Topic: Lord, They say you are not in the Catholic Sacraments ¿What do you say?

[deusveritasest]

Like I said, given that you're not really following God in the way that the original Christians were, it's very clear that Satan can perform signs for you to reassure you in your heresy and thus lead you away from possibly returning to the Church.

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

You're using something resembling the straw man fallacy if you're assuming that this opinion means that I do not desire unity between the Church of Christ and Rome.

[Irish Hermit]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

[deusveritasest]

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen

Was he referring to the Arians?

[samkim]

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen

Was he referring to the Arians?

I'm also curious.

[Pravoslavbob]

In any event, why do you think that the supplices te rogamus prayer was included in the old Latin mass?  Surely you don't believe that it is literally calling for an angel to come and take the gifts away into heaven, do you? I notice that you have not responded to any of  my arguments about it up until this point.

This is a serious and important question, and deserves a response.  As of yet, none has been offered.

[ialmisry]

Don't the catholic clergy, claim they have it in their hands ,to make the change,when they say the words ,
of institution...They Have the Power....

Power from God, not themselves. They stand in persona Christi. You silly-willy.

Actually, no: for the bishop.

And the Vatican thinks that they can take that power with them if defrocked.  Sounds like they have it in their hands (or the Vatican so thinks).

[ialmisry]

This "transmuting them by thy Holy Spirit" is the exact phrase also used in the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.  I do not really see how it is "weaker" in Saint Basil's than Saint John's Liturgy.

AFAIK this phrase represents a very late addition to the Liturgy of St. Basil which was inserted to "Chrysostomize" it.  In any event, referring to the epiklesis of St. Basil as "weaker" might not be the best option.  It might be better to say that the epiklesis is not quite as explicit as that of St. John, while still showing very clearly that it is only through the presence of the Holy Spirit that the gifts can be transformed.  

I can answer to all your doubts using a reliable Catholic source on the matter. This is a part of article "The Blessed Eucharist as a Sacrament" facing the problem of the role and position of the Epiklesis:

Not only did such renowned Fathers as Justin (First Apology 66), Irenæus (Against Heresies V.2.3), Gregory of Nyssa (The Great Catechism, no. 37), Chrysostom (Hom. i, de prod. Judæ, n. 6), and John Damascene (Exposition of the Faith IV.13) hold this view, but the ancient Greek Liturgies bear testimony to it, so that Cardinal Bessarion in 1439 at Florence called the attention of his fellow-countrymen to the fact, that as soon as the words of Institution have been pronounced, supreme homage and adoration are due to the Holy Eucharist, even though the famous Epiklesis follows some time after.

The venerable antiquity of the Oriental Epiklesis, its peculiar position in the Canon of the Mass, and its interior spiritual unction, oblige the theologian to determine its dogmatic value and to account for its use. Take, for instance, the Epiklesis of the Ethiopian Liturgy: "We implore and beseech Thee, O Lord, to send forth the Holy Spirit and His Power upon this Bread and Chalice and convert them into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Since this prayer always follows after the words of Institution have been pronounced, the theological question arises, as to how it may be made to harmonize with the words of Christ, which alone possess the consecrated power. Two explanations have been suggested which, however, can be merged in one. The first view considers the Epiklesis to be a mere declaration of the fact, that the conversion has already taken place, and that in the conversion just as essential a part is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit as Co-Consecrator as in the allied mystery of the Incarnation. Since, however, because of the brevity of the actual instant of conversion, the part taken by the Holy Spirit could not be expressed, the Epiklesis takes us back in imagination to the precious moment and regards the Consecration as just about to occur. A similar purely psychological retrospective transfer is met with in other portions of the Liturgy, as in the Mass for the Dead, wherein the Church prays for the departed as if they were still upon their bed of agony and could still be rescued from the gates of hell. Thus considered, the Epiklesis refers us back to the Consecration as the center about which all the significance contained in its words revolves. A second explanation is based, not upon the enactedConsecration, but upon the approaching Communion, inasmuch as the latter, being the effective means of uniting us more closely in the organized body of the Church, brings forth in our hearts the mystical Christ, as is read in the Roman Canon of the Mass: "Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat", i.e. that it may be made for us the body and blood. It was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks themselves explained the meaning of the Epiklesis at the Council of Florence (Mansi, Collect. Concil., XXXI, 106). Yet since much more is contained in the plain words than this true and deep mysticism, it is desirable to combine both explanations into one, and so we regard the Epiklesis, both in point of liturgy and of time, as the significant connecting link, placed midway between the Consecration and the Communion in order to emphasize the part taken by the Holy Spirit in the Consecration of bread and wine, and, on the other hand, with the help of the same Holy Spirit to obtain the realization of the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ by their fruitful effects on both priest and people.

