Is it really 100% wrong? Fasting in the Orthodox Church is not about the type of foods you eat in a certain time period. It is about complete abstinence from food with repentance and good works. If you don't have good works, you fasting is voided (See Micah 3). If you don't repent from your sins, your fasting is nothing more than dieting. Period.
In addition, there is no church canon anywhere that says you can't sell non-fasting food during a fasting period. This might seem like an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., only the Pharisees had such rules) but the opposite is also an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., selling non-fasting food during a fast is prohibited).
It may be inappropriate to sell non-fasting food during a fasting period, but not wrong. In fact, things that seem inappropriate by cultural norms are in fact appropriate by Christian standards. Look at Romans 14:3: "The one who eats everything (meat is specified in this chapter) must not treat with contempt the one who does not (i.e., the one who fasts), and the one who does not eat everything (the one who fasts) must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them." There is, however, a modifier to this Christian standard. " All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." Romans 14:20.
So the food is not the problem. The food, whether kofta or cheese, is irrelevant. Neither is the actual act of eating these foods in non-fasting times relevant. The only issue we need to deal with stumbling. Will eating or selling these foods cause my brother to stumble? In my opinion, Egyptians have a tendency to stumble over anything and everything that is "unusual". Everything that they don't do or don't agree with or believe in is "prohibited". But the Gospel is clear. It is wrong to eat or sell something that will make others stumble, just as much as it is wrong for them to stumble over things that are inherently pure.
It's not so black and white to say 100% wrong.
OK, let me change that: 99.999 % wrong. When you find me a situation in which no one is caused to stumble, not even ONE person, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The fact is someone will always be caused to stumble when the church tells people to do one thing and then offers them incentive not to do that same thing! What makes it even more difficult is the fact that we never know if we caused someone to stumble or not!
Is it really 100% wrong? Fasting in the Orthodox Church is not about the type of foods you eat in a certain time period. It is about complete abstinence from food with repentance and good works. If you don't have good works, you fasting is voided (See Micah 3). If you don't repent from your sins, your fasting is nothing more than dieting. Period.
In addition, there is no church canon anywhere that says you can't sell non-fasting food during a fasting period. This might seem like an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., only the Pharisees had such rules) but the opposite is also an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., selling non-fasting food during a fast is prohibited).
It may be inappropriate to sell non-fasting food during a fasting period, but not wrong. In fact, things that seem inappropriate by cultural norms are in fact appropriate by Christian standards. Look at Romans 14:3: "The one who eats everything (meat is specified in this chapter) must not treat with contempt the one who does not (i.e., the one who fasts), and the one who does not eat everything (the one who fasts) must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them." There is, however, a modifier to this Christian standard. " All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." Romans 14:20.
So the food is not the problem. The food, whether kofta or cheese, is irrelevant. Neither is the actual act of eating these foods in non-fasting times relevant. The only issue we need to deal with stumbling. Will eating or selling these foods cause my brother to stumble? In my opinion, Egyptians have a tendency to stumble over anything and everything that is "unusual". Everything that they don't do or don't agree with or believe in is "prohibited". But the Gospel is clear. It is wrong to eat or sell something that will make others stumble, just as much as it is wrong for them to stumble over things that are inherently pure.
It's not so black and white to say 100% wrong.
OK, let me change that: 99.999 % wrong. When you find me a situation in which no one is caused to stumble, not even ONE person, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The fact is someone will always be caused to stumble when the church tells people to do one thing and then offers them incentive not to do that same thing! What makes it even more difficult is the fact that we never know if we caused someone to stumble or not!
No, it's still 100% wrong. Even if you aren't doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want. If you find that you are lazy there is still a reward if you are resisting to eat certain foods to show that you can control yourself. It also makes you spiritually stronger when you restrain yourself. This is wrong, fetari food in church during a fast is wrong. PERIOD. We shouldn't try to make up hypothetical stories to make something seem less wrong. It's wrong and that's it.
[quote author=geomike link=topic=11829.msg141296#msg141296 date=1310444483] No, it's still 100% wrong. Even if you aren't doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want. If you find that you are lazy there is still a reward if you are resisting to eat certain foods to show that you can control yourself. It also makes you spiritually stronger when you restrain yourself. This is wrong, fetari food in church during a fast is wrong. PERIOD. We shouldn't try to make up hypothetical stories to make something seem less wrong. It's wrong and that's it.
Geomike, I understand what you are trying to say. And logically, you have a point. But the Bible tells us differently. Mercy is more important the food rules. You cannot say "Even if you are doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want." Christ was challenged with a similar comment and He said, "“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?" Matt 12:3-5. We are not making up hypothetical stories. It is not wrong to eat what some consider unlawful or prohibited provided that (1) the act of eating is done out of mercy, (2) it is not food offered to idols and (3) it does not stumble a brother. What we are really discussing is #3. A weak brother may stumble when he sees someone eating something he considers unlawful and "becomes embolded" to eat (St Paul is specific that he is embolded to eat food offered to idols; which takes us back to #2). However, the problem is not in the food nor in you, but in the weak brother who sins twice (once for eating idol food and the second for judging). Christ concludes, "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”. The one who eats "forbidden" food in mercy is guiltless. It is the one who stumbles and judges and condemns that is guilty of wrongdoing. Yet, St Paul says it is better for the strong brother not to eat food, even though he is blameless. This way, both the strong brother and the weak brother is saved.
