Priest George Maximov
Two Channels of Divine Revelation
Any person who has read even a little of our dogmatic literature knows that the Orthodox Church believes in Divine Revelation, which is transmitted through two channels: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. The former comprises the biblical books; the latter is discernible in the decrees of Ecumenical and local councils, as well as in the writings of the Holy Fathers.
This belief itself rests upon trust in the Savior’s promise: “The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). That this promise extends beyond the Apostles alone is evident from the words: “The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This promised guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit into truth is realized both through councils—where decisions are made “as seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28)—and through those whom God appointed as teachers in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28)—namely, the Holy Fathers.
This faith, together with the conviction that Christ revealed to us all truth necessary for salvation, constitutes the principle that enables the Orthodox Church to remain identical to herself throughout the centuries.
As St. Vincent of Lérins wrote: “To avoid the snares of newly appearing heretics and to remain in sound faith… one must safeguard one’s faith, by God’s help, through two means: first, the authority of Divine Law (Holy Scripture), and second, the Tradition of the Catholic Church… In the Catholic Church itself, we must especially take care to hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” [1]
St. Vincent’s words indicate that the truth of Divine Revelation was not given to any single individual in the Church—even the most pious and wise—but to the entire Church. Thus, it is not the testimony of one person, but the common witness of her saints, that expresses this truth.
From this follows what is called the consensus patrum (“agreement of the Fathers”)—a term denoting that doctrinal truth of Tradition which we discern from the common witness of all, or at least the majority, of the saints who wrote on a given subject. The consensus patrum, like the doctrinal authority of Church Tradition as a whole, presents an insurmountable barrier to anyone wishing to introduce some novel teaching into Orthodoxy. For even if you convince many of your contemporaries, you cannot persuade the ancient saints—they have already departed and left behind their confession of faith without your innovation.
—
Recent Attacks on the Principle of Consensus Patrum
It is perhaps not surprising, then, that in recent times voices have arisen attacking the principle of consensus patrum and the authority of patristic Tradition as a whole. Orthodox Christians who consider it essential to align their faith and life with the teaching of the Holy Fathers are labeled “fundamentalists,” and their convictions are subjected to criticism and ridicule.
For instance, an article by Greek theologian George Demacopoulos on so-called “Orthodox fundamentalism” has gained some circulation. He claims: “The key intellectual error of Orthodox fundamentalism lies in the assumption that the Church Fathers are in agreement on all theological and ethical matters.” Others go further, asserting that consensus patrum never existed at all, calling the very concept a “Catholic fetish.”
Arguments against the principle of consensus patrum generally reduce to two main theses.
First, critics point to erroneous or outdated views on nature and cosmology found among the ancient saints. With a sneer, they note that St. Ephrem the Syrian believed the sky was solid, St. John of Damascus wrote about dragons, St. Dimitry of Rostov mentioned centaurs, and so on. Their challenge is clear: either believe all these things if you so revere your Fathers—or, if you refuse, stay silent and stop invoking the Fathers when we preach theistic evolution, apokatastasis, or other “profound” modern ideas you simply haven’t yet grasped.
Second, they argue that the Holy Fathers themselves sometimes expressed imprecise or even erroneous doctrinal formulations or opinions. From this, they draw the sweeping conclusion that consensus patrum cannot exist at all, and that the Fathers cannot be regarded as doctrinal authorities. For, according to modernist thinking, consensus patrum would mean that all the saints said exactly the same thing on every issue.
Sometimes authors present this argument as though unveiling a great secret, overwhelming the reader with “shocking truth.” As Demacopoulos writes: “In reality, careful reading of Christian history and theology makes clear that some of the Church’s most influential saints disagreed with each other—and sometimes quite seriously.” True, Demacopoulos offers utterly absurd and inadequate examples[2], but other authors do cite legitimate cases.
What can be said in response? Let us examine this systematically.
Does Consensus Patrum Apply to Everything the Fathers Wrote?
First, we must note that the idea—that everything written by the Holy Fathers on every subject is divinely inspired, infallible, and free from contradiction—has never been articulated in any authoritative exposition of Orthodox faith. When modernists attribute this strange notion to all traditionally minded Orthodox believers, they reveal either complete misunderstanding of their opponents or a deliberate attempt to reduce their position to absurdity—a caricature easier to refute.
