Before he apostatized. That’s why he’s not referred to as a saint. The same goes with Origen.
Some of what he said was valid and others not so much.
But no single father can be taken in isolation from the broader consensus of the fathers.
I might point out that Luther and the Reformers held the fathers in esteem.
Luther and Calvin both believed that Mary was the Mother of God. Luther even believed in the Immaculate Conception.
Yeah well, Luther wasn’t such a nice guy and Calvin had Servetis (sp?) burned at the stake so I don’t agree with all of their beliefs either. That’s why I believe in Sola Scriptura. I’ll listen but I’m going to check how it stacks up with scripture. If what they teach or do doesn’t, I don’t believe it. If we can’t trust scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit then we have nothing. If we begin to believe other men completely there is more chance of getting led astray.
So, by its own admission, the RCC cherry picks what it wants of the *church fathers* to support its doctrine.
IOW, if it supports current church doctrine, the church father is to be depended on and quoted as *proof* ( of something or other) but if it doesn't, he's branded as a heretic and not all his writings are even legitimate.
Sheesh......
Either the man was a church father and his writings counted or they did not.
Cherry picking is not just intellectually dishonest, it's just plain dishonest.