So let me be clear. I am not advocating breaking church canons. Fasting is an Orthodox canon. Also, I am not advocating eating non-fasting food in fasting periods if it causes someone to stumble. I am only saying that eating non-fasting food, if done with the aforementioned conditions, is perfectly allowable. So if I ate meat during a fasting because there is nothing else available (or I am a guest at someone's house) and no one is offended, then it is NOT wrong to eat meat.
So let me be clear. I am not advocating breaking church canons. Fasting is an Orthodox canon. Also, I am not advocating eating non-fasting food in fasting periods if it causes someone to stumble. I am only saying that eating non-fasting food, if done with the aforementioned conditions, is perfectly allowable. So if I ate meat during a fasting because there is nothing else available (or I am a guest at someone's house) and no one is offended, then it is NOT wrong to eat meat.
Of course it is absolutely wrong to eat meat while the Church is fasting.
The Church canons are very clear in this regard and let me explain the idea behind it.
If the whole Church is fasting and someone chooses to eat meat, without any absolution, then that person is cutting himself off the Church. He is no longer part of the Church and needs to repent. The canons are very strict and the punishment is that the person who is not fasting is cut off from communion.
Regarding offending people, we need to be witness to our faith and our sincere love for God and the Church. We need to be obedient to the Church. St Peter says: "Am I to please people more than God".
"“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?" Matt 12:3-5.
David did this AFTER he took permission from the priest. So, eating meat while the Church is fasting requires permission.
In addition, there is no church canon anywhere that says you can't sell non-fasting food during a fasting period. This might seem like an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., only the Pharisees had such rules) but the opposite is also an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., selling non-fasting food during a fast is prohibited).
This is an absurd logic.
The Church's job is to pave the path, for her children, to heaven. How would she do that while encouraging her children to break her rules through eating non fasting food during fast? (Yes, selling non fast food during fastings has this perception)
Perception is of great importance. How can we evangelize Orthodoxy while we are breaking the basics.
Has nothing to do with Pharisees. The Pharisees were inventing their own tradition and putting aside the commandments of the Lord.
The fasting in the Church is not tradition of men but Tradition received from the Lord Himself. By selling non fasting food we are ignoring the Lord.
(1) the act of eating is done out of mercy, [(2) it is not food offered to idols] and (3) it does not stumble a brother.
These conditions do not apply in the context of Church fasting. We cannot break the Church's commandment and say we are doing it out of mercy. Neither can I break the Church's commandment and say I am afraid my brother is going to stumble so I am going to break the Church rules.
Again, breaking the Church's fasting means you are cutting off yourself from the Church's communion. In other words, you are cutting yourself from Christ's body. What value would it be to be cut off from Christ's body in order not to offend someone.
In fact, things that seem inappropriate by cultural norms are in fact appropriate by Christian standards.
Culture has nothing to do with breaking the Church rules. If the Church's rule is to fast, then ALL must fast, except when given permission by the priest not to fast. When a church sells non fast food during fast, it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG for several reasons:
1 - It gives the perception that eating non fast food is ok, especially to those who have little knowledge of the Church's rules.
2 - It gives the impression that the fast is just a change of food and robs the spirituality of the fast.
3 - There is a different attitude or conduct inside the sanctuary and outside it.
4 - It stumbles people by offering non fast food that is good to the eyes and may weakens the soul.
Look at Romans 14:3: "The one who eats everything (meat is specified in this chapter) must not treat with contempt the one who does not (i.e., the one who fasts), and the one who does not eat everything (the one who fasts) must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them." There is, however, a modifier to this Christian standard. " All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." Romans 14:20.
When applying a quotation, we need to understand the context in which it was said.
Was St Paul talking about fasting here?
No he was not. He was addressing two communities, the Christian Jewish and the Christian Pagans. He was resolving the problem of those Christians who were still abiding by Jewish tradition of not eating certain foods as St Peter did before going to Cornelius.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11829.msg141321#msg141321 date=1310476702] [quote author=geomike link=topic=11829.msg141296#msg141296 date=1310444483] No, it's still 100% wrong. Even if you aren't doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want. If you find that you are lazy there is still a reward if you are resisting to eat certain foods to show that you can control yourself. It also makes you spiritually stronger when you restrain yourself. This is wrong, fetari food in church during a fast is wrong. PERIOD. We shouldn't try to make up hypothetical stories to make something seem less wrong. It's wrong and that's it.
Geomike, I understand what you are trying to say. And logically, you have a point. But the Bible tells us differently. Mercy is more important the food rules. You cannot say "Even if you are doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want." Christ was challenged with a similar comment and He said, "“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?" Matt 12:3-5. We are not making up hypothetical stories. It is not wrong to eat what some consider unlawful or prohibited provided that (1) the act of eating is done out of mercy, (2) it is not food offered to idols and (3) it does not stumble a brother. What we are really discussing is #3. A weak brother may stumble when he sees someone eating something he considers unlawful and "becomes embolded" to eat (St Paul is specific that he is embolded to eat food offered to idols; which takes us back to #2). However, the problem is not in the food nor in you, but in the weak brother who sins twice (once for eating idol food and the second for judging). Christ concludes, "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”. The one who eats "forbidden" food in mercy is guiltless. It is the one who stumbles and judges and condemns that is guilty of wrongdoing. Yet, St Paul says it is better for the strong brother not to eat food, even though he is blameless. This way, both the strong brother and the weak brother is saved.
