Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Un-labelled Halal meat for sale in UK supermarkets
His Grace Metropolitan Seraphim has posted a message about the issue of halal meat being sold un-labelled in our UK supermarkets.
http://britishorthodox.org/1369/unlabelled-halal-meat-in-british-supermakets/
He says...
For Christians to eat food blessed in any name other than the ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God’, would be idolatrous and it might even be construed that by passive acceptance the recipient has in some measure consented to the kalima, or Islamic declaration of faith.
I do believe, as does His Grace, that this is a most serious matter. I have already written to many organisations and businesses, which I will describe in another post. And I will offer a template which others may wish to use or amend to make their own representations.
Father Peter
http://britishorthodox.org/1369/unlabelled-halal-meat-in-british-supermakets/
He says...
For Christians to eat food blessed in any name other than the ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God’, would be idolatrous and it might even be construed that by passive acceptance the recipient has in some measure consented to the kalima, or Islamic declaration of faith.
I do believe, as does His Grace, that this is a most serious matter. I have already written to many organisations and businesses, which I will describe in another post. And I will offer a template which others may wish to use or amend to make their own representations.
Father Peter
Comments
If I am correct, I understand His Grace Metropolitan Anba Seraphim saying there are no exceptions to this rule. If eating halal food is not allowed under any circumstances ,what type of meat are Christians of all stripes living in Saudi Arabia, for example,supposed to eat? Going veggie may not be an option.
It seemed an easy thing to offer a pinch on incense to the roman emperor. Surely it was only symbolic? But our Fathers among the saints, and ten thousands of ordinary saintly people would rather die than compromise.
I am not buying any lamb for the time being and will have to abstain from buying chicken in some stores. Many of my favourite fast food places are now unacceptable as far as I can see until they get their act sorted out.
Those who choose to live in Saudi Arabia, and surely that is mostly a choice except for the very small number of converts from Islam, must follow their own spiritual fathers advice. It seems clear to me what we must do in the UK where we are not yet under such Islamic sharia restrictions. We still have a chance to change things.
If it becomes necessary then I think we should become vegetarian. At least we can still eat pork, and beef seems not generally to be halal in the UK.
If we do not act then a point will be reached when all food WILL be halal, and then will HAVE to be halal.
Father Peter
His Grace Metropolitan Seraphim has posted a message about the issue of halal meat being sold un-labelled in our UK supermarkets.
http://britishorthodox.org/1369/unlabelled-halal-meat-in-british-supermakets/
He says...
For Christians to eat food blessed in any name other than the ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One God’, would be idolatrous and it might even be construed that by passive acceptance the recipient has in some measure consented to the kalima, or Islamic declaration of faith.
Dear Father Peter,
1) I don't see how for Christians to eat halal food "would be idolatrous and it might even be construed that by passive acceptance the recipient has in some measure consented to the kalima, or Islamic declaration of faith."?
2) I am not sure if halal meat should be viewed as "things offered to idols" (Acts 15:29)? Why should it be viewed as this?
3) I don't think it is sacraficed or offered to Allah? Is it? Isn't it just slaughtered in the name of Allah? Again, I don't know so I am just asking.
4) Can you comment on 1 Corinthians 8 (bold and underline emphasis mine)
"1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."
It seems that St Paul is concerned about eating [b]food offered to idols in front of other Christians in an idol's temple and being a stumbling block to other Christians? He does not seem to say that eating food offered to idols is in itself wrong?
But like I said before, I am not sure if halal meat should even be viewed as "food offered to idols" but thought I would ask about this chapter in case halal food should be viewed as "food offered to idols".
5) What about in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries with a majority Muslim population? I would assume that most butchers and restaurants (and supermarkets if they sell meat there) would sell only halal meat. Is a Christian, who enters a shop and realises it sells only halal meat, supposed to walk out and not buy any meat?
That seems like an extreme thing to do that does not need to be done.
6) Can't the Christian just bless the halal meat "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, One God. Amen" before he eats it and then eat it?
Please correct me if I have written anything wrong.
