This is a good book on the topic. It is sympathetic, without being apologetic for being Reformed, and having serious disagreements with EO.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/Throu...Orthodoxy-A-Reformed-Perspective-p-17049.html
A lot of folks are put off by Rome's pompous claims, her arrogance, etc. And yet, they are still unsatisfied with the responsibility of answering for oneself to God. Many people still feel a deep need for the comfort of external authority. Absolute, but somehow human and accessible, authority.
EO offers to fill that want, and to do so amending the errors and even schismatic actions of Rome and the "Western" branch of Christendom. As far as they are concerned, Rome took western Christianity off her own way, trying to lord it over the eastern patriarchies. So, Protestantism split with Rome, but instead of coming "back" to EO, with the possible exception of some strains of Anglicanism, the Protestant world remains (if possible) even farther afield than Rome from the fold of Orthodoxy.
Again, in EO as with Rome, the locus of authority is not found in Scripture itself mediated fundamentally by the life-giving Spirit; but in the mediation of all Scripture-understanding through fixed forms of interpretation by the Church. So, especially in liturgy (which is more than sacraments in EO) is communion with God discovered. The church is the vehicle through which theosis or a form of "divinization" is realized.
Again, EO claims to be unchanged and unchanging. It claims unbroken liturgical and ministerial coherence with the Apostles. They claim that the Ecumenical councils, which they number up to 6 or 7 (not only the 3-4 we recognize as legitimate), have fixed the truth in dogmatic form.
However, by a number of lines of evidence, these churches fail to live up to their own professed ideals. For instance, they do not let the Fathers speak for themselves, but have defined earlier sentiments by later ones. They have been greatly influenced by the ancient philosophies (far more than they care to admit), and have never had any sort of Reformation to clear out the gunk. They make no acknowledgment of how
politics have influenced official church statements on dogma.
For example, the politically connected church overturned one Council that condemned icons (as idolatry), by conveniently calling it "regional" and dismissing it, and substituting what is now the official stance on admission of icons by an Ecumenical council more amenable to the practice. The ancient rejection (as referenced by the overturned council) as well as the exegesis of Scripture on the subject was completely ignored.
When a church does what it wants to do, in defiance of Scripture (not to mention a good track-record in history)--that church is no longer properly subservient to Scripture. Preaching Scripture is no more emphasized in EO than it is by Rome. This, despite the legacy of orators like John Chrysostom. EO has traded a word-based heritage for a mystical mess of pottage.
May you continue to pray for your friend, and may she come back out of this sensually entrancing system but ultimately darkened and inclosed weir, and into the marvelous light of the freedom of the gospel.