So let me be clear. I am not advocating breaking church canons. Fasting is an Orthodox canon. Also, I am not advocating eating non-fasting food in fasting periods if it causes someone to stumble. I am only saying that eating non-fasting food, if done with the aforementioned conditions, is perfectly allowable. So if I ate meat during a fasting because there is nothing else available (or I am a guest at someone's house) and no one is offended, then it is NOT wrong to eat meat.
Remnkemi, there are plenty of things to eat, you aren't going to die from refraining from certain foods when there are plenty of other foods. I understand what you are trying to say Remnkemi, you are saying that if there is nothing at all to eat other than non fasting food (extremely rare), but the OP's post wasn't about that. It was about church serving fetari food. If the church could afford to buy and serve fetari food they can buy and serve siami food. I don't like to just make these hypothetical situations and then try to make a solution because in reality when we are in these situations (which we might not because they are way out there) God's grace will get us through it.
There is a difference between someone bringing some non-fasting food to a shared meal after the Liturgy without understanding the spiritual teaching of the Church, and such food being sold in the Church. This suggests a greater degree of organisation and intentionality.
I have been to various pan-Orthodox events where non-fasting food has been provided during a season in which the Copts and others are fasting, and those who are fasting just make sure they ask a few questions about the food. Such a provision of food, accidentally as it were, is not a problem. It can be avoided.
But selling such food surely requires some preparation and organisation, and so something has gone wrong down the line. It would surely be reasonable for older people in the Church, let alone full deacons, or even the priest, to say something, later in the week, to whoever is responsible for organising such items of food. It need not be put in a manner in which the person feels they have committed some great sin, just that they have made a mistake, perhaps not understanding the calendar properly.
I'm not sure why we would expect to be governed by a canon saying whether or not non-fasting food can be sold in the Church during a fast. It would seem to me to be so self-evidently wrong (this is not to blame those who have sold such food) that it would never need a canon. I am not at all sure that selling food after the Liturgy is a good idea either. Perhaps at a cultural fair when the neighbourhood are invited to visit, but not at that point in the week when especially we have become the Body of Christ. It would be like asking for money to be paid for a towel when the priest is washing the congregations feet. All manner of arguments could be put forward (we are just covering the cost of laundry, the Church needs to raise funds etc) but it does just not seem right to me. The meal after the Liturgy is the Agape. There are criticisms in the Scripture of those who brought their own food and allowed others to go hungry. It seems to me that the essence of the Agape is the free and fraternal sharing of food in a spiritual context. I think that selling food (though I am not saying it is always and everywhere unsuitable) changes the nature of the meal and makes people customers and storekeepers, instead of brothers and sisters.
Let me also say, that even though the fasting rules of the Church are to be embraced for our salvation (and we don't need excuses to abandon them), nevertheless, if the elderly mother of a congregant came after the liturgy and it was explained that she had spent all her money on baking a small cake in my honour as a priest and to the glory of God, then it would not be sin to eat whatever she had made at such cost.
This is different to choosing to eat non-fasting food when a whole range of foods are spread out on a table.
Please don't get me wrong. We are all saying the same thing. It comes down to intention. Choosing to defy the fasting canon is wrong. Showing an act of mercy changes the intention. There are more than one way to show acts of mercy. One may be to eat whatever is given to you in order not to offend a host. One may be to eat non-fasting food to save yourself from starvation. These aren't the only reasons. There could be a million reasons why one eats non-fasting food in a fasting season. We need not assume or claim that the reason must be sinful. It may be some sort of act of mercy.
David took the Temple bread because his companions were hungry, just like the disciples picking fruit on the Sabbath. But the Sabbath rule doesn't trump the act of mercy, nor does eating priest-only food rule superceed saving a brother's life. These may all be stellar exemptions. I know the original poster probably wasn't talking about exemptions. However, I think we shouldn't make blanket statements, if we find supporting information to the contrary in the Gospel.
Showing an act of mercy changes the intention. There are more than one way to show acts of mercy. One may be to eat whatever is given to you in order not to offend a host. One may be to eat non-fasting food to save yourself from starvation. These aren't the only reasons. There could be a million reasons why one eats non-fasting food in a fasting season. We need not assume or claim that the reason must be sinful. It may be some sort of act of mercy.
There is no act of mercy when you break the Church rules. Read my posts again.
David took the Temple bread because his companions were hungry, just like the disciples picking fruit on the Sabbath. But the Sabbath rule doesn't trump the act of mercy, nor does eating priest-only food rule superceed saving a brother's life.
You are assuming that he did this on his own. No, he did not.
Yes Father Peter, There is no obvious reason to sell non-fasting food in a festival during fasting time. No people are not starving in church and there is other food available.
