Moreover, you will notice something-
The Schismatics are always the founders of the Church of either a single father or a selective reading.
For example- the Persian Church refused to give up their fascination with Theodore of Mopsuestia. His Christogy is deeply problematic and leads to the errors we condemn in Nestorius. Because the Persian Church saw Nestorius as a faithful follower of Theodore, they refused to anathematize him and, on the contrary, canonizes him. All because of a failure to look at a single ecclesial figure correctly.
The Monophysites did the same with St. Cyril of Alexandria- they put all their stock in his work “On the Unity of Christ” and forsook unity with anyone who used a different terminology to speak of the union of Humanity and Divinity in Christ, even though St. Cyril himself allowed for a diversity of expression.
Again with the iconoclasts who basically find one Church father with an iconoclast streak (St. Epiphanius of Salamis) and construct an entire icon-destroying schism.
And it is the same with the Orthodox. The appeal to fathers is limited to eastern fathers who can be easily misread to support an innovative theology- yet they can also be read to state the opposite.
The conclusion? The Church in her authoritative pronouncements is greater than any one or several fathers and can alone give the true meaning of their common teaching. Moreover, the scholastics always made a generous use of eastern fathers alongside the western fathers, and in doing this they were the more faithful, for they expounded the truth as found everywhere- not just Cappadocia.