[annalex]

appeal is made to the uninspired books of the apocrypha and fallible, often confused men, so called “Church Fathers”.

And rightly so. You can disagree with the fathers of the Church all you want, still they are evidence of the mind of the Church directly following the apostles' time. If you are interested in what Christ and the Apostles taught, you need to study the fathers of the Church reverently.

And if, conversely, you instead want to promulgate your own tradition, or that of someone else who emerged on the scene in 1500's, then indeed it becomes in your interest to whitewash, calumniate and hide from view the evidence of the patristic Church.

[count-your-change]

As Jesus, Peter, Paul said, the apostates were to arise right from within their own midst and the testimony of the Bible is that this had started even in Paul's time.

So the so-called “fathers” may be of interest as to what they believed, they are of little value in learning what the Scriptures teach, for that we must go to the Bible its self and not to those who oft times could not free themselves from Platonism.