So you're free to just disregard your hierarchs when what they say is inconvenient?
Despite what you might have been told, Met. Kallistos doesn't speak ex cathedra for Metropolitinate of Thyrateria (i.e. Great Britain), let alone the Ecumenical Patriarchate, let alone Orthodoxy.
I remember reading that the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed its view of contraception. An example of this is in Bishop Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Church. The current edition of the book has this to say about contraception:
I wonder why the Eastern Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraceptionI wonder what evidence you can offer that the Orthodox Church used to be against all forms of contraception (by which I take it you include the rhythm method).
"Concerning contraceptives and other forms of birth control, differing opinions exist within the Orthodox Church. In the past birth control was in general strongly condemned, but today a less strict view is coming to prevail, not only in the west but in traditional Orthodox countries. Many Orthodox theologians and spiritual fathers consider that the responsible use of contraception within marriage is not in itself sinful. In their view, the question of how many children a couple should have, and at what intervals, is best decided by the partners themselves, according to the guidance of their own consciences."
However, in the earlier 1963 edition of the book, it says the following:
"Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church."
I'm free to disregard the hierarch if he's wrong. But not "just free": there is still a question of obedience, which is due as long as and as far as it doesn't imperil the Faith, no matter how inconvenient. Of course, the burden of obedience is less because his grace is not my bishop, nor in my Holy Synod.
Convenience seems to be the hallmark of your "magisterium." That's why it refuses to indicate whether "Humanae Vitae" is ex cathedra or not:it would be too inconvenient to be pinned down and on the record (the Winnipeg Statement prevents it from falling under the "ordinary magisterium"). Better to have an aura of infallibility. That way it can sweep under rug if its dogma "develops" in a different direction (that of the vast majority of its followers), like it sweeps things like "Unam Sanctam" under its Vatican II rug.
Speaking of inconvenient facts:the 92%+ percent of your coreligionists who use contraception, the many, many priests of yours who at best will not teach HV and some outright will contradict it (I've met and known a number of those, and I don't think I got them all), the bishops like those who signed the Winnipeg statement and then reiterated it and Cardinal Martini.....far more inconvenient than the opinion of a single priest on what the Orthodox Church teaches. Which brings up:
He also wrote in 1963 as a priest, if not a layman. What you quote laterly he writes as an Orthodox bishop.As a Priest, you don't think he would have a fairly good understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church?
Purely a question of authority. As it turns out, in 1963 his authority was no more than mine (perhaps less: he was Orthodox only five years then. I've been here alone five years). If he had been a priest, a fairly good understanding confers neither infallibility nor the authority to speak for the Church definitively. If his grace had written it as a metropolitan, it would be due more deference, but then again not dispositive.
I'm sure that those who wrote the majority report on contraception, bypassed for Humanae Vitae, had quite a good understanding of Vatican dogma-why else would your supreme pontiff empanel them?
Are you going to admit, then, that you must accept everything your supreme pontiff says, or are you going to continue to insist that we treat every one of our bishops as a supreme pontiff?
The artificial distinction of "artificial methods of birth control" is also not an Orthodox one: those who opposed contraception, opposed the rhythm method as well, as did the Fathers that the apologists of Humanae Vitae depend on.In that same article that I posted, it said the Ecumenical Patriarch of the time said he was in full agreement with Pope Paul VI on Humanae Vitae. Of course, you'll probably just come back and say that you don't have to listen to him either.
Why is it that ya'll protest that you don't believe everything your supreme pontiff says is infallible, and yet think we are bound by every fool thing the EP says? (I ignore what the same EP had to say on jurisdiction of the OCA, palpably wrong as he was. The Patriarch of Jerusalem refused to let him set foot in Palestine for the lifting anathema sherade.).
A telegraph to a heretic, yes, don't have to listen to that, any more than we have to listen to what he said over coffee. AFAIK, he never issued an encyclical, either on his own authority or that with his Holy Synod. No agreement or statement AFAIK on his authority, ex cathedra as it were. If it makes you feel better, some Orthodox do repeat the telegraph story with approval, including my own priest (the audio of him doing so is on line). It doesn't seem to have impressed the episcopate of the Patriarchate of Moscow.