I will provide here, for the sake of clarity, the two best proof texts used in the first quotation to demonstrate that the transubstantiation occurs at the Words of Institution for at least two Church Fathers, Justin martyr and Gregory of Nyssa (the other two texts I judged to be weak proofs so let's ignore them, they're useless for our purposes):

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία  [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.  For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (Justin martyr, First Apology, 66)

For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, "is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer"; not that it advances by the process of eating  to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, "This is My Body." (The Great Catechism Part III, 37, Gregory of Nyssa)

Hope this helps in clarifying the position of the Catholic Church as much as possible.

In Christ,   Alex

Well, perhaps it helps clarify that some Catholic scholars might not be willing to accept Orthodox arguments on this issue.  From our point of view, neither of the quotes you have provided conclusively "proves" anything, though the quote from St. Gregory does provide some food for thought.  The quotes do show that the so-called words of institution are a very important component involved in consecrating the gifts.  But what proof-texting like this cannot demonstrate is how the Christian East has always been very concious that it is only by being in the Spirit that the liturgy can be accomplished.  As time went on, more and more explicit references to the Holy Spirit were added to Eastern liturgy.  Liturgical scholars of all confessions are generally united in the belief that non-acknowledgement of the presence of the Spirit is a problem in Western liturgy.

Oh, it is worse than that: the Roman one is the only one that doesn't emphasize the epiclesis.  As the "Catholic Encyclopia, imprematur nihil obstat" confesses:

It is certain that all the old liturgies contained such a prayer. For instance, the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, immediately after the recital of the words of Institution, goes on to the Anamnesis — "Remembering therefore His Passion..." — in which occur the words: "thou, the God who lackest nothing, being pleased with them (the Offerings) for the honour of Thy Christ, and sending down Thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, the witness of the Passion of the Lord Jesus, to manifest (opos apophene) this bread as the Body of Thy Christ and this chalice as the Blood of Thy Christ..." (Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I, 21). So the Greek and Syrian Liturgies of St. James (ibid., 54, 88-89), the Alexandrine Liturgies (ibid., 134, 179), the Abyssinian Rite (ibid., 233), those of the Nestorians (ibid., 287) and Armenians (ibid., 439). The Epiklesis in the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is said thus: "We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice; and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee that Thou, sending down Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts" (the Deacon says: "Bless, Sir the holy bread") "make this bread into the Precious Body of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, the holy chalice"): "and that which is in this chalice, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ" (Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Sir, both"), "changing [metabalon] them by Thy Holy Spirit" (Deacon: "Amen, Amen, Amen."). (Brightman, op. cit., I 386-387).

