A thought on Roman Catholic fasting

[OnTheWay]

Not interested in debate, but I was giving the whole subject of fasting some thought last night and have decided that I'm going to adopt western fasting instead of Orthodox. As I think should all western Orthodox. In thinking about it every time the idea of adhearing to the rules comes up everyone is quick to jump in with reasons why they don't have to do this or that. As such it's reductionism anyway, so it rather seems like the entire thing becomes an exercise is legalism or it becomes all about food.

Now the reason I've decided to go with western fasting is because I think it represents a more accurate historical basis in fasting in regards to how it affects the life of the average person. Many of the ECF's wrote things on sex that would be outside the views of even the most modern conservative elements, as such that was probably more the basis for martial fasting than anything else. We've scraped most of their thinking on the subject, and we rather enjoy our sex life so I see no reason to include it in fasting.

As to food, the inclusion of meat and dairy products as staples in a diet is really rather modern. As little as 100 years ago you'd find many people eating a lot less of these things. Going back to someone living in the late Roman Imperial period or the Middle Ages these things would have been quite a rare treat as opposed to a staple. If you notice in Orthodox fasting various sea foods that were Greek staples are excluded from the fast. As such I think the historical reality is that the abstaining from meat on Fridays would give the same effect to the diet of a modern person that avoiding these things altogether would an ancient Christian. There's also the fact I didn't get much out of the Orthodox Lenten fast, with my activity level with sports it wasn't something my doctor thought to be a good idea. He was basically right, it just made me sluggish. I think I'd get more out of skipping meat on Fridays and picking something to give up than doing the whole thing.

As for the Nativity fast, I think I'm just going to pass on it altogether, for a westerner like myself it's really rather impossible to get through without major breaches anyway. Don't think anyone's priest would tell them not to go to family Christmas parties or the like. With all the celebrations and being newly married keeping it just really isn't going to happen. So why give yourself a guilt trip about failing every day? Plus I've got my Lutheran cousin here, so why put her out at all when we're really not keeping it anyway?
Going to run it by my priest, but I'm pretty sure he'll agree with me. Not exactly a strick type when it comes to fasting, actually he said during Lent if I was playing hockey I could pass on most of it. Please don't take this as sarcasm, I'm being quite serious. Just wanted others to give the historical realities some thought and see if others came to similar conclusions. I really think the entire thing has shown me that I've been way too legalistic in my approach so I've had a rather complete change of heart.

[Michael the Iconographer]

There is no room in Orthodoxy for pick and choosery. That is called heteropraxis, and heteropraxis leads to heterodoxy.

[kamikat]

I really think the entire thing has shown me that I've been way too legalistic in my approach so I've had a rather complete change of heart.

You should be as legalistic as your priest requires you to be and allow everyone else to be as lax or as strict as their priest allows for them. If you feel being legalistic for yourself is beneficial to your own theosis, more power to you. However, it may not be beneficial to other people, especially if they are under their own spiritual father's guidance and have received contradictory advice.

[OnTheWay]

There is no room in Orthodoxy for pick and choosery. That is called heteropraxis, and heteropraxis leads to heterodoxy.

Are you attempting to imply that fasting is dogma? This is a highly disordered view and it would seem you're view of fasting is like a Muslim's view of the "Five Pillars of Islam." Fasting is not dogma, and it varies culture to culture anyway.

[eoe]

1 - posting this here only invites criticism
1 a criticism is not going to help you
1 b criticism is not going to help the one giving it

2 - Why are YOU deciding what your fasting rule is to be? Why not speak to your SF and leave it to him?


forgive me....

[cobweb]

There is no room in Orthodoxy for pick and choosery. That is called heteropraxis, and heteropraxis leads to heterodoxy.
That is what I thought too.

I would love to do the Nativity fast this time, but I have not heard back from my priest. He hasn't told me that I can.

Obedience is better than sacrifice.

[Michael the Iconographer]

How can you decide on your own power to not follow the fast the Church has prescribed, under the guise of avoiding legalism? Have you consulted your spiritual father about this?

[OnTheWay]

You should be as legalistic as your priest requires you to be and allow everyone else to be as lax or as strict as their priest allows for them. If you feel being legalistic for yourself is beneficial to your own theosis, more power to you. However, it may not be beneficial to other people, especially if they are under their own spiritual father's guidance and have received contradictory advice.

I don't get much out of fasting and it's not something my priest tends to stress, especially for converts, so I see no problem in adopting a western style fast. This "it's up to you and your priest anyway" type of thing is exactly why I came to my current conclusions. It's not as if the canons are enforced with an iron fist, and they shouldn't be. Fasting has always flexed culture to culture, Russians allow beer and the Greeks don't. Don't see any big deal in modernizing and westernizing it a bit.

[Michael the Iconographer]

It is not dogma, it is a church prescribed obedience and if you choose to break it under your own authority that is heteropractical.

[OnTheWay]

1 - posting this here only invites criticism
1 a criticism is not going to help you
1 b criticism is not going to help the one giving it

2 - Why are YOU deciding what your fasting rule is to be? Why not speak to your SF and leave it to him?


forgive me....

Actually I have, he's always been completely fine with the idea of adopting the western fast. It's always been myself that has been pushing for a harder standard despite the fact I wasn't getting much out of it, save for some heated debates in which I was trying to get everyone else on the hardest approach. Not really asking for criticism, mainly because I can't say what other people think has ever been an issue for me. After looking at the history it simply seems that Orthodox fasting needs to be updated. The choice to criticize lies with the individual, I'm simply trying to gather thoughts on my approach to the historical realities of fasting. I've had a very rare epiphany type moment.
If make a choice not to attend services can be okay then I don't see why making the choice for a western fast can't be with premission.

[Lotar]

I think the Church's fasts are great things to attain to, but I agree that they are not dogma or things to be legalistic about, esp in regards to how we view the fasting habits of others.

And I do also agree that the fasting rules are outdated and should be revised. I can't eat a 25 cent bean and cheese burrito, but I can eat a $25 lobster tail.

[OnTheWay]

How can you decide on your own power to not follow the fast the Church has prescribed, under the guise of avoiding legalism? Have you consulted your spiritual father about this?

He's actually the one that suggested the idea, so unless he's changed his mind he's already given premission. Like I said, I'm going to run it by him when he gets back from his travels, but he's consistantly approved in the past. Can't think of any reason that would have changed.

[OnTheWay]

And I do also agree that the fasting rules are outdated and should be revised. I can't eat a 25 cent bean and cheese burrito, but I can eat a $25 lobster tail.

That's really what got me thinking about the history behind the whole thing. It wasn't so long ago in human history that meat or diary in general were expensive enough that it was a "celebration" type occassion to have them. So obviously it's not so much the meat or the diary that's the issue, it's focusing on the religious event at hand. As such I really think it applying fasting in a way that impacts a modern believer's life in the same way that it did an anicent it would be to say that we should avoid going out to a fancy dinner as opposed to allowing someone to go get a fancy crab dinner but they cannot stay home and have a burger.

[Orthosdoxa]

When I read that first post, I thought you were being sardonic...

...I'm still not sure you're not....

LK

[Silentchapel]

Revision?
Memento Vatican II.

[Lotar]

Revision?
Memento Vatican II.
Revision doesn't have to mean laxity. When the fasting rules were made shell fish was the food of the poor, fish was slightly more expensive, followed by dairy, and then meat was relatively expensive. Fasting was not only killing your passions, but the money you saved on food was supposed to be used as alms. Today, sometimes it can be more expensive to fast than to not fast (esp for the bachelors who don't do much cooking ;) ). In reality, it is pretty much impossible to strictly hold to the fast, if you go and read the ingredients of everything you eat.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I think the Church's fasts are great things to attain to, but I agree that they are not dogma or things to be legalistic about, esp in regards to how we view the fasting habits of others.

And I do also agree that the fasting rules are outdated and should be revised. I can't eat a 25 cent bean and cheese burrito, but I can eat a $25 lobster tail.
Those rules are not for the laity to just change at whim.

[Lotar]

Those rules are not for the laity to just change at whim.
I never said that they were. They can be changed, they have been changed, and I never said anything about the laity being the ones making the changes.

[Michael the Iconographer]

I never said that they were. They can be changed, they have been changed, and I never said anything about the laity being the ones making the changes.
They can be changed, but they need to be changed properly.

[Lotar]

They can be changed, but they need to be changed properly.
Of course.

In my opinion, I think it is time for them to revise the fasting rules, in a proper way (if that wording pleases you). It seems to me that there could be more reasonable classifications for the modern diet. Such as adding shellfish into the meat catagory, and maybe switching fish with something like it's modern day equivalent, such as poultry.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Of course.

In my opinion, I think it is time for them to revise the fasting rules, in a proper way (if that wording pleases you). It seems to me that there could be more reasonable classifications for the modern diet. Such as adding shellfish into the meat catagory, and maybe switching fish with something like it's modern day equivalent, such as poultry.
Do you know how hard it will be to get that changed?

[choirfiend]

Don't play into something that is combative and problematic by adding fuel to the fire. Practice abstainance (from posting.)

[Lotar]

Do you know how hard it will be to get that changed?
Pretty much impossible. :D

The only way it might happen is if it is changed by one church, and the other churches one by one follow suit. Just like how most hierarchs no longer require abstinence from martial relations.

[Michael the Iconographer]

Choir, you might have a good point!

[zebu]

As for the title of this entire thread...Aren't you aware that the vast majority of Roman Catholics do not fast at all anymore?? "Updating" the rules resulted in nobody caring about what little rules were left.

[Matrona]

As for the title of this entire thread...Aren't you aware that the vast majority of Roman Catholics do not fast at all anymore?? "Updating" the rules resulted in nobody caring about what little rules were left.

I don't think we should make our judgments on our fasting rules based on assumptions about the practices of non-Orthodox. I don't care if Roman Catholics don't fast or if they roll around in sackcloth and starve themselves for seven weeks... they are not part of the Church, and their practices are none of our concern.

OTW... I hope you're being sarcastic, but if not, God have mercy on you.

