I think this is a very big topic and many people have opinions...... I have found this bible reference which has clarified alot of things for me 1Co 10:28-33 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." [31] "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. This verse seems relevant to the discussion i have also added a few commentaries on this verse from early church fathers.
In this passage the apostle shows in what instances, notwithstanding, Christians might lawfully eat what had been sacrificed to idols. They must not eat it out of religious respect to the idol, nor go into his temple, and hold a feast there, upon what they knew was an idol-sacrifice; nor perhaps out of the temple, if they knew it was a feast held upon a sacrifice, but there were cases wherein they might without sin eat what had been offered (Matthew Henry, a Presbyterian minister i only added him as a reference i know he is not a church father)
Chrysostom: The food is not unclean in itself; only human intentions might make it unclean. Those who do not know what those intentions are can therefore eat it with a good conscience. Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians As the title of the thread states that the meat is unlabelled!!!!
Chrysostom: Nothing is unclean, unless we make it so by our intentions and our disobedience. Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians 25.1.9
I'm still undecided to be honest with all of you i will have to discuss this with my father of confession he is good with these kind of things. What about the rest of you??
thank you for clarifying 1 corinthians 10 for me. Picking up on your last point about considering becoming vegetarian I would certainly commend it to anyone on this forum, not just for spiritual reasons but for health,ethical and environmental reasons.
I realise that the Church does not require that we refrain from eating meat, but I took the decision to become vegetarian because in these modern times I do not like the way that animals are treated with such cruelty on factoey farms.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not an animal rights activist but these animals are Gods creatures too and they should be alllowed to live their lives naturally not couped up in areas where they can't spread their wings or turn around its just wrong.
Have you been able to read all the Fathers I have quoted through this thread?
You have quoted this passage from St John Chrysostom...
The food is not unclean in itself; only human intentions might make it unclean. Those who do not know what those intentions are can therefore eat it with a good conscience.
but you appear to have missed out the sentence that comes before it...
This is why we should not eat food which has been sacrificed to idols.
I think I have quoted a great many Fathers, and our Lord Himself, who ALL teach that we should abstain from meat offered to other gods. I am sure I can find many more Fathers who speak in the same way, but I am sure in my own mind what the teaching of the Church is.
i. The Apostles Council. ii. Our Lord Himself iii. The Didache iv. St Justin Martyr v. St Irenaeus vi. St John Chrysostom vii. St Clement of Alexandria viii. Oecumenius ix. Ambrosiaster x. St Cyril of Jerusalem xi. Tertullian x. Origen xi. The Ethiopian church tradition to the present day xii. The Coptic church tradition until at least the 17th century xiii. The Western church tradition in Spain xiv. Metropolitan Seraphim
As St John Chrysostom says fully and clearly in his commentary on Corinthians...
That although no one were injured nor any perversion of another ensued, not even in this case were it right so to do [eat such meat].
and
...meat offered in sacrifice to an idol, which is already prohibited for another reason;
and
This is why we should not eat food which has been sacrificed to idols.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9784.msg119933#msg119933 date=1285712176] When the Christians were suffering under the Roman empire what were they to do? What did they do?
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
Fr Peter, I would like to say few things.
Firstly,I can not see relationship between the eating of 'Halal food' and the suffering of Christians under the Roman empire .Comparing eating prohibited food and denying the true God are two different things. As St Paul stated, eating food offered to idols does not save or make one better or condemn one to eternal damnation,while denying the true God and prostrating infront of idols does. Secondly, I also want to add,that there are many many Christians from around the middle east ,Asian and African countries who live in Saudi Arabia not out of choice,but in search of better life,work ,etc to provide for their family. Many have moved there in the heydays of the Oil boom and continued to stay there. In the past,this fact may not have been true of Britons,but these days we see many Europeans flocking to arab countries such as Emirates in search of work too.Thus, it is not always a choice,but a necessity as well.
In my view,the problem Islam poses today is not the eating of Halal food. If they are capable of abusing the welfare system by multiplying exponentilly, building more mosques , islamic centers than is required; could exercise civil sharia in lieu of secular courts, the threat of imposing and spreading 'halal food' appears to be miniscule. In other words, for the past decades,they had been allowed to lay down the foundations and no one raised a voice. Sometimes, I think the events of 9/11 is a blessing in disguise, but as of yet,not enough has been done to stop the growth of their deadly tumor.
The words of Scripture are not always self-explanatory. However, regarding foods offered to idols, St Paul has never been clear.In 1 corinithinas 10 , St Paul says,that eating and drinking are to be done to the glory of God without compromise of that glory by idolatory.At the same time,he warns that no stumbling block is to be placed in the path of the jews or Greeks or the church ,because the goal should not be to one's own advantage, but that of others (their salvation). Otherwise his basic principle is that as long as one can give thanks ,one is to eat the food as part of a relationship with God ( 1 Cor 10:29-30).I understand this to mean, that when we say a prayer over the food we eat,it is sanctified and blessed. The power of the cross cleanses every stain. If that is not so, what is the purpose of blessing food
Moreover ,in the case of food sold in meat market,which might have been passed thru a temple in the process of slaughter,St Paul grants complete freedom. He states that no one’s conscience is affected by eating such food. It should be remembered that most jews were more anxious about avoiding food possible tainted by idolatry,but Paul overrules this hesistation since eating such food from market risks no personal participation in idolatry and since the food itself is part of God’s creation (1 Cornith 10:25-26).In your reply to Seraphim Mark you explained this verse to mean" 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.. But St Paul goes further and states, " But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake[d]— 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. . I understand this verse is not forbidding us from eating such food, but that St Paul is being supportive of the weak in faith;for their sake ,ie, lest they be pressurised into compromising their faiths.It is like I am allowed to drink alchoholic drink,because I am in self control ,but I should avoid it,for the sake of a brother of mine who has no self-control and might lose his salvation by drinking in excess.
In Romans 14: 20, St Paul has declared all food pure. I fail to understand His Grace Metropolitan Seraphim's messagethat says "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 ;and I am sure ;many of us here have eaten Halal meat (shawarama and Doener kabab,for example) with full knowledge of the meats nature. But does it not mean we accept the declaration of islamic faith? I am at a loss here.
PS: I checked the Q and A's section of Suscopts to see if I can find anything. No one has ever asked about Halal meat,probably an indication that it is not an issue. Also, the Tewahdo church rejection of 'Halal food' does not appear to have to do anything with foods offered to idolatory.The church still adheres to a number of Mosaic laws. For example, it forbids the consumption of Pork meat, because God had forbidden it in the OT. Does it mean we all should too?
I think you are ignoring all of the testimonies from the Fathers, the testimony of the historic tradition of the Coptic Church, the Catholic Church and the continuing testimony of the Ethiopian Church.
On what basis is any of our individual opinions of more weight than this?
You are free to do as you choose. But I cannot ignore the testimony of the Fathers. I do not see that it comes down to my interpretation of the Bible verses someone else's. That is just Protestantism.
We must ask the Fathers how we should live. And they teach us to asbtain from meat offered to other gods.
We can say, 'I don't understand why they say this'. But we cannot say, 'I don't know what the Fathers teach'.
Hear once more the clear words of the Apostolic Council. Is your opinion or my opinion of more weight than theirs?
Abstain from meat offered to other gods.
Hear once more the clear words of our Lord. Is your opinion or my opinion of more weight than His?
I have this against you... you eat meat offered to other gods.
Father, Would eating food offered to other Gods be considered the same as eating food "blessed" in the name of another God? I really don't think it would be considered an "offering"?
BTW, I see you have referenced on a few occasions what the Ethiopian Church do in this matter. I'm sure i don't have to remind you Father that we are not the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,and while we are sister churches and there is constant dialog,love and respect between us, there are still MANY differences between our churches. This also applies to other sister churches not just the Ethiopians. I would rather Priests or Bishops from the Coptic Orthodox church give their opinions on this matter, but as Hezekiel had said there is no answers on the suscopts website, could this mean that this really is not an issue?
Your last premise is loose. suscopts site may not have it because it has not "halal" food has not penetrated {yet} as much in the US relative to the UK. The soft belly approach to resisting allows for a heavy blow eventually.
Every Kebab shop in Australia which i have seen all sell Halal meat i was assuming that this is the same in America which is why i suggested it might not be an issue since it is fairly widespread. I have never thought of this subject until this thread was started by Fr Peter. We have never been told not to eat from Kebab stores or even told anything about eating halal food. I hope my premise is not loose this time, ilovesaintmark! :)
I must say, that to me the apostle paul is quite unambiguous in 1 corinthians 10. you only need to refrain from eating meat offered to idols if it's a stumbling block to others, which is completely in line with acts 15, as the reason for the council in the first place was due to jewish objections to gentile christians not keeping the whole law, therefore it would have been a stumbling block to the jews which is why the gentile converts were asked to refrain from meat offered to idols.
I understand about interpreting scripture in line with the teaching of the fathers etc, but surely not if it flatly contradicts the words of scripture which after all the early church decided to put together as a whole to make up the bible?
I believe we can learn a lot from the situation in corinth which was a very decadent and corrupt place and we can draw many parallels between our situation and theirs, not least because most of the meat on sale in corinth had been offered to idols.
so what was pauls response? basically, there is only one god and everything in the world belongs to him, and that an idol is nothing, so the corinthians were not to worry about where they meat came from. the only reason to abstain was if it caused someone else to stumble.
so surely if we sit down to our meal, if we cross ourselves and say 'lord, thank you for the gift of this food, i ask you to bless it in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit, the one true god', how can that be wrong?
I do wonder why the Church in Australia has not done something about this then.