Nor is there any doubt that the Western rites at one time contained similar invocations. The Gallican Liturgy had variable forms according to the feast. That for the Circumcision was: "Hæc nos, Domine, instituta et præcepta retinentes suppliciter oramus uti hoc sacrificium suscipere et benedicere et sanctificare digneris: ut fiat nobis eucharistia legitima in tuo Filiique tui nomine et Spiritus sancti, in transformationem corporis ac sanguinis domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi unigeniti tui, per quem omnia creas..." (Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", 2nd ed., Paris, 1898, p. 208, taken from St. Germanus of Paris, d. 576). There are many allusions to the Gallican Invocation, for instance St. Isidore of Seville (De eccl. officiis, I, 15, etc.). The Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486). Watterich (Der Konsekrationsmoment im h. Abendmahl, 1896, pp. 133 sq.) brings other evidences of the old Roman Invocation. he (p. 166) and Drews (Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons, 1902, p. 28) think that several secrets in the Leonine Sacramentary were originally Invocations (see article CANON OF THE MASS). Of the essential clause left out — our prayer: "Supplices te rogamus" (Duchesne, op. cit., 173-5). It seems that an early insistence on the words of Institution as the form of Consecration (see, for instance, Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Mysteriis", IX, 52, and "De Sacramentis", IV, 4, 14-15, 23; St. Augustine, Sermon 227) led in the West to the neglect and mutilation of the Epiklesis.

And then Ultramontanism raises its head:

The Catholic Church has decided the question by making us kneel and adore the Holy Eucharist immediately after the words of Institution, and by letting her old Invocation practically disappear.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05502a.htm

In any event, why do you think that the supplices te rogamus prayer was included in the old Latin mass?  Surely you don't believe that it is literally calling for an angel to come and take the gifts away into heaven, do you? I notice that you have not responded to any of  my arguments about it up until this point.

If he doesn't believe you maybe he will believe these guys:

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

[Papist]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case. Also, the anti-western attitude has grown into a monster that it once was not.

[Papist]

Anyone ever think that these threads are nothing more than a spinning of our wheels?

[ialmisry]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

[Papist]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

[ialmisry]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

No, it hasn't.  You get the same diversity on the issue with common principles now that you get 2000 years ago.

[Papist]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

No, it hasn't.  You get the same diversity on the issue with common principles now that you get 2000 years ago.

Not at all true. Now you are just making stuff up.

[ialmisry]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

No, it hasn't.  You get the same diversity on the issue with common principles now that you get 2000 years ago.

Not at all true. Now you are just making stuff up.

No, Pope Paul did, that's why he couldn't cite any Fathers.

[Papist]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

No, it hasn't.  You get the same diversity on the issue with common principles now that you get 2000 years ago.

Not at all true. Now you are just making stuff up.

No, Pope Paul did, that's why he couldn't cite any Fathers.

No you made stuff up. The fathers were against birth control and your Church used to be. How unfortunate for you that your Church changed its teachings on such an important issue.

[Mickey]

The fathers were against birth control and your Church used to be.

I often see NFP classes advertized by the RCC to teach people how to use it for birth control. 

[PeterTheAleut]

But this thread isn't about birth control.

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
I had the occasion to study the matter more deeply then before, thanks to an Italian RC forum, so I will propose this reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the matter of Consecration at the Eucharist is faced directly.

Article 1333 thus says:

"At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." the signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. the Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering"

As you can see, the official understanding of the CCC is that both Epiclesis and Words of Institution co-operate in the transubstantiation, exactly as you Orthodox hold. The certainty of the change, thus, is given at the Elevation, when all conditions have been fulfilled. What about the Latin Vetus Ordo, then? Where's the Epiclesis there?

Well, there's an Epiclesis right before the Words of Institution in the Latin Mass, saying thus:

"Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam+, adscriptam+, ratam+, rationabilem+, acceptabilemque+ facere digneris, ut nobis Corpus+, et Sanguis+ fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi"

In translation:

"O God, deign to bless + what we offer, and make it approved, + effective, + right, + and wholly pleasing in every way, that it may become for our good, the Body + and Blood + of Your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. "

In the Vetus Ordo, the Holy Spirit is implicitly referenced as God, which is a proper name since He is one of the Blessed Trinity and God in fulness, soI don't see any need to make it more explicit if the tradition of the Latin Catholic Church never needed it.
In the Novus Ordo, the Epiclesis is identical at least in the Latin version of the Ordo Missae. The problem is in the specific liturgies as translated in the local Episcopal Conferences.
In the Italian adaptation, for example, the most common version in use of the Canon Missae has a much more explicit Epiclesis then the Latin edition, saying (I translate it for you) "Truly holy Father, source of all holiness, sanctify these gifts with the effusion of Thy Spirit, so that they become for us the Body + and Blood + of Jesus Christ our Lord".

