/lit/ - Literature

>>19233081
St. John of Shanghai and St. Nicholas of Serbia for example. And St. Luke the Blessed Surgeon who was literally one of the best surgeons of his time, acknowledged even by the wordly people. And yet he didn't think modern "science" could be trusted over revelation.
The point is that a falsehood will perish from the Church even assuming it is proclaimed by most clergy in their time, but truth will remain in it forever. If a teaching has persisted in the writings of saints from the very beginning, it cannot be a falsehood.

>>19233144
>heavily indicates that they regarded the idea as at least a valid possibility.
This does not follow when they teach against it in their writings, without accepting any other possibilities (they do mention possibilities and different readings concerning other matters, but not on this topic where they matter-of-factly state their understanding). As I said before, it is insanity to accept the entirety of a quote from a heretic because it was referred to by a saint, especially when the saint teaches contrary. I will read the work in its entirety when I have the time, but I will not be surprised to find that it does not teach the garbage you claim it does.