But that doesn't mean there is no non-obvious reason to sell non-fasting food during the festival. Or put another way. It doesn't mean that there will never, ever be a reason to sell non-fasting food. There may be reasons for someone to sell this food and it is an act of mercy. I can think of a few. They probably do not pertain to case of this thread. But how can we say there will never be a reason to justify selling non-fasting food. If we do, are we not contradicting St Paul's statement "All things are permissible but not all things edify"? The opposite must be true: "If something truly edifies (as God would define it) then it is permissible" even if man or society do not consider it permissible. Just like St Peter's dream to eat meat in the book of Acts.
I am not advocating violating rules or trying to justify wrong behavior. I am just saying there is a deeper spiritual lesson that may or may not apply.
But that doesn't mean there is no non-obvious reason to sell non-fasting food during the festival.
The Church should not be in the business of selling food, but this is a side note.
Selling non fast food during fasting inside the church or on the church premises is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Why? Because it means that the church is condoning breaking the fast.
Or put another way. It doesn't mean that there will never, ever be a reason to sell non-fasting food.
There is no reason whatsoever for a church to break the fast.
There may be reasons for someone to sell this food and it is an act of mercy. I can think of a few. They probably do not pertain to case of this thread.
WE CANNOT BREAK THE CHURCH RULES AND JUSTIFY IT AS AN ACT OF MERCY.
But how can we say there will never be a reason to justify selling non-fasting food. If we do, are we not contradicting St Paul's statement "All things are permissible but not all things edify"?
No, we are not. You have to read the Bible within its context. Do not take part of a verse and make a dogma out of it.
The opposite must be true: "If something truly edifies (as God would define it) then it is permissible" even if man or society do not consider it permissible. Just like St Peter's dream to eat meat in the book of Acts.
How can breaking the Church rules be edifying?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remnkemi, please, don't try to make up situations in which you would break a fast. You are giving people who are still learning about orthodoxy and reading this thread as we speak think it is okay to not fast if you have a good reason. It is never a good idea to not fast. It is of course not mandatory to fast, but if you want to grow then you must fast and learn to control yourself. It is in the situations you explain that it is most vital to fast because that's when you need to control yourself.
[quote author=geomike link=topic=11829.msg141361#msg141361 date=1310497578] You are giving people who are still learning about orthodoxy and reading this thread as we speak think it is okay to not fast if you have a good reason. Don't put words in my mouth. Read my comment on post #34: "So let me be clear. I am not advocating breaking church canons. Fasting is an Orthodox canon. Also, I am not advocating eating non-fasting food in fasting periods if it causes someone to stumble." And post #48: "I am not advocating violating rules or trying to justify wrong behavior. I am just saying there is a deeper spiritual lesson that may or may not apply." How else can I say it any clearer?
It is never a good idea to not fast. It is of course not mandatory to fast, but if you want to grow then you must fast and learn to control yourself. It is in the situations you explain that it is most vital to fast because that's when you need to control yourself.
Have I ever once said it is ok not to have self control? Have I ever once said you can grow without self control? This is ridiculous.
I gave references to the Bible. If you want to argue, discuss the references. Don't put lies in my mouth.
Look at Romans 14:3: "The one who eats everything (meat is specified in this chapter) must not treat with contempt the one who does not (i.e., the one who fasts), and the one who does not eat everything (the one who fasts) must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them." There is, however, a modifier to this Christian standard. " All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." Romans 14:20.
When applying a quotation, we need to understand the context in which it was said.
Was St Paul talking about fasting here?
No he was not. He was addressing two communities, the Christian Jewish and the Christian Pagans. He was resolving the problem of those Christians who were still abiding by Jewish tradition of not eating certain foods as St Peter did before going to Cornelius.
St Paul was talking about not condemning and judging when you do not eat. This is the definition of fasting. If you want to apply Romans 14 only to Jewish and Christian eating habits, then that's your choice. But I think there is a deeper spiritual meaning that applies to us.
There is a difference between how a person might choose to act in their own home and how we are to act in the Church building.
It is certainly the case that a person can choose whether or not to eat fasting food in their home, or in their daily life, and this is a matter for their conscience.
BUT... in the Church building it cannot ever be right - outside of some extreme situation we might construct - to sell non-fasting food in a fast. I don't see how it can even be a matter of discussion.
This is not even the same as some person mistakenly bringing non-fasting food to an agape during a fast. Such a person can be quietly corrected. It is not a sin to make a mistake.
But to sell such food seems to be making money out of encouraging people to break the fast. It is not a mistake in the same way, rather it is intended. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person is offended. It is just plainly not right to encourage people to break the fast INSIDE the Church building.
Fr Peter, I hope you now realize that I am not disagreeing with you. I was not talking specifically to selling non-fasting food in a festival. I was simply showing that we should not judge it to be 100% wrong.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11829.msg141373#msg141373 date=1310506527] outside of some extreme situation we might construct This is all I was trying to show. There could be situations.
I don't see how it can even be a matter of discussion.
I'm sure the Pharisees could not see how eating fruit on the Sabbath could be a matter of discussion. But it can be.
It is just plainly not right to encourage people to break the fast INSIDE the Church building.
Let me try to get my point across another way. Is it or is it not right to encourage someone to steal under any circumstances ever? The obvious answer is of course it is not right to help someone steal. However, there could be a situation where a spiritual lesson can be learned from stealing. Look at Saint Macarius' example..