Perhaps it is because in Britain there is a still a sense of being a Christian country. A national poll taken very recently shows that 71% of people consider themselves to be Christian in the UK. Of course many of these are only residually Christian, but they do not identify themselves as agnostics or atheists. Since we are a Christian country it is perhaps the case that British people and British Christians do not want to lose what still remains. Even atheists in the UK are aware that this is a major issue. It does seem very strange and confusing to me that there are Copts insisting this dosn't matter when so many of those outside the Orthodox Church in the UK sense that it is important, especially if we are to resist the forces of islamification here.
In my own life and practice I find that the verse from Revelation is becoming more pressing on my heart...
Revelation 3:2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
Food blessed in the name of the Muslim god, Allah, is dedicated to his name. When we do something in the name of the Holy Trinity we are dedicating that work to the Holy Trinity. When something is done in the name of a deity it is given over to that deity. Should such a serious matter be left to your own opinion about whether or not you think such food has been offered to the Muslim god, Allah or not? Why are you so intent on eating this food? The academic Islamic textbooks I have found over the last few days speak of the meat being sacrificed to Allah by the prayer. The only people insisting that it is not offered to the Muslim god, Allah seem to be Copts? How can this be?
I must also say that you are theologically wrong to speak as though the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church was a different Church to our own. Theologically speaking there is only the local Church under its bishop, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church never existed in the times of the Fathers. There was and is and God willing will always be, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, which is a means of organising the local bishops of Egypt and a wide area round about until the Muslim invasion. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church was pastored by a Coptic Archbishop until a few years ago and was entirely part of the one Orthodox ecclesial communion. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church under a Coptic Orthodox Archbishop has always rejected halal meat as being forbidden to Christians then it seems to me that even within the limits of what you will allow as a witness, this is a serious testimony of the Orthodox position.
We now call our local Church the Coptic Orthodox Church, but this is a relatively late name, and if it leads people to think that they belong to a different Church than other Orthodox then this needs correcting. There are no 'sister' Churches theologically speaking, even if we use that term to speak about the organisations that have been formed. When I meet Bishop Antonious of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church he is as much a bishop of MY Church as Bishop Angaelos, or even my own Metropolitan Seraphim. When I meet Metropolitan Thimothios of the Indian Orthodox Church he is as much a bishop of MY Church as Bishop Angaelos, or even my own Metropolitan Seraphim.
There are cultural differences between these groups of Christians but there are not theological or spiritual ones. We are ONE CHURCH.
Therefore the fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church rejects halal meat as the Apostles and our Lord command is very significant. This practice is theological not cultural. Therefore it belongs to the whole Church as a witness to their faithfulness. The body and bride of the Lord is not split into different bodies and brides. There is only ONE. No-one in the past spoke of sister Churches, they spoke of brother bishops. This is why the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria had patriarchs who were not even Egyptian. This is why many members of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria were not Egyptian, in the past and in the present. We cannot reject the testimony of other Orthodox Christians just because they do not belong to our local organisation of Christians. We are all members together of one body.
[quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=9784.msg120050#msg120050 date=1285897316] Father, Would eating food offered to other Gods be considered the same as eating food "blessed" in the name of another God? I really don't think it would be considered an "offering"?
BTW, I see you have referenced on a few occasions what the Ethiopian Church do in this matter. I'm sure i don't have to remind you Father that we are not the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,and while we are sister churches and there is constant dialog,love and respect between us, there are still MANY differences between our churches. This also applies to other sister churches not just the Ethiopians. I would rather Priests or Bishops from the Coptic Orthodox church give their opinions on this matter, but as Hezekiel had said there is no answers on the suscopts website, could this mean that this really is not an issue?
What is the point PiOnkh of having a "sister church" if when one of our Churches is in suffering, we ignore it.
Our British Orthodox Church is faced with a threat and a concern that you are not even sympathetic to. Was this the attitude of the apostles when they wrote to each other asking about the welfare of the other Churches?
Secondly, although you may not see it as an issue, despite numerous quotes from scripture explaining why we should not eat food offered to idols, it doesn't negate that there is an issue.
In Egypt, all meat is hallal, and the CoC has turned a blind eye on this. If our sister Church has the courage, the spiritual driven conscience to do something about a wrong, which is something IN YOUR FAVOUR, i am amazed that rather than offer support, you subject this entire issue to frivolous criticism.
1.2 million Armenian orthodox Christians were killed in Turkey. They are still being persecuted in Turkey. I have not heard a SINGLE word from the CoC about this. No sympathy nothing. Only when our own members are suffering do we tend to object.
Finally Pionkh, you may not have an issue with Hallal meat, nor the Islamisation of Australia yet, but if it does get that way, you only have yourself to blame.
I encourage, sympathise and support Fr. Peter on this. Do you not believe that God invokes His Holy Spirit in us to move us to act, to speak to testify for His Glory??? When we see someone concerned about an issue that we are not concerned about, such actions should be commended, supported and encouraged.
Welcome to the forum. I hope it will be a blessing to you.
I don't think you are correct in your interpretation of Corinthians. Perhaps I might be allowed to explain why.
i. The Apostles are clear that the abstaining from meat offered to idols is 'necesssary'. It is not an optional extra. The Greek stresses the word 'necessary', and the academic commentaries on the Greek text I have studied say that it cannot be taken in the sense of 'it would be quite good if you...' but rather 'it is necessary and a firm command for you..'
ii. It does not seem that our Lord had in mind any sense of Jewish and Gentile Christians living together when he rebukes the Church of Pergamos saying, 'I have this against you, that you eat meat offered to other gods'. Dare we disagree with what our Lord says to us? Is this not even more unambiguous?
iii. St Paul does not agree with those at Corinth who insisted on an extreme spiritual liberalism. There is a freedom in Christ but to knowingly participate in food offered to other gods is to be in danger of sitting at the table of devils.
iv. St Paul's argument must be taken as a whole, as the Fathers such as St John Chrysostom do, rather than extracting texts to support one argument. St John Chrysostom writes at length on this passage, and he is of course one of the greatest homilists and commentators of all time and he does not understand the passage to say that there are no restrictions on eating such meat when it is known where it comes from.
v. St Paul concludes that he will not eat such meat, not that he will.
vi. Modern scholars are not clear on the correct interpretation of many terms in these passages, such as weak and strong (do they refer to the poor who rarely had the chance to eat meat, and the rich who often ate meat from the temple and looked down on those who criticised them as lacking knowledge)? Or conscience, this may not be interpreted as 'feeling unhappy or guilty'. If modern Greek scholars are hesitant then we must also be cautious in deciding for ourselves what this passage means, especially when all of the Church tradition says otherwise.
vii. Indeed what is the chance that all the Fathers who read this passage, which I appreciate you think is unambiguous, should read it incorrectly and that you alone, or I, or some other person, in the 21st century should be the ones to read it correctly? I find the chance vanishingly small.
viii. Indeed we do have the writings of the Didache from the 1st century, a document used in the Church while the Apostles were alive. And it also teaches us to avoid the meat offered to other gods. This entirely fits in with the practice of the Church. If we have a different opinion then surely we must be rather hesitant.
ix. It does not seem to me that St Paul is clearly understood here at all, and I would have to respectfully and gently say that I disagree with your interpretation. St John Chrysostom seems more in line with modern scholarship. He says that St Paul is addressing two groups of people. Those who think they can do anything, and need to be told that they cannot. And those who are afraid of everything and need to be told that they should not be. The first group were puffed up with knowledge, and St Paul, in the context of the whole letter has to tell them that what we need is love of others not pride in what we think we know. They thought that because the idols were nothing they could consume meat which was known to have been offered to them with impunity. St Paul says that this is not the case. On the one hand we may find we are participating in the table of demons, and on the other hand we may be causing harm to others. We are not free to do as we please. We must please others. The other gods are nothing, but they are still demons.
x. St Paul also criticises throughout Corinthians the obsession with building up the individual, insisting on rights and knowledge, and failing to build up one another. This is what those who were eating such meat were doing. They were saying 'It doesn't cause me any harm' and St Paul was insisting that this was not the issue.
xi. Of course we are not in the same situation as the early Church, which, it seems to me, makes our situation worse. In their case they were in an environment where most people did not eat a lot of meat, and when it came on the market it was probably offered to idols, and St Paul encourages them to not be so concerned if they do not know if it is. This is the same teaching as the Fathers of course. But in our own time, we have had food that has not been offered to other gods for 1400 years, and now we are allowing food which has been offered to other gods to flood some markets, and then we are CHOOSING to eat this meat. This seems to me to be very different.
Of all the foods in the supermarket with which we are blessed by God, we are CHOOSING, (now that the situation is known) to eat meat which has been offered to another god. This seems entirely different to the situation facing the Corinthians. It does, and I say this gently and respecting your first post here (please don't think I am criticising you), seem to me very odd that a Christian, when given a great choice of foods, would choose to eat meat that they knew had been offered to another god.
xii. It seems that the word 'conscience' in this passage does not mean, 'feeling bad', but means 'judgement'. Now there are judgements of others to be considered. We learn this week that 71% of British people consider themselves Christian in some sense. What will their judgement be of the Christian faith if they learn that many Christians are happy to eat meat which has been offered to another and false god, while learning that Muslims will not do such a thing?
What of the judgement of many Muslims in the UK and elsewhere, their comments can be read on line this week. They are congratulating themselves that even in areas where there are few Muslims all the Christians must eat meat offered to their god.
And what of the judgement of many Christians from many backgrounds who this week are showing that they also are troubled that they have been eating meat offered to another god, not because they think other gods have any authority but because it seems to them that it dishonors God to do so?