PPFM
Halal meat is not offered to idols or Allah , they just have to kill it in the name of God... Yes we might not worship the same God but what makes it any different than meat killed by an atheist or a satanic worshiper in the west? Do we really know who is working in the slaughter house?
Just eat anything but pray before you eat... God knows in your heart that you do not worship these idols... But if someone offers you to eat in the name of any other god than refuse.
Clearly when the food is slaughtered it is blessed in the name of Allah.
When we do anything in Church or in our lives it is 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'. This is a dedication of that activity to God. When food is slaughtered in the name of Allah it is dedicated to Allah. Do you think that Allah does not exist? He is most certainly a real spiritual entity, though not our true and living God.
The words of our Lord Jesus are clear. He says...
I have this against you, you eat meat offered to idols.
Does it matter whether this offering is done in a temple or an abbatoir? I don't think so. Nor clearly do a great many other Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians, including bishops because there are many people insisting that we must know what we are eating.
I don't see how it is extreme to keep ourselves from the stain of corruption. I know that I would rather not eat lamb again than eat lamb which has been knowingly dedicated to another god. Is it a great thing to walk out of a shop without buying meat offered to the god Allah? Our saintly ancestors were willing to die rather than give the appearance of worshipping the emperor, they also could have said, 'This means nothing, the emperor is not a god, I am just showing respect to his position'. But they didn't, they rather faced death. Would we burn incense in Church or in our homes that had been dedicated to a Hindu god? I know that I would not, and even if I made the sign of the cross over it I would not be happy using it because it IS possible to obtain meat that is not offered to other gods, just as it is still possible to obtain meat not offered to other gods. It might be easier to just say it doesn't matter, but as an Orthodox priest I do think it matters very much indeed.
Do we know of any meat offered willingly and explicitly to Satan in an abbatoir? I don't. So that is a straw argument. We do however know that meat is offered to the god, Allah. And I will not eat such meat, my bishop will not eat such meat, and I will not encourage my flock to eat such meat.
If you have a different opinion then you must take it up with your own spiritual father. But as for me, I do not want even the appearance of accepting this practice. We are already half-way to the dominance of Islam in the UK, I will not facilitate it gaining complete control.
In fact I spent some of last night and this morning corresponding with the CEO of one of our major supermarkets and I am hopeful that they will do something quickly.
Father Peter
I don't think that food which is Halal should be considered "blessed" by any Christian. Who blessed it? who gave him the authority to bless? Certainly not OUR God, which is why i consider these prayers void of any real blessing or significance in my life. And that eating Halal food might have some religious significance to Muslims, but has zero significance or influence on Christians.
PPFM
I would have to agree with this logic.
For us, no matter what muslims say, their God is NOT our God. He maybe the "creator" for them, but He is not Our Creator.
Who created the world?? Was it not the Father, through His Son, with the Life Giving Holy Spirit? To go off and not recognise that Christ IS the incarnate Word of God simply means they are worshipping an idol; one that we have NO association with, no affiliation with, nothing in common with, nada.
We have nothing to do with this "Allah" person. Nothing.
I don't want to have anything to do with him.
Therefore, when they slaughter an animal in the name of their "god" - we cannot eat it! Period.
I like what Fr. Peter said: Our fathers prefered to die than to compromise. We cannot do this.
I don't see how it is extreme to keep ourselves from the stain of corruption. I know that I would rather not eat lamb again than eat lamb which has been knowingly dedicated to another god. Is it a great thing to walk out of a shop without buying meat offered to the god Allah? Our saintly ancestors were willing to die rather than give the appearance of worshipping the emperor, they also could have said, 'This means nothing, the emperor is not a god, I am just showing respect to his position'. But they didn't, they rather faced death. Would we burn incense in Church or in our homes that had been dedicated to a Hindu god? I know that I would not, and even if I made the sign of the cross over it I would not be happy using it because it IS possible to obtain meat that is not offered to other gods, just as it is still possible to obtain meat not offered to other gods. It might be easier to just say it doesn't matter, but as an Orthodox priest I do think it matters very much indeed.