Again, I am not advocating breaking rules or stealing. All I am saying is that we should not judge.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11829.msg141383#msg141383 date=1310516789] Fr Peter, I hope you now realize that I am not disagreeing with you. I was not talking specifically to selling non-fasting food in a festival. I was simply showing that we should not judge it to be 100% wrong.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11829.msg141373#msg141373 date=1310506527] outside of some extreme situation we might construct This is all I was trying to show. There could be situations.
I don't see how it can even be a matter of discussion.
I'm sure the Pharisees could not see how eating fruit on the Sabbath could be a matter of discussion. But it can be.
It is just plainly not right to encourage people to break the fast INSIDE the Church building.
Let me try to get my point across another way. Is it or is it not right to encourage someone to steal under any circumstances ever? The obvious answer is of course it is not right to help someone steal. However, there could be a situation where a spiritual lesson can be learned from stealing. Look at Saint Macarius' example..
Again, I am not advocating breaking rules or stealing. All I am saying is that we should not judge.
Let me make it simple for you: Church imposes fast. People fast for 3 days (example). Liturgy on 3rd day. Church sells non fasting foods. Does this seem faithful to you? Do you think this is not 100% wrong? If theres no other choice but fitaree foods then ***, let the people starve to death, not the churches problem. The church has a duty to fulfill. And by far there has never been cases when the church ran out of siyamee food in the fasts so no one 'starved'.
I don't know anything, but the above post seems a bit extreme. I'm sure that God would want a church to feed people with fitaree food if they were starving and couldn't have food anywhere else lol.
Remnkemi, I AM NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. I DIDN'T EVEN QUOTE YOU IN ANY WAY. Instead of getting upset with me and replying rudely you should reconsider your posts.
This is exactly why i don't like talking about hypothetical situations, everybody gets hyped up and then there is a heated discussion. The point is to answer the question of the OP and everybody has decided that it is wrong because the church was able to get siami food.
Honestly, this thread now has become very silly. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way, but I am simply stating my opinion. Also, don't be offended if I don't reply to you on this thread since i won't be posting anymore in this thread because this discussion is not edifying, and there is no need for me to be here.
Let me try to get my point across another way. Is it or is it not right to encourage someone to steal under any circumstances ever? The obvious answer is of course it is not right to help someone steal. However, there could be a situation where a spiritual lesson can be learned from stealing. Look at Saint Macarius' example.
This example has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Again, I will repeat what I said in my last post:
There is absolutely nothing exist that might justify breaking God's commandment
There is nothing out there that may lead the Church to break her rules.
Here is the flaw in your argument:
1- St. Macarius himself did not steal.
2- There was nothing St. Macarius could have done to undo the man's sin as he already committed the theft.
3- St. Macarius did not encourage the man to steal.
Put this in contrast to a church that condones breaking the fast by offering her children non fasting food.
Comments
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11829.msg141262#msg141262 date=1310427747]
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11829.msg141192#msg141192 date=1310357177]
100% wrong. No debate.
Is it really 100% wrong? Fasting in the Orthodox Church is not about the type of foods you eat in a certain time period. It is about complete abstinence from food with repentance and good works. If you don't have good works, you fasting is voided (See Micah 3). If you don't repent from your sins, your fasting is nothing more than dieting. Period.
In addition, there is no church canon anywhere that says you can't sell non-fasting food during a fasting period. This might seem like an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., only the Pharisees had such rules) but the opposite is also an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., selling non-fasting food during a fast is prohibited).
It may be inappropriate to sell non-fasting food during a fasting period, but not wrong. In fact, things that seem inappropriate by cultural norms are in fact appropriate by Christian standards. Look at Romans 14:3: "The one who eats everything (meat is specified in this chapter) must not treat with contempt the one who does not (i.e., the one who fasts), and the one who does not eat everything (the one who fasts) must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them." There is, however, a modifier to this Christian standard. " All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." Romans 14:20.
So the food is not the problem. The food, whether kofta or cheese, is irrelevant. Neither is the actual act of eating these foods in non-fasting times relevant. The only issue we need to deal with stumbling. Will eating or selling these foods cause my brother to stumble? In my opinion, Egyptians have a tendency to stumble over anything and everything that is "unusual". Everything that they don't do or don't agree with or believe in is "prohibited". But the Gospel is clear. It is wrong to eat or sell something that will make others stumble, just as much as it is wrong for them to stumble over things that are inherently pure.
It's not so black and white to say 100% wrong.
OK, let me change that: 99.999 % wrong. When you find me a situation in which no one is caused to stumble, not even ONE person, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The fact is someone will always be caused to stumble when the church tells people to do one thing and then offers them incentive not to do that same thing! What makes it even more difficult is the fact that we never know if we caused someone to stumble or not!
Oh satyr!
Oh satyr!
???
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11829.msg141262#msg141262 date=1310427747]
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11829.msg141192#msg141192 date=1310357177]
100% wrong. No debate.
Is it really 100% wrong? Fasting in the Orthodox Church is not about the type of foods you eat in a certain time period. It is about complete abstinence from food with repentance and good works. If you don't have good works, you fasting is voided (See Micah 3). If you don't repent from your sins, your fasting is nothing more than dieting. Period.
In addition, there is no church canon anywhere that says you can't sell non-fasting food during a fasting period. This might seem like an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., only the Pharisees had such rules) but the opposite is also an overt Pharisee argument (i.e., selling non-fasting food during a fast is prohibited).