We cannot say that we are free to eat what we want as we say St Paul says, and then ignore the fact that he said he would not eat what had been offered to other gods because of the judgement of others.
xiii. Personally, it does seem to me that whether or not I could eat such meat, I do not want anything to do with anything that has been consecrated to another god. I would find it impossible to have anything occult in my house. I have never been able to read or listen to horoscopes. I do not want to have any domestic incense that has been offered to Hindu deities. I am not afraid of any of these forces, but I belong to God. I want nothing to do with any other false god in my life.
It would seem to me, and on this point this is my personal opinion, it would seem to me to be a betrayal of God if I participated in anything that some other false god had touched in any way. And I am deeply aware at the moment of a sense that this participation in other gods extends far beyond food. In my whole life I am being convicted about how I live and how seriously I take the Christian life.
xiv. But the bottom line for me is that the Fathers, the Apostles, and our Lord all say the same thing. Abstain from meat offered to other gods. In this passage from St Paul, often taken out of context, we do not see some other rule. We see that we have a freedom which we must moderate and restrict. And the Church has been consistent in insisting that such moderation of our freedom is required in the case of knowingly eating meat offered to other gods. All of these are in agreement.
What is the chance that all of them are wrong? Especially if, as you suggest, the passage is very clear. In fact in all the serious and scholarly commentaries I have studied these last days it has been clear that this passage is not considered clear at all. That being so it would make me even more cautious in stating an opinion which contradicted that of all the Fathers.
How do you understand the words of our Lord?
Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
May the Lord richly bless your time here on the forum. Serious thing like this are not always dominating the site. But let me say that though I have never engaged in activism, contacting MPs, business and church leaders etc before. On this occasion I feel this issue so very deeply indeed as a spiritual burden. I thought this morning about just giving it all up because there were folk who disagreed. Perhaps I am one of those who are weak, I am not ashamed to say so here before you. But I know that I could not eat such meat and would feel I had dishonoured God by doing so.
I discussed this with my non-Orthodox father this morning. He is a committed Christian and is abstaining from chicken and lamb unless it is known where it comes from. He said to me that if we do not do something now then next we will indeed have the Koran being read in school assemblies to 'be fair'. We will indeed have imams coming into school to teach Islam, to 'be balanced'. And we will have unknowingly lost our freedom to be Christian, or Agnostic or Atheist, and will be living in a country dominated by Islam, even where the majority are still not Muslims. This was his opinion as an ordinary Christian. My own son, in a Church school, was asked to copy out, 'There is ........ '. He crossed it out and wrote, 'There is no God but God, and Jesus is his Son'. We are participating in our own islamification. This goes far beyond the situation St Paul faced. His view was that there is no sin in unknowingly eating such meat, but to choose to do so is a different matter and dishonours God.
Ignatius, I do ask you to pray that God will grant me wisdom. I am trying hard not to speak just from my own thoughts. But this is a spiritual burden I am bearing and I find it impossible in my own heart to purchase such food once it is known where it comes from. May the Lord forgive me if I go beyond the truth in anything.
As far as drawing a line in the sand against creeping islamification, abstaining from halal (and by a similar process of reasoning,I suggest, kosher) products is admirable.
However,I was the head teacher in a private Muslim school during the nineties and one of my missions was to arrange for school dinners. I learned that halal food was (then) difficult to procure in London and many Muslims happily feasted in (then) non-halal Macdonalds since Islam says its ok to eat whatever you can when halal isn't available. I also learned that when you slaughter an animal you cut its throat and say you're doing it in the name of god. You are not offering it to God at all as an idolator would, you are glorifying God in the act just as you would before consuming food. To say you are eating food offered to idols is incorrect and is particularly insulting to Muslims whose greatest sin is shirk(idolatry) and of which they believe we Christians are somewhat guilty. By all means say that Muslims have a false conception of God, but let us be a little more accurate in our reasoning as to why we don't believe eating halal is something we shouldn't do.
In politically correct Britain, Muslims are having an easy time of it from liberal administrators as you say, but the 71% of Britons who call them selves Christians are mostly Christians in name only (or where is the evidence in full churches etc) and are letting it happen. They probably see the political threat of Islam in more lurid terms than the religious threat.
As I say, we should avoid eating food that belongs to another religious group and also (certainly) not pray with them (as I believe the Fathers said). But not praying with other religious groups also includes other Christian groups with whom you are not in communion.
I am afraid I do not believe that Muslims have a false conception of God, I believe that they worship a different god altogether.
I have been studying a number of serious Islamic sites which have lots of details about judgements over the centuries on various issues. These sites are saying things like...
What is meant by offering a sacrifice to anything other than Allah is that which is slaughtered in the name of anything or anyone other than Allah.
This is clearly speaking about slaughter, and it clearly describes it as sacrifice. When meat is sacrificed it is sacrificed in the name of Allah and with the same words, as far as I can see, that are used for all slaughter. This does not mean that all slaughter is formally a sacrifice, but that it has the same relation to Allah as a formal sacrifice. We don't have to consider all sacrifice is in the form of a formal ceremony in a temple. That would be a mistake. Anything done or committed to the name of a deity is offered to that deity.
Let me ask. If food was being sold in the supermarkets which had been slaughtered in the name of Satan how many people would buy it and eat it? How many people would say, 'That's nothing, God doesn't care that I have chosen to eat meat slaughtered in the name of Satan'. And we are choosing to eat this meat.
How is this case any different?
All of the lamb in Waitrose for instance is slaughtered in the name of the Muslim god, Allah. But none of their other meat. So if a Christian has a choice, which meat should he buy? The meat that he knows is slaughtered in the name of the Muslim god, Allah, or the meat that has not been slaughtered in the name of any god? More than that, what are Muslims to think of Christians and the Christian faith when they see that it makes no difference which god the meat has been slaughtered in the name of? Indeed what are the various businessmen to think when they see that Christians will eat meat slaughtered in the name of any other god? How does this bear witness to our faith? I ask this as a question not as a statement.
When we begin prayer in the name of the Holy Trinity we are committing all of our activity to God. When a Muslim slaughterman conducts his business in the name of Allah he is committing all of his activity, and all of the produce of his activity to Allah. It is irrelevant whether it is formally sacrificed or offered. Much of the sacrifice of the ancient world and the present is not a matter of completely sacrificing an animal in the way we might imagine. Much of it was, as it is in Islam, a short prayer, the slaughter, and then meat taken straight to the temple butchers who would sell the meat as income. There was not a long service held over each animal. It was much more like an abbatoir.
Zoxsasi,............................what are you talking about mate? Why do you always try and steer the topic away from the real issue and start to talk about something unrelated and to be honest a little pointless???? And i don't appreciate you calling me unsympathetic. I, along with a few people are trying to better understand the situation, that doesn't mean i am not being sympathetic, All i am doing to writhing my opinions and questions, i suggest you do the same instead of trying to change the subject.
[quote author=Pi Onkh link=topic=9784.msg120050#msg120050 date=1285897316] I see you have referenced on a few occasions what the Ethiopian Church do in this matter. I'm sure i don't have to remind you Father that we are not the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,
I find that remark extremely rude and unsympathetic. Its not a way to talk to someone older than you. Its not a way to speak to a priest, and it is most definately unsympathetic.
and while we are sister churches and there is constant dialog,love and respect between us, there are still MANY differences between our churches.
We obviously have more things in common than differences for them to be considered a SISTER Church.
This also applies to other sister churches not just the Ethiopians. I would rather Priests or Bishops from the Coptic Orthodox church give their opinions on this matter, but as Hezekiel had said there is no answers on the suscopts website, could this mean that this really is not an issue?
Islam has been called a Christian heresy but I think it is more like a Jewish one that comments on Christianity. It retained the concept of draining blood from a slaughtered animal. It seems that Ethiopian Christianity also retained Jewish elements such as not eating pork and circumcision. Shall we introduce these to our Faith?
More to the point is the prohibition on blood in Acts. This has been completely disregarded in the west. Catholic countries like Ireland and Poland have no food prohibitions and Orthodox countries are vegan during the lents.
So what am I rambling on about?
By all means adopt a strict attitude to the food we eat so that in a multicultural climate we are seen to be honouring the Holy Trinity. But let us avoid becoming a clique, like Jews and yes, Muslims, who are known for dietary prohibitions. Most modern idol worshipers like Hindus, are vegetarians. Also, if we are going to set up the Ethiopian church as an example, let us introduce circumcision which died out in western Christianity thanks to St Paul (I may be wrong here).
The problem I have with such a view Aidan is that you are suggesting that we must either adopt everything that the Ethiopian people do or nothing.
It is a fact of history that halal meat was not consumed by Roman Catholics, Copts or Ethiopians, and that a very great number of our Fathers all condemn eating meat offered to other gods. These all seem to me to be facts.
All countries and people have food prohibitions. English people would not dream of eating horse, but the French do. English people would not dream of eating dog, but the Koreans do. The fact that Ethiopians do not eat halal meat is not a prohibition like this at all, and I think it a mistake to confuse the two.
I will avoid lamb that I know to have been offered to the Muslim god, Allah, but I have no problem eating lamb. This is not a food prohibition but a spiritual and theological measure. I am not aware that Ethiopians do not eat the same meats as Muslims, but they do not eat meat that has been blessed in the name of Allah.
This is clearly an altogether different thing.
I really do fail to see how avoiding meat offered to the Muslim god, Allah, in whatever form, would be forming a clique. The vast majority of people in England are Christian, or residually Christian.