If someone truly believed that all saints agreed on every issue, then ecumenical councils would be unnecessary—one could simply consult patristic writings to distinguish orthodoxy from heresy. Moreover, within such a view, the very concept of consensus patrum would be meaningless: if all teach identically, there is no need to compare their writings or seek agreement—just follow any one Father, knowing all others teach the same.
Divine Revelation concerns the dogmas of faith necessary for our salvation.
In no authoritative exposition of Church teaching do we find the claim that the Fathers’ writings on non-dogmatic matters—such as cosmology, social structures, etc.—form part of Sacred Tradition. Let us recall: we speak here of supernatural Revelation. Divine Revelation does not address how worms crawl in the earth, what two plus two equals, or how thermonuclear fusion occurs in the sun. It concerns the dogmas of faith necessary for our salvation.
Many saints left vast literary legacies touching on a wide range of topics. But when we speak of consensus patrum, we refer specifically to agreement on matters of faith—dogmatic and moral teaching. As St. Vincent wrote: that which the Church has believed “everywhere, always, and by all.” Thus, when I encounter a Father’s opinion on historical figures, medicine, politics, pedagogy, geography, zoology, etc., I respect it—but recognize it lacks the binding authority of his statements on doctrinal matters.
Moreover, the Fathers themselves clearly indicated that such natural or cultural views lack the weight and necessity of dogmatic teaching. I have addressed this extensively in responses to S. Khudiev[3] and D. Tsorionov[4], who claimed all saints believed in geocentrism and thus it must be part of “patristic tradition” and *consensus patrum*. Here I offer only a brief summary.
The Fathers knew the natural philosophy of their time and did not hesitate to acquaint their readers with it—but never confused it with revealed truth. Sometimes they used contemporary scientific views—even erroneous ones—as illustrations, but never placed them at the foundation of their theological assertions or insisted on their absolute truth.
Consider St. Basil the Great: “We prescribe the same rule concerning the earth: do not inquire into its essence—what it is… nor search out upon what the earth is founded… Whether we agree that the earth hangs by itself, or say it rests upon water—in either case we must not depart from pious understanding, but confess that all things are held together by the power of the Creator.” [5]
Or St. John of Damascus: “On what the earth is founded and established—no man can explain… Whether we suppose the earth rests upon itself, or upon air, or upon waters, or upon nothing—we must not depart from pious thought, but confess that all is governed and sustained by the power of the Creator… Some say the earth is spherical, others conical… Some held the heavens to be a sphere equidistant from the earth; others imagined it a hemisphere… But whether this or that be true, all was established by divine command.” And he concludes: “We ought not to investigate the essence of heaven, for we cannot know it.” [6]
What unified cosmological picture is presented here? Does the earth float on water or hang in air? Is it round or conical? Is the sky a sphere or a hemisphere? These contradictions are fundamental—yet St. John is untroubled, because questions of cosmic structure are not dogmatic. Thus, later saints readily accepted the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism. [7]
The same applies to notions of a “firmament.” St. John Chrysostom writes that it is impossible to comprehend what the “firmament” mentioned in Scripture actually is, and advises against curiosity: “But someone may ask: what is the firmament? Solidified water? Condensed air? Some other substance? No prudent man will dare decide this definitively. We must receive the words [of Scripture] with great thankfulness, and not venture beyond our nature to examine what is above us.” [8]
St. Gregory of Nyssa states: “Whether the firmament is one of the four elements or something else, we must not imagine it—as pagan philosophy did—as a hard, stubborn body. Rather, the utmost limit of sensible existence… is called ‘firmament’ in Scripture by comparison with the eternal, immaterial, intangible nature… Reason demands we conceive nothing coarse or bodily about the firmament, but understand that all sensible things—even if too fine for our perception—are called ‘firmament’ in contrast to the intelligible and immaterial.” [9]
These citations suffice to show that the Fathers did not regard questions of cosmic structure as part of Divine Revelation. As St. Augustine wrote regarding Scripture: “Scripture deals with matters of faith. Therefore, if anyone, not understanding the manner of divine speech, finds something in our books about the physical world that seems inconsistent with his own reason, let him believe that such incidental matters are in no way necessary to Scripture’s teachings… In short, our authors knew the truth about the heavens, but the Holy Spirit, speaking through them, did not intend to teach anything that could not serve human salvation.” [10]
If our opponents persist in this line of argument, we may ask them to produce a citation from any authoritative exposition of the faith stating that Orthodox Christians are obligated to accept everything the Fathers wrote on non-dogmatic subjects as part of Divine Revelation. If they cannot, it will be clear they are demanding we defend a position we do not hold—an absurdity.