It may be inappropriate to sell non-fasting food during a fasting period, but not wrong. In fact, things that seem inappropriate by cultural norms are in fact appropriate by Christian standards. Look at Romans 14:3: "The one who eats everything (meat is specified in this chapter) must not treat with contempt the one who does not (i.e., the one who fasts), and the one who does not eat everything (the one who fasts) must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them." There is, however, a modifier to this Christian standard. " All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." Romans 14:20.
So the food is not the problem. The food, whether kofta or cheese, is irrelevant. Neither is the actual act of eating these foods in non-fasting times relevant. The only issue we need to deal with stumbling. Will eating or selling these foods cause my brother to stumble? In my opinion, Egyptians have a tendency to stumble over anything and everything that is "unusual". Everything that they don't do or don't agree with or believe in is "prohibited". But the Gospel is clear. It is wrong to eat or sell something that will make others stumble, just as much as it is wrong for them to stumble over things that are inherently pure.
It's not so black and white to say 100% wrong.
OK, let me change that: 99.999 % wrong. When you find me a situation in which no one is caused to stumble, not even ONE person, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The fact is someone will always be caused to stumble when the church tells people to do one thing and then offers them incentive not to do that same thing! What makes it even more difficult is the fact that we never know if we caused someone to stumble or not!
No, it's still 100% wrong. Even if you aren't doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want. If you find that you are lazy there is still a reward if you are resisting to eat certain foods to show that you can control yourself. It also makes you spiritually stronger when you restrain yourself. This is wrong, fetari food in church during a fast is wrong. PERIOD. We shouldn't try to make up hypothetical stories to make something seem less wrong. It's wrong and that's it.
No, it's still 100% wrong. Even if you aren't doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want. If you find that you are lazy there is still a reward if you are resisting to eat certain foods to show that you can control yourself. It also makes you spiritually stronger when you restrain yourself. This is wrong, fetari food in church during a fast is wrong. PERIOD. We shouldn't try to make up hypothetical stories to make something seem less wrong. It's wrong and that's it.
Geomike, I understand what you are trying to say. And logically, you have a point. But the Bible tells us differently. Mercy is more important the food rules. You cannot say "Even if you are doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want." Christ was challenged with a similar comment and He said, "“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?" Matt 12:3-5. We are not making up hypothetical stories. It is not wrong to eat what some consider unlawful or prohibited provided that (1) the act of eating is done out of mercy, (2) it is not food offered to idols and (3) it does not stumble a brother. What we are really discussing is #3. A weak brother may stumble when he sees someone eating something he considers unlawful and "becomes embolded" to eat (St Paul is specific that he is embolded to eat food offered to idols; which takes us back to #2). However, the problem is not in the food nor in you, but in the weak brother who sins twice (once for eating idol food and the second for judging). Christ concludes, "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”. The one who eats "forbidden" food in mercy is guiltless. It is the one who stumbles and judges and condemns that is guilty of wrongdoing. Yet, St Paul says it is better for the strong brother not to eat food, even though he is blameless. This way, both the strong brother and the weak brother is saved.
So let me be clear. I am not advocating breaking church canons. Fasting is an Orthodox canon. Also, I am not advocating eating non-fasting food in fasting periods if it causes someone to stumble. I am only saying that eating non-fasting food, if done with the aforementioned conditions, is perfectly allowable. So if I ate meat during a fasting because there is nothing else available (or I am a guest at someone's house) and no one is offended, then it is NOT wrong to eat meat.
The Church canons are very clear in this regard and let me explain the idea behind it.
If the whole Church is fasting and someone chooses to eat meat, without any absolution, then that person is cutting himself off the Church. He is no longer part of the Church and needs to repent. The canons are very strict and the punishment is that the person who is not fasting is cut off from communion.
Regarding offending people, we need to be witness to our faith and our sincere love for God and the Church. We need to be obedient to the Church. St Peter says: "Am I to please people more than God".
The Church's job is to pave the path, for her children, to heaven. How would she do that while encouraging her children to break her rules through eating non fasting food during fast? (Yes, selling non fast food during fastings has this perception)
Perception is of great importance. How can we evangelize Orthodoxy while we are breaking the basics.
Has nothing to do with Pharisees. The Pharisees were inventing their own tradition and putting aside the commandments of the Lord.
The fasting in the Church is not tradition of men but Tradition received from the Lord Himself. By selling non fasting food we are ignoring the Lord.
Again, breaking the Church's fasting means you are cutting off yourself from the Church's communion. In other words, you are cutting yourself from Christ's body. What value would it be to be cut off from Christ's body in order not to offend someone.
1 - It gives the perception that eating non fast food is ok, especially to those who have little knowledge of the Church's rules.
2 - It gives the impression that the fast is just a change of food and robs the spirituality of the fast.
3 - There is a different attitude or conduct inside the sanctuary and outside it.
4 - It stumbles people by offering non fast food that is good to the eyes and may weakens the soul. When applying a quotation, we need to understand the context in which it was said.
Was St Paul talking about fasting here?
No he was not. He was addressing two communities, the Christian Jewish and the Christian Pagans. He was resolving the problem of those Christians who were still abiding by Jewish tradition of not eating certain foods as St Peter did before going to Cornelius.
