The holy bread is to be brought to the table, hot—according to the tradition of the Apostles; and <the cup> incorruptible—without any admixture: “For we are redeemed not with corruptible things, but with the incorruptible Body <and Blood> of the spotless and unblemished Lamb” (I Pet 1:18-19).
St Macarius, Letter to the Armenians (c 330-350)

And wherefore did he not drink water after he was risen again, but wine? To pluck up by the roots another wicked heresy. For since there are certain who use water in the Mysteries to show that both when he delivered the mysteries he had given wine and that when he had risen and was setting before them a mere meal without mysteries, he used wine, 'of the fruit,' says he, 'of the vine.' But a vine produces wine, not water.
St John Chrysostom, Homily 81 on Matthew. He also said:

"By the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, he means the day before that feast; for they are accustomed always to reckon the day from the evening, and he makes mention of this in which in the evening the passover must be killed; John 13:1 for on the fifth day of the week they came unto Him. And this one calls the day before the feast of unleavened bread, Luke 22:7 speaking of the time when they came to Him, and another says on this wise, Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed; by the word came, meaning this, it was near, it was at the doors, making mention plainly of that evening. For they began with the evening, wherefore also each adds, when the passover was killed." (Ibid)

"When morning came, Saint Martinian came out to send the woman away. Though he was tempted by the woman’s beauty, he was determined not to fall into sin. Lighting a fire, he stepped into it, saying, “You want me to burn with temptation, but I will not give in to it.. Instead, I choose to burn in this fire in order to preserve my purity and to escape the unquenchable fires of Hell.""
https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2021/02/13/100513-saints-martinian-zoe-and-photina-of-caesarea-in-palestine

Gnostics believing in Toll-houses:
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2018/04/07/aerial-toll-houses-and-gnosticism/

"Between 1948 and 1950 Stăniloae supported the forced integration of the Romanian Uniate Church into the Orthodox Church undertaken by the communist authorities."

Modern Orthodox Theology, by Paul Ladouceur

"In 1969 he lectured at Oxford. He (Dumitru Stăniloae) went to the Vatican as a member of the B.O.R. (The Burning Bush Organization) delegation in 1971. During this period he published in The Voice of the Fatherland, the propaganda organ of the communist regime for Romanians abroad. One of his articles denounced Constantine Virgil Gheorghiu as a legionnaire and member of the Iron-Guard. He also wrote a number of publications in which he reiterated and developed criticism of the Uniate Church."
Modern Orthodox Theology, by Paul Ladouceur

Two articles on Symeon The "New Theologian"s innovative trinitarianism" (even by Byzantine standards). EOs would re-interpret it by saying that proceeding from the essence, means proceeding by means of natural energy which would equate to the ever vague "Energetic Procession".

https://www.academia.edu/34952708/_The_Procession_of_the_Holy_Spirit_from_the_Divine_Substance_Observations_about_the_Trinitarian_Theology_of_Symeon_the_New_Theologian_and_Nicetas_Stethatos_Greek_Orthodox_Theological_Review_60_2015_75_91

https://www.academia.edu/10614527/_Reconfiguring_the_Trinity_Symeon_the_New_Theologian_the_Holy_Spirit_and_the_Imago_Trinitatis_Byzantion_81_2011_212_236

EOs: “We don’t venerate statues”
“You can’t venerate a statue”
“Statues are outside so they won’t be venerated”

Metropolitan Agafangel of Odessa:

"Filaret’s mysticism was reflection both of the fashion of the day (in the early years, he read Eckartshausen and Swedenborg, both popular with many members of the Holy Synod) and of the development of his own mystical theology, which appeared in his sermons. His October 1, 1812, homily delivered on the opening of Golitsyn’s house church noted the beauty of the chief procurator’s chapel but emphasized the greater importance of the “invisible temple” and the “inner temple” that must be consecrated in the hearts of the renewed. In his Christmas 1812 sermon, he explained the importance of experiencing a spiritual “rebirth [vozrozhdenie].” The Pietist keyword of rebirth ("Wiedergeburt") and renewal are notable in this sermon; however, there were also mystical references. The preacher spoke of the invisible “mystical gates” of the soul and the cleansing of the “inner body” by the Spirit (as opposed to the external body that is cleansed by water), and he reflected on accepting revelation from esoteric non-Orthodox sources (a reference to Jung-Stilling?) that come from “enlightened spirits who, similar to transparent objects, receive and transmit light but do not feel that light themselves.” Filaret also spoke of the “inner Kingdom,” the “inner church,” and “the mystery of your own personal Bethlehem,” seeing mystical meanings in familiar biblical story lines. His close relationship with Golitsyn and with the culture of the "Awakening" in the capital had strong critics."

