In Orthodoxy, we recognise Augustine as a saint (traditionally bestowed the title of Blessed), but many are generally wary of him and he is pretty controversial. There are strains of thought within the Church that can be extremely negative towards him to the point of denying his sainthood, conversely but more rarely, there are also those that try to rehabilitate his image, but in the more mainstream view, he is a saint recognised for his personal piety and contributions to defending Orthodoxy from heresy, even though his zeal and isolation from the East in some cases lead to speculative, erroneous, or imprecise teachings, similar to how some pre-Nicene Fathers had some imprecise language on the Trinity; he was not a heretic, but a pioneer working in some fields that hadn't quite caught up to him in the West alone, leading him to work with what he had. His Greek was limited even by his own admission, so he didn't have proper access to the Eastern Fathers and he relied almost entirely on the Latin Vulgate, which has some mistranslations, such as translating "ἐφ᾽ ᾧ" (because) to "in quo" in Romans 5:12, which Augustine interpreted as meaning "in whom" which directly led to his erroneous formulation of original sin.

Here is St. Symeon speaking (which is a bit funny since I just saw your user):

That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this is expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. - Symeon the New Theologian, The Ancestral Sin and ourRegeneration, Homily 37

To not make this too long I'll leave it with that quote and show what the CC teaches:

All men are implicated in Adam's sin...even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin... How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man"...Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter,Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, butthis sin affected the human nature... It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind... deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act...original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants...human nature is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin". - Catechism of the Catholic Church

"... Baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission... And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved... And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism" Decrees VI and XVI,Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem (1672)

As all mankind, during the state of innocence,was in Adam; so in him all men, falling from what he fell, remained in a state of sin. Wherefore mankind is become, not only subject unto sin, but also, on account of sin, unto punishment; which, according to the sentence pronounced of God, was (Gen. ii. 17), In the day that thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt surely die. And to this the Apostle alludes {Rom. v. 12), Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. So that we are conceived in our mother's womb, and born in this sin, according to the holy psalmist (Psal. li. 7), "Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me." This is called parental, or original sin, first, because that, before this, man was free from all Sin; although the devil was then corrupt, and fallen, by whose temptation this parental sin sprang up in Man; and Adam becoming guilty, we all likewise, who descend from him, become also guilty. Secondly, this is called original sin because no mortal is conceived without this depravity of nature. - Question 24, Pan-Orthodox Council of Jassy (1642)

You'd be right that the east didn't exactly affirm that non baptized babies go to hell, but neither did the west. In fact, Implications of Fathers and the above-mentioned councils show that even babies may go to hell. If anything, implying that unbaptized may go to heaven could suggest that infant baptism is not necessary, rather the idea of "Limbo" is much more orthodox and would be what most Fathers taught, that they are neither glorified nor punished. At the end of the day, both the east and west tell you to trust that God is all merciful.

And I also don't see how the Council of Trent affirms something different to the east? The opposite, I can argue that it's wholly what the east teaches. In the words of the Council of Trent:

If anyone asserts that the transgression ofAdam injured him alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned [Romans 5:12].

For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.

If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or says that the whole of that which belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away but says that it is only canceled or not imputed, let him be anathema. -Session V, Decree Concerning Original Sin.

In all the quotes of the Church no "stain to be washed away" is mentioned, and that's because it isn't. The West also calls Baptism the remission of sins. This isn't some "new age" where they're trying to be inclusive. I wish! That would save me so much trouble of constantly explaining how to reconcile doctrines in the byzantine tradition, since they are all Latin formulation. It's simply a believe shared since thousands of years.

And the IC isn't substantially different than what we proclaim in the Divine Liturgy either. Because of her All-Holiness, the Theotokos was never under the dominion of sin since from her contraception on forward was the Temple of the Holy Spirit, having the effects of sin higly, higly migitated for her too may I add. Childbirth wasn't painful and her death was a sweet, sweet falling asleep in the arms of her son. We don't have it as a doctrine, but that's because what the West dogmatized we proclaim in the Divine Liturgy, that doesn't take away from its importance.

And by saying the influence of St. Augustine in the western formulation the West was led to heterodoxy would then result in sin, no? Though I must agree with you that laymen and even clergy have some twisted view of ancestral sin, which just points to a bigger problem of not caring what the Church teaches and instead looking up reddit posts. The same way I will see even Priests in Eastern Orthodoxy and even Byzantine Catholicism (which?? They're basically implying we were in communion with heretics making us ones too?) say that St. Augustine erred because of a mistranslation that isn't even a mistranslation, leading to the West being different than the East.

I simply sorrow at this often, so excuse my long response since I simply wanted to express this. There so many lines drawn between the East and West that I simply don't understand why we want more, unnecessary borders. Sometimes I look at John 17:21 "That they may all be one." and cry "When?"

In Orthodoxy, we recognise Augustine as a saint (traditionally bestowed the title of Blessed), but many are generally wary of him and he is pretty controversial. There are strains of thought within the Church that can be extremely negative towards him to the point of denying his sainthood, conversely but more rarely, there are also those that try to rehabilitate his image, but in the more mainstream view, he is a saint recognised for his personal piety and contributions to defending Orthodoxy from heresy, even though his zeal and isolation from the East in some cases lead to speculative, erroneous, or imprecise teachings, similar to how some pre-Nicene Fathers had some imprecise language on the Trinity; he was not a heretic, but a pioneer working in some fields that hadn't quite caught up to him in the West alone, leading him to work with what he had. His Greek was limited even by his own admission, so he didn't have proper access to the Eastern Fathers and he relied almost entirely on the Latin Vulgate, which has some mistranslations, such as translating "ἐφ᾽ ᾧ" (because) to "in quo" in Romans 5:12, which Augustine interpreted as meaning "in whom" which directly led to his erroneous formulation of original sin.

Here is St. Symeon speaking (which is a bit funny since I just saw your user):

That saying that calls no one sinless except God, even though he has lived only one day on earth, does not refer to those who sin personally, because how can a one-day old child sin? But in this is expressed that mystery of our Faith, that human nature is sinful from its very conception. God did not create man sinful, but pure and holy. But since the first-created Adam lost this garment of sanctity, not from any other sin but from pride alone, and became corruptible and mortal, all people also who come from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth. He who has been born in this way, even though he has not yet performed any sin, is already sinful through this ancestral sin. - Symeon the New Theologian, The Ancestral Sin and ourRegeneration, Homily 37

To not make this too long I'll leave it with that quote and show what the CC teaches:

All men are implicated in Adam's sin...even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin... How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man"...Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter,Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, butthis sin affected the human nature... It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind... deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act...original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants...human nature is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin". - Catechism of the Catholic Church

the glowing Cross in Divnogorskiy monastery, Russia

Unfortunately it is rare to find someone like me online. I knew that when I made this blog the way I did, I purposefully chose it to be one of the first things that people saw so they'd either know this was a safe place or that it was possible for them to be this way too.

Anyway. The only blog I can think of is @orthodoxadventure that is active although they don't speak on it often. There is also @symeonenchristo who could be described as "side b" as they say but they are Eastern Orthodox (but I know that isn't what you asked for).

Can anyone else think of any Eastern Orthodox blogs that are affirming? Perhaps you, the one reading this, are Eastern Orthodox and affirming?

i’m very silly