I am not sure what idea you think I have of sacrifice. I have already explained that I do not think it means necessarily a team of priests with a long service. In the Roman times the sacrifice to the Emperor required no more than a tiny pinch of incense. I do believe that naming any god in association with any activity is a sacrifice/blessing/dedication, and I can't say that anything I have read suggests otherwise in regard to Muslims. If the name of Allah means nothing then why must it be invoked?
To name a deity is to make it present.
Let me say again, would you or anyone hear be quite happy buying meat that you knew had been blessed/dedicated to Satan?
I agree that halal meat ought to be labelled as such to give people the opportunity not to buy it if they so desire.
However, if supermarkets sold meat labelled 'Sacrificed to Satan' or if we knew of such, we might definitely decide not to buy. Is that likely to happen? Are there large numbers of Satanists migrating to Britain?
There are large amounts of meat being sold in our supermarkets which have been blessed in the name of another god. You would not eat that offered to Satan, I don't see why anyone would eat that offered to the Muslim god, Allah. I would not eat that offered to Krishna or Buddha if I knew of it.
There is no difference except in a name if it is not the name of the Holy Trinity.
Is any prayer said over the animal in the kosher process, or does it merely provide the methodology for slaughter?
As far as I can see, there is no prayer said over the animal.
It also seems to be the case that all kosher meat IS labelled. I am not aware of large scale Jewish enterprises providing unlabelled meat into the UK markets. But this issue would not be the same if a prayer is not offered in any case.
Indeed the issue is not about Muslim slaughterhouses APART from the fact that all such meat IS blessed/dedicated to Allah. If Muslims were able to produce meat not blessed/dedicated in such a way then there would not be a problem. It IS the prayer being offered NOT the mere fact of the religion of those working, and it IS the fact that this meat is unlabeled NOT that anyone is saying it should not be produced for Muslims and those who want to eat it.
I shall not be posting about this subject over the weekend, and probably not much else either.
I have a most blessed duty of baptising a catechumen this weekend and all of my thoughts and attention will be on this event.
Do join with me in praying for Tina and for all of us who will be celebrating her baptism together.
On this joyful day may I ask forgiveness of any I may have offended over the last few days, and grace that my ignorance might not be a stumbling block to others.
[quote author=ignatius link=topic=9784.msg120094#msg120094 date=1285997724] On that last point does that also mean that we must not eat kosher meat either then?
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9784.msg120098#msg120098 date=1286007565] Is any prayer said over the animal in the kosher process, or does it merely provide the methodology for slaughter?
As far as I can see, there is no prayer said over the animal.
It also seems to be the case that all kosher meat IS labelled. I am not aware of large scale Jewish enterprises providing unlabelled meat into the UK markets. But this issue would not be the same if a prayer is not offered in any case.
Indeed the issue is not about Muslim slaughterhouses APART from the fact that all such meat IS blessed/dedicated to Allah. If Muslims were able to produce meat not blessed/dedicated in such a way then there would not be a problem. It IS the prayer being offered NOT the mere fact of the religion of those working, and it IS the fact that this meat is unlabeled NOT that anyone is saying it should not be produced for Muslims and those who want to eat it.
Father Peter
According to Wikipedia (bold and underline emphasis mine):
"Shechita is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish law. Shechita requires that an animal be conscious and this is taken to mean the modern practice of electrical stunning before slaughter is forbidden... In Shechita, a blessing to God is recited before beginning an uninterrupted period of slaughtering; as long as the shochet does not have a lengthy pause, interrupt, or otherwise lose concentration, this blessing covers all the animals slaughtered that period. This blessing follows the standard form for a blessing before most Jewish rituals ("Blesséd are you God ... who commanded us regarding [such-and-such]," in this case, Shechita). The general rule in Judaism is that for rituals which have an associated blessing, if one omitted the blessing, the ritual is still valid [see Maimonides Laws of Blessings 11:5]; as such, even if the shochet failed to recite the blessing before Shechita, the slaughter is still valid and the meat is kosher.[20]... 20. ^ Maimonides Laws of Slaughter 1:2 and commentaries ad loc"
You're welcome Father Peter. Thank you very much for your informative replies also. I have sent you a short 'personal message'. Please read it and reply via 'personal message'.
I was not convinced that we were not allowed to eat food offered to idols as long as we give thanks to God.This is news to me. I am not even sure why the "allah" of Islam is referred as an idol. I understand idols to be visible human made figures and statutes. I think,the meaning of an idol mentioned in the bible is along these lines.I can not go into a muslm friend's house and tell him I won't eat any of his food ,because his food was offered to allah ; an idol. It would be very offending. So far, no one has been able to tell me, what happens to the food that we bless in the name of the Father,the son and the Holy Spirit? Doesn't this prayer cleanse the food? The Holy Cross is our strength and protection,right? If the power of the Holy Cross can expel demons and evil spirits at once, why can't it cleanse the food that is blessed in the name of another god? I do not understand the explanations of the Church fathers regarding food offered to idols, but the Orthodox bible study is very clear.In Romans 14: 20, St Paul has declared all food pure. St Paul wrote the letters to the Romans after the epistles to the Corinithians. So when he says' all food is pure" what is there not to understand??
At any rate, I sent a mail to His Grace Anba Youssef and asked him to clarify this matter, and here are the 2 replies I got from him (I believe I have his permission to post it here)
"Halal in Arabic means lawful in English. The meat slaughtered by the Muslims according to their rules must be lawful, i.e., “halal.” With the least amount of pain, the slaughtered animal's jugular vein is slit and the blood is drained. The Jewish faith's kosher laws are similar regarding the slaughtering of animals and also list many of the same restricted items below, including shellfish, etc. However, the New Testament liberated the believers from these restrictions (Acts 10:9-16). For many health reasons, some Christians still observe some of these similar limitations, but with a completely different perspective. Other restrictions are basically driven from our own canons regarding fastings. We still encourage people to avoid eating bloody meat. Nonetheless, you are permitted to share in the consumption of their products. Since we do acknowledge any of the so-called gods of these other faiths or any other god, therefore, the foods offered to their gods are only offered to the figments of their own imaginations.
In regards to meat products, the following are considered unlawful: any kind of pork (emphasis mine) animals that were dead prior to slaughtering animals not slaughtered properly animals not slaughtered in the name of Allah (emphasis mine) any kind of blood by products carnivorous animals birds of prey land animals without external ears
God bless you Bishop Youssef"
Then I asked him to clarify if consuming 'halal food' intentionally amounts to accepting the islamic declaration of faith (I copied and pasted HG Anba Seraphim's message) and Sayedna said:
"St. Paul answered this and said, there is no god other than the True God, so even if this meat if offered to other god, it is offered to nothing but if some weak persons will be offended, we need to be sensitive to their weak conscience and stop eating it not because it is wrong but because of not offending the weak person".
I am not advocating Halal food over Christian food. Never. If the issue is about choices,I certainly choose the food blessed in the name of our God.Where there is no choice, we bless and sanctify the food in the name of our God. Anyway,that is what I will keep doing. Folks in the UK may support the labelling of 'Halal food' not as a result of their love for God, but for animals. As long as the root cause of the problems are not tackled and dealt with, not much will be done to fight the spread of Islam.
Dear Hezekiel, I am not sure really what you intend to say. I don't know who anba Youssef is, or where he serves, but I won't be surprised if he serves in Egypt. Without being judgmental or anything, sometimes priests in Egypt, and maybe in the diaspora as well, make things easy for their flock to decrease their anxiety and allow them to carry on with their lives without too much guilt. Now, with all due respect, have you read the previous posts? An idol doesn't have to be a physical statute to be worshipped by men, but in spiritual sense, it is any god which is not our True God (as St. Paul of course said). Now is satan a god? In some sense, it is yes. Would you really eat anything offered to satan? With a thankful attitude? I am afraid if you would, God may not be pleased with that. It is not a matter of drawing a sign of the Cross on the filth and eating it. We have brains to think with. In fact, many teachers in the church of old taught Christians they were not allowed to let muslims into their houses as well. You see that? Do we really observe those practices anymore? OK, now another point, which is 'the spread of islam': the worst thing happening in the world today, which they can avail themselves of is the tolerance. We (as Christians), and the whole of the Western community in general, show some kind of unprecedented tolerance to things, which one way or another we get sucked into believing and having to agree with things originally if given the choice, we won't. The three saintly men heard that the king requires certain foods to be eaten, what did they do? Daniel heard that the kind ordered no body to pray for any god except to him, what did he do? Esau was too hungry, what did he do? Now back to Christians' laxness today it is taught that giving bribes is OK - because in the whole of Egypt you would rarely find somebody not taking any money having done their jobs. It is also taught that whatever you eat with thankfulness and good faith is right, but just take care of the weaker soul next to you. Yes of course all the meat in Egypt is halal (bar maybe 0.5%, which the government burnt down a huge portion of), what are Christians in Egypt supposed to do? In fact, if I were still living there, I would have turned a blind eye to this whole thread and called Fr. Peter a Western priest having it easy in his country where his voice is heard, and just continued in my selfish ways. Would I really be serving God this way? You know what: even the Cathedral organises ramadhan banquets. What is the consequence for all of this? Love and harmony? On the contrary, more Christian killings, and more defamation, and pushing and forcing their ways on Christians all the time... [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Sorry to add something after thread has already seen reduced activity... St Paul taught us more than once, what I may express as: "EVERY THING IS LAWFUL TO ME BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS WORTHWHILE" "EVERY THING IS LAWFUL TO ME BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS AGREEABLE" "EVERY THING IS LAWFUL TO ME BUT NOTHING HAS POWER OVER ME" [coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
Comments
I have found this bible reference which has clarified alot of things for me
1Co 10:28-33 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." [31]
"Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?
