My point still remains... We don't accept anything he wrote while pro-union... As I said (and I think you ignored it), we can accept what he said when anti-union.
My point remains: Your posts show no knowledge of his life or writings, and yet you won't back down from your initial calumnies. Go back and read your first post. You claimed (a) he's "quite heterodox" and, then, (b) "this man is clearly heterodox, even though he later reversed course somewhat."
These statements are false -- ridiculously so. Remember: You did not claim his early writings were wrong, but that "this man is clearly heterodox."
Also, can you give me proof of him being in the Synaxarion? I can only find two St. Gennadius, one from the 5th Century, and the other is from the 16th Century in Russia...
Look it up in the Hemerologion of the Great Church, or even Zeses' biography.
Do you expect some kind of public repentance from me for calling a man heterodox who is an obsure Saint, whom is not listed anywhere but a few synaxarions as a Saint?
(not saying he isn't a Saint, I'm saying most people don't know he is, and I had no clue he was, and the only references to him as one seem to be from a couple copies of the synaxarion)
I'm sorry, but I see no reason to apologize when I had no clue he was a saint, especially when you search for him, there is never any mention of him being a saint, or even being canonized as one...
Nevertheless, Thomistic theology, and Calvinist theology are clearly heterodox and are clearly heresies. Anyone who espouses them is likewise heterodox.
Did Ss. Gennadius and Cyril espouse them? Maybe, but I guess the church says no. But regardless, as to the OP, we must keep in mind that Thomistic theology is heterodox and Thomas Aquinas is not an Orthodox Saint, and he never will be.
Take this as an example...
The Russian Church took the Book of Common Prayer from the Anglican Church, looked it over, and made various changes, and made it acceptable to use for an Orthodox Christian.
Now, does this mean that the Book of Common Prayer is ok for an Orthodox Christian to use, or that it is completely Orthodox? No, certainly not!
It means that the version put out by the Russian Church is Orthodox, not the original.
Same here, if a Saint talked about the good things in Aquinas' theology, and pointed out the traces of orthodoxy in there, that doesn't mean Aquinas' theology was Orthodox. It simply means that he had traces of the truth within there.
Just because the early fathers used elements of Platonism in their theology doesn't mean that we should automatically think of Plato's writings as being Orthodox and acceptable...