Ok Father Peter, I probably should not have said that it seems extreme to walk out of a shop that sells halal meat, but it still seems unnecessary.
Clearly worshiping an emperor is wrong and idolatrous. But I do not see how for Christians to eat halal meat "would be idolatrous and it might even be construed that by passive acceptance the recipient has in some measure consented to the kalima, or Islamic declaration of faith” (as His Grace Metropolitan Seraphim stated).
Also, can you please comment on my earlier quote of 1 Corinthians 8 and my comment regarding this chapter i.e. It seems that St Paul is concerned about eating food offered to idols in front of other Christians in an idol's temple and being a stumbling block to other Christians? He does not seem to say that eating food offered to idols is in itself wrong?
If my interpretation of this chapter is wrong, I would very much appreciate your correction of it.
It seems Saint Paul was concerned about weaker brethren rather than an absolute principle.
But it is a principle of Scriptural interpretation that we are guided by the explicit and clear passages in interpreting less clear ones.
The Apostolic Council gave a clear and unambiguous instruction saying that it was NECESSARY that converts abstain from meat offered to idols.
Our Lord, appearing to St John, then also spoke of the same matter and clearly and unambiguously condemned the Church of Pergamos because it allowed the consumption of food offered to idols.
In ancient times all of the gods were associated with idols. Yet it was and is not the presence of a statue which is offensive, but the offering to a false god. And these sacrifices were of the same nature as those in the halal process. Herds of animals would come in one door, and a quick prayer would be said, the offering would be made, and then the meat dedicated to the false god would go out the back door and to the butchers. The people did not purchase meat from the temple altar, but from the butchers who handled the meat that had been dedicated to the god.
The Apostles are explicit, as is our Lord. We must interpret St Paul in accordance with their clear teaching.
At the very least St Paul does not say that he eats such meat. On the contrary he says that he will not.
St John Chrysostom, living in a time when there still were pagans, and not so far from the Apostolic age that the teaching of the Church on this issue should not be still clear, says...
1 Corinthians 8:4 "Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one."
For indeed his mind is to prove both; that one ought to abstain from this kind of banquet, and that it has no power to hurt those who partake of it: things which were not greatly in agreement with each other. For when they were told that they had no harm in them, they would naturally run to them as indifferent things. But when forbidden to touch them, they would suspect, on the contrary, that their having power to do hurt occasioned the prohibition. Wherefore, you see, he puts down their opinion about idols, and then states as a first reason for their abstaining the scandals which they place in the way of their brethren; in these words: "Now concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world." Again he makes it common property and does not allow this to be theirs alone, but extends the knowledge all over the world. For "not among you alone," says he, "but every where on earth this doctrine prevails." What then is it? "That no idol is anything in the world; that there is no God but one." What then? Are there no idols? No statues? Indeed there are; but they have no power: neither are they gods, but stones and demons. For he is now setting himself against both parties; both the grosser sort among them, and those who were accounted lovers of wisdom. Thus, seeing that the former know of no more than the mere stones, the others assert that certain powers reside in them , which they also call gods; to the former accordingly he says, that "no idol is anything in the world," to the other, that "there is no God but one."
Do you mark how he writes these things, not simply as laying down doctrine, but in opposition to those without? A thing indeed which we must at all times narrowly observe, whether he says anything abstractedly, or whether he is opposing any persons. For this contributes in no ordinary way to the accuracy of our doctrinal views, and to the exact understanding of his expressions.
It seems clear that St John Chrysostom rightly interprets this passage. The idols have no power, and we should avoid them and all associated with them.
He continues...
I say, in order that they might not rejoin in these terms, he did not proceed immediately to point out clearly that for fear of the other's harm one ought to abstain: but having first made but a sort of skirmish upon mention of him, he points out what is more than this. What then is this? That although no one were injured nor any perversion of another ensued, not even in this case were it right so to do.
He is speaking here of eating food offered to idols. And it seems to me from the whole sermon that he is showing that St Paul has two groups in mind. The one think that idols still have fearsome power and flee from contact with those things associated with them. The others think that knowing the idols are nothing they are free to do whatever they want, even join in feasts at the Temple. Both are defective. We should neither fear the idols nor participate in that offered to them.