Now, the question raises spontaneously: why does the Tridentine Council underline so much that the Consecration is performed at the Words of Institution, if the Epiclesis is also necessary? Since both elements must occur - I mean Epiclesis and Words of Institution - the change occurs only when both of them are performed. Now, in the Latin Canon Missae (presumably the only one of interest at the Council of Trent!) had the Words of Institution following the Epiclesis. That gives us a good reason why in the Latin Mass (both Vetus and Novus Ordo) the Consecration occurs only at the Words of Institution. In the Eastern Rites - who had been largely ignored as "notable exceptions" up to the Second Vatican Council, the same requirement of having both conditions satisfied is reconciled with the opposite order, i.e. the Words of Institution preceeding the Epiclesis. The latter, in this case, "completes"what the Words of Christ have prepared, while the opposite occurs in the Latin Mass.

Now, here's a quote from the Wikipedia (the sources are accurate, this time) about the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari:

"The words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession".

The quote is taken from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and thus has Pontifical authority. Here's the interesting affirmation of the Wikipedia, which I consider of a noticeable value:

The anaphora contains, for instance, the declaration: "The body of Christ and his precious blood are on the holy altar." This has been compared to the Eastern Orthodox Church declaratory formula for absolution: "The servant of God N. is absolved", in contrast to the Western "I absolve thee". A similar contrast is found in the Eastern and Western formulas for baptism.

This will explain many things. The Words of Institution have been nevertheless added into the text of the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari since the 1900s, but after the studies and documents of the aforemantioned Pontifical Council have been released, the Chaldean Catholic Church is transitioning towards the restoration of one of the oldest rites of the Catholic Church into its primordial form; this is provoking some un-christian reactions from Traditionalist Catholics, but I won't pay too much attention to it. Since such a document has been released with the approval of a Traditionalist Pope such as Benedict XVI, and I don't see any reason, as a Traditionalist myself, to discuss the validity of that rite from the POV of sacramental grace.

In Christ,  Alex

[Shlomlokh]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

No, it hasn't.  You get the same diversity on the issue with common principles now that you get 2000 years ago.

Not at all true. Now you are just making stuff up.

No, Pope Paul did, that's why he couldn't cite any Fathers.

No you made stuff up. The fathers were against birth control and your Church used to be. How unfortunate for you that your Church changed its teachings on such an important issue.

Why don't you show us where the Orthodox Church "abandoned its teachings" instead of making these blind accusations? What a novel concept! 

In Christ,
Andrew

[Asteriktos]

But this thread isn't about birth control.

Are you sure? 

[Papist]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

No, it hasn't.  You get the same diversity on the issue with common principles now that you get 2000 years ago.

Not at all true. Now you are just making stuff up.

No, Pope Paul did, that's why he couldn't cite any Fathers.

No you made stuff up. The fathers were against birth control and your Church used to be. How unfortunate for you that your Church changed its teachings on such an important issue.

Why don't you show us where the Orthodox Church "abandoned its teachings" instead of making these blind accusations? What a novel concept! 

In Christ,
Andrew

Well, the church fathers were against it and the modern EO Church is not, so isn't that changing a teaching?

[deusveritasest]

No matter what you ever say, I pray for union of Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... Oh that you could
only consent to be again what you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"
~Alexis Khomiakov

If you guys were still against birth control, then you would be unchanged. But such is not the case.

Is that why Humanae Vitae is void of Patristics?

