I wouldn't have thought that one had to be a Dr of a particular period of history to be able to right an article about that period? There is a difference between writing about the use of the letter t in Middle English adjectival sentence constructions, and writing a more general historical article expressing theological points.
I think that Fr John Romanides of blessed memory was one of those folk who was genuinely gifted in many areas, and I wish I could have met him.
Anyone can write an article about anything if they are so inclined. It doesn't necessarily mean that they understand the subject or are totally correct. William Shockley, a co-inventor of the transistor, was an expert in aspects of physics and electronics and won a Nobel Prize for his work in that field. When he decided to hold forth on the subject of genetics and eugenics, he was, trying to be charitable, not anywhere near as knowledgeable, and was wrong.
(Interestingly enough, on the "Romanity" site are more works by Mr. Moss including ones on "Science" and "Genetics re the Antichrist" in which one of his cited sources is "Dr. Henry Morris" of the Creation Science Institute. A cursory scan makes for dubious reading.)
You know who this Fr. John Romanides was, apparently. I do not. I have tried to find some information about him, but so far haven't found much. Being an expert on "Byzantine-Tourkokratic Era
Greece, and Orthodox Near-East" (
"Tourkokratic"? I gather this means Greece under the Ottomans/Turks, so does this mean his subject was Greece from roughly the 300's to the 1800's?) doesn't necessarily mean that his understanding of England in the same period is correct.
I am no doctor of history, nor have I ever claimed such. But I try to back up my points with sources that others can read. If the Bereans "searched the scriptures to see if these things were true" why should we not do the same for historical documentation to see if someone's theories have any basis?