involved, the earliest patristic source to explicitly discuss the subject (Tertullian) argues against baptizing infants, and other sources seem to have believed in baptizing only infants who were nearing death. It seems that infant baptism didn't arise until after the time of the apostles, and in at least some places infants were at first baptized only in cases of early death.

I could give other examples, but these are sufficient to make the point. Eastern Orthodox differ from and sometimes contradict the beliefs of the earliest post-apostolic Christians. Even among later fathers, men like Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa sometimes advocated views that Eastern Orthodox disagree with.

More significant than the patristic evidence, though, is the Biblical evidence. Just as the writings of men like Clement of Rome and Irenaeus and church councils have an objective historical meaning that we today can discern, so do the Biblical documents. And those documents often contradict Eastern Orthodoxy.

For some documentation on issues like the ones mentioned above, see my posts from earlier this year here, here, here, and here, for example. Other articles that are relevant can be found in the archives of this blog.