But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?
Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
This verse seems relevant to the discussion i have also added a few commentaries on this verse from early church fathers.
In this passage the apostle shows in what instances, notwithstanding, Christians might lawfully eat what had been sacrificed to idols. They must not eat it out of religious respect to the idol, nor go into his temple, and hold a feast there, upon what they knew was an idol-sacrifice; nor perhaps out of the temple, if they knew it was a feast held upon a sacrifice, but there were cases wherein they might without sin eat what had been offered (Matthew Henry, a Presbyterian minister i only added him as a reference i know he is not a church father)
Chrysostom: The food is not unclean in itself; only human intentions might make it unclean. Those who do not know what those intentions are can therefore eat it with a good conscience. Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians
As the title of the thread states that the meat is unlabelled!!!!
Chrysostom: Nothing is unclean, unless we make it so by our intentions and our disobedience. Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians 25.1.9
I'm still undecided to be honest with all of you i will have to discuss this with my father of confession he is good with these kind of things. What about the rest of you??
thank you for clarifying 1 corinthians 10 for me. Picking up on your last point about considering becoming vegetarian I would certainly commend it to anyone on this forum, not just for spiritual reasons but for health,ethical and environmental reasons.
I realise that the Church does not require that we refrain from eating meat, but I took the decision to become vegetarian because in these modern times I do not like the way that animals are treated with such cruelty on factoey farms.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not an animal rights activist but these animals are Gods creatures too and they should be alllowed to live their lives naturally not couped up in areas where they can't spread their wings or turn around its just wrong.
I will post the following link for anyone interestede in reading more about these issues; http://www.vegsoc.org/animals/infolist.html
Lastly, its not difficult to become a vegetarian, I thought I would miss meat but actually I am eating better now than ever
seraphim mark
Have you been able to read all the Fathers I have quoted through this thread?
You have quoted this passage from St John Chrysostom...
The food is not unclean in itself; only human intentions might make it unclean. Those who do not know what those intentions are can therefore eat it with a good conscience.
but you appear to have missed out the sentence that comes before it...
This is why we should not eat food which has been sacrificed to idols.
I think I have quoted a great many Fathers, and our Lord Himself, who ALL teach that we should abstain from meat offered to other gods. I am sure I can find many more Fathers who speak in the same way, but I am sure in my own mind what the teaching of the Church is.
i. The Apostles Council.
ii. Our Lord Himself
iii. The Didache
iv. St Justin Martyr
v. St Irenaeus
vi. St John Chrysostom
vii. St Clement of Alexandria
viii. Oecumenius
ix. Ambrosiaster
x. St Cyril of Jerusalem
xi. Tertullian
x. Origen
xi. The Ethiopian church tradition to the present day
xii. The Coptic church tradition until at least the 17th century
xiii. The Western church tradition in Spain
xiv. Metropolitan Seraphim
As St John Chrysostom says fully and clearly in his commentary on Corinthians...
That although no one were injured nor any perversion of another ensued, not even in this case were it right so to do [eat such meat].
and
...meat offered in sacrifice to an idol, which is already prohibited for another reason;
and
This is why we should not eat food which has been sacrificed to idols.
Father Peter
When the Christians were suffering under the Roman empire what were they to do? What did they do?
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
Fr Peter, I would like to say few things.
Firstly,I can not see relationship between the eating of 'Halal food' and the suffering of Christians under the Roman empire .Comparing eating prohibited food and denying the true God are two different things. As St Paul stated, eating food offered to idols does not save or make one better or condemn one to eternal damnation,while denying the true God and prostrating infront of idols does. Secondly, I also want to add,that there are many many Christians from around the middle east ,Asian and African countries who live in Saudi Arabia not out of choice,but in search of better life,work ,etc to provide for their family. Many have moved there in the heydays of the Oil boom and continued to stay there. In the past,this fact may not have been true of Britons,but these days we see many Europeans flocking to arab countries such as Emirates in search of work too.Thus, it is not always a choice,but a necessity as well.
In my view,the problem Islam poses today is not the eating of Halal food. If they are capable of abusing the welfare system by multiplying exponentilly, building more mosques , islamic centers than is required; could exercise civil sharia in lieu of secular courts, the threat of imposing and spreading 'halal food' appears to be miniscule. In other words, for the past decades,they had been allowed to lay down the foundations and no one raised a voice. Sometimes, I think the events of 9/11 is a blessing in disguise, but as of yet,not enough has been done to stop the growth of their deadly tumor.
The words of Scripture are not always self-explanatory. However, regarding foods offered to idols, St Paul has never been clear.In 1 corinithinas 10 , St Paul says,that eating and drinking are to be done to the glory of God without compromise of that glory by idolatory.At the same time,he warns that no stumbling block is to be placed in the path of the jews or Greeks or the church ,because the goal should not be to one's own advantage, but that of others (their salvation). Otherwise his basic principle is that as long as one can give thanks ,one is to eat the food as part of a relationship with God ( 1 Cor 10:29-30).I understand this to mean, that when we say a prayer over the food we eat,it is sanctified and blessed. The power of the cross cleanses every stain. If that is not so, what is the purpose of blessing food
Moreover ,in the case of food sold in meat market,which might have been passed thru a temple in the process of slaughter,St Paul grants complete freedom. He states that no one’s conscience is affected by eating such food. It should be remembered that most jews were more anxious about avoiding food possible tainted by idolatry,but Paul overrules this hesistation since eating such food from market risks no personal participation in idolatry and since the food itself is part of God’s creation (1 Cornith 10:25-26).In your reply to Seraphim Mark you explained this verse to mean" 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.. But St Paul goes further and states, " But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake[d]— 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. . I understand this verse is not forbidding us from eating such food, but that St Paul is being supportive of the weak in faith;for their sake ,ie, lest they be pressurised into compromising their faiths.It is like I am allowed to drink alchoholic drink,because I am in self control ,but I should avoid it,for the sake of a brother of mine who has no self-control and might lose his salvation by drinking in excess.
In Romans 14: 20, St Paul has declared all food pure. I fail to understand His Grace Metropolitan Seraphim's messagethat says "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 ;and I am sure ;many of us here have eaten Halal meat (shawarama and Doener kabab,for example) with full knowledge of the meats nature. But does it not mean we accept the declaration of islamic faith? I am at a loss here.
PS: I checked the Q and A's section of Suscopts to see if I can find anything. No one has ever asked about Halal meat,probably an indication that it is not an issue. Also, the Tewahdo church rejection of 'Halal food' does not appear to have to do anything with foods offered to idolatory.The church still adheres to a number of Mosaic laws. For example, it forbids the consumption of Pork meat, because God had forbidden it in the OT. Does it mean we all should too?
The Lord bless you.
I think you are ignoring all of the testimonies from the Fathers, the testimony of the historic tradition of the Coptic Church, the Catholic Church and the continuing testimony of the Ethiopian Church.
On what basis is any of our individual opinions of more weight than this?
You are free to do as you choose. But I cannot ignore the testimony of the Fathers. I do not see that it comes down to my interpretation of the Bible verses someone else's. That is just Protestantism.
We must ask the Fathers how we should live. And they teach us to asbtain from meat offered to other gods.
We can say, 'I don't understand why they say this'. But we cannot say, 'I don't know what the Fathers teach'.
Hear once more the clear words of the Apostolic Council. Is your opinion or my opinion of more weight than theirs?
Abstain from meat offered to other gods.
Hear once more the clear words of our Lord. Is your opinion or my opinion of more weight than His?
I have this against you... you eat meat offered to other gods.
I don't see how there can be any argument?
Father Peter
Would eating food offered to other Gods be considered the same as eating food "blessed" in the name of another God? I really don't think it would be considered an "offering"?
BTW,
I see you have referenced on a few occasions what the Ethiopian Church do in this matter. I'm sure i don't have to remind you Father that we are not the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,and while we are sister churches and there is constant dialog,love and respect between us, there are still MANY differences between our churches. This also applies to other sister churches not just the Ethiopians. I would rather Priests or Bishops from the Coptic Orthodox church give their opinions on this matter, but as Hezekiel had said there is no answers on the suscopts website, could this mean that this really is not an issue?
Your last premise is loose. suscopts site may not have it because it has not "halal" food has not penetrated {yet} as much in the US relative to the UK.
The soft belly approach to resisting allows for a heavy blow eventually.
The Gospels speak specifically--to be on guard.
I have never thought of this subject until this thread was started by Fr Peter. We have never been told not to eat from Kebab stores or even told anything about eating halal food. I hope my premise is not loose this time, ilovesaintmark! :)
I must say, that to me the apostle paul is quite unambiguous in 1 corinthians 10. you only need to refrain from eating meat offered to idols if it's a stumbling block to others, which is completely in line with acts 15, as the reason for the council in the first place was due to jewish objections to gentile christians not keeping the whole law, therefore it would have been a stumbling block to the jews which is why the gentile converts were asked to refrain from meat offered to idols.
I understand about interpreting scripture in line with the teaching of the fathers etc, but surely not if it flatly contradicts the words of scripture which after all the early church decided to put together as a whole to make up the bible?