- A Spiritual Revolution: The Impact of Reformation & Enlightenment in Orthodox Russia

By Andrey V. Ivanov

"Fotii said the following about Filaret: "He was the chief culprit of all disruption during the days of Prince Golitsyn. He was a friend and ally of Koshelev and Labzin, as well as of all overt and covert enemies of the faith and church. No one could stop his audacity, for he was well-connected to the powers that be...Filaret’s influence extended to all in positions of authority, nobility and others followed his will...Wherever I attempted to destroy a conventicle of wickedness [sborishche zlochestiia], I found Filaret there." As was the fashion during the Awakening, Filaret’s views were also very ecumenical. In his 1815 work, "Conversations between a Doubter and a Believer about the Orthodoxy of the Greco-Russian Church", Filaret addressed the question of the exclusivity of the Eastern Orthodox Church in relation to other confessions and to Roman Catholicism in particular. In this work, Filaret argued that anyone believing in the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, and the Incarnation was a Christian and a member of the mystical Church, “since all Christian Churches accept the Eastern Creed as the truth.” In a very ecumenical fashion, Filaret referred to “Churches [Tserkvi],” not “the Church” (with the capital Ts), and inserted the following conversation on the specific issue of difference between the Roman and Eastern communions. Filaret’s sublime thoughts on the inclusivity and compatibility of Christian confessions were not limited to Catholicism. According to his close friend, Nikolai Sushkov, Filaret held the view that “everyone baptized in the name of Holy Trinity is a Christian, no matter what denomination,” until the last days of his life."

- Ibid

"From his episcopal pulpit, Filaret preached that the law should never allow one man to become an instrument of another, that only exchange of services between men is permitted. He used to say this in a country where half of the population were slaves.As an example of his (relatively) progressive preaching, Herzen recalled Filaret’s work in the convicts’ transit center on Sparrow Hills in Moscow, where he preached repentance and spiritual renewal to those who were about to be sent to Siberia. In commenting on the story of the crucified Christ and the thief on the cross, he comforted them with the idea that “a new life” awaited them in heaven, while “the greater criminals,” found among the officials who condemned them, would surely be doomed to eternal damnation. Much like among the Quakers or the Wesleyans in the West, the message of religious Awakening also had strong social implications for Filaret. When Filaret was a seminarian in Moscow, around 1800, his study of biblical texts was guided by the Pietist hermeneutics of Johann Jacob Rambach and the Dutch Reformed historicist exegetics of Campegius Vitringa. Protestant philologists such as him were popular in other Orthodox seminaries as well."

- Ibid

"They both were monastic brothers, but Fr. Seraphim put himself under the obedience of Herman, for his humility sake. Yet, both confessed their sins to each other."

"Fr. Seraphim suffered because he knew of at least some of the secret sins of his brother, but....he refused to condemn or judge Herman, and he kept silence, publically."

https://josephsciambra.com/fr-seraphim-of-platina-the-life-and-death-of-the-unlikeliest-russian-orthodox-monk/

http://readerdanielsharing.blogspot.com/2014/07/death-of-fr-herman-podmoshensky.html

"However, it is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church—that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation—which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ. I myself can accept the experience of Protestants being ‘born-again’ in Christ; I have met people who have changed their lives entirely through meeting Christ, and I cannot deny their experience just because they are not Orthodox. I call these people “subjective” or “beginning” Christians." - Rose

https://classicalchristianity.com/2011/12/26/three-perspectives-on-the-heterodox/