[kosta50]

The more common and sightly later teaching, of course, is that evil in the world feeds on itself and grows, that sin has and continues to so distort the world that “bad things happen to good people”

True, but the fact that we have to admit that "later teachings" even exist suggests that either St. Basil did not speak for the Church and should be quoted only when his teachings reflect consesus patrum, or that the Church did not have faith delivered once and believed everywhere and always. Take your pick.

 Why the Cappadocians held the pedagogic evils notion is something I have never understood since it flies in the face of their teaching which says that God is not the cause of any evil.

For the same reason the Blessed Augustine had to write his Retractions at the end of his life—he was speculating! People forget that individual Fathers are not infallible individuals and that they searched for answers just like everyone else did and does. Some things they get right, others they get wrong.

Without the consensus of the Church as whole, such individual speculations lead into Protestant-like error, and when we quote early Church Fathers we should be careful to make sure what they say agrees with the consensus patrum, rather than present their individual opinions as authoritative one-man "dogma".

[Kolokotronis]

"[A Father]should be quoted only when his teachings reflect consesus patrum, or that the Church did not have faith delivered once and believed everywhere and always.'

I pick neither, Kosta. The Fathers are quoted all the time when what they are saying does not reflect the consensus patrum, when they reflect the consensus patrum and when there is no consensus...as has been the case for the past 1600 years on many things written by the Cappadocians. You know that! As for The Church having the "...faith delivered once and believed everywhere and always.", indeed it does, even when individual Fathers, or even groups of them didn't. As you and I have noted many times in past, there are points of theology we believe simply because The Church tells us we should believe them.

"...when we quote early Church Fathers we should be careful to make sure what they say agrees with the consensus patrum, rather than present their individual opinions as authoritative one-man "dogma"."

I can't imagine why any of us couldn't quote an early or a late Father whether the quote agrees or disagrees with the consensus patrum and to the extent that we are not post Vatican I Roman Catholics quoting some ex cathedra declaration of a pope, I can't imagine any of us presenting the individual opinions of a Father as dogmatic under any circumstances.