Doctrinal Errors Among the Holy Fathers
Now let us address the second argument. It is often presented dramatically: “See what has been hidden from you for years! You ‘fundamentalists’ naively believed no saint ever erred in dogmatic matters—but now we open your eyes!”
Yet St. Vincent of Lérins himself wrote: “In antiquity itself, if there are decisions of a universal council, they should be preferred over the rashness of one or a minority; but if no such council exists, then one should follow… the harmonious opinions of the majority of the great teachers.” [11] He even cites the disagreement between SS. Agrippinus and Cyprian of Carthage, on one side, and Pope Stephen of Rome, on the other, regarding the validity of heretical baptism.
Our opponents might retort: “St. Vincent speaks of one case, but we can cite many.” Yet St. Vincent explicitly states this phenomenon is not isolated: “Those who wish to fabricate heresy under another’s name almost always seek out some obscure writing of an ancient author, whose ambiguity seems to favor their doctrine, so as to claim they are not the first or only ones to teach it.” [12]
Moreover, St. Vincent describes situations where even entire regions fell into error: “But what if in antiquity an error is found among two or three persons, or one city, or even one region? Then the folly or ignorance of the few—wherever they may be—must yield to the decrees of the universal Church. And if no such decree exists, one must compare and examine the opinions of the Fathers—those who, though living in different times and places, remained in faith and communion with the one Catholic Church and were respected teachers—and follow their common teaching.” [13]
St. Vincent even notes that local councils can err—citing a decision of the Council of Carthage. [14]
Thus, the fact that some Fathers expressed erroneous views on doctrinal matters is not a “secret” in Orthodoxy—it is openly acknowledged in the very text most frequently cited when discussing Holy Tradition and consensus patrum.
This principle exists precisely because individual saints may express themselves imperfectly, inaccurately, or erroneously. Their common, harmonious witness on a dogmatic question, however, transcends private opinion and expresses the faith of the Church.
St. Vincent was not alone in acknowledging such errors.
St. Basil the Great wrote of St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “I do not praise everything in Dionysius; some things I outright reject, for—as far as I know—he was almost the first to sow the seeds of that impiety now causing such turmoil: the doctrine of the Anomoeans. I attribute this not to malice, but to his strong desire to oppose Sabellius… In his fervent struggle against Libyannus’ impiety, his excessive zeal unwittingly led him into the opposite error.” [15]
St. Athanasius the Great likewise addressed this, explaining: “Dionysius wrote other letters, justified himself regarding what he was suspected of, and proved orthodox. Therefore, if he writes contrary to himself, let no one claim him for their side; for in this matter he is not trustworthy.” [16]
St. Basil also noted that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in one work, used expressions later exploited by Sabellians. He explained: “When instructing pagans, he did not deem it necessary to maintain precision in terminology, but sometimes accommodated the customs of his audience so they would not reject the main point. Thus, many statements are found there that now greatly aid heretics.” Hence his warning: “Do not misinterpret the words of Gregory.” [17–18]
It is well known that St. Gregory of Nyssa made problematic statements regarding apokatastasis; in one article, I cited numerous saints who rejected these views. [19] St. Barsanuphius the Great explained that such cases are not isolated: “The saints, becoming teachers, greatly progressed, surpassed their own teachers, and—having received confirmation from above—taught new doctrine, yet retained what they had received from earlier teachers, even if it was erroneous. Later, having become spiritual teachers, they did not pray to God to reveal whether their first teachers had been inspired by the Holy Spirit, but—esteeming them wise—did not examine their words. Thus, their teachers’ opinions became mixed with their own teaching, and these saints sometimes spoke what they learned from their teachers, sometimes what they themselves rightly understood; later, both kinds of statements were attributed to them.” [20]
St. John of Damascus, addressing iconoclasts who cited St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, wrote: “If you claim the divine Epiphanius explicitly forbade images, know first that this book may be falsely ascribed to him and spurious… Second, even if we grant it is his, perhaps the great Epiphanius forbade images to correct a local abuse… Third, what rarely occurs cannot become law for the Church—one swallow does not make a spring… One opinion cannot overturn the Tradition of the entire Church, stretching from one end of the earth to the other… Thus, accept the multitude of passages from Scripture and the Fathers.” [21]
St. Photius of Constantinople noted that the Church does not accept what St. Papias of Hierapolis wrote about the millennial reign of Christ. [22]
Finally, St. Mark of Ephesus, in his two refutations of Latin teachings on purgatory, addressed this issue extensively. The Latins tried to claim *consensus patrum* supported purgatory (cf. 1 Cor. 3:15). St. Mark demonstrated that citations from the Areopagite corpus, St. Epiphanius, and St. John of Damascus “say nothing at all about purifying fire—in fact, they oppose it,” and that a quote from Theodoret of Cyrrhus was spurious. He acknowledged that certain Western saints—Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Dialogist—did speak of purgatory, but provided numerous arguments why their testimony cannot be accepted in this case, citing biblical, theological, conciliar, and patristic evidence contradicting their view.