I believe we can learn a lot from the situation in corinth which was a very decadent and corrupt place and we can draw many parallels between our situation and theirs, not least because most of the meat on sale in corinth had been offered to idols.
so what was pauls response? basically, there is only one god and everything in the world belongs to him, and that an idol is nothing, so the corinthians were not to worry about where they meat came from. the only reason to abstain was if it caused someone else to stumble.
so surely if we sit down to our meal, if we cross ourselves and say 'lord, thank you for the gift of this food, i ask you to bless it in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit, the one true god', how can that be wrong?
may god bless all who visit this forum
Ignatius
Perhaps it is because in Britain there is a still a sense of being a Christian country. A national poll taken very recently shows that 71% of people consider themselves to be Christian in the UK. Of course many of these are only residually Christian, but they do not identify themselves as agnostics or atheists. Since we are a Christian country it is perhaps the case that British people and British Christians do not want to lose what still remains. Even atheists in the UK are aware that this is a major issue. It does seem very strange and confusing to me that there are Copts insisting this dosn't matter when so many of those outside the Orthodox Church in the UK sense that it is important, especially if we are to resist the forces of islamification here.
In my own life and practice I find that the verse from Revelation is becoming more pressing on my heart...
Revelation 3:2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
Food blessed in the name of the Muslim god, Allah, is dedicated to his name. When we do something in the name of the Holy Trinity we are dedicating that work to the Holy Trinity. When something is done in the name of a deity it is given over to that deity. Should such a serious matter be left to your own opinion about whether or not you think such food has been offered to the Muslim god, Allah or not? Why are you so intent on eating this food? The academic Islamic textbooks I have found over the last few days speak of the meat being sacrificed to Allah by the prayer. The only people insisting that it is not offered to the Muslim god, Allah seem to be Copts? How can this be?
I must also say that you are theologically wrong to speak as though the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church was a different Church to our own. Theologically speaking there is only the local Church under its bishop, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church never existed in the times of the Fathers. There was and is and God willing will always be, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, which is a means of organising the local bishops of Egypt and a wide area round about until the Muslim invasion. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church was pastored by a Coptic Archbishop until a few years ago and was entirely part of the one Orthodox ecclesial communion. If the Ethiopian Orthodox Church under a Coptic Orthodox Archbishop has always rejected halal meat as being forbidden to Christians then it seems to me that even within the limits of what you will allow as a witness, this is a serious testimony of the Orthodox position.
We now call our local Church the Coptic Orthodox Church, but this is a relatively late name, and if it leads people to think that they belong to a different Church than other Orthodox then this needs correcting. There are no 'sister' Churches theologically speaking, even if we use that term to speak about the organisations that have been formed. When I meet Bishop Antonious of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church he is as much a bishop of MY Church as Bishop Angaelos, or even my own Metropolitan Seraphim. When I meet Metropolitan Thimothios of the Indian Orthodox Church he is as much a bishop of MY Church as Bishop Angaelos, or even my own Metropolitan Seraphim.
There are cultural differences between these groups of Christians but there are not theological or spiritual ones. We are ONE CHURCH.
Therefore the fact that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church rejects halal meat as the Apostles and our Lord command is very significant. This practice is theological not cultural. Therefore it belongs to the whole Church as a witness to their faithfulness. The body and bride of the Lord is not split into different bodies and brides. There is only ONE. No-one in the past spoke of sister Churches, they spoke of brother bishops. This is why the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria had patriarchs who were not even Egyptian. This is why many members of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria were not Egyptian, in the past and in the present. We cannot reject the testimony of other Orthodox Christians just because they do not belong to our local organisation of Christians. We are all members together of one body.
Father Peter
Father,
Would eating food offered to other Gods be considered the same as eating food "blessed" in the name of another God? I really don't think it would be considered an "offering"?
BTW,
I see you have referenced on a few occasions what the Ethiopian Church do in this matter. I'm sure i don't have to remind you Father that we are not the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,and while we are sister churches and there is constant dialog,love and respect between us, there are still MANY differences between our churches. This also applies to other sister churches not just the Ethiopians. I would rather Priests or Bishops from the Coptic Orthodox church give their opinions on this matter, but as Hezekiel had said there is no answers on the suscopts website, could this mean that this really is not an issue?
What is the point PiOnkh of having a "sister church" if when one of our Churches is in suffering, we ignore it.
Our British Orthodox Church is faced with a threat and a concern that you are not even sympathetic to. Was this the attitude of the apostles when they wrote to each other asking about the welfare of the other Churches?
Secondly, although you may not see it as an issue, despite numerous quotes from scripture explaining why we should not eat food offered to idols, it doesn't negate that there is an issue.
In Egypt, all meat is hallal, and the CoC has turned a blind eye on this. If our sister Church has the courage, the spiritual driven conscience to do something about a wrong, which is something IN YOUR FAVOUR, i am amazed that rather than offer support, you subject this entire issue to frivolous criticism.
1.2 million Armenian orthodox Christians were killed in Turkey. They are still being persecuted in Turkey. I have not heard a SINGLE word from the CoC about this. No sympathy nothing. Only when our own members are suffering do we tend to object.
Finally Pionkh, you may not have an issue with Hallal meat, nor the Islamisation of Australia yet, but if it does get that way, you only have yourself to blame.
I encourage, sympathise and support Fr. Peter on this. Do you not believe that God invokes His Holy Spirit in us to move us to act, to speak to testify for His Glory??? When we see someone concerned about an issue that we are not concerned about, such actions should be commended, supported and encouraged.
Welcome to the forum. I hope it will be a blessing to you.
I don't think you are correct in your interpretation of Corinthians. Perhaps I might be allowed to explain why.
i. The Apostles are clear that the abstaining from meat offered to idols is 'necesssary'. It is not an optional extra. The Greek stresses the word 'necessary', and the academic commentaries on the Greek text I have studied say that it cannot be taken in the sense of 'it would be quite good if you...' but rather 'it is necessary and a firm command for you..'
ii. It does not seem that our Lord had in mind any sense of Jewish and Gentile Christians living together when he rebukes the Church of Pergamos saying, 'I have this against you, that you eat meat offered to other gods'. Dare we disagree with what our Lord says to us? Is this not even more unambiguous?
iii. St Paul does not agree with those at Corinth who insisted on an extreme spiritual liberalism. There is a freedom in Christ but to knowingly participate in food offered to other gods is to be in danger of sitting at the table of devils.
iv. St Paul's argument must be taken as a whole, as the Fathers such as St John Chrysostom do, rather than extracting texts to support one argument. St John Chrysostom writes at length on this passage, and he is of course one of the greatest homilists and commentators of all time and he does not understand the passage to say that there are no restrictions on eating such meat when it is known where it comes from.
v. St Paul concludes that he will not eat such meat, not that he will.
vi. Modern scholars are not clear on the correct interpretation of many terms in these passages, such as weak and strong (do they refer to the poor who rarely had the chance to eat meat, and the rich who often ate meat from the temple and looked down on those who criticised them as lacking knowledge)? Or conscience, this may not be interpreted as 'feeling unhappy or guilty'. If modern Greek scholars are hesitant then we must also be cautious in deciding for ourselves what this passage means, especially when all of the Church tradition says otherwise.
vii. Indeed what is the chance that all the Fathers who read this passage, which I appreciate you think is unambiguous, should read it incorrectly and that you alone, or I, or some other person, in the 21st century should be the ones to read it correctly? I find the chance vanishingly small.
viii. Indeed we do have the writings of the Didache from the 1st century, a document used in the Church while the Apostles were alive. And it also teaches us to avoid the meat offered to other gods. This entirely fits in with the practice of the Church. If we have a different opinion then surely we must be rather hesitant.
ix. It does not seem to me that St Paul is clearly understood here at all, and I would have to respectfully and gently say that I disagree with your interpretation. St John Chrysostom seems more in line with modern scholarship. He says that St Paul is addressing two groups of people. Those who think they can do anything, and need to be told that they cannot. And those who are afraid of everything and need to be told that they should not be. The first group were puffed up with knowledge, and St Paul, in the context of the whole letter has to tell them that what we need is love of others not pride in what we think we know. They thought that because the idols were nothing they could consume meat which was known to have been offered to them with impunity. St Paul says that this is not the case. On the one hand we may find we are participating in the table of demons, and on the other hand we may be causing harm to others. We are not free to do as we please. We must please others. The other gods are nothing, but they are still demons.
x. St Paul also criticises throughout Corinthians the obsession with building up the individual, insisting on rights and knowledge, and failing to build up one another. This is what those who were eating such meat were doing. They were saying 'It doesn't cause me any harm' and St Paul was insisting that this was not the issue.
xi. Of course we are not in the same situation as the early Church, which, it seems to me, makes our situation worse. In their case they were in an environment where most people did not eat a lot of meat, and when it came on the market it was probably offered to idols, and St Paul encourages them to not be so concerned if they do not know if it is. This is the same teaching as the Fathers of course. But in our own time, we have had food that has not been offered to other gods for 1400 years, and now we are allowing food which has been offered to other gods to flood some markets, and then we are CHOOSING to eat this meat. This seems to me to be very different.
Of all the foods in the supermarket with which we are blessed by God, we are CHOOSING, (now that the situation is known) to eat meat which has been offered to another god. This seems entirely different to the situation facing the Corinthians. It does, and I say this gently and respecting your first post here (please don't think I am criticising you), seem to me very odd that a Christian, when given a great choice of foods, would choose to eat meat that they knew had been offered to another god.
xii. It seems that the word 'conscience' in this passage does not mean, 'feeling bad', but means 'judgement'. Now there are judgements of others to be considered. We learn this week that 71% of British people consider themselves Christian in some sense. What will their judgement be of the Christian faith if they learn that many Christians are happy to eat meat which has been offered to another and false god, while learning that Muslims will not do such a thing?
What of the judgement of many Muslims in the UK and elsewhere, their comments can be read on line this week. They are congratulating themselves that even in areas where there are few Muslims all the Christians must eat meat offered to their god.
And what of the judgement of many Christians from many backgrounds who this week are showing that they also are troubled that they have been eating meat offered to another god, not because they think other gods have any authority but because it seems to them that it dishonors God to do so?