He says further..
"At present," says he, "a man is on the point of withdrawing himself entirely from all idols; but when he sees you fond of loitering about them, he takes the circumstance for a recommendation and abides there himself also. So that not only his weakness, but also your ill-timed behavior, helps to further the plot against him; for it is you who make him weaker."
And we see from this that St Paul is actually dealing with a different circumstance to that in the Acts and the Revelation. In these two places we are forbidden to eat any food even simply offered to another god. In St Paul we find described those who with such a strong sense of their freedom in Christ are EATING IN THE TEMPLE ITSELF and participating in idolatrous feasts. They are saying, 'These gods are not real so it does not matter if I have a meal here in the Temple of Diana'. St Paul is not talking about the general issue of eating any food offered to a false god.
St John Chrysostom describes how St Paul is seeking to prevent those who have become Christians seeing fellow Christians tucking into a feast at the local pagan Temple and thinking - perhaps there is still something in all that, because Brother Apollo is sitting there with the worshippers of Diana?
And here is he most clear indeed...
"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever." This is like the best of teachers, to teach in his own person the things which he speaks. Nor did he say whether justly or unjustly; but in any case. "I say not," (such is his tone,) "meat offered in sacrifice to an idol, which is already prohibited for another reason; but if any even of those things which are within license and are permitted causes stumbling, from these also will I abstain: and not one or two days, but all the time of my life." For he says, "I will eat no flesh for ever." And he said not, "Lest I destroy my brother," but simply, "That I make not my brother to stumble." For indeed it comes of folly in the extreme that what things are greatly cared for by Christ, and such as He should have even chosen to die for them, these we should esteem so entirely beneath our notice as not even to abstain from meats on their account.
The meat offered to an idol is ALREADY prohibited. But even beyond that, even if I think I am so knowledgeable that I do not believe the idol has any reality, still I will not consume food because my brother will stumble.
Do we see what he says...
Meat offered to a false god, to Allah, and all others, is already prohibited. And we know this is so because the Apostolic Council, with which St Paul was so closely involved, had already determined so.
There is no contradiction, and the teaching of the Church is clear.
As for me and my household, I know how we will act in this present time.
As St Clement of Alexandria says..
Those who take advantage of everything lawful rapidly deteriorate.
This is not only a matter of food. It is a matter of how those who see how the Church responds will view our Christian Faith. If they see that even though the food we eat is offered to Allah we do and say nothing then they will most certainly judge that our faith is not very strong and we do not really believe in the honour of God at all. Muslims will certainly say, 'We are almost there in the UK. A little more and all will follow our own laws'. Those converted from Islam will be scandalised. Those who believe that all religions are the same will be confirmed in this view, since they will see that even Orthodox Christians are happy to eat food offered to another god.
Oecumenius says..
The question is not merely whether YOU are eating with a clear conscience. It is whether what you are doing is of benefit to your brother.
Ambrosiaster says..
Anyone who drinks the cup of demons insults the cup of Christ, and anyone who eats at the table of demons revolts against the table of Christ, that is to say, the altar of the Lord, and crucifies him again.
St John Chrysostom also says...
This is why we should not eat food which has been sacrificed to idols. The uncleanness is not in the food but in the intention of the sacrificers and the attitude of the receivers.
Ambrosiaster again says..
Paul is saying that beneath the surface of the idol is a demonic power which is out to corrupt faith in the One God.
St Cyril of Jerusalem says, in his instructions to new Christians...
The foods are the pomp of Satan, though of their own nature they are ordinary food, they become profane through the invocation of unclean spirits.
Tertullian says..
When the Apostles says, "Flee from the worship of idols", he means idolatry whole and entire. Look closely at a thicket and see how many thorns lie beneath the leaves.
It seems to me that there are a great many things Christians are free to do. We could take verses such as 'It is not what goes into a man that defiles him', and create a freedom to eat as much as we wanted. Yet the spiritual man finds that his freedom is increasingly constrained by love for Christ.