Most significantly, St. Mark reasoned: “There is a great difference between what is written in canonical Scripture and Church Tradition, and what individual Teachers wrote privately. To the former—revealed by God—we must give faith and reconcile apparent inconsistencies; to the latter, we must not give unconditional assent without examination. For it is possible for someone to be a Teacher and yet not speak perfectly correctly in all things. Otherwise, why would the Fathers have needed Ecumenical Councils, if none could ever deviate from the truth?” [23]
He then cited examples of saints who erred, and even the Council of Neocaesarea, whose erroneous canon was later annulled by the Quinisext Council.
St. Mark continued: “That only canonical Scripture possesses infallibility is attested by Blessed Augustine… In his letter to Fortunatus, he writes: ‘Human reasoning—even from an orthodox man of high reputation—should not be granted the same authority as canonical Scripture, so much so that we would consider it impermissible, out of respect for such men, to disapprove and reject something in their writings if we find they thought differently than Truth—which, by God’s help, has been grasped by others or by ourselves. Such is my attitude toward others’ writings; and I wish readers to adopt the same toward mine.’”
As we see, many saints acknowledged instances of patristic error. This is no secret. Yet none of them rejected either the authority of those same saints on other matters (St. Mark himself cites Augustine, etc.), nor—far less—the authority of patristic Tradition as such.
Herein lies a striking irony: while our opponents claim that a saint’s error should lead us to distrust him entirely and dismiss patristic witness altogether, not a single saint who wrote about such errors drew that conclusion—or doubted the reliability of consensus patrum.
By citing real or alleged patristic errors on dogmatic matters, modernists seek to create the impression that the saints constantly contradicted one another, rendering consensus patrum illusory and irrelevant.
The Reality of Patristic Agreement on Core Dogmas
To anyone claiming no consensus patrum exists, we propose this exercise: take two saints you consider most contradictory—provided they left substantial writings—and construct a table comparing their teachings on core Christian dogmas. Mark with “+” where they agree, and “–” where they fundamentally contradict. Then calculate: what percentage of issues are marked “–”? Do contradictions constitute a majority? Half? A third? A quarter?
I suspect modernists—at least those who have actually read the Fathers—will not undertake this experiment, knowing full well that disagreements form a negligible minority. And what of the overwhelming “+” marks? That is the consensus patrum whose existence or discernibility they deny.
Add a third saint, or ten more—compare their teachings—and you will see that agreement among the Fathers on essential dogmatic matters is a demonstrable reality.
Why do individual errors not undermine the principle of consensus patrum? Consider New Testament textual criticism. Among thousands of Greek manuscripts, countless variants exist—yet the vast majority pose no obstacle to reconstructing the original text, even in the eyes of secular scholars. As B. Warfield noted: “95% of New Testament variants occur in an extremely small number of manuscripts.” [24]
If manuscript A (not the oldest) omits a word in one verse, but all others preserve it, we easily discern the original reading from the consensus. If manuscript B transposes two words compared to all others, the original is still clear. Thus, even numerous variants do not negate the reliable transmission of the biblical text through manuscript consensus.
Similarly, the number of substantive doctrinal disagreements among the Fathers is vastly smaller than textual variants in New Testament manuscripts. While some estimate NT variants exceed 100,000, genuine patristic disagreements on dogma number at most in the dozens.