What's your point? I was just addressing the idea that you have not changed. It is clear historical fact that your Church has changed its teaching on birth control.

No, it hasn't.  You get the same diversity on the issue with common principles now that you get 2000 years ago.

Not at all true. Now you are just making stuff up.

No, Pope Paul did, that's why he couldn't cite any Fathers.

No you made stuff up. The fathers were against birth control and your Church used to be. How unfortunate for you that your Church changed its teachings on such an important issue.

Why don't you show us where the Orthodox Church "abandoned its teachings" instead of making these blind accusations? What a novel concept! 

In Christ,
Andrew

Well, the church fathers were against it and the modern EO Church is not, so isn't that changing a teaching?

You didn't answer his question. It seemed he made it pretty clear that he was looking for proof that there was a Patristic consensus against contraception and that the EOC now has a consensus otherwise.

[katherineofdixie]

It seemed he made it pretty clear that he was looking for proof that there was a Patristic consensus against contraception and that the EOC now has a consensus otherwise.

Is there such a consensus in the EOC? First I've heard of it.

[Mickey]

Is there such a consensus in the EOC? First I've heard of it.

Not to my knowledge. 

[Irish Hermit]

It seemed he made it pretty clear that he was looking for proof that there was a Patristic consensus against contraception and that the EOC now has a consensus otherwise.

Is there such a consensus in the EOC? First I've heard of it.

There is a consensus among the Russian, Greek Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches (I cannot speak for the other Churches since I have never had the opportunity to become acquainted with their teaching on this matter.)

The above Orthodox Churches allow contraception when

1.  it is non-abortive

2.  it is for grave and justifiable reasons

3.  it is for a limited time
.........(although health consideration may influence this)

4  it is used with the blessing of the parish priest or spiritual father or mother
.........(although this is not strictly necessary)

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)

[Mickey]

There is a consensus among the Russian, Greek Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches (I cannot speak for the other Churches since I have never had the opportunity to become acquainted with their teaching on this matter.)

The above Orthodox Churches allow contraception when

1.  it is non-abortive

2.  it is for grave and justifiable reasons

3.  it is for a limited time
.........(although health consideration may influence this)

4  it is used with the blessing of the parish priest or spiritual father or mother
.........(although this is not strictly necessary)

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)

But it is a pastoral (spiritual direction) matter--is that correct father?

[Irish Hermit]

There is a consensus among the Russian, Greek Serbian, Romanian and Antiochian Churches (I cannot speak for the other Churches since I have never had the opportunity to become acquainted with their teaching on this matter.)

The above Orthodox Churches allow contraception when

1.  it is non-abortive

2.  it is for grave and justifiable reasons

3.  it is for a limited time
.........(although health consideration may influence this)

4  it is used with the blessing of the parish priest or spiritual father or mother
.........(although this is not strictly necessary)

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)

But it is a pastoral (spiritual direction) matter--is that correct father?

Mickey,

If you are saying that the parish priest or spiritual father/mother should be consulted, then yes.  In the reality of large parish life many people do not have the opportunity to discuss it with the parish priest and they learn the Church's attitude from other parishioners and such as the Russian Bishops' Statement in 2000 AD, articles in church magazines, etc.   And when there are some questions they will bring those up in Confession.

[Mickey]

Mickey,

If you are saying that the parish priest or spiritual father/mother should be consulted, then yes.  In the reality of large parish life many people do not have the opportunity to discuss it with the parish priest and they learn the Church's attitude from other parishioners and such as the Russian Bishops' Statement in 2000 AD, articles in church magazines, etc.   And when there are some questions they will bring those up in Confession.

Understood. 

[deusveritasest]

It seemed he made it pretty clear that he was looking for proof that there was a Patristic consensus against contraception and that the EOC now has a consensus otherwise.

Is there such a consensus in the EOC? First I've heard of it.

I didn't say there was. Papist seemed to suggest that there was. Someone asked for proof of this. I was clarifying what they were asking.