I wrote this on FB:
However, although he was a saint, St Ioann Maksimovich wasn’t a good bishop or theologian. He was, indeed, holy. He was, indeed, a Fool-in-Christ (thus, his title of “Blessed”, instead of the more-common “Righteous”). However, he wasn’t an administrator (his successor Antony Medvedev had to clear away his mess) or was he an academic theologian. He was, perhaps, a great pastor and a great mystic, but he wasn’t a Defender of the Faith as was Antony Bartoshevich or a hardheaded diocesan leader like Bishop Kip in NEPA. In short, St John isn’t a good source for defined Church dogma… I’d look to people like A I Osipov for that. Again, apples aren’t oranges… sainthood isn’t scholarship or leadership… we should remember that.
I wish that the konvertsy like Holland would stop with the proof-texting nonsense. We aren’t “Evangelicals”… we shouldn’t be aping their Antichristian ways. The Church defines its dogma by its shared consensus… not on this-or-that isolated quote from this-or-that saint or theologian. If a saint said something, it either agrees with the agreed consensus or it doesn’t… if it’s the latter, it’s simply wrongheaded, and that’s that. We don’t believe that saints are infallible. NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE. Therefore, it’s entirely possible for a saint to be wrong on a particular point without impairing their sainthood one bit. For instance, St Mark of Ephesus had tinges of Latin Purgatory in his writing… but since he was a saint in other ways, we overlook this error. In like manner, we overlook St John’s errors in re the tollhouse fantasy. He was simply mistaken on that. Note well that the konvertsy brats can’t seem to get that. It tells you much about them and their stance doesn’t it? Keep alert… the times aren’t good…