To be clear I'm not being subjectivist about things when I say this, but I guess it depends on how you define Protestantism.  To me, and I think ultimately to all the Protestants I grew up with and went to school with, the essence of Protestantism is the five solae, particularly sola scriptura and sola fide.  The EO might have private judgment with some things, but they don't believe in sola scriptura, and their national churches aren't really akin to Protestant "denominations" with different theology depending on where you go.  True, some national churches seem to be more traditional than others, but that seems more akin to the differences between Roman Catholic priestly orders than it does, say, the differences between Lutherans and Baptists.

I personally don't consider anyone who rejects Sola Scriptura to be a Protestant.  That doesn't mean they're in a good place, it just means that I don't think everything wrong should be called "Protestant."


Triumphalism seems to go both ways too, for better or for worse.  

I did not have in mind the "five solae" when I said that, nor the five points of TULIP.  I was thinking more of the private interpretation aspect, whether that be private interpretation of Scriptures, canons, patristics, or what have you.  That was the "Protestant" mindset to which I was referring.

And I've heard some pretty appalling comments by Orthodox that do, indeed, smack of the "triumphalism" I was talking about.  I feel no need to bash people who profess Christ but don't have their theology or ecclesiology right.  I am all in favor of the direct, mince-no-words approach of "we're right, you're wrong, you need to change", but there are more tactful and indirect ways to put it.

I can't help but think we all do this to some extent. This is why we are traditional Catholics, and not NO. If we were to just submit to whatever the hierarchy says tradition is we would be NO.  I know the sedes are going to say they're different because they accept whatever what they consider the legitimate hierarchy says is tradition but I don't really see a meaningful difference there.
As far as it being too much fasting, why? By what standard?
The NO not eating fish seems a little bit different. It would be fine if they just decided that they liked fish and wanted to give it up, but it seems like the kind of people you described think their wiser than their rite when it comes to what is meat and what is not

We have done what we had to do.  I'm not sure the hierarchy involves itself anymore so much in saying "this is tradition".  Rather, for all practical purposes the Church begins in 1962, and everything before then is just a hazy memory, something not really to be paid much mind.  It is basically "here's the Mass, here's the Catechism, just do as we say, don't ask questions, and above all, don't go digging into the past, there's nothing there you need, trust us on this".

As for fasting, I would simply use the standard of what I regard as common sense.  Why is fasting so important, as to be a major aspect of the religion?  Why not just fast all days except for Sundays and major solemnities and feast days?  As I said, I respect fasting, but I don't understand why the Orthodox place such a major emphasis upon it.  

I find many "conservative Novus Ordinarians" to be just a little on the fanatical side.  Even at my son's former Newchurch school, which could hardly be called conservative --- even though, aside from the Newliturgy on crack, no mention whatsoever of the TLM, and a very casual approach to modesty in dress among the more fetching lady teachers, they were kind of a "frozen in the fifties" bubble, they seem to think that kids read books to no end in their spare time, play kick-the-can in the evenings, and collect fireflies (all of this while doing Brobdingnagian amounts of meaningless homework and getting in bed at 8:30 pm) --- there were many aspects that I found just a little "cultish".  The principal was a very strange woman, and I would not be at all surprised to discover that she was a silent advocate of women's ordination and a faithful reader of the National Noncatholic Reporter.  She had surveillance cameras all over the school, and I get the distinct feeling she would have had cameras in students' homes if she could have.  Very toxic environment, ever since we began homeschooling, my son eats like a horse (unlike his poor old dad, he burns it all off and it goes to strong bone and muscle) and gets all the sleep and rest he needs.  That didn't happen in day school.

Because if you fast enough, you will have mystical experiences. This happens even among non-Christians. The Buddhists and Hindu Yogis fast a lot and they have strange experiences. It is not all just a show. Even satanists fast to have greater mystical experiences with satan.

I am not mocking heroic fasting, but could some of this result from lowered blood sugar and lassitude from not getting enough nutrition?

"Mystical experiences" outside of the One True Church of Christ could very easily be manifestations of the evil one, perhaps his taking advantage of weakened physical and even mental faculties to have his way with those souls?

The main thing for me about Orthodoxy is that none of them, not one, has any answer as to how the Orthodox can possibly determine if a council is ecuмenical or not, or why Florence isn't one. Literally not one of them, not even their greatest theologians, can answer it. And if you don't even know what makes an ecuмenical council, then you can't know if a council was truly ecuмenical for sure. If you don't know that, then you don't know if your dogma is truly dogma. And if you don't have dogma, you have nothing.

Utterly self-defeating religion.

I don't know many easterners in real life who make a big deal about fasting.
First of all the reason for the practice is

1 fasting meaning no food for part of the day. Some eastern churches fast till 6 some fast till noon or any combo in between. This is done as is all fasting to create discipline. Nothing is as hard as following another's will. (church authorities)

2 abstaining from meat dairy eggs and other things according to the particular church tradition. So not just when you can eat as well as what you eat.

The discipline is exactly the same in the eastern catholic churches (although they now seem to allow much more relaxation)

3 the other weird thing is the fasting guidelines in the east is based upon the monastic rules, it's not meant for laypersons. It takes years of practice and no one is supposed to tackle it without a father confessor to make the individual plan. So any ' bragging' by any orthodox person about the fast is probably by a protestant convert. They tend to be over the top ridiculous