We cannot say that we are free to eat what we want as we say St Paul says, and then ignore the fact that he said he would not eat what had been offered to other gods because of the judgement of others.
xiii. Personally, it does seem to me that whether or not I could eat such meat, I do not want anything to do with anything that has been consecrated to another god. I would find it impossible to have anything occult in my house. I have never been able to read or listen to horoscopes. I do not want to have any domestic incense that has been offered to Hindu deities. I am not afraid of any of these forces, but I belong to God. I want nothing to do with any other false god in my life.
It would seem to me, and on this point this is my personal opinion, it would seem to me to be a betrayal of God if I participated in anything that some other false god had touched in any way. And I am deeply aware at the moment of a sense that this participation in other gods extends far beyond food. In my whole life I am being convicted about how I live and how seriously I take the Christian life.
xiv. But the bottom line for me is that the Fathers, the Apostles, and our Lord all say the same thing. Abstain from meat offered to other gods. In this passage from St Paul, often taken out of context, we do not see some other rule. We see that we have a freedom which we must moderate and restrict. And the Church has been consistent in insisting that such moderation of our freedom is required in the case of knowingly eating meat offered to other gods. All of these are in agreement.
What is the chance that all of them are wrong? Especially if, as you suggest, the passage is very clear. In fact in all the serious and scholarly commentaries I have studied these last days it has been clear that this passage is not considered clear at all. That being so it would make me even more cautious in stating an opinion which contradicted that of all the Fathers.
How do you understand the words of our Lord?
Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
May the Lord richly bless your time here on the forum. Serious thing like this are not always dominating the site. But let me say that though I have never engaged in activism, contacting MPs, business and church leaders etc before. On this occasion I feel this issue so very deeply indeed as a spiritual burden. I thought this morning about just giving it all up because there were folk who disagreed. Perhaps I am one of those who are weak, I am not ashamed to say so here before you. But I know that I could not eat such meat and would feel I had dishonoured God by doing so.
I discussed this with my non-Orthodox father this morning. He is a committed Christian and is abstaining from chicken and lamb unless it is known where it comes from. He said to me that if we do not do something now then next we will indeed have the Koran being read in school assemblies to 'be fair'. We will indeed have imams coming into school to teach Islam, to 'be balanced'. And we will have unknowingly lost our freedom to be Christian, or Agnostic or Atheist, and will be living in a country dominated by Islam, even where the majority are still not Muslims. This was his opinion as an ordinary Christian. My own son, in a Church school, was asked to copy out, 'There is ........ '. He crossed it out and wrote, 'There is no God but God, and Jesus is his Son'. We are participating in our own islamification. This goes far beyond the situation St Paul faced. His view was that there is no sin in unknowingly eating such meat, but to choose to do so is a different matter and dishonours God.
Ignatius, I do ask you to pray that God will grant me wisdom. I am trying hard not to speak just from my own thoughts. But this is a spiritual burden I am bearing and I find it impossible in my own heart to purchase such food once it is known where it comes from. May the Lord forgive me if I go beyond the truth in anything.
God bless you
Father Peter
As far as drawing a line in the sand against creeping islamification, abstaining from halal (and by a similar process of reasoning,I suggest, kosher) products is admirable.
However,I was the head teacher in a private Muslim school during the nineties and one of my missions was to arrange for school dinners. I learned that halal food was (then) difficult to procure in London and many Muslims happily feasted in (then) non-halal Macdonalds since Islam says its ok to eat whatever you can when halal isn't available. I also learned that when you slaughter an animal you cut its throat and say you're doing it in the name of god. You are not offering it to God at all as an idolator would, you are glorifying God in the act just as you would before consuming food. To say you are eating food offered to idols is incorrect and is particularly insulting to Muslims whose greatest sin is shirk(idolatry) and of which they believe we Christians are somewhat guilty. By all means say that Muslims have a false conception of God, but let us be a little more accurate in our reasoning as to why we don't believe eating halal is something we shouldn't do.
In politically correct Britain, Muslims are having an easy time of it from liberal administrators as you say, but the 71% of Britons who call them selves Christians are mostly Christians in name only (or where is the evidence in full churches etc) and are letting it happen. They probably see the political threat of Islam in more lurid terms than the religious threat.
As I say, we should avoid eating food that belongs to another religious group and also (certainly) not pray with them (as I believe the Fathers said). But not praying with other religious groups also includes other Christian groups with whom you are not in communion.
I am afraid I do not believe that Muslims have a false conception of God, I believe that they worship a different god altogether.
I have been studying a number of serious Islamic sites which have lots of details about judgements over the centuries on various issues. These sites are saying things like...
What is meant by offering a sacrifice to anything other than Allah is that which is slaughtered in the name of anything or anyone other than Allah.
This is clearly speaking about slaughter, and it clearly describes it as sacrifice. When meat is sacrificed it is sacrificed in the name of Allah and with the same words, as far as I can see, that are used for all slaughter. This does not mean that all slaughter is formally a sacrifice, but that it has the same relation to Allah as a formal sacrifice. We don't have to consider all sacrifice is in the form of a formal ceremony in a temple. That would be a mistake. Anything done or committed to the name of a deity is offered to that deity.
Let me ask. If food was being sold in the supermarkets which had been slaughtered in the name of Satan how many people would buy it and eat it? How many people would say, 'That's nothing, God doesn't care that I have chosen to eat meat slaughtered in the name of Satan'. And we are choosing to eat this meat.
How is this case any different?
All of the lamb in Waitrose for instance is slaughtered in the name of the Muslim god, Allah. But none of their other meat. So if a Christian has a choice, which meat should he buy? The meat that he knows is slaughtered in the name of the Muslim god, Allah, or the meat that has not been slaughtered in the name of any god? More than that, what are Muslims to think of Christians and the Christian faith when they see that it makes no difference which god the meat has been slaughtered in the name of? Indeed what are the various businessmen to think when they see that Christians will eat meat slaughtered in the name of any other god? How does this bear witness to our faith? I ask this as a question not as a statement.
When we begin prayer in the name of the Holy Trinity we are committing all of our activity to God. When a Muslim slaughterman conducts his business in the name of Allah he is committing all of his activity, and all of the produce of his activity to Allah. It is irrelevant whether it is formally sacrificed or offered. Much of the sacrifice of the ancient world and the present is not a matter of completely sacrificing an animal in the way we might imagine. Much of it was, as it is in Islam, a short prayer, the slaughter, and then meat taken straight to the temple butchers who would sell the meat as income. There was not a long service held over each animal. It was much more like an abbatoir.
Father Peter
Why do you always try and steer the topic away from the real issue and start to talk about something unrelated and to be honest a little pointless????
And i don't appreciate you calling me unsympathetic.
I, along with a few people are trying to better understand the situation, that doesn't mean i am not being sympathetic, All i am doing to writhing my opinions and questions, i suggest you do the same instead of trying to change the subject.
I see you have referenced on a few occasions what the Ethiopian Church do in this matter. I'm sure i don't have to remind you Father that we are not the Ethiopian Orthodox Church,
I find that remark extremely rude and unsympathetic. Its not a way to talk to someone older than you. Its not a way to speak to a priest, and it is most definately unsympathetic. We obviously have more things in common than differences for them to be considered a SISTER Church. He is OUR Priest on this matter.
What is meant by offering a sacrifice to anything other than Allah is that which is slaughtered in the name of anything or anyone other than Allah.
I don't really want to bang on about this but Muslims don't believe in sacrifice as we understand it.
http://www.islamawareness.net/Hajj/sacrafice.html
Islam has been called a Christian heresy but I think it is more like a Jewish one that comments on Christianity. It retained the concept of draining blood from a slaughtered animal. It seems that Ethiopian Christianity also retained Jewish elements such as not eating pork and circumcision. Shall we introduce these to our Faith?
More to the point is the prohibition on blood in Acts. This has been completely disregarded in the west. Catholic countries like Ireland and Poland have no food prohibitions and Orthodox countries are vegan during the lents.
So what am I rambling on about?
By all means adopt a strict attitude to the food we eat so that in a multicultural climate we are seen to be honouring the Holy Trinity. But let us avoid becoming a clique, like Jews and yes, Muslims, who are known for dietary prohibitions. Most modern idol worshipers like Hindus, are vegetarians. Also, if we are going to set up the Ethiopian church as an example, let us introduce circumcision which died out in western Christianity thanks to St Paul (I may be wrong here).
It is a fact of history that halal meat was not consumed by Roman Catholics, Copts or Ethiopians, and that a very great number of our Fathers all condemn eating meat offered to other gods. These all seem to me to be facts.
All countries and people have food prohibitions. English people would not dream of eating horse, but the French do. English people would not dream of eating dog, but the Koreans do. The fact that Ethiopians do not eat halal meat is not a prohibition like this at all, and I think it a mistake to confuse the two.
I will avoid lamb that I know to have been offered to the Muslim god, Allah, but I have no problem eating lamb. This is not a food prohibition but a spiritual and theological measure. I am not aware that Ethiopians do not eat the same meats as Muslims, but they do not eat meat that has been blessed in the name of Allah.
This is clearly an altogether different thing.
I really do fail to see how avoiding meat offered to the Muslim god, Allah, in whatever form, would be forming a clique. The vast majority of people in England are Christian, or residually Christian.
I am not sure what idea you think I have of sacrifice. I have already explained that I do not think it means necessarily a team of priests with a long service. In the Roman times the sacrifice to the Emperor required no more than a tiny pinch of incense. I do believe that naming any god in association with any activity is a sacrifice/blessing/dedication, and I can't say that anything I have read suggests otherwise in regard to Muslims. If the name of Allah means nothing then why must it be invoked?
