So you're the authority on this matter?
Do you want to play again?
I have no authority but the Fathers and the Teaching of the Church have authority- even when you deny it and try to make all things relative and uncertain. Are you against the teaching of the church ? We have many parts of Doctrine and not procclaimed as Dogma -AGAIN- but you have to believe it. Otherwise you are in danger of losing orthdoxy. Do you want to be against the Teaching of the Church - the true Church ?
I'm glad you think yourself qualified to judge who is and who is not Orthodox. Though I do see more than enough evidence from our hymnographical tradition and our sacred lore to convince me of the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos, I certainly don't see myself qualified to judge anyone as not Orthodox for not believing the evidence as I do.According to what I see here, you seem to think yourself an authority on what is Orthodox and what is not.
When you are not qualified to know what is orthodox and what is not- that's not my problem. It is clear that the Orthodox Church believes in the Ever-virginity and everyone who denies this belief is blasphemous and far away of Orthodox Doctrine- that is a fact- even when you try to make all Doctrines not proclaimed as Dogma relative and uncertain. But perhaps when more and more "orthodox" deny such Doctrines, the Orthodox Church will have to proclaim many Dogmas in the future- otherwise it will become protestant ( many members are already more protestant minded than orthodox ) ........And there is a difference in judging people because of their sins and speaking about their belief, it is the duty of every orthodox christian to stand up when any part of Orthodox Doctrine is in danger- it is also your duty ! It would be a sin to be silent.
Prove it. Without citations from the Fathers who make up this consensus patrum, your words mean nothing. Citing only those Fathers who agree with you and ignoring those who don't also doesn't prove a patristic consensus. Again, I say to you: PROVE IT. You don't get to cite yourself as an eminent authority here.
I know your "Method" very well, first you say I should prove it ( I could there is no problem) and when I post quotes you say that I am bombarding you and only use quotes fitting my "opinion". It is not my opinion it is the opinion of the church. I always try to follow the Church and not my own - it would be dangerous to follow my opinion.
But why do you not prove that there is no CONSENSUS ? Prove it !
We have many writings of the Fathers and the Teaching of the Church, we have the hymnography and the iconography.....
the larger and smaller commentary of St. John Chrysostom on the Genesis and on the creation of the world
St. Ephraim the syrian's commentary on Genesis
Hexameron and On the origin of early man of St. Basil the great
Hexameron, about the Paradise, about Cain and Abel of St. Ambrose of Milan
St. Gregory of Nyssa; On the making of man and his great Catechism
Catechetical lectures of St. Cyrill of Jerusalem
St. Athanasios the great
St. Symeon the New Theologian; The sin of Adam
St. Gregory the Theologian
St. Macarios the great
St. Abba Dorotheos
St. Isaac the syrian
St. Gregory of Sinia ( he "saw" and experienced Paradise like other Saints - St. Euphrosynos the Cook, St. Andrew...)
St. Gregory Palamas
Blessed Augustine wrote also a commentary on Genesis and also in the City of God speaks about some questions ( read with caution)
St. John of Kronstadt
Metropolit Philaret of Moscow
St. John of Damascus; on the orthodox faith ( contains many chapters on questions about the six days..)
and many many others......
St. Nectarios of Aegina
And now prove that there is no "consensus" ! But please read the Fathers in proper way- the Fathers are not contradicting one another, they only write often from different points but have the same teaching. Or do you think that the Gospels are also a contradiction ? The genealogies of Christ- do you think they are contradicting ?
When you deny that the Church has an exact teaching of creation and the first created man, you can not understand the second Adam and the Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation.
The Orthodox Church has her own " Theory and Philosophy of Creation " - so she can not accept a foreign theory of atheists and and non orthodox or even occultist. When you accept the foreign you have to set aside the orthodox.
And the Evolution theory is only a theory or philosophy and not a fact or science- I am not against true science !
We should not be against modern science, we should be against any alteration of Orrthodoxy and true science is never against orthodoxy - in the contrary ! I would say secular science is fallible but not Orthodox Doctrine- it is the Truth for eternity. We know that the science often made mistakes- that's normal.
The Evolution theory is very complex and we would have to talk about many different aspects.
It would be more interesting to start a new thread on; Genesis, creation and the orthodox interpretation of the Fathers. For example the Orthodox Doctrine differs extremly from the RCC Doctrine of the first created man, you will see when you study for example the summa of Thomas from Aquin that he did not believe that Adam was created immortal, only that he had a supernatural grace and so on....