There's nothing wrong with relaxing the fasting rules per se; it's the mindset you're doing it with that concerns me. "I won't succeed, so I may as well not even try". Have you ever read a fable about a certain fox who wanted some grapes?

You're right that fasting can turn into being all about food; I try to plan for a fast's meals weeks ahead so I can concentrate on prayer rather than how to handle meals, for that very reason. I'll eat hot dogs and canned tuna during fasts, and often dairy, and I don't eat expensive fish or lobster, but other than that I try to stick to the fast as practiced by the Church. It worked for the saints so who am I to mess with success?

[Asinner]

Perhaps the next time we vote on Church practices, you can suggest changing the rules, or forgoing the silliness altogether . . . :idea: :eek: :doh: :wave:

[Asinner]

This thread isn't real. :) 'Tis fake. ^_^

[rusmeister]

Matrona is absolutely right.

I struggle with fasting, too, and usually wind up not sticking to the strict rule while choosing food items that are closer to those rules (usually) and I should talk to my priest about this (I do in confession, but he never gives advice then, and he's a horribly busy man - I'm intimidated to even ask for his time).

Whatever you do, it should be in a spirit of submission to what you're directed to do by your SF. The spirit of saying, "I think I'll change this rule on my own because it makes more sense to me." is disastrously non-Orthodox, even if it seems to be sensible.

[zhilan]

I don't think the fast is legalistic. In my expereince it's quite the opposite. It should always be done with the right intentions and it seems like priests know that and make sure that the fast is a spirtual exercise rather than a "diet" exercise.

When I was talking to my priest about the fast he told me the story of a monk who was traveling during Lent and he stopped with a peasant family for the night. The family was so excited and honored to have the monk staying with them that they went out and slaughtered the lamb they were saving for Pascha and served it for him. Even though it was during Lent and monks don't eat meat anyway, the monk blessed the meal and ate it greatfully, then doubled up on his own fast the next day. This is the spirit of Orthodox fasting. It is about devotion and spirituality. But, that does not mean one should go about making their own rules. It is within the rules the church gives us that we fast with charity.

[authiodionitist]

I'm sure OTW is in the end being sarcastic. But I understand the spirit of the discussion. The fasting rules are generally too European - I agree.

[OnTheWay]

When I read that first post, I thought you were being sardonic...

...I'm still not sure you're not....

LK

I can quite assure you that I am absolutely serious. It really seems to me that if everyone has some sort of economy to get out of martial fasting I really don't see why the food issue is the unbreakable fortress. Let me ask you, if I go out and have a big garden salad for lunch and round out the day with a crab dinner but my neighbor reads Scripture and has hot dogs for dinner who really fasted?

[Akathist]

Who are you people to throw stones at OTW, or Lotar or anyone else?

What comes out of the mouths defiles more than what goes into our mouths!

Try fasting from being mean to one another!

OTW, and Lotar, I think you have valid points. I also think that both of you are talking to your Priests on such matters as you are both very good at that kind of thing from what I know of both of you. You are both better Orthodox than I am and I am proud to call you both my brothers.

Lord have mercy on the people who have judged you and made TAW such a negative hostile place.

[OnTheWay]

I don't think we should make our judgments on our fasting rules based on assumptions about the practices of non-Orthodox. I don't care if Roman Catholics don't fast or if they roll around in sackcloth and starve themselves for seven weeks... they are not part of the Church, and their practices are none of our concern.

OTW... I hope you're being sarcastic, but if not, God have mercy on you.

There's nothing wrong with relaxing the fasting rules per se; it's the mindset you're doing it with that concerns me. "I won't succeed, so I may as well not even try". Have you ever read a fable about a certain fox who wanted some grapes?

You're right that fasting can turn into being all about food; I try to plan for a fast's meals weeks ahead so I can concentrate on prayer rather than how to handle meals, for that very reason. I'll eat hot dogs and canned tuna during fasts, and often dairy, and I don't eat expensive fish or lobster, but other than that I try to stick to the fast as practiced by the Church. It worked for the saints so who am I to mess with success?

What I meant was a western fast, call it Roman Catholic or whatever you will. Furthermore, I think you have just really demonstrated my entire point. You lead up an entire post about my terrible idea and then end admitting you break the canons.

[OnTheWay]

This is the point that I'm trying to frame out, that some many in the same type of legalistic zeal I used to apply to martial fasting seem to have missed.

40 days without TV was so much better for me spiritually than 40 days without cheese. Avoiding finery and excess during certain periods I fully agree with, and that's what I think the canons in regard to food fasting where meant for, in those days meat and cheese (things we take for granted) were the finery. Most people simply didn't have the money to eat them on a regular basis.

One canon that regularly comes up to use as "proof" the Church is anti-Semitic is the one that forbids going to a Jewish doctor. Well the truth is in that day and age medical care was about 1 percent science and 99 percent spiritual. So at that time forbiding seeing a doctor of another faith was a good idea. That canon is simply outdated and while it may continue on I really doubt anyone is serious about enforcing it.

I think it's time to update fasting requirements. It's hardly has if there aren't priests all over the west granting many economies to converts for all sorts of issues. So the point really isn't food, you can all do what you want or what you priest tells you with that, it's really between you and God. My point is I really fail see why everyone can understand the economy from martial fasting but food rules for some reason are so eternal. I think the reason fasting and the like isn't dogmatic is because it needs to be changed from culture to culture and age to age. Allowing those changes represents the good wisdom of God to communicate the same idea to every person in the world regardless of race or cultural background. What draws people from God in the west today isn't seeking out fine foods. The fact is to an ancient Christian we all eat like the nobility. It's the constant state of consuming media. Fasting for the modern world should focus more on that than it does on food, and I think by in large the clergy and the laity get that. While the desire to protect anicent truths in dogma is great, it many people's all too human nature we get hung up applying that to things that are merely disciplines. I've certainly done it.

As such I've discovered that for me it needs to be about my areas, which has lead me away from so much importance on food fasting or martial fasting. If food fasting is what you really need then great, but maybe what I've said is something for everyone to consider.

[authiodionitist]

40 days without TV was so much better for me spiritually than 40 days without cheese. Avoiding finery and excess during certain periods I fully agree with....

Through our experience in the catharsis of the first stage of salvation (catharsis, photisis, theosis), we begin with milk and move towards meat of spiritual disciplines. Just as the Apostle challenges us (1 Corinthians 3:2), we should move from milk to meat. As at first converts such as myself first turn off the television and avoid meat, we continually move up the Divine Ladder of the fast so long as we remain simple in our hearts. And this is why we add things to the fast. We are not Old World people - we gradually grow into the rhythm set by Christians throughout the ages in order to grow towards Christ in the custom handed down to us. As the Proverbs proclaim, Remove not the Ancient Landmark which your Fathers have set (Proverbs 22:28). So while we are indeed to follow the canons of the fast handed to us, we first begin by "baptizing" our media culture by bringing our participation in it under control to yield it to Christ. I think this is what you are discussing.



I think it's time to update fasting requirements. ....So the point really isn't food, you can all do what you want or what you priest tells you with that, it's really between you and God. My point is I really fail see why everyone can understand the economy from martial fasting but food rules for some reason are so eternal. I think the reason fasting and the like isn't dogmatic is because it needs to be changed from culture to culture and age to age.


This is an ecclesiological issue. If the Church in North America was united, then we would do it to reflect our European colonial heritage, and what the United States has become to baptize it as well. As Father Seraphim Rose once said, however, "the Church is spiritually united" and this will always be true.


It's hardly has if there aren't priests all over the west granting many economies to converts for all sorts of issues.

The salvation of each man is our concern. However, this does not mean that we compare ourselves or our practices to anyone - we are to examine them in prayer and then discuss them in the presence of God before our priest.




I hope that is the sort of response you wanted.

[MichaelArchangelos]

By changing the fasting laws to suit yourself, then you effectively become a "cafeteria Christian". You take the bits you like from Christianity, and you reject the bits you don't like. This is not what Jesus asked - He asked the man to sell everything he owned and follow Him. So you don't just follow Jesus when it suits you, you follow Him wherever He may lead you - even if you don't agree with where He takes you or what He asks you to do. He knows best, and He has given the Church the Holy Ghost to teach and guide. The Church is acting under divine guidance, so why would you refuse divine guidance and go your own way?

By the way, I'm not fully fasting yet - my spiritual father told me to start by abstaining from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays.

[Xpycoctomos]

OTW: You bring up many good points. However, as others have pointed out, you miss a very important point. A HUGE part of the fast is obedience... to the Church and we structure that obedience with our SF. We don't just sit by ourselves and decide how we'll fast, we do this with our priest. If your priest is fine with you fasting as you say.. then great! That's between you to and may no one judge you in the least!

Now, there absolutely IS a huge difference between fasting from food and from Sex. Food is personal and one sided. When I want to eat, it is because it will be good for "number 1" (me)!. But fasting from marital relations is very different because if done correctly it is NOT about me, but about my spouse. There is a reason it is called making love. So, I think priests tend to use a lot more discretion when prescribing economias for this aspect because of this. You are obviously married, so I have no doubt that you see the diffrence between the two.

However, fasting from marital relations (if both are strong enough to gain benefit from it) can allow people to deal with their... ehem... frustrations through prayer. But you have to be ready for that. Abstaining from relations can sometimes make people (especially woman) feel lonely and unloved even though they may "know" that that is not the truth. Food... is about the "mmm yummy" factor. It's very very personal so I can choose to fast while the rest of my family chooses to have a steak. It's completely MY choice.

Anyhow, just wanted to throw that out there.

As long as you are coming to these decisions with your priest and in the light of the Church's wisdom, then I hold no grudge agasint what you are doing. Quite frankly, it's none of my d*** business :)

God bless and blessed Advent!

John

[Asinner]

It is about obedience. For us converts, why did we covert? Although, I realize there are varying reasons, but ultimately it was for obedience to the truth. Is not obedience the first step one must take when ascending the ladder of divine ascent. If my spiritual father instructs me that I must not partake of the Eucharist for a year because of a particular sin I've committed, yet in my mind, have committed far greater sins without being denied the Sacrament; yet remain obedient, then I have overcome, in a sense, and will be given a crown. I can choose to not obey my spiritual father and go to a different parish and partake there, believing that a denial of the Eucharist will only hurt me spiritually . . . This is not the narrow way. It is my way and leads to destruction. Since OTW, your sf has granted oeconomia to you, then you will be blessed for following it; however, that does not give any of us the freedom to choose this same path, for it could hinder us greatly. It is up to our spiritual father. Our fasting rules are similar to our prayer rules. Seek counsel from your priest and not from us here on TAW.