[quote author=geomike link=topic=11829.msg141296#msg141296 date=1310444483]
No, it's still 100% wrong. Even if you aren't doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want. If you find that you are lazy there is still a reward if you are resisting to eat certain foods to show that you can control yourself. It also makes you spiritually stronger when you restrain yourself. This is wrong, fetari food in church during a fast is wrong. PERIOD. We shouldn't try to make up hypothetical stories to make something seem less wrong. It's wrong and that's it.
Geomike, I understand what you are trying to say. And logically, you have a point. But the Bible tells us differently. Mercy is more important the food rules. You cannot say "Even if you are doing good works it doesn't mean that you can eat anything you want." Christ was challenged with a similar comment and He said, "“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?" Matt 12:3-5. We are not making up hypothetical stories. It is not wrong to eat what some consider unlawful or prohibited provided that (1) the act of eating is done out of mercy, (2) it is not food offered to idols and (3) it does not stumble a brother. What we are really discussing is #3. A weak brother may stumble when he sees someone eating something he considers unlawful and "becomes embolded" to eat (St Paul is specific that he is embolded to eat food offered to idols; which takes us back to #2). However, the problem is not in the food nor in you, but in the weak brother who sins twice (once for eating idol food and the second for judging). Christ concludes, "But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”. The one who eats "forbidden" food in mercy is guiltless. It is the one who stumbles and judges and condemns that is guilty of wrongdoing. Yet, St Paul says it is better for the strong brother not to eat food, even though he is blameless. This way, both the strong brother and the weak brother is saved.
So let me be clear. I am not advocating breaking church canons. Fasting is an Orthodox canon. Also, I am not advocating eating non-fasting food in fasting periods if it causes someone to stumble. I am only saying that eating non-fasting food, if done with the aforementioned conditions, is perfectly allowable. So if I ate meat during a fasting because there is nothing else available (or I am a guest at someone's house) and no one is offended, then it is NOT wrong to eat meat.
Remnkemi, there are plenty of things to eat, you aren't going to die from refraining from certain foods when there are plenty of other foods. I understand what you are trying to say Remnkemi, you are saying that if there is nothing at all to eat other than non fasting food (extremely rare), but the OP's post wasn't about that. It was about church serving fetari food. If the church could afford to buy and serve fetari food they can buy and serve siami food. I don't like to just make these hypothetical situations and then try to make a solution because in reality when we are in these situations (which we might not because they are way out there) God's grace will get us through it.
I have been to various pan-Orthodox events where non-fasting food has been provided during a season in which the Copts and others are fasting, and those who are fasting just make sure they ask a few questions about the food. Such a provision of food, accidentally as it were, is not a problem. It can be avoided.
But selling such food surely requires some preparation and organisation, and so something has gone wrong down the line. It would surely be reasonable for older people in the Church, let alone full deacons, or even the priest, to say something, later in the week, to whoever is responsible for organising such items of food. It need not be put in a manner in which the person feels they have committed some great sin, just that they have made a mistake, perhaps not understanding the calendar properly.
I'm not sure why we would expect to be governed by a canon saying whether or not non-fasting food can be sold in the Church during a fast. It would seem to me to be so self-evidently wrong (this is not to blame those who have sold such food) that it would never need a canon. I am not at all sure that selling food after the Liturgy is a good idea either. Perhaps at a cultural fair when the neighbourhood are invited to visit, but not at that point in the week when especially we have become the Body of Christ. It would be like asking for money to be paid for a towel when the priest is washing the congregations feet. All manner of arguments could be put forward (we are just covering the cost of laundry, the Church needs to raise funds etc) but it does just not seem right to me. The meal after the Liturgy is the Agape. There are criticisms in the Scripture of those who brought their own food and allowed others to go hungry. It seems to me that the essence of the Agape is the free and fraternal sharing of food in a spiritual context. I think that selling food (though I am not saying it is always and everywhere unsuitable) changes the nature of the meal and makes people customers and storekeepers, instead of brothers and sisters.
This is different to choosing to eat non-fasting food when a whole range of foods are spread out on a table.
David took the Temple bread because his companions were hungry, just like the disciples picking fruit on the Sabbath. But the Sabbath rule doesn't trump the act of mercy, nor does eating priest-only food rule superceed saving a brother's life. These may all be stellar exemptions. I know the original poster probably wasn't talking about exemptions. However, I think we shouldn't make blanket statements, if we find supporting information to the contrary in the Gospel.
DAVID TOOK PERMISSION FIRST. THIS IS THE KEY.
Are there people starving in Church? Or is there no other food available?
Surely this thread is about serving non-fasting food during a fast when there is no obvious necessity to do so?
There is no obvious reason to sell non-fasting food in a festival during fasting time. No people are not starving in church and there is other food available.
But that doesn't mean there is no non-obvious reason to sell non-fasting food during the festival. Or put another way. It doesn't mean that there will never, ever be a reason to sell non-fasting food. There may be reasons for someone to sell this food and it is an act of mercy. I can think of a few. They probably do not pertain to case of this thread. But how can we say there will never be a reason to justify selling non-fasting food. If we do, are we not contradicting St Paul's statement "All things are permissible but not all things edify"? The opposite must be true: "If something truly edifies (as God would define it) then it is permissible" even if man or society do not consider it permissible. Just like St Peter's dream to eat meat in the book of Acts.