What if it were permissible to eat meat offered to idols? I cannot find any freedom in my spirit to do so. Indeed I realise even for myself that I am at a cross-roads where I must 'choose you this day whom you will serve'. I am suddenly brought to a stop by all manner of equivocations which I allow myself.
I made an effort at fasting, that is all God wants. I had a go at praying this morning, God asks no more. I try to be kind to people but God knows that some people are just beyond help.
Suddenly this issue of eating food offered to Allah makes me have to decide. It is not the most difficult decision in the world. I could carry on eating New Zealand lamb and no-one would know. I can abstain from such meat at the present time and no-one in the shops will know. Just as I can break my fast early, pray with no attention and think only of myself without most people being aware.
But it seems to me that God is aware. And it seems to me that while the Fathers also say that there is no sin if we eat food that has been offered to idols unwittingly, NOW I KNOW. Now I must make a choice.
And others can say that they choose differently. Others can say that the don't agree with me or whatever Coptic bishops may speak out. But as for me I know what choice I will make and must make.
There is a freedom in Christ, but it is also a freedom to say NO to those things which may be permissible but do not help us grow in faith, and do not help our witness in the world.
Father Peter
We must be careful not do things just because we think they are right. What are the teachings of the Fathers for?
I am becoming deeply concerned that people are willing to eat food offered to the god, Allah, just because it is 'impractical' to do otherwise.
Have you spoken to your own spiritual father about this? If we only decide for ourselves how we will live the Orthodox life then we are the same as Protestants. I myself waited until I knew my own bishop's teaching on this matter before contacting various political, business and church leaders. His teaching is the same as that of St John Chrysostom.
Father Peter
In Australia ALOT of products now carry the Halal Symbol. Everything from meats to Cadbury Chocolate and even noodles to the point where companies pay big money to the HALAL CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY AUSTRALIA to have it displayed on their products. I think for a person to say they will not eat anything that has a halal label on it will be very impractical especially in countries such as Egypt. I undertand where Fr Peter is coming from and i also do not like to see these lables on any of my food. However i believe that the halal symbol is just a prayer which allows Muslims to eat and not an offering to their God, and like somebody said in a previous post, i think a sign of the cross over the food would be enough to properly bless the food.
PiOnkh,
The issue is that we are not in Egypt. Where is representation for our Christian identity and Christian faith?
Where are we represented in social life?
This is not the Middle East where Coptic Christians should count themselves lucky for not being killed.
This is Europe.
We should love our neighbour as we love ourselves, not more than ourselves. Not to the point where we have to live in inequality in order to appease someone's every desire.
That's not right.
If we are silent about this in a land of equality, we will be silent about other things also in the future. This is a complete lack of respect from supermarkets to those who are Christian and do not wish to eat Hallal meat.
This lack of respect can easily be solved by us blessing the food in the Name of the Holy Trinity.
Then the logical conclusion is that we can live in any injustice, forfeit our basic human rights and still find a way to live with it.
Don't you see this PiOnkh? How far does this go?? We are appeasing Islam at the expense of our own faith and standards. That is not right.
We are asking for equality and fairness - I want labelling on foods so that I can buy NON hallal meat. What's so bad about that???
And it seems that until the 17th century Copts also preserved the strict adherance to the tradition and would not eat meat slaughtered by Muslims.
Indeed a modern Guide to Ethiopia says..
Both Orthodox Christians and Muslims only eat meat slaughtered by their own kind.
another modern book about Ethiopia says..
Muslims and Christians alike only eat meat from animals specially slaughtered for them, by a Muslim for Muslims, and by a Christian for Christians. This custom is strictly observed, and even the Addis Abiba slaughterhouse follows this tradition with great care.
Would you feel the same way Father if you knew the meal was Kosher I wonder?
And like i said in my previous post if all the products now carry the halal label what is a person to do except eat? which is why i said it would be impractical. If even pasta, which is one of the simplest from of food, now carry this label what can a person do? Like i said before i don't want these labels on my food either, but i think the reasons(food offered to their God) you want them removed are incorrect.
Correct me if i am wrong and forgive me if i am upsetting anyone.