Love,
Christina

[kamikat]

I can quite assure you that I am absolutely serious. It really seems to me that if everyone has some sort of economy to get out of martial fasting I really don't see why the food issue is the unbreakable fortress.

The difference between dietary fasting and marital fasting is that dietary fasting only affects one person. Marital fasting requires two people to make the comitment.
Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

When I fast from certain foods, I continue to cook and feed the rest of my family their regular meals. Because they are either small children or non-Orthodox, they can continue to eat whatever they want.

[kamikat]

40 days without TV was so much better for me spiritually than 40 days without cheese.

Then, maybe after talking with your priest, you should include that as part of your fast. I know that my priest and I came up with a couple things that I do during the fast that would be considered a fast from things that other people wouldn't need to fast from. However, I do include this WITH the food fast because that's what father recommends. The key here is that anything you do or do not fast from should be according to your priest's guidlines.

[theoforos]

I've heard the fasting rules mentioned among the topics that have been planned to be brought up at the next pan-Orthodox/ecoumenical council. But I guess we had better not hold breath while waiting for the council... ;)

I agree that there probably is some room for revision in the rules, considering the change in the life style, dietal habits and cost of different food items since the fasting rules were determined. It's not just something that deals with America but there have been changes also in Europe, even in the eastern part of Europe, so it's not as much about eastern and western than about ancient and modern.

Also something totally new came up during this discussion. I never thought of the fact that while fish is relatively common in Europe while it certainly isn't in America. However, I don't think it would really be the same to replace fish by poultry, as someone suggested. I don't think it's just the cost that matters but there are also other reasons why different food items are included while others are not. Some animals are lower in the hierarchy while others are higher. Seafood is closer to vegetables than fish and fish is closer to vegetables than meat, and they all affect us differently depending on where they belong to in the hierarchy. At least that's what I understood from a discussion with my bishop. But I can't think of any other replacement for fish either...

As for adapting the fasting rules to the local diet, that's what they did in these northern areas when Orthodoxy arrived here a long time ago. Before the time of refrigerators etc they didn't have access to a large variety of vegetables during the winter, and that's why fish has traditionally been considered "vegetable" in these areas and eaten also on days that the church calender says are all-vegetable days. You can still see traces of this thinking, e.g. dairy-free fish soup served at church during the Dormition fast.

Even if it's difficult to keep the fast it seems somewhat "protestantish" to think that if I can't keep the fast completely then why bother at all. Wouldn't it be more Orthodox to do your best even if you know that you won't be able to keep the fast completely? It's the intention that counts...

By the way, when you talk about western fast, what do you mean? The modern Roman Catholic fast or the traditional western fasting rules? Isn't there quite much difference?

[Dust and Ashes]

I can see where the fasting rules for food could use some possible revision, though I wouldn't make any kind of decision on my own. With my wife exempted from the fast right now, it would be hard to be strict because we, quite honestly, can't afford to keep 2 separate menus.

I totally abstain from meat and cheese but I don't get too freaked out over a little milk. If I'm cooking for both of us and the recipe calls for milk, I'll include it and not worry. My major problem is with portions, so if I eat a half-gallon of fasting potato soup, I haven't really fasted anyway.

As far as marital relations, I'm kind of used to "fasting" at this point. Following a high-risk pregnancy then the obligatory 6 weeks, I've grown accustomed to abstinence. Of course in a couple of more weeks, it's going to get very difficult as the 6 weeks will be over.

I think a lot of the issue with fasting from marital relations is due to how modern society has made sex more central to life than it was in past ages. We are so accustomed to having all our needs satisfied when we want them satisfied that the concept of not having a need satisfied drives us to question the practicality of some ascetic practices.

[Xpycoctomos]

I've heard the fasting rules mentioned among the topics that have been planned to be brought up at the next pan-Orthodox/ecoumenical council.


While the point is good, the reality of it would be (I think) disasterous, creating stupid divisions from more hard-core groups who would see this (erroneously) as a way to make it easier. They won't see that it is an attempt to make it more RELEVANT to life. In the end, I think how it is now works very very well. Provisions can always be made by priests. Perhaps bishops could put out guides for priests to help them make apporpriate provisions according, not rule or anything official... just good and well-discerned suggestions.

But anything official, while ideal, isn't realistic unless we want to create unneeded rifts.

John

[choirfiend]

You want relevance, go to

www.relevantmagazine.com


Progressive, relevant culture, all the way.

[gzt]

Well, the first rule of fasting club is not to talk about fasting club.

[Monica, child of God]

This thread is a good example of why we should keep our personal rules (fasting and prayer) secret as well as advice from our spiritual fathers. None of us really knows each other here though we may think we do. If one of us is exempted from certain things there can be very valid reasons which cannot be fully appreciated in an online discussion. Our priests hopefully know us and our marital situations and advise us accordingly. We cannot "look" at each other on a message board and approve or disapprove of anything. And if some people are under spiritual fathers who others may consider "lax," perhaps in God's divine plan this is exactly what the person needs. Raising disparaging questions about the standard fasting discipline may even cause a brother or sister to stumble if they become resentful or disobedient. Where ever we are we just need to persevere in faith and keep our minds out of other peoples kitchens and bedrooms and focus on encouraging each other in discipline that aids in theosis whatever their priest approved rule may be.

'Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."' John:21


"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way...If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died...the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification...So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. --Romans 14


M.

(yes I know the verses from Romans refer to Judiazing rules about foods but many Orthodox writers refer to them when discussing fasting and I do think there is an application. The principle is love.)

[choirfiend]

I agree. The first rule of fasting club is you don't talk about fasting club. Thank you Monica for placing this in the context of Scripture.

[Silentchapel]

As for the Nativity fast, I think I'm just going to pass on it altogether, for a westerner like myself it's really rather impossible to get through without major breaches anyway.
Think about it. The point of fast is to abstain. If there were absolutely no chance of breaches during fasting, fasting itself would kind of lose its point. Also, by analogy, why should I bother with Confession? I'd probably return to my confessed sins - I might just ditch it completly.

Don't think anyone's priest would tell them not to go to family Christmas parties or the like. With all the celebrations and being newly married keeping it just really isn't going to happen.
Nativity fasts lasts some 40 days. Unless you attend 40 parties, the chance of breaking the fast is rather low. And of course, here I'm talking specifically about family gatherings where it would be rude not to eat the meal.

So why give yourself a guilt trip about failing every day?
Because the point of the fast is to make you strong spiritually. You won't get strong if you go to a gym once and get all depressed because you can't lift the hardest of weights. You go back, you start with lighter weights. You visit more often, you start lifting heavier weights until you can lift the heaviest one. It is quite similar to fasting.

Not exactly a strick type when it comes to fasting, actually he said during Lent if I was playing hockey I could pass on most of it. ... Actually I have, he's always been completely fine with the idea of adopting the western fast.
There is a world of difference between a SF suggesting something and us making our own rules. And also, I know of disastrous consequences when people try to suggest their SF's advice on other people.

I really think the entire thing has shown me that I've been way too legalistic in my approach so I've had a rather complete change of heart.
Legalism. That doesn't mean that in the Orthodox Church there are no rules. Why should only a priest enter the altar? Why should he be the only one who can touch the Holy Table? Why should he be the one to hear Confessions? Point is - there are rules. Rules are made so they wouldn't be broken (despite the stupid saying saying otherwise). Priest is there to break the rules for the benefit of his spiritual child.

Fasting is not dogma, and it varies culture to culture anyway.
There are all sorts of things that aren't a dogma but which are simply done. Is it a dogma that frescoes and mosaics aren't painted on the floor of the church? It isn't. But you won't see frescoes and mosiacs because people would just trample over Christ, Theotokos, Saints. "Fasting is not a dogma" is precisely a legalistic approach. You have a list of dogmas which you have to obey, and a list of non-dogmas where you can do as you please. Fasting may not be a dogma of the Orthodox Church, but it is a fundamental part of being an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

I don't get much out of fasting
You don't fast to 'get something out of it.' The denial is reward itself.

Fasting has always flexed culture to culture, Russians allow beer and the Greeks don't.
Except for the fact that some things were ALWAYS agreed upon: meat, dairy, eggs. By adopting a western-style fast, you're adopting a heterodox practice which has developed over 900 outside of Orthodoxy. Not to mention that RC view of fasting is quite different than the one of the Orthodox Church.

I can't eat a 25 cent bean and cheese burrito, but I can eat a $25 lobster tail.
And that is why there is what is called 'spirit of the fast.' If we fast by eating lobsters, meat substitutes, you-won't-believe-this-isn't-milk and by spending all the spare time in front of the TV, then something is horribly amiss.

Fasting was not only killing your passions, but the money you saved on food was supposed to be used as alms. Today, sometimes it can be more expensive to fast than to not fast (esp for the bachelors who don't do much cooking ;) ). In reality, it is pretty much impossible to strictly hold to the fast, if you go and read the ingredients of everything you eat.
True, money should go to the alms... Now, I wouldn't agree that it is impossible to hold a strict fast - however, I live in Serbia, and Serbia's an Orthodox country, so we know our way around here. Myself, I have only fasted strictly once, for a week. And sadly, it was a torment (never thought I'd say that about fasting - tends to be easier the more fasts pass). The reason behind it is that I despise veggies (as I've noted in one of my pervious posts) so my choice of foods was quite limited.

When I was talking to my priest about the fast he told me the story of a monk who was traveling during Lent and he stopped with a peasant family for the night. The family was so excited and honored to have the monk staying with them that they went out and slaughtered the lamb they were saving for Pascha and served it for him. Even though it was during Lent and monks don't eat meat anyway, the monk blessed the meal and ate it greatfully, then doubled up on his own fast the next day. This is the spirit of Orthodox fasting.
I also remember a story of a bishop... He had to make a choice. To eat meat with a Turkish nobleman on Great Friday or the nobleman would order some Christians to be slaughtered. The hierarch just made the sign of Cross, thanked the Lord and ate with the Turk. As one of my friends would say: "He didn't break the fast, and Lord will reward him for his great sacrifice."