I am not advocating violating rules or trying to justify wrong behavior. I am just saying there is a deeper spiritual lesson that may or may not apply.
Selling non fast food during fasting inside the church or on the church premises is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Why? Because it means that the church is condoning breaking the fast. There is no reason whatsoever for a church to break the fast. WE CANNOT BREAK THE CHURCH RULES AND JUSTIFY IT AS AN ACT OF MERCY. No, we are not. You have to read the Bible within its context. Do not take part of a verse and make a dogma out of it.
How can breaking the Church rules be edifying?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are giving people who are still learning about orthodoxy and reading this thread as we speak think it is okay to not fast if you have a good reason.
Don't put words in my mouth. Read my comment on post #34: "So let me be clear. I am not advocating breaking church canons. Fasting is an Orthodox canon. Also, I am not advocating eating non-fasting food in fasting periods if it causes someone to stumble." And post #48: "I am not advocating violating rules or trying to justify wrong behavior. I am just saying there is a deeper spiritual lesson that may or may not apply."
How else can I say it any clearer? Have I ever once said it is ok not to have self control? Have I ever once said you can grow without self control? This is ridiculous.
I gave references to the Bible. If you want to argue, discuss the references. Don't put lies in my mouth.
Was St Paul talking about fasting here?
No he was not. He was addressing two communities, the Christian Jewish and the Christian Pagans. He was resolving the problem of those Christians who were still abiding by Jewish tradition of not eating certain foods as St Peter did before going to Cornelius.
St Paul was talking about not condemning and judging when you do not eat. This is the definition of fasting. If you want to apply Romans 14 only to Jewish and Christian eating habits, then that's your choice. But I think there is a deeper spiritual meaning that applies to us.
It is certainly the case that a person can choose whether or not to eat fasting food in their home, or in their daily life, and this is a matter for their conscience.
BUT... in the Church building it cannot ever be right - outside of some extreme situation we might construct - to sell non-fasting food in a fast. I don't see how it can even be a matter of discussion.
This is not even the same as some person mistakenly bringing non-fasting food to an agape during a fast. Such a person can be quietly corrected. It is not a sin to make a mistake.
But to sell such food seems to be making money out of encouraging people to break the fast. It is not a mistake in the same way, rather it is intended. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person is offended. It is just plainly not right to encourage people to break the fast INSIDE the Church building.
I hope to see the day where we can add "LIKE" button to the forum, in facebook's vein.
Oujai
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11829.msg141373#msg141373 date=1310506527]
outside of some extreme situation we might construct
This is all I was trying to show. There could be situations. I'm sure the Pharisees could not see how eating fruit on the Sabbath could be a matter of discussion. But it can be. Let me try to get my point across another way. Is it or is it not right to encourage someone to steal under any circumstances ever? The obvious answer is of course it is not right to help someone steal. However, there could be a situation where a spiritual lesson can be learned from stealing. Look at Saint Macarius' example..
Again, I am not advocating breaking rules or stealing. All I am saying is that we should not judge.
Fr Peter, I hope you now realize that I am not disagreeing with you. I was not talking specifically to selling non-fasting food in a festival. I was simply showing that we should not judge it to be 100% wrong.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11829.msg141373#msg141373 date=1310506527]
outside of some extreme situation we might construct
This is all I was trying to show. There could be situations. I'm sure the Pharisees could not see how eating fruit on the Sabbath could be a matter of discussion. But it can be. Let me try to get my point across another way. Is it or is it not right to encourage someone to steal under any circumstances ever? The obvious answer is of course it is not right to help someone steal. However, there could be a situation where a spiritual lesson can be learned from stealing. Look at Saint Macarius' example..
Again, I am not advocating breaking rules or stealing. All I am saying is that we should not judge.
Let me make it simple for you:
Church imposes fast.
People fast for 3 days (example).
Liturgy on 3rd day.
Church sells non fasting foods.
Does this seem faithful to you?
Do you think this is not 100% wrong?
If theres no other choice but fitaree foods then ***, let the people starve to death, not the churches problem. The church has a duty to fulfill. And by far there has never been cases when the church ran out of siyamee food in the fasts so no one 'starved'.
This is exactly why i don't like talking about hypothetical situations, everybody gets hyped up and then there is a heated discussion. The point is to answer the question of the OP and everybody has decided that it is wrong because the church was able to get siami food.
Honestly, this thread now has become very silly. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way, but I am simply stating my opinion. Also, don't be offended if I don't reply to you on this thread since i won't be posting anymore in this thread because this discussion is not edifying, and there is no need for me to be here.
God bless.
There is nothing out there that may lead the Church to break her rules.
Again, I will repeat what I said in my last post:
There is absolutely nothing exist that might justify breaking God's commandment
There is nothing out there that may lead the Church to break her rules.
Here is the flaw in your argument:
1- St. Macarius himself did not steal.
2- There was nothing St. Macarius could have done to undo the man's sin as he already committed the theft.
3- St. Macarius did not encourage the man to steal.
Put this in contrast to a church that condones breaking the fast by offering her children non fasting food.