The issue is not the halal status of all foods. But that animals are blessed and dedicated in the name of the Muslim god, Allah. This is what makes such food prohibited for Christians.
When lamb is halal it does not just mean 'acceptable for Muslims', it quite clearly means, 'Blessed in the name of Allah'. I could visit any number of Muslim forums where this issue is being discussed right now, and it is clear that Muslims understand that people in the UK are being asked to purchase and eat food which has been offered to their god.
One Muslim poster boasted about how Islam was slowly taking over in the UK...
“The Muslims are taking over!”
Didn’t no-one tell the people at the Daily Mail that? (sarcastic chuckle)
Up here in good old brum, I found out that my local KFC is actually halal as is the majority of the shops selling food on the high street. Since my area is not predominately Muslim, that must only mean one thing then eh?
It seems entirely reasonable to wish to protest about this. England is still a free democracy and we have such a right. I do not want my children growing up lacking the same freedoms. They are easily lost and hard to reclaim.
Of course you are right that pasta is not treated in such a way. But I think it is clear from all the posts, and the title of this thrad, that we are talking about meat, which IS dedicated to and blessed in the name of the Muslim god, Allah.
If I look at several serious Islamic textbooks they speak thus...
The Islamic method of sacrificing an animal is... The one who sacrifices it ... sacrifices it in the name of Allah.
It seems to me that the animal is indeed offered, blessed, dedicated to Allah. And this is entirely what we would expect based on the origins of Islam.
Father Peter
Bless
'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from bloodfrom things strangled, and from sexual immorality.....'
The offering to idols I understand (and would include God, as understood by Muslims, if you like) but 'from blood' seems to mean that we must eat kosher or halal since the meat has to be bled in either case.
Now, as far as I know and certainly in Europe, kosher food has never been obligatory for Christians. So what does the prohibition on blood signify?
Also, since the word Allah is used by Arabic speaking Christians as well and therefore calling Allah an idol could insult them as well as Muslims, could we refine our discourse in some way. Perhaps Arabic speaking Christians don't mind, so apologies if I have stepped out of linee here.
These are two different usages and I don't think that they are confused.
To say 'the Muslim god, Allah' is to name the god of Muslims. But to say Allah in a Christian context is to say 'God' and not 'Yahweh'. It is not the name of the Christian God.
I note that in Spain when the Christians recovered the country, it was forbidden for Christians to buy meat from Muslim butchers because it was offered to the Muslim god, Allah. (I am fairly consistently using that form of words). As I have said previously, it also seems that Copts did not eat any meat from Muslim butchers in the past, and Ethiopians still refuse to do so.
In the typical slaughtering process in the West the blood is drained from the carcass. The same process as kosher is followed except that the animal is definitely stunned before death. It cannot be said that usually our meat retains all the blood. Here is the process as described on Wiki (not necessarily 100% accurate but a good start).
# Cattle (mostly steers and heifers, some cows, and even fewer bulls) are received by truck or rail from a ranch, farm, or feedlot.
# Cattle are herded into holding pens.
# Cattle are rendered unconscious by applying an electric shock of 300 volts and 2 amps to the back of the head, effectively stunning the animal, or by use of a captive bolt pistol to the front of the cow's head (a pneumatic or cartridge-fired captive bolt). Swine can be rendered unconscious by CO2/inert gas stunning. (This step is prohibited under strict application of Halal and Kashrut codes.)
# Animals are hung upside down by both of their hind legs on the processing line.
# The carotid artery and jugular vein are severed with a knife, blood drains, causing death through exsanguination.
This seems to me to be consistent with the requirement not to eat blood. Not that it is an absolute requirement in the sense that a tiny drop is contaminating, but that the animal should not be strangled (as the Apostles also forbid) but slaughtered with a knife or blade so that the blood is lost. In fact Islamic authorities only state that 'most' blood must be lost, as in non-halal and non-kosher slaughter.