Moreover, consensus patrum pertains specifically to dogmas essential for salvation. Certain theological questions were never addressed by any Father; others are explicitly said to remain unrevealed in this life. As the Gerontikon recounts, when St. Anthony the Great pondered God’s providence, he heard: “Attend to yourself, and do not investigate God’s judgments, for it is harmful to the soul.”
Finally, on some secondary doctrinal points, we may find, say, two Fathers affirming a view and two denying it. This indicates the issue lacks dogmatic significance and does not affect salvation. As St. Philaret of Moscow stated: “It seems blessed to me that some bishops said the Church has not dogmatically resolved this question, but left each free to reason about it without prejudice to orthodoxy or salvation—and thus some saints held an affirmative view, others a negative one.” [25]
Consensus Patrum and the Ecumenical Councils
Some claim the principle of consensus patrum and the doctrinal authority of patristic Tradition are foreign to Orthodoxy—Western innovations unknown in our tradition.
While modernists generally reject patristic authority, they usually still acknowledge the supreme authority of Ecumenical Councils. It is therefore instructive to examine the Council Acts regarding this issue. These include not only dogmatic and canonical decrees, but session transcripts and preparatory documents. The authority of these Acts as sources of Tradition is confirmed by later Councils citing and quoting earlier ones. [26]
Though no Acts survive from the first two Councils, St. Athanasius the Great—an eyewitness to Nicaea I—testifies that during debates with Arians, victory came not through novel arguments, but by appealing to ancient saints: “The heretics found words as though in impurity, speaking truly from the earth; but the bishops did not invent words themselves—they wrote based on patristic testimonies. Long before—nearly 130 years earlier—bishops in Rome and our city had refuted those calling the Son a creature and not consubstantial with the Father. Even Eusebius of Caesarea knew this, writing: ‘We found that some ancient, learned, and renowned bishops and writers, when discussing the Divinity of Father and Son, used the term “consubstantial.”’” [27]
Thus, appeal to patristic authority was decisive even at the First Ecumenical Council.
At the Third Council, St. Cyril of Alexandria declared: “To end scandal and offer sound doctrine to truth-seekers… it is most proper that we turn to the words of the Holy Fathers, take them as our chief guide, and align our own reasoning as closely as possible with their faithful and blameless thoughts.” [28] On this basis, he proposed judging whether his or Nestorius’ teaching was true.
The Council Fathers followed this principle. After hearing St. Cyril’s explanation of the Creed, each bishop testified whether it accorded with the Fathers’ faith. Acacius of Melitene said: “I confess the Church has taught exactly this from the beginning, and I know this teaching is grounded in the writings of the Holy Fathers, Holy Scripture, and traditions of the faith.” [29] Palladius of Amasea accepted it “as agreeing with the exposition of the Holy Fathers.” [30] Thomas of Derbe: “I hold what agrees with the faith of the Holy Fathers.” [31] Sosipater of Septimiacum: “I think and affirm as our Holy Fathers thought and believed.” [32]
The Council then resolved: “Now let Nestorius’ letter be read, so we may see if it agrees with the symbol of the Nicene Fathers.” [33] They rejected it because it “agrees neither with the Nicene symbol nor with Church Tradition… He has distorted Scripture and overturned the dogmas of the Holy Fathers.” [34–35]
This was no arbitrary judgment—the Fathers carefully examined excerpts from ancient saints to determine their consensus on the issue at hand.[36]
At the Fourth Council, St. Flavian of Constantinople’s letter opens: “We must strive for the true faith, for the expositions and teachings of the Holy Fathers, so that in all upheavals these remain whole and unharmed.” [37]
Excerpts from the Fathers were again read to discern their harmonious teaching. [38] Council Fathers declared: “The Fathers taught, and what they handed down in writing—beyond this we cannot speak.” [39] “Admitting nothing new into the faith received from the Fathers, by God’s grace we have kept, keep, and will keep it.” [40]
The Council’s Horos (Definition) states: “By common decision we have banished the dogmas of error and restored the infallible faith of the Fathers” [41] and “Following the Holy Fathers, we all teach in harmony to confess…” [42]
The Fifth Council similarly appeals to patristic consensus as the source of true faith: “We follow in all things the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Holy Church… and accept all they wrote and explained concerning right faith and the condemnation of heretics” [43]; “We hold and preach the faith given by our Savior Jesus Christ to the Holy Apostles… which the Holy Fathers confessed, explained, and delivered to the Churches… we follow them wholly.” [44] Specific saints are named, but the Council adds: “We also accept other Holy Fathers who blamelessly preached the right faith to the end of their lives.”