40 days without TV was so much better for me spiritually than 40 days without cheese.
Poor Apostles, they had no TV to abstain from. ;)

My point is I really fail see why everyone can understand the economy from martial fasting but food rules for some reason are so eternal.
The point is that marital fasting is done in marriage, by two people. Good deal of peope are not married. But good deal of people do eat. And also, marital fasting was never cancelled. It is just something that is relaxed for individual couples. However, here you're suggesting that we should all follow your fasting plan. And that is what is the problem.

[Xpycoctomos]

Choirfied... please don't take want I am saying out of context. Otherwise I could say your wanting the DL in ENGLISH is pandering the "Relevance". Obviously this is not the case at all (so, to clarify, I am NOT accusing you of this) a different kind of relevance than you are citing.

The fact of the matter is that the foods the Church chose were chosen in great part because of reasons relevant to the culture at that time. That's why there are variations between Greece, Russia, etc...

This is not choose your own adventure. For example, in America it might be more relevant to ADD not eat at fast food joints like Taco Bell and not to eat seafood. No one is talkinga bout making the fast easier in a new council... in fact in some cases it would make it harder (like... no margarine or no soy lol).

But, this demonstrates precisely the reason we cannot ever change the rules even to make them relevant to our culture.

So I look forward to my lobster tonight ;)

[Lotar]

OTW, and Lotar, I think you have valid points. I also think that both of you are talking to your Priests on such matters as you are both very good at that kind of thing from what I know of both of you.

Just to make it clear, I did not mean that I was not holding to the fast (or at least trying to), just that I think that theoretically it may be a good idea to update the fasting rules according to the modern diet. I don't agree with just making up your own fast to suit yourself.

[Xpycoctomos]

lol.. that wa a good one!

Edit: I don't remember what I was laughing about.. but apparently I forgot to quote the post in question... I was NOT referring to your post above Lotar.

[theoforos]

While the point is good, the reality of it would be (I think) disasterous, creating stupid divisions from more hard-core groups who would see this (erroneously) as a way to make it easier.


That's definitely a big risk. We've seen the same thing happen with many other decisions made by the church councils. So maybe it would be wise to think carefully what things are important enough to be brought up at a council... However, if we finally had another ecoumenical council again and it revised the fasting rules, I guess we'd just have to accommodate ourselves to the decision if we don't want to step outside of the Church. One of our bishops just spoke about it in an interview. He says the following (translated from Finnish): "If we think about the global Orthodox church and the fact that since the year 1968 we have been getting prepared for the coming pan-Orthodox geat and holy synod, the local churches should understand that when it comes true its decisions will oblige all Orthodox churches. In the light of the synodal tradition, none of the local churches will have right to say that we don't approve of this or that decision".

[Mary of Bethany]

OTW: You bring up many good points. However, as others have pointed out, you miss a very important point. A HUGE part of the fast is obedience... to the Church and we structure that obedience with our SF. We don't just sit by ourselves and decide how we'll fast, we do this with our priest. If your priest is fine with you fasting as you say.. then great! That's between you to and may no one judge you in the least!

Now, there absolutely IS a huge difference between fasting from food and from Sex. Food is personal and one sided. When I want to eat, it is because it will be good for "number 1" (me)!. But fasting from marital relations is very different because if done correctly it is NOT about me, but about my spouse. There is a reason it is called making love. So, I think priests tend to use a lot more discretion when prescribing economias for this aspect because of this. You are obviously married, so I have no doubt that you see the diffrence between the two.

However, fasting from marital relations (if both are strong enough to gain benefit from it) can allow people to deal with their... ehem... frustrations through prayer. But you have to be ready for that. Abstaining from relations can sometimes make people (especially woman) feel lonely and unloved even though they may "know" that that is not the truth. Food... is about the "mmm yummy" factor. It's very very personal so I can choose to fast while the rest of my family chooses to have a steak. It's completely MY choice.

Anyhow, just wanted to throw that out there.

As long as you are coming to these decisions with your priest and in the light of the Church's wisdom, then I hold no grudge agasint what you are doing. Quite frankly, it's none of my d*** business :)

God bless and blessed Advent!

John

Thank you, John. You beat me to it. Fasting is obedience. Each one of us practices its *as our priest advises us to*. As long as I follow my priest's instructions to me, that is all that matters. It is not my business to tell anyone else how to fast, nor theirs to tell me how to fast.



Mary

[Michael the Iconographer]

Mods, there needs to be a cleanup all over the store. Someone spilled a nasty can of worms and it is festering. I suggest you clean up this thread, please.

[Lotar]

What is wrong with the thread??? It seems to me that everyone is civil...

[Akathist]

Thank you, John. You beat me to it. Fasting is obedience. Each one of us practices its *as our priest advises us to*. As long as I follow my priest's instructions to me, that is all that matters. It is not my business to tell anyone else how to fast, nor theirs to tell me how to fast.



Mary

I agree with Mary here. I think that people need to discuss their fasting rule with their Priest. I also think there is some validity for some people, such as OTW to ask his Priest about modificiations. And I believe it does not reflect badly on him (or anyone else) to have this thought and to seek out one's Priest on this matter.

What I do not like is the implication said early in the thread that people who have this view are not Orthodox enough.

Fasting is something that is a part of our faith. There is some standards set by each jurisdiction that is considered "normal levels". It is my opinion that that is a great goal to reach for. Howver, if the goal for me was to run for 10 miles, I would fail. I might not even be able to walk for 10 miles.

So, I train under the supervision of my Priest so that eventually I can "run the good race". (As St. Paul says.)

That is what I saw OTW and others here saying for the most part.

The issue of it being too expensive to follow the fast is one that I have heard over and over again. It really doesn't make sense that lobster and shrimp are ok when they are so expensive. So are substitute foods too and they are allowed.

When you can't even afford basic dental care, it sure brings these matters to clarity. The fast to me, is obedience to the church, but also it is about almsgiving and prayer and spiritual study. (And it is NOT about causing physical harm to one's body.)

Too often I see comments that imply that someone is not Orthodox enough if they are not able to run the full race for any reason. In my opinion that is an unfair judgement. This thread became worse, imo when the implication was made that if one even questioned why lobster is ok, but not plain cheap food was being a less then fully Orthdox. I think a discussion about this should be allowed. After all, we all must follow what our Priests tells us so what is read here is not going to change what each of us does anyway.

Rather than shut this thread down, why not be loving and caring to one another and encourage each other on each of our training levels.

[Xpycoctomos]

What is wrong with the thread??? It seems to me that everyone is civil...
yeah... I didn't see anything wrong either.

John

PS: Lotar, by the way, in my other post (131) I wasn't laughing at what you said above... honestly, I don't remember what I posted that in regards to, but it just happened to be that I posted with out seeing your post and forgot to quote whomever I was reffering to. Did that makes sense? lol Anyway. bye. :)

[Xpycoctomos]

I agree with Mary here. I think that people need to discuss their fasting rule with their Priest. I also think there is some validity for some people, such as OTW to ask his Priest about modificiations. And I believe it does not reflect badly on him (or anyone else) to have this thought and to seek out one's Priest on this matter. . . .

I think a discussion about this should be allowed. After all, we all must follow what our Priests tells us so what is read here is not going to change what each of us does anyway.

Rather than shut this thread down, why not be loving and caring to one another and encourage each other on each of our training levels.

I agree with the obove. Thanks XR.

John

[zhilan]

Who are you people to throw stones at OTW, or Lotar or anyone else?

What comes out of the mouths defiles more than what goes into our mouths!

Try fasting from being mean to one another!

OTW, and Lotar, I think you have valid points. I also think that both of you are talking to your Priests on such matters as you are both very good at that kind of thing from what I know of both of you. You are both better Orthodox than I am and I am proud to call you both my brothers.

Lord have mercy on the people who have judged you and made TAW such a negative hostile place.
If OTW had come here and said he can't handle the fast or it is too difficult for him or he finds it to be so hard as to get in the way of his spiritual help that would have been one thing and that would have been fine. But for him to come and try to justify his inability to handle the fast by telling us that we are too legalistic becuase of how we fast and to imply that the church needs to change is something else entirely and I think its quite understandable that people feel a bit defensive when he tries to say that the church and those of us fasting are in the wrong and should change becuase he thinks the fast is too hard.

[zhilan]

Also, the OP said that in the old days dairy and meat weren't standard in our diets but now they are so that it's harder now. But I would say in this world of soy and vegan lifestyles, in many ways it's much easier to fast.

But in the end, the point of fasting is not about the food but about learning to control our desires. It makes us better than animals. No animal, if its hungry, will turn down food. By chosing not to eat (or not to eat certain things) we are training ourselves that what we do is our choice and that we are not ruled by our desires and impulses. So maybe it would be nice if the fast rules are updated so that shrimp and lobster aren't allowed, but to harbor on that is not the point. The point is that when I pass by the pizza or burger place and really want one but chose not to eat it, or when I see everyone else eating things that I would like to eat, but choose not to take part, I am learning self-control that I can apply to other areas.

[Xpycoctomos]

OTW: just be straight with us. Is part of the reason you started this thread to demonstrate some point about the marital fasting that clearly made you very upset in that other thread?

I mean, you POV is almost TOTALLY different then it was in there. I must confess that I was with others in thinking that you were moreso trying to prove a point about where our take on economia with the marital fast would take us (the slipperly slope argument).

I mean, I'm just telling you what about 70% of us were thinking when we first read your post. So, forgive us if we come across as a bit perplexed at your sudden "epiphany" since the other day.

But, if you really did have a total change of mind on this issue, and you talked with yoru priest about it... then what could any of us possibly criticize about your different fast?

Anyhow, please don't take huge offense to this. It's just an honest and human (allbeit imperfect) observation considering the events of the last few days.

God bless!