I would say that this prohibits the drinking of blood, and the production of blood based foods, such as black pudding. I do not think it means that all meat must be kosher. All meat must be slaughtered and not strangled or bludgeoned. I would also say that we should all in any case be careful how much red meat we consume since this does inflame the passions. I would also say that this present issue should make us all consider much more carefully the meat products we consume and how they are produced. Even if products are labelled clearly as non-halal it does not mean that it is always appropriate for Christians to consume them. As meat production has become a factory industry we must consider whether we are breaking several Apostolic and Divine injunctions. We should take care to discover how the meat we eat has been slaughtered, and also how it has lived. We know that our health depends upon this.
It is also the case that quite a few commentators believe that since there is already an injunction about eating meat that has been strangled, and therefore contains the blood, this prohibition on blood means that there is a prohibition on shedding the blood of others. This does seem an interesting and reasonable suggestion.
As far as I can see there are many Fathers who prohibit eating meat offered to other gods. The practice of the Church in East and West has been, and in many places still is, to prohibit eating such meat.
Father Peter
Normal blade slaughter does not allow this to happen.
All of the lax posts on being observant underscrore the laziness factor that is entering our community [Orthodox]. It is that same lax attitude that allowed the infiltration of this nonsense to begin with.
Our Lord teaches us to be vigilant, but we are too busy being pre-occupied by other things to actually listen to Him.
Can someone please explain 1 corinthians chapter 10 verses 25 & 26 in light of this discussion, Just curious (I am a vegetarian by the way)! ;)
The Christian life is not a joke. We either live it or we don't.
It has been easy for me to be frustrated and annoyed when I hear that school children somewhere are being fed halal meat without any choice, and without their parents knowledge. But now it has come home that my own children and even myself are being fed such food systematically and on a national scale. What am I going to do?
I have to make a choice. I can't just pretend it is someone else's problem.
At present it seems to me that based on the knowledge we have:
Chicken : Asda and Tesco sell some halal chicken and should be avoided.
Chicken : Waitrose, M&S, Sainsburys do not sell halal chicken and can be used.
Pork : All supermarkets are OK
Beef : All supermarkets are OK
Lamb: Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsburys sell halal meat from various sources and should be avoided.
Lamb : M&S only sell halal New Zealand lamb. Lamb from other countries, if sold, may be OK.
This does not seem to me to require great effort. It is not the same as facing martyrdom. It is just a matter of shopping according to the Orthodox tradition.
In terms of other food outlets:
MacDonalds does not sell halal in the UK
Burger King does not sell halal in the UK
Wimpy does not sell halal in the UK
Pizza Hut does use halal chicken
KFC does use halal chicken
Nandos does use halal chicken
Subway does use halal chicken
Dominoe use halal chicken
Again, this is not a hard ascesis. The only food I will miss is KFC.
If we cannot do this then what will we do when we really face opposition from Islam in the UK?
Father Peter
You should not be in the United Kingdom.
pork or pork by products
animals that were dead prior to slaughtering
animals not slaughtered properly or not slaughtered in the name of Allah
blood and blood by products
alcohol
carnivorous animals
birds of prey
land animals without external ears
These prohibited foods and ingredients are called haram, meaning forbidden in Arabic.
We must be like the three saintly youth and not eat the food for the idols for if we eat the food that god allows us to eat we will be stronger spirituality and physically
The one is that since I am a Christian I am now free to eat at the local temple whenever I want. And the other is that now I am a Christian I must avoid idolatry at any cost in case I fall back under the power of the demons.
Neither is the right response to our freedom in Christ. Yes, we are free to do all things, but not all things are helpful. Not all things are edifying. If I was very holy I might be able to attend a lap dancing club without any thought of sin, but it would not be right to do so. It would send the message that attendance at such a place was OK. It would send the message that what goes on there is acceptable to Christians. It would send the message that actually Christianity doesn't require you to give up any sin. This would be a freedom that harmed many other people.
St Paul is clear. Eat what you buy in the butchers without asking questions. But if you are told that some meat has been offered to another god then do not eat it.
What we must do is turn to the Fathers and always ask how they interpret these passages, and as far as I can see all are consistent. We do not eat meat offered to other gods because to exercise our freedom willfully leads to harm.