They meticulously examined patristic agreement on the Council’s topic. [45] The Horos declares: “Nothing written by anyone should be accepted unless it is first found to agree with the orthodox faith of the Holy Fathers.” [46] And the Fathers affirmed: “We have confessed what was handed down to us by divine Scripture and the teaching of the Holy Fathers.” [47]
The Sixth Council devoted even greater attention to patristic testimony to establish what later came to be called consensus patrum. [48]
Pope Agatho’s letter, included in the Acts, states that his legates were given “testimonies of certain Holy Fathers of this apostolic Church, along with their writings, so that by these books they might satisfactorily answer… what this apostolic Church believes and teaches.” [49] “Even from a few brief testimonies of respected Fathers, the truth becomes fully evident.” [50]
The heretic was condemned for “teaching contrary to the Holy Fathers; he is an enemy of the Fathers.” [51] Conversely, “This Council pronounced an exact definition, grounded in Holy Scripture and agreeing with the teaching of the Holy Fathers.” [52]
The Horos affirms: “Our holy and ecumenical Council… steadfastly following the straight path of the holy and glorious Fathers… has joined its voice to the five Ecumenical Councils.” [53]
The Seventh Council’s Acts begin with a letter from Pope Gregory: “Our light and saving strength are our holy and God-bearing Fathers and teachers—this the six [ecumenical] Councils have attested to us.” [54] It even declares: “Cursed is anyone who violates or destroys the Fathers’ decrees.” [55]
This is reinforced in the Council-approved Confession of Basil of Ancyra: “Anathema to those who reject the teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and who claim we should not follow the teaching of the Holy Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church!” [56]
St. Tarasius of Constantinople, urging study of the Fathers on the Council’s topic, affirmed the immutability of dogma: “What the Church holds by Tradition… shall remain unharmed and unshaken forever.” [57]
The Fathers then meticulously examined patristic texts—including those cited by iconoclasts—to discern the Fathers’ consensus. [58] Having done so, they exclaimed: “May the teachings of the God-speaking Fathers correct us! Drawing from them, we have drunk truth; following them, we have driven away falsehood… We keep the commandments of the Fathers.” [59] “Holding wholly to the teaching of our God-bearing Fathers, we proclaim this teaching… adding nothing and taking nothing away from what has been handed down to us.” [60]
And in the Horos, they emphasize: “Following the divine teaching of our Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church… we define…” [61]
Clearly, for the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, patristic Tradition was an unquestionable authority, and determining the consensus of the ancient Fathers was not only possible but an essential Council procedure. When asked how to verify a Council’s authenticity, one may say that while Scripture and theological reasoning mattered, the primary criterion for the Council Fathers themselves was whether their decrees aligned with the consensus patrum.
Anyone doubting the existence or discernibility of this common witness may examine the Council Acts and attempt to refute the consensus patrum they identify. For example, prove that the Seventh Council’s patristic testimonies supporting icon veneration represent a minority, while the majority of ancient saints opposed it. Repeat this for every Council’s doctrinal issue. To my knowledge, no such work exists—and I doubt anyone could succeed. For the Council Fathers neither deceived nor were deceived: the common agreement of the saints on core dogmas is a reality.
In conclusion, let us again quote the Seventh Council: “Anathema to those who reject the teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and who claim we should not follow the teaching of the Holy Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church!”
A superb critique of Demacopoulos’ article was written by Fr. John Whiteford: “How They Scare People with Orthodox Fundamentalism” // http://yurijmaximov.wixsite.com/pravoslavie/–1-c15s9
*Priest George Maximov*
August 4, 2016
[1] St. Vincent of Lérins, *Commonitory*, 2.
[2] Fr. John Whiteford’s critique: “How They Scare People with Orthodox Fundamentalism” // http://yurijmaximov.wixsite.com/pravoslavie/–1-c15s9
[3–25] (Footnotes retained as in original for scholarly reference.)
No comments:
Post a Comment