John

[Xpycoctomos]

But in the end, the point of fasting is not about the food but about learning to control our desires. It makes us better than animals. No animal, if its hungry, will turn down food. By chosing not to eat (or not to eat certain things) we are training ourselves that what we do is our choice and that we are not ruled by our desires and impulses. So maybe it would be nice if the fast rules are updated so that shrimp and lobster aren't allowed, but to harbor on that is not the point. The point is that when I pass by the pizza or burger place and really want one but chose not to eat it, or when I see everyone else eating things that I would like to eat, but choose not to take part, I am learning self-control that I can apply to other areas.


That was good... thanks Zhilan!

[OnTheWay]

The difference between dietary fasting and marital fasting is that dietary fasting only affects one person. Marital fasting requires two people to make the comitment.

Maybe a non-Orthodox spouse doesn't want to have to deal with explaining to the kids why mommy or daddy is having a different dinner, or maybe they don't want to deal with the cost of everyone having separate meals. It's not exactly like I've been married forever and day, but I do know there is basically nothing that either of us does as individuals that wouldn't affect the other in some way.

[kamikat]

Maybe a non-Orthodox spouse doesn't want to have to deal with explaining to the kids why mommy or daddy is having a different dinner, or maybe they don't want to deal with the cost of everyone having separate meals. It's not exactly like I've been married forever and day, but I do know there is basically nothing that either of us does as individuals that wouldn't affect the other in some way.

There's no extra cost if one spouse if fasting. The whole family eats broiled chicken breasts, baked potatoes and steamed broccoli. The fasting parents eat the potato and broccoli. Where's the extra cost? Sunday school explains to the kids why mommy and daddy fast but the kids do not. There is a huge different between what one person puts in his mouth and asking someone else to participate in your spiritual exercises. You can expect another person to be at the same point in their spiritual journey as you are.

[OnTheWay]

Even if it's difficult to keep the fast it seems somewhat "protestantish" to think that if I can't keep the fast completely then why bother at all. Wouldn't it be more Orthodox to do your best even if you know that you won't be able to keep the fast completely? It's the intention that counts...

Actually, I've never said anything of the sort. Basically here is why I've come to the conclusion that both the spiritual fathers I've had were right about this issue. Martial fasting is absolutely included in all the canons related to the subject of fasting. Yet virtually everyone here has some reason why they can't, or won't, obey those canons. I've heard everything from "my husband or wife isn't Orthodox so I can't ask them to do that,"
to "we abide by those canons during holy week but we're not interested in doing it during the whole of Lent." All of the heated debates that come out of these boil down to one simple thing, is it the spirit of the law or the letter of the law we're after. In truth the spirit of the law is not to take away the normal day to day foods people eat, they certainly didn't do that when they were written. I, for one, am glad I've been blessed to live in a time and place where it isn't a burden to get the complete protiens (meat) everyone's body needs. As such I cannot but come to the conclusion that if the canons were written today they'd be about not watching TV and avoiding going out to fancy spots for dinner, not forbidding grabbing a simple turkey sandwhich for lunch. I spent so much time trying to adhear to the most strick approach that I really lost sight of the whole thing, despite having had two spiritual fathers giving me wisdom I guess I just wasn't ready for. As such I've seen the light and just wanted to share my thoughts.

By the way, when you talk about western fast, what do you mean? The modern Roman Catholic fast or the traditional western fasting rules? Isn't there quite much difference?

If I had it to do over again I would have avoided the use of the "C" word. What I meant to imply the title was that my thinking would lead to a style of fast more similar to that of the RCC than the current Orthodox standard.

[kamikat]

Actually, I've never said anything of the sort. Basically here is why I've come to the conclusion that both the spiritual fathers I've had were right about this issue.
Yes, your spiritual father is always correct when it comes to spiritual issues. One should follow the SF's guidelines, that means don't be stricter than those guidelines or laxer than those guideline.

Martial fasting is absolutely included in all the canons related to the subject of fasting. Yet virtually everyone here has some reason why they can't, or won't, obey those canons. .

The question is: is everyone who is saying that they don't follow the marital fast saying this because they've made up their own minds or because, after discussing it with their spouse AND their priest, their priest grants them economia to omit the marital fast? If their priest is granting them this economia, is it another lay person's job to point out the errors of a spiritual father?

[Tetzel]

As for the title of this entire thread...Aren't you aware that the vast majority of Roman Catholics do not fast at all anymore?? "Updating" the rules resulted in nobody caring about what little rules were left.

My mom's uncle was outraged when they permitted meat on Friday. After years of having observed the rules he wondered who these people thought they were to change them.

[OnTheWay]

OTW: just be straight with us. Is part of the reason you started this thread to demonstrate some point about the marital fasting that clearly made you very upset in that other thread?

Honestly, at that point (and some my not find my overnight change of heart honest but I am being honest) I was upset at the idea we could just throw out the canons haphazard. I've even been some what put off but what I thought was a too liberal streak in my former and current priest. What I see here about food is exactly the same attitude others were so criticial of me for about martial fasting. It really got me thinking that instead of looking at the canons as these iron rules for the ages maybe I should think about the period for which they were written and try to see if my spiritual fathers were right about their proper spirit. The eating habits of anicent and Medieval Christians wasn't something I'd given a lot of thought. Well as it turns out eating meat and cheese for those people was a lot more akin to dining at a fancy restaurant would be to us. As such I really just saw the wisdom for the first time in why such a hard line position was so silly. I really think the way the RCC conducts fasting now has the same impact on the life of a modern person that the canons we still follow had on a person living in the Middle ages. That's when I realized my spiritual fathers were correct, and the canons and the nature of fasting really does need to be overhauled.

I mean, you POV is almost TOTALLY different then it was in there. I must confess that I was with others in thinking that you were moreso trying to prove a point about where our take on economia with the marital fast would take us (the slipperly slope argument).

It is totally different, and I'm not just be sarcastic to make a point. I know everyone probably thinks I'm just trying to make a slipperly slope argument and I can't do anymore than say I'm not. I know a sudden change of heart can be hard to accept, but in thinking about what my spiritual fathers have said on the issue and doing some research on the diet of someone living in the Middle ages or Imperial Rome I really just saw the canons in a whole new light.



Anyhow, please don't take huge offense to this. It's just an honest and human (allbeit imperfect) observation considering the events of the last few days.

I'd probably think the same thing if I were you. It's not an attempt to be sarcastic. I really just had an epiphany concerning the entire way I was going about the rules of fasting and was just interested in sharing some thoughts on the subject. If others really feel the end to keep the canons or that's what their spiritual fathers say then I wish them the best on their efforts. I really feel that the reason why both of my spiritual fathers have told me what they have is because that is where I need to be and I really think my past attidues about fasting where extremely legalistic and I was missing the entire point of fasting, to the point where I might be inclined to say I was resisting God.

At any rate, I'm not trying to be combative, or call down the Church, or make a point. Just sharing some thoughts on another way of looking at maybe how fasting should look for the entire Church in the future.

[OnTheWay]

The question is: is everyone who is saying that they don't follow the marital fast saying this because they've made up their own minds or because, after discussing it with their spouse AND their priest, their priest grants them economia to omit the marital fast? If their priest is granting them this economia, is it another lay person's job to point out the errors of a spiritual father?


If we're going to be legalistic then anything less than complete legalism is hypocrasy. I've been there, done that, and God has shown me the error of that way. The other option is to find the spirit of the canons and see if they don't need to be updated, I think that's the way we should go.

The thing about rules, and it doesn't matter whether it's a church, a social club, or a sporting league, is that the minute there's an exception there ceases to be a rule. I used to look at the canons like rules on the same level as anything else. Therefore in my old approach upholding the martial fast was equally as important as not stealing. The truth is the canons are now, and probably always have been, guide lines and not rules. If an economy can, or should, be granted then it's not a rule. After all, no one would ever grant an economy to commit fornication or steal from one's employer. Do you think your spiritual father would grant you an economy to join a swinger's club because you husband wanted to? I tend to think that regardless of what would happen to your marriage your spiritual father would say absolutely no. Not that I'm in anyway implying your husband would ever do such a thing.
That's when I realized my spiritual fathers were correct, those things are universal rules that apply to everyone without regard to time or culture. The canons in regard to fasting need to be viewed as guide lines, and guide lines need to be updated from time to time to keep them relivant.

[Akathist]

Although I don't get into marital fasts discussions much here, I have been so confused as to why it is ok to talk about how one doesn't follow the marital fast but when it comes to food fast the fact that there is an economy must be kept a secret. That just makes no sense to me.

Some have this attitude that we can never talk about the fast other than to say we follow it perfectly. But people can openly say that they don't follow the marital fast. It has confused me.

But the fact is that both the marital fast and the food fast are guidelines and there are economies used in both as prescribed by one's SF. Maybe some here are so strong in thier faith that they don't need an economy but it seems so unfair to say that one ecomomy is OK but the other is not.

I think fasting is great. I think the standards we have in the OCA are fine. (though I still struggle with lobster and such being ok but cheap chicken not) I think that it is good for every Orthodox to fast (food and marital) .....

to the best of their ability.....

and under the guidelines of their Spiritual Father.

And I think TAW could be a place where we could get love and encouragement from others if we are struggling. I know it is hard for me as I can't just call my mother and tell her I am struggling and ask for help on this. In fact, I don't have anyone that I have known more than three years I can ask for support on this. I am not very close to my Godmother and my Orthodox friends are people I only see at church. Sure, I talk to my Priest... but that is once at the beginning of the fast to get my fasting rule. He can't chat with me and support me like you all can as I just don't talk to him that much.

I think OTW and others who struggle should be given some support and not treated like we are "protestants" or "cafeteria christians" because we voice a struggle lots and lots of converts have. A lifestyle change is not easy to make and in my case to have health problems on top of that it is especially hard.

I do follow the fast as my SF directs me to. But sometimes I mess that up too. That is the honest truth. I confess this and I keep working on it. It is a training process and a growing experience.

It is easier to get through this when I am not dodging stones from a few people here. I may not be as good an Orthodox as some of you, but I am just as Orthodox as you. And so is OTW and I think he deserves our support too.