In St Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew we find that Trypho criticises some Christians for eating meat offered to idols...
Trypho said, "I believe, however, that many of those who say that they confess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat meats offered to idols, and declare that they are by no means injured in consequence."
And I replied, "The fact that there are such men confessing themselves to be Christians, and admitting the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, yet not teaching His doctrines, but those of the spirits of error, causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, to be more faithful and stedfast in the hope announced by Him.
So in the mid 2nd century it was considered unacceptable for Christians to eat meat offered to idols, and St Justin disagrees that they are unharmed by doing so, and indeed considers them not to be properly Christians.
A decade or so later we find St Irenaeus speaking on the same theme...
Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the “most perfect” among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” For instance, they make no scruple about eating meats offered in sacrifice to idols, imagining that they can in this way contract no defilement.
He warns that those who do these things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Origen in the first half of the 3rd century says..
That which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons...do not share in the table of demons.
It seems that historically, when there is no real prospect of eating food offered to idols the issue of freedom in Christ becomes more significant. (But of course our freedom in Christ is entirely proscribed by love and obedience of Christ). I am not free to murder, I am not free to be a glutton. I am not free to commit fornication. Indeed I am not free to sin. This is not what freedom is. Freedom in Christ is freedom from the law of sin, not from the law of Christ.
Whenever it has been likely that Christians might eat meat offered to idols the Church has taken the view, as described above, the Christians should not eat such meat when they become aware of its origin. St Paul says the same. If the butchers sell a whole range of meats then do not be so concerned, but if you know that the meat is offered to idols then do not eat it. The Copts did not eat halal meat, the Ethiopians still do not. The Catholics did not eat halal meat. The Buddhists did nto eat halal meat. The Sikhs did not eat halal meat.
We now know that all New Zealand lamb is offered to another god. We must each decide what we do with that knowledge.
There are greater things at stake than just what we choose to eat today. Just as there were in the past. If we submit to eating halal meat without resistance then it WILL, and IS, already being seen as another sign that Christians do not have a religion worth believing in, and the Christian tradition in the UK is very easy to overcome. There are many who will say, and are saying, if these Christians will eat meat offered to our god what else will they do without complaint.
If we have no concern for ourselves then St Paul teaches us that we must have concern for their souls. They must see that we do believe that our God is the only God and that we will not have anything to do with any other god. Our silence does not teach them this at all, rather it encourages those Muslims who have an agenda to believe that it is only a few decades, half a century maybe, before they will have real political and social power in regions of the UK.
I have not become a vegetarian, but I know those who after considering various aspects of their spiritual lives have chosen to do so. I commend such thoughtfulness and pray that I also may not be so attached to certain foods that I will eat them at any cost.
Father Peter
Thank you for reminding me of the account of Daniel, Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego, and how the Lord prospered them when they refused to defile themselves with the Kings meat.
I think that this has a much greater meaning than the issue of halal meat to which we might apply it. Rather we must consider in our lives ALL of those things around us which defile us and cut them off from us.
How will we live if these are the end of days? How will we live if the Bridegroom should soon return? How will he find us?
Father Peter
It says..
See that no one causes you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly careful; for it is the service of dead gods.
and another is in Clement of Alexandria who says,
At this point, too, we have to advert to what are called things sacrificed to idols, in order to show how we are enjoined to abstain from them. Polluted and abominable those things seem to me, to the blood of which, fly "Souls from Erebus of inanimate corpses." For I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons," says the apostle; since the food of those who are saved and those who perish is separate. We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them) ; but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, " whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God. For it is not that which entereth in that defileth a man, but that which goeth out of his mouth." The natural use of food is then indifferent. "For neither if we eat are we the better," it is said, "nor if we eat not are we the worse." But it is inconsistent with reason, for those that have been made worthy to share divine and spiritual food, to partake of the tables of demons.
Father Peter
The other thing is: are we Christians in general becoming that relativist? Even with things concerning our faith. I'm not embarrassed to say this but I for one wouldn't have noticed the whole issue if Fr. Peter did not bring it up. God bless you all and pray for us a lot