To name a deity is to make it present.
Let me say again, would you or anyone hear be quite happy buying meat that you knew had been blessed/dedicated to Satan?
Father Peter
One last word from me.
I agree that halal meat ought to be labelled as such to give people the opportunity not to buy it if they so desire.
However, if supermarkets sold meat labelled 'Sacrificed to Satan' or if we knew of such, we might definitely decide not to buy. Is that likely to happen? Are there large numbers of Satanists migrating to Britain?
Enough already
In Christ
There are large amounts of meat being sold in our supermarkets which have been blessed in the name of another god. You would not eat that offered to Satan, I don't see why anyone would eat that offered to the Muslim god, Allah. I would not eat that offered to Krishna or Buddha if I knew of it.
There is no difference except in a name if it is not the name of the Holy Trinity.
Father Peter
As far as I can see, there is no prayer said over the animal.
It also seems to be the case that all kosher meat IS labelled. I am not aware of large scale Jewish enterprises providing unlabelled meat into the UK markets. But this issue would not be the same if a prayer is not offered in any case.
Indeed the issue is not about Muslim slaughterhouses APART from the fact that all such meat IS blessed/dedicated to Allah. If Muslims were able to produce meat not blessed/dedicated in such a way then there would not be a problem. It IS the prayer being offered NOT the mere fact of the religion of those working, and it IS the fact that this meat is unlabeled NOT that anyone is saying it should not be produced for Muslims and those who want to eat it.
Father Peter
I have a most blessed duty of baptising a catechumen this weekend and all of my thoughts and attention will be on this event.
Do join with me in praying for Tina and for all of us who will be celebrating her baptism together.
On this joyful day may I ask forgiveness of any I may have offended over the last few days, and grace that my ignorance might not be a stumbling block to others.
God bless you all
Father Peter
On that last point does that also mean that we must not eat kosher meat either then?
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9784.msg120098#msg120098 date=1286007565]
Is any prayer said over the animal in the kosher process, or does it merely provide the methodology for slaughter?
As far as I can see, there is no prayer said over the animal.
It also seems to be the case that all kosher meat IS labelled. I am not aware of large scale Jewish enterprises providing unlabelled meat into the UK markets. But this issue would not be the same if a prayer is not offered in any case.
Indeed the issue is not about Muslim slaughterhouses APART from the fact that all such meat IS blessed/dedicated to Allah. If Muslims were able to produce meat not blessed/dedicated in such a way then there would not be a problem. It IS the prayer being offered NOT the mere fact of the religion of those working, and it IS the fact that this meat is unlabeled NOT that anyone is saying it should not be produced for Muslims and those who want to eat it.
Father Peter
According to Wikipedia (bold and underline emphasis mine):
"Shechita is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish law. Shechita requires that an animal be conscious and this is taken to mean the modern practice of electrical stunning before slaughter is forbidden...
In Shechita, a blessing to God is recited before beginning an uninterrupted period of slaughtering; as long as the shochet does not have a lengthy pause, interrupt, or otherwise lose concentration, this blessing covers all the animals slaughtered that period. This blessing follows the standard form for a blessing before most Jewish rituals ("Blesséd are you God ... who commanded us regarding [such-and-such]," in this case, Shechita). The general rule in Judaism is that for rituals which have an associated blessing, if one omitted the blessing, the ritual is still valid [see Maimonides Laws of Blessings 11:5]; as such, even if the shochet failed to recite the blessing before Shechita, the slaughter is still valid and the meat is kosher.[20]...
20. ^ Maimonides Laws of Slaughter 1:2 and commentaries ad loc"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws_compared
I have never knowingly eaten kosher meat in any case. And there is no issue with unknowingly eating any meat in any case.
But I would not choose to eat kosher meat knowing that is has been slaughtered according to Jewish ritual.
Father Peter
I was not convinced that we were not allowed to eat food offered to idols as long as we give thanks to God.This is news to me. I am not even sure why the "allah" of Islam is referred as an idol. I understand idols to be visible human made figures and statutes. I think,the meaning of an idol mentioned in the bible is along these lines.I can not go into a muslm friend's house and tell him I won't eat any of his food ,because his food was offered to allah ; an idol. It would be very offending. So far, no one has been able to tell me, what happens to the food that we bless in the name of the Father,the son and the Holy Spirit? Doesn't this prayer cleanse the food? The Holy Cross is our strength and protection,right? If the power of the Holy Cross can expel demons and evil spirits at once, why can't it cleanse the food that is blessed in the name of another god? I do not understand the explanations of the Church fathers regarding food offered to idols, but the Orthodox bible study is very clear.In Romans 14: 20, St Paul has declared all food pure. St Paul wrote the letters to the Romans after the epistles to the Corinithians. So when he says' all food is pure" what is there not to understand??
At any rate, I sent a mail to His Grace Anba Youssef and asked him to clarify this matter, and here are the 2 replies I got from him (I believe I have his permission to post it here)
"Halal in Arabic means lawful in English. The meat slaughtered by the Muslims according to their rules must be lawful, i.e., “halal.” With the least amount of pain, the slaughtered animal's jugular vein is slit and the blood is drained. The Jewish faith's kosher laws are similar regarding the slaughtering of animals and also list many of the same restricted items below, including shellfish, etc. However, the New Testament liberated the believers from these restrictions (Acts 10:9-16). For many health reasons, some Christians still observe some of these similar limitations, but with a completely different perspective. Other restrictions are basically driven from our own canons regarding fastings. We still encourage people to avoid eating bloody meat. Nonetheless, you are permitted to share in the consumption of their products. Since we do acknowledge any of the so-called gods of these other faiths or any other god, therefore, the foods offered to their gods are only offered to the figments of their own imaginations.
In regards to meat products, the following are considered unlawful:
any kind of pork (emphasis mine)
animals that were dead prior to slaughtering
animals not slaughtered properly
animals not slaughtered in the name of Allah (emphasis mine)
any kind of blood by products
carnivorous animals
birds of prey
land animals without external ears
God bless you
Bishop Youssef"
Then I asked him to clarify if consuming 'halal food' intentionally amounts to accepting the islamic declaration of faith (I copied and pasted HG Anba Seraphim's message) and Sayedna said:
"St. Paul answered this and said, there is no god other than the True God, so even if this meat if offered to other god, it is offered to nothing but if some weak persons will be offended, we need to be sensitive to their weak conscience and stop eating it not because it is wrong but because of not offending the weak person".
If you like to hear HG Bishop Youssef's bible lectures on the NT,including 1 Corinithians 8 go to :First Epistle to the Corinthians--Chapter Eight
I am not advocating Halal food over Christian food. Never. If the issue is about choices,I certainly choose the food blessed in the name of our God.Where there is no choice, we bless and sanctify the food in the name of our God. Anyway,that is what I will keep doing. Folks in the UK may support the labelling of 'Halal food' not as a result of their love for God, but for animals. As long as the root cause of the problems are not tackled and dealt with, not much will be done to fight the spread of Islam.
I am not sure really what you intend to say. I don't know who anba Youssef is, or where he serves, but I won't be surprised if he serves in Egypt. Without being judgmental or anything, sometimes priests in Egypt, and maybe in the diaspora as well, make things easy for their flock to decrease their anxiety and allow them to carry on with their lives without too much guilt.
Now, with all due respect, have you read the previous posts? An idol doesn't have to be a physical statute to be worshipped by men, but in spiritual sense, it is any god which is not our True God (as St. Paul of course said). Now is satan a god? In some sense, it is yes. Would you really eat anything offered to satan? With a thankful attitude? I am afraid if you would, God may not be pleased with that. It is not a matter of drawing a sign of the Cross on the filth and eating it. We have brains to think with. In fact, many teachers in the church of old taught Christians they were not allowed to let muslims into their houses as well. You see that? Do we really observe those practices anymore?
OK, now another point, which is 'the spread of islam': the worst thing happening in the world today, which they can avail themselves of is the tolerance. We (as Christians), and the whole of the Western community in general, show some kind of unprecedented tolerance to things, which one way or another we get sucked into believing and having to agree with things originally if given the choice, we won't. The three saintly men heard that the king requires certain foods to be eaten, what did they do? Daniel heard that the kind ordered no body to pray for any god except to him, what did he do? Esau was too hungry, what did he do?
Now back to Christians' laxness today it is taught that giving bribes is OK - because in the whole of Egypt you would rarely find somebody not taking any money having done their jobs. It is also taught that whatever you eat with thankfulness and good faith is right, but just take care of the weaker soul next to you. Yes of course all the meat in Egypt is halal (bar maybe 0.5%, which the government burnt down a huge portion of), what are Christians in Egypt supposed to do? In fact, if I were still living there, I would have turned a blind eye to this whole thread and called Fr. Peter a Western priest having it easy in his country where his voice is heard, and just continued in my selfish ways. Would I really be serving God this way? You know what: even the Cathedral organises ramadhan banquets. What is the consequence for all of this? Love and harmony? On the contrary, more Christian killings, and more defamation, and pushing and forcing their ways on Christians all the time...
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
"EVERY THING IS LAWFUL TO ME BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS WORTHWHILE"
"EVERY THING IS LAWFUL TO ME BUT NOT EVERYTHING IS AGREEABLE"
"EVERY THING IS LAWFUL TO ME BUT NOTHING HAS POWER OVER ME"
[coptic]oujai qen `P[C[/coptic]
There are two Bishops with the name Youssef:
The Coptic Orthodox Bishop of the Southern United States, and
The Coptic Orthodox Bishop of Brazil.