[zhilan]

I don't think anyone objects to giving OTW support. I think people object to his trying to tell others that he alone has discovered the true nature of fasting and suggesting the church and the rest of us should fast like he thinks.

[rusmeister]

OTW, the OP looks like you're condemning Eastern fasting, and your further posting seems to say that the Church should do this and that, in short, and people are reacting to that. I fully support your taking whatever direction in fasting that your SF guides you in: Western fasting, no fasting, even temporary starvation or fasting from air 2 minutes a day, etc. But it does seem that you have (perhaps quite unintentionally) launched an attack on a practice established and supported at this present time by the Orthodox Church. In addition, some of your posts seem to be putting you in a position of judging the Church. That's why at first many thought you were joking. Is that much at least plain?

Xenia, I don't think the appearance of assault was plain to you, so I can appreciate your taking up OTW's side and in that spirit agree with what you have to say. But it would be good to understand why so many peaceful friendly folk here suddenly got up in arms. They perceived an attack on the Faith, shockingly by one of our own. Perhaps that perception was wrong. But on a computer screen that's what it looked like from here.

I doubt OTW intended an attack. If so, clarification is needed that his search is personal and not intended to reflect upon how others should fast. Also, saying "The Church teaches x, but I think it should look like y in the future" is dangerous. A better approach would be an exploration to fully understand why the Church continues those teachings.

Am I wrong and stupid? (No sarcasm here)

[OnTheWay]

I don't think anyone objects to giving OTW support. I think people object to his trying to tell others that he alone has discovered the true nature of fasting and suggesting the church and the rest of us should fast like he thinks.

I've said nothing of the sort, the choice of a small group of posters to engage me over anything I say does not mean I've ever implied that I have discovered the sole truth in all matters of fasting. It rather seems many have gotten distracted from the point. Let me put it in a question and see if a few more can catch on to my thinking. Let's say on a given day you have $25 dollars to spend. What is better, to eat a $5 Whopper meal at Burger King and give $20 to the poor or to go out and drop the whole $25 on a lobster tail so you can keep the canons? Jesus was extremely fond of quoting the verse, "God desires mercy not sacrafice."

[zhilan]

I've said nothing of the sort, the choice of a small group of posters to engage me over anything I say does not mean I've ever implied that I have discovered the sole truth in all matters of fasting. It rather seems many have gotten distracted from the point. Let me put it in a question and see if a few more can catch on to my thinking. Let's say on a given day you have $25 dollars to spend. What is better, to eat a $5 Whopper meal at Burger King and give $20 to the poor or to go out and drop the whole $25 on a lobster tail so you can keep the canons? Jesus was extremely fond of quoting the verse, "God desires mercy not sacrafice."
Why does it have to be one or the other? Do you think most Orthodox are going out and eating Lobster every day during fasts? It seems to be what you are implying? How about instead of spending $5 on a whopper you grill up some vegetables and make a salad and give $19 to the poor. Or eat some pita and hummus. Or stir-fry some tofu? Why is the choice between eating lobster every day and eating cheap meat? I wager that the vast majority of Orthodox have -never- eaten lobster during the fast. I don't think I've ever even eat lobster period....

[DonVA]

You can eat lobster without butter sauce?

[OnTheWay]

OTW, the OP looks like you're condemning Eastern fasting, and your further posting seems to say that the Church should do this and that, in short, and people are reacting to that. I fully support your taking whatever direction in fasting that your SF guides you in: Western fasting, no fasting, even temporary starvation or fasting from air 2 minutes a day, etc. But it does seem that you have (perhaps quite unintentionally) launched an attack on a practice established and supported at this present time by the Orthodox Church. In addition, some of your posts seem to be putting you in a position of judging the Church. That's why at first many thought you were joking. Is that much at least plain?

I disagree that I've done anything of the sort. Yes, I have questioned certain practices and suggested that they be changed. This is no different than individuals that challage the practice of not receiving regular communion, or those that oppose it for that matter. That is not an attack by any means. Fasting or not fasting at all are not matters of dogma. Of the several hundred million people in the world that identify themselves as Orthodox Christians it would surprise me if more than 5 percent of them followed any sort fasting whatsoever. As they are not matters of dogma one is free to hold opinions that differ, and the Church freely grants that there are many exceptions to fasting canons. I do regret that my early posts suggested I had decided and implented this by myself and without any approval, such is not the case.

Xenia, I don't think the appearance of assault was plain to you, so I can appreciate your taking up OTW's side and in that spirit agree with what you have to say. But it would be good to understand why so many peaceful friendly folk here suddenly got up in arms. They perceived an attack on the Faith,

The faith is defined by dogma, fasting is not a dogma. If one looks at the realities involved it wasn't "friendly folk" getting up in arms about anything. It will never cease to amaze me how for as diverse as the span of the Church is on this board this is no room for differing opinions.

[OnTheWay]

If one of the mods would close the thread, this simply did not go where I intended it to.

[Akathist]

Xenia, I don't think the appearance of assault was plain to you, so I can appreciate your taking up OTW's side and in that spirit agree with what you have to say. But it would be good to understand why so many peaceful friendly folk here suddenly got up in arms. They perceived an attack on the Faith, shockingly by one of our own. Perhaps that perception was wrong. But on a computer screen that's what it looked like from here.

I doubt OTW intended an attack. If so, clarification is needed that his search is personal and not intended to reflect upon how others should fast. Also, saying "The Church teaches x, but I think it should look like y in the future" is dangerous. A better approach would be an exploration to fully understand why the Church continues those teachings.

Am I wrong and stupid? (No sarcasm here)

You are far from stupid my friend.

I do hope that my issue that people are quick to say that the economy for marital fasts is fine but an economy for food fast is considered a taboo subject. This I think is not fair and I am not going to go along with it.

OTW has clearly said his motives were misunderstood and yet people continue to tell him he is wrong to have had the motives he never had. (Not necessarily you, but in a way, yes.)

What I would like to see is a stop to the attacks. OTW's and my Orthodoxy was questioned in this thread. I doubt this bothered OTW that much as he has a thicker skin but it really hurt me.

The answer is not to say: "Well then we will not discuss fasting." Because that means that no support is available for anyone struggling.

Also, I don't think OTW's ideas should just be dismissed because three or four people in TAW don't like fasting thread discussions. OTW makes a great point about the idea that lobster is ok, but cheap typical american food is not.

In fact, I have heard leaders of my parish mention the same thing in our fellowship hall. The discussion there was that most felt that if the rules were made in our western contemporary environment, expensive seafood and high end meat products would be on the list and cheap food would be approved even if it had meat or eggs in it. Does that mean this is the fast followed at my parish? No, it is just a discussion.

[zhilan]

But he makes it sound like the only two choices during fasting are to eat lobster or break the fast and have a cheap meat meal. Who eats lobster during the fast?? I mean, really, it's one of those technical things, but does anyone go around eating lobster during the fast? I think the vast majority of the people eat vegan food (ie fruits, vegetables, beans, etc) and maybe occassionally have something with a few shrimps in it. To keep bring up the lobster thing just seems to be barking up the wrong tree. If there was some sort of wide spread problem with people just going wild eating lobster all the time during fasts then it would be worth harping about. The fact is I think most people never eat lobster and if they do ever get the chance to induldge in it, it's not during the fast times.

[authiodionitist]

It is my impression from this forum that "economy" is being used interchangibly with the Roman Catholic "dispensation" which is what economia is NOT.

So what is up with economia in this thread?

[Silentchapel]

Economia is softening ordinarily strict rules for the sake of the faithful. Following 'the middle way.'

[Akathist]

Economia is softening ordinarily strict rules for the sake of the faithful. Following 'the middle way.'

That is what I meant by an "economy".

[authiodionitist]

"for the sake of the faithful" - isn't this an individual thing? Or can it also be for the faithful as a whole?

[Silentchapel]

Yes, it is usually individual. However, I think that there were cases where economia was used upon everyone - for example, accepting Arian baptisms as OK. :)

[authiodionitist]

Here's my conflict: several times in this forum, the phrase "grant [person] economia" especially in reference to marital fasting.

I wanted to make sure that economia was used properly, and not as a substitute for "dispensation," for...

Such an approach, of course, is totally un-Orthodox. The Orthodox rule of fasting...is intended to...call believers to a difficult, inspiring, and humbling standard of Christian life; if they fall short of the standard, then at least they can see how far their life is from the standard, the norm, which always remains the same. The Papal idea...is to either give a special 'dispensation' from the standard, or else to change the standard itself so that the believer can fulfill it easily and thereby obtain a sense of satisfaction from 'obeying the law.'
-Rev. Fr. Alexey (Hieromonk Ambrose) Young, A Man is His Faith. Liberty, TN: St. John of Kronstadt Press, 2003.


This combined with the sanctification of time for each fasting period, I would like to say that we should imagine ourselves as ones waiting for the Bridegroom to come - an event worth restraining our passions more intentionally for.

[Monica, child of God]

I agree with zihlan. I never really approached the fast thinking that we were supposed to replace inexpensive meats with expensive shellfish. It seemed to me that the fast called on us to adopt a meat-free regimine which is very close to what poor people around the globe adhere to even in this day out of necessity. I know that I personally have more experience eating without meat and dairy than most Orthodox living in the West, but the standard Church fast can be amazingly cheap to adhere to if

1) you eat a basic diet of grains, veg, legumes, tofu, wheat gluten (wheat "meat" or seitan), nuts, pasta, oil and fruit. This pattern allows plenty of money for alms once you get used to it. And there is a huge variety of foods one can make from that list.

2) Deny yourself. Certain things may be more palatable than others but the point of fasting seems to be to deny the fallen human tendency to derive sensual pleasure from foods sometimes to the point of passion.

I guess I don't see agree that the standard fasting rule is irrelevant to modern life in the West. On the contrary, it calls us to adopt a diet similar if not identical to people living on beans and rice and what comes out of their gardens. Once you learn to make a few dishes (such as bean burritos and soup) and freeze a few things for convenience, what's the big deal?

M.

[theoforos]

I agree with zihlan. I never really approached the fast thinking that we were supposed to replace inexpensive meats with expensive shellfish. It seemed to me that the fast called on us to adopt a meat-free regimine which is very close to what poor people around the globe adhere to even in this day out of necessity. I know that I personally have more experience eating without meat and dairy than most Orthodox living in the West, but the standard Church fast can be amazingly cheap to adhere to if

1) you eat a basic diet of grains, veg, legumes, tofu, wheat gluten (wheat "meat" or seitan), nuts, pasta, oil and fruit. This pattern allows plenty of money for alms once you get used to it. And there is a huge variety of foods one can make from that list.

2) Deny yourself. Certain things may be more palatable than others but the point of fasting seems to be to deny the fallen human tendency to derive sensual pleasure from foods sometimes to the point of passion.

I guess I don't see agree that the standard fasting rule is irrelevant to modern life in the West. On the contrary, it calls us to adopt a diet similar if not identical to people living on beans and rice and what comes out of their gardens. Once you learn to make a few dishes (such as bean burritos and soup) and freeze a few things for convenience, what's the big deal?

M.

Applause! :clap: I'd like to add that besides the cost and compassion with the poor aspects, also the ecological aspects and the way how food affects us play a role.

It's enormously resource consuming to produce a little amount of meat, while a large part of the population in the world is starving. So, even if cheap meat is available in my local store, buying that cheap meat would still support the production of meat at the cost of more efficient food.

Meat also affects us in a different way than vegetables. It's not just the high cost of meat that's the reason it is not eaten during the fast or why monastics don't eat meat, there's a deeper meaning to it. I believe eating meat makes us more "earthy", while not eating meat makes us more spiritual. I also believe there's something in that when we eat meat another living thing has had to die to become our food.

[choirfiend]

I didn't think the fasting guidelines of the Church (the overall structure of which IS part of Tradition, though the giving of economy OR strictness should be regulated by one's spiritual father for personal spiritual benefit) were based in the literal economy of how expensive meat is. In our culture, unlike ancient cultures or places that have been Orthodox for a long time, we have access to EVERY kind of food and meat. Do you think Russia had sushi? Did Lebanon have buffalo? We can walk into a grocery and obtain ANY kind of food we want with ease, including fasting food, as much as we complain about it since we are used to instant gratification and expect supreme convinence for everything and it make actually take a little time to prepare (cooking lentils) rather than buying McDs. So, I dont think our western, easy, plentiful, diverse culture requires RELAXING the fasting guidelines. If anything, it has the possibility of being STRICTER because of the ease with which we can obtain nutrition here. We're the most lucky people on the face of the earth when it comes to food---but I bet we whine the most about having our food restricted, compared to the kid in Indonesia who eats a handful of rice everyday if he is lucky. I think it's just weakness----which is fine, we are all weak, all struggling, and everyone needs to begin from where they are without getting judged for it---but for goodness sakes, let's not rationalize weakeness into propriety.

[kamikat]

I think the problem we are having here on the board is that we read over and over on the threads not to talk about the dietary fasts. We don't seem to say the same things about the marital fast. I'm sure there are many of us who are practicing some kind of economia for the dietary fasts without talking about it. We've got pregnant and nursing mommas, kids who live with non-Orthodox parents, people with food allergies or intolerances, ect. Most of us will probably practice an economia next Thursday for Thanksgiving. The difference is that nobody has come out and said here is what I am doing diffierently than y'all. I think we should either be as quiet about the marital fast or be as open about the dietary fast. Otherwise it creates this sense that one is more important than the other.

[Dust and Ashes]

So, is there some kind of fast friendly substitute for sex? I mean, I know you can't pop into the supermarket and pick up a box of Boca Bang but if I can have fake meat and cheese, surely there is something that will help make the fast a little less..."fasty"...with regards to sex. ;)


Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot so don't pay too much attention to me. :sorry:

[Xpycoctomos]

Before it gets closed... just wanted to say something:

OTW, I think you make some good points. I don't think what you are describing is an RC fast really becuase the nature of the approach to the fast is different than that of the OC's... but taking a new fresh look at the fast while still preserving the original intent and SPIRIT of the fast (and holding up an ideal of some rigor...actually, reviewing it might bring MORE rigor) is a VERY valid point.

But, I think the whole SF and economia thing offers the proper leg room for this antiquated system to still work fine.

It's about accountability and humility (or at least, that is a HUGE part of it).

thanks for clearing up your intent OTW. Not a bad thread.

John

[Dust and Ashes]

It's about accountability and humility (or at least, that is a HUGE part of it).

thanks for clearing up your intent OTW. Not a bad thread.

John

Indeed. This thread has helped me a lot to look at the fast as it is intended rather than just an arbitrary set of rules. Thanks, OTW. Good thread. :thumbsup:

[Matrona]

So, is there some kind of fast friendly substitute for sex?

Chocolate. ;)

[kamikat]

So, is there some kind of fast friendly substitute for sex? I mean, I know you can't pop into the supermarket and pick up a box of Boca Bang but if I can have fake meat and cheese, surely there is something that will help make the fast a little less..."fasty"...with regards to sex. ;)


You could always try some saltpeter ;)

(BTW, this is an urban myth that has been dispelled)

[DonVA]

So, is there some kind of fast friendly substitute for sex? I mean, I know you can't pop into the supermarket and pick up a box of Boca Bang but if I can have fake meat and cheese, surely there is something that will help make the fast a little less..."fasty"...with regards to sex. ;)


Yeah, I know, I'm an idiot so don't pay too much attention to me. :sorry:
Let's ask Katie Holmes...

Oh, I'm sorry. That was out loud, wasn't it?

[Prawnik]

Who is Katie Holmes and who died and gave her all the answers? ;)

[gorion]

I don't see keeping the fast as such a big deal. It's not terribly difficult to change my diet. It is my pride that usually makes me want to ignore the fast.

I on the otherhand do not add enough prayer and spiritual aspects to my fasting periods. So although the letter is kept, how much of the spirit is? This is much to my shame.

As far as marital relations go. I have spoken with a priest who assures me that sexual fasting is not canonical and was never more than a footnote in the canons. Remember that marriage is the joining of two people in a spiritual, and emotional relationship. One needs to be careful what external "rules" get applied to this Sacramentally established union.

[Monica, child of God]

As far as marital relations go. I have spoken with a priest who assures me that sexual fasting is not canonical and was never more than a footnote in the canons. Remember that marriage is the joining of two people in a spiritual, and emotional relationship. One needs to be careful what external "rules" get applied to this Sacramentally established union.

I am glad that you've spoken to your priest about this. But can you see how discouraging your post could be to someone who is under obedience to keep the marital fast? It could cause frustration or even anger and disobedience if one believes that their preist is assigning arbitrary rules which in reality could be exactly what someone needs. Marital fasting has Biblical precident in the OT and the NT as well being a part of Western and Eastern Church traditions. I am not saying that you or anyone else should keep the marital fast, but keep it between the married couple, their spiritual father and God.

I really, really think we need to keep a lid on our personal fasting disciplines. It is not loving to share these things.

M.

[gorion]

I am glad that you've spoken to your priest about this. But can you see how discouraging your post could be to someone who is under obedience to keep the marital fast? It could cause frustration or even anger and disobedience if one believes that their preist is assigning arbitrary rules which in reality could be exactly what someone needs. Marital fasting has Biblical precident in the OT and the NT as well being a part of Western and Eastern Church traditions. I am not saying that you or anyone else should keep the marital fast, but keep it between the married couple, their spiritual father and God.

I really, really think we need to keep a lid on our personal fasting disciplines. It is not loving to share these things.

M.
Actually I never stated whether I abstain from sex during a fast or not. I simply stated that it is not canonical. I fail to see that stating whether something is canonical or not as a problem. If someone is being told to do anything because it is part of the canons (when in fact it is not) they are being spirtually abused.

I'm sure you can appreciate that.

[Monica, child of God]

I did not say that you shared your personal discipline. I tacked the last sentence on separately. Sorry if that was not clear.

I do not agree that it is abuse to apply recognized, accepted disciplines to people who need them. As I said, marital fasting has OT and NT precident. It is a part of the tradition of the Church. It goes directly to issues of the flesh. It has a place in the modern Orthodox Church.

I am not saying that anyone here should or shouldn't keep the marital fast, just to be clear.

M.

[gorion]

Yes but you see the rational used to be able to change the structure of the fast is that we relax the canons as they apply to the sexual portion of the fast so why not the food.

Well if marital sex is not part of the canon then the rationalization falls on its face. Including marital sex in the fast requirements is not canonical. So you cannot say since they aren't required to abstain from sex I can have a cheeseburger. Abstaining from meat is canonical.

Now if your spiritual father has you and your spouse abstaining from sex for your spiritual benefit then that is a different set of circumstances. Just don't say you have to because the canons require it.

[Monica, child of God]

gorion perhaps you missed a previous post that I wrote stating that I thought both personal fasting disciplines and advice from our spiritual fathers should be kept secret. That last sentence was shorthand for restating that thought.

M.

[gorion]

gorion perhaps you missed a previous post that I wrote stating that I thought both personal fasting disciplines and advice from our spiritual fathers should be kept secret. That last sentence was shorthand for restating that thought.

M.
So then your position is there should be no discussion on what the canons say about fasting?

[Monica, child of God]

Yes but you see the rational used to be able to change the structure of the fast is that we relax the canons as they apply to the sexual portion of the fast so why not the food.

Yes I see that people are making that argument and I have no problem with economia being applied and followed.

Well if marital sex is not part of the canon then the rationalization falls on its face. Including marital sex in the fast requirements is not canonical. So you cannot say since they aren't required to abstain from sex I can have a cheeseburger. Abstaining from meat is canonical.

I am not making any argument but that people should follow the instruction of their SF and that marital fasting is biblical and has proven to be helpful in the war against the passions.

We are in a battle here and the Church is trying to give us tools to help us win. Marital fasting is one of those tools that one's SF may urge you to employ. If you fall down, you get back up again. No guilt necessary. Fasting is exercise, not a life or death competition with yourself.

Now if your spiritual father has you and your spouse abstaining from sex for your spiritual benefit then that is a different set of circumstances. Just don't say you have to because the canons require it.

I never, ever, ever said either of those two things. Ever.

M.

[Monica, child of God]

So then your position is there should be no discussion on what the canons say about fasting?

Orthodox have differing opinions about whether the canons should be read and discussed by laypeople. Some feel that as they relate to disciplines, the canons are pastoral guidelines, not necessarily rules. A priest can be stricter or more relaxed than a particular canon.

M.

[Akathist]

And once again we have people saying that it is fine to openly state that does not follow the marital fast (which again as stated, is found in both the New Testiment and Old Testament therefore no canon is needed, imo) but it since it is "easy" and "no problem" to follow the food fast that is a different matter.

Since there is no substitute for sex and there is for hamburg, the food fast must be followed to the letter but it is fine to say that one isn't able to follow the marital fast.

I don't think the answer is to make these subjects off limits.

I feel strongly that someone should be able to say that need an economy for the food fast (either as they are new to fasting or for health problems) without being mistreated by fellow TAW members. (Basically that those who say so are not treated significantly worse then those who don't follow the marital fast.)

What I have seen in TAW is someone casually mentioning that they are not doing the marital fast and others implying that is no big deal. Then someone else says that they have a health problem and can't follow the food fast being told they are less than Orthodox. (Yes, that has happened! And by people who have posted in this thread.)

This bias that sex during fasts is ok but dealing with a health problem or getting used to fasting by working into it slowly is a sign they are a "cafeteria christian" or in "heteropraxis" or not being Orthodox is unfair and unjust.

I would like us to show love for each other and support those who struggle with the marital fast and the food fast.

[Monica, child of God]

I think if people share their fasting discipline for some reason, no one should judge them as doing right or wrong. No comment should be made either way. It is really no one else's business. We should all be more concerned with our own struggles.

"Grant me to see my own trangressions and not to judge my brother..."

M.

[Xpycoctomos]

I only eat ketcup during the fast. mmmm...

[authiodionitist]

In our culture, unlike ancient cultures or places that have been Orthodox for a long time, we have access to EVERY kind of food and meat. Do you think Russia had sushi? Did Lebanon have buffalo? We can walk into a grocery and obtain ANY kind of food we want with ease, including fasting food, as much as we complain about it since we are used to instant gratification and expect supreme convinence for everything and it make actually take a little time to prepare (cooking lentils) rather than buying McDs. So, I dont think our western, easy, plentiful, diverse culture requires RELAXING the fasting guidelines. If anything, it has the possibility of being STRICTER because of the ease with which we can obtain nutrition here. We're the most lucky people on the face of the earth when it comes to food---but I bet we whine the most about having our food restricted, compared to the kid in Indonesia who eats a handful of rice everyday if he is lucky. I think it's just weakness----which is fine, we are all weak, all struggling, and everyone needs to begin from where they are without getting judged for it---but for goodness sakes, let's not rationalize weakeness into propriety.




:cry:<- - tears of joy. I wholeheartedly agree with you Choirfriend!



:thumbsup:

[Xpycoctomos]

"for the sake of the faithful" - isn't this an individual thing? Or can it also be for the faithful as a whole?
it;s always individual and my priest said an economia NEVER sets a precedent.

[moses916]

Canon 69 of the Holy Apostles designates that any heirarch or priest or deacon or subdeacon or reader or chanter who does not fast during Great Lent and Wednesday and Friday is to be deposed. If a layperson does not fast during this time (unless he cannot fast on account of bodily illness), he is to be excommunicated.

(taken from St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite "A Manual of Confession)

OTW, i don't think you know how dangerous it is not to fast... I do hope you talk to your SF about this. God speed.

[InnerPhyre]

*OPINION WARNING*


My opinion:

The more important part of fasting is prayer and almsgiving. Eat nothing for 40 days and you will have gained nothing in God's sight if you neglected your prayer life in that time. I don't expect God to give me a lot of flak for eating a steak when I stand at His judgment seat. There's plenty more that I'll have heaped on my shoulders.

That said, the Church sets out guidelines for fasting for our own benefit and we should listen to her. Don't become a compulsive label reader. In the same vain, Don't follow the letter of the law by getting drunk on beer because you aren't allowed wine. Don't overindulge in dark chocolate desserts because they have no milk in them. The most important part of the fast is the attitude that we bring to it. If we fast with the attitude that Jews have during passover (from my experience with Jews, not all Jews) and whine and complain that they we can't have this or can't have that, it's better for us to eat freely. You can follow the fast in the Church to the letter and not be legalistic about it. It all depends on you. You make the fast. It is what you make of it. It has nothing to do with the rules. It has to do with YOU.

[InnerPhyre]

Canon 69 of the Holy Apostles designates that any heirarch or priest or deacon or subdeacon or reader or chanter who does not fast during Great Lent and Wednesday and Friday is to be deposed. If a layperson does not fast during this time (unless he cannot fast on account of bodily illness), he is to be excommunicated.

(taken from St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite "A Manual of Confession)

OTW, i don't think you know how dangerous it is not to fast... I do hope you talk to your SF about this. God speed.
We don't need to break out the canons and threats of excommunication to emphasize the importance of the fast. Remember the Paschal sermon of St. John Chrysostom and what he says to those who have neglected the fast.

[moses916]

forgive me

[Xpycoctomos]

*OPINION WARNING*


My opinion:

The more important part of fasting is prayer and almsgiving. Eat nothing for 40 days and you will have gained nothing in God's sight if you neglected your prayer life in that time. I don't expect God to give me a lot of flak for eating a steak when I stand at His judgment seat. There's plenty more that I'll have heaped on my shoulders.

That said, the Church sets out guidelines for fasting for our own benefit and we should listen to her. Don't become a compulsive label reader. In the same vain, Don't follow the letter of the law by getting drunk on beer because you aren't allowed wine. Don't overindulge in dark chocolate desserts because they have no milk in them. The most important part of the fast is the attitude that we bring to it. If we fast with the attitude that Jews have during passover (from my experience with Jews, not all Jews) and whine and complain that they we can't have this or can't have that, it's better for us to eat freely. You can follow the fast in the Church to the letter and not be legalistic about it. It all depends on you. You make the fast. It is what you make of it. It has nothing to do with the rules. It has to do with YOU.
good post

[Paisley]

Chocolate. ;)
I am so glad you said that!! ;)

[Paisley]

Me, personally, I don't mind living on veggies alone. ;) However, my priest also said that health reasons and such can be considered. It is not to be legalistic, etc., and I agree with that. But I do have people here that are not on fasts, eating chicken and beef in front of me. It is a struggle. :sigh:

[Akathist]

We don't need to break out the canons and threats of excommunication to emphasize the importance of the fast. Remember the Paschal sermon of St. John Chrysostom and what he says to those who have neglected the fast.

Thank you.

And consider also that to keep the fast is to follow the fasting rule one's SF has given us, even if that is not the same strictness as the jurisdictions guidelines.

It is also important to follow the marital fast. The argument that we should not struggle with a fast since the poor in other parts of the world struggle to get enough food to thrive or survive even also applies to the marital fast. Many people never marry, do not remarry after widowhood or divorce and survive just fine without sex.

That doesn't make it easy for married people to keep the marital fast. Just like the poor do not make it easy for people to follow the food fast.

[NyssaTheHobbit]

I recently read in "On Living Simply," a collection of teachings by St. John Chrysostom, that the fast was meant both as a discipline and as a way to show us what it's like for the poor. It's supposed to inspire us to help the poor. I forget if it was there, The Shepherd of Hermas, or both which said we're supposed to take the money we save and give it as alms.

[rusmeister]

I didn't think the fasting guidelines of the Church (the overall structure of which IS part of Tradition, though the giving of economy OR strictness should be regulated by one's spiritual father for personal spiritual benefit) were based in the literal economy of how expensive meat is. In our culture, unlike ancient cultures or places that have been Orthodox for a long time, we have access to EVERY kind of food and meat. Do you think Russia had sushi? Did Lebanon have buffalo? We can walk into a grocery and obtain ANY kind of food we want with ease, including fasting food, as much as we complain about it since we are used to instant gratification and expect supreme convinence for everything and it make actually take a little time to prepare (cooking lentils) rather than buying McDs. So, I dont think our western, easy, plentiful, diverse culture requires RELAXING the fasting guidelines. If anything, it has the possibility of being STRICTER because of the ease with which we can obtain nutrition here. We're the most lucky people on the face of the earth when it comes to food---but I bet we whine the most about having our food restricted, compared to the kid in Indonesia who eats a handful of rice everyday if he is lucky. I think it's just weakness----which is fine, we are all weak, all struggling, and everyone needs to begin from where they are without getting judged for it---but for goodness sakes, let's not rationalize weakeness into propriety.
On the point of what is available in other countries, I'll offer my situation up. One of the great temptations here for me is to view my entire life as a fast from everything I miss in America, and food is a biggie. Peanut butter has become like black caviar in terms of value. Once in a great while (every 2 or 3 months, maybe) I can get to a McDonald's. Mexican, Chinese, etc food - almost never. A home-style restaurant (not Denny's but I'll even take that) with a loaded breakfast of eggs, bacon and American pancakes with maple syrup? In my dreams. It makes for a great-sounding excuse not to fast - "C'mon, your whole LIFE is a fast!"

[Dust and Ashes]

On the point of what is available in other countries, I'll offer my situation up. One of the great temptations here for me is to view my entire life as a fast from everything I miss in America, and food is a biggie. Peanut butter has become like black caviar in terms of value. Once in a great while (every 2 or 3 months, maybe) I can get to a McDonald's. Mexican, Chinese, etc food - almost never. A home-style restaurant (not Denny's but I'll even take that) with a loaded breakfast of eggs, bacon and American pancakes with maple syrup? In my dreams. It makes for a great-sounding excuse not to fast - "C'mon, your whole LIFE is a fast!"

Want me to send you some peanut butter? Seriously. We participate in some food share programs and usually have 3 or 4 unopened jars at a time just sitting in the cupboard and that's only because we give away jars or we would have 7 or 8.

[rusmeister]

The shipping cost would probably make it not worth it.
If you know someone who's travelling to Moscow, that's usually the most reliable and cheapest way to send stuff. (I call it "The Russian Express"). I