The Bible says that God desires mercy, not sacrifice. If I can just put in my measly two cents:
Pope Shenouda says in his book "Spirituality of Fasting" that the fast that is focused purely on what to and what not to eat is pointless, for it is the spirituality that comes in the fast that's important. I'm sure many people have heard the story of the priest who, in order to bring someone to church, went to his house during Holy Week and had chicken because the man said that's the only way he would go to church. You think if the priest asked God if he can do that, God would say "no because these are the church rules"? Are we basing what's right and wrong on formalities? Because right now we are treating the fast as a formality, and in so doing we are saying our formality is the right way to do things. In other words, we, the COC, are the only ones who got things right because we fast a certain way.
During the very early church, they would have an Agape meal prior to partaking of the Eucharist, yet if someone does that today they cannot approach communion. So, the early church had it wrong and we have it right? These rules aren't an end to themselves, but they point to a deeper, more spiritual meaning. Please no one get me wrong, those approaching communion should fast from midnight or 9 hours if from midnight is shorter, but that fast is not an end to itself. You can fast 24 hours for communion yet you will never be worthy to partake of it (not to mention according to church rules, there are certain things that keep you from communion, regardless of the fast). We can only approach communion through God's grace and mercy. St. Paul says we must judge ourselves before we approach communion, it's not just checking off a list of things one must do prior to communion and that's it. Therefore, preparing for communion is not an ends to itself, it's only a means to show Christ that we truly want to partake of His body and blood and we've repented from sin...Sorry for the tangent, but I think the same thing applies here. Fasting is not an ends to itself, or else it's no different than ascetic yoga. (not to mention, the buddists fast much more ascetically than we do). So personally I don't think we can look at the fast as this rigid aspect of the church that will condemn you/save you. For example, that the reason one is "cut off" from the church if he doesn't fast when the church fasts is because he is breaking the unity of the church; it is not because he is technically not fasting (that's another example where the fasting isn't an end to itself). I personally feel the way people are upholding the fast through this whole thread is in a way treating it as a formality. YES church rules are church rules and they FOR SURE should be obeyed; when the church fasts, you should fast; if you aren't fasting without an absolution from your FOC you are in the wrong; You must fast before communion and have confessed within 40 days prior to communion (you think if you haven't confessed for 41 days you can't approach communion because you broke the rule? It's because we sin everyday and 40 days without confession hints that one might not be repentant. At the same time, if you aren't repentant and confessed within the 40 days, you shouldn't approach communion anyways). Yes it's wrong to break these church rules in that YOU ARE BREAKING CHURCH RULES, which are set up to help us mature spiritually and prepare us for our interaction with God, but all church rules/rites/customs have a spiritual root to them.
There are times when judgment is appropriate.
Yes that church may have done something inappropriate, and I personally feel that it should not have served the fetari food...but to pass judgement on it is not right; passing judgement, no matter what the circumstance, is wrong. I'd just like to point out that Romans 2:1 says " Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." We can say something someone did is wrong but that isn't judgement. It is never ok to judge another person, whether it is 1 person, or taunts serving food, or a whole church. You can only judge yourself, and in fact, you MUST judge yourself.
Although everyone brings up counter-factuals to argue that fasting is not about rules (which I don't disagree with), keep in mind ALL of these stories where a fast is broken, or any other law for that matter, is done for the BETTER of someone else (e.g. bringing someone closer to church, etc.). As Anba Sarapamoun said upon breaking his fast to save a woman from adultery, "I ate chicken to save one of Your sheep" (paraphrased).
What we are talking about isn't necessary at all and isn't for anyone's good. It is one thing to break the fast to save someone or not to embarrass your host, etc. It is another thing to break simply because it is not an end and can be broken. We should not make the two scenarios equal.
As for your comments on judgment: [quote=1 Corinthians 6:1-5] 1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
I agree with you on every point, and maybe I misinterpreted the previous posts as passing judgement on someone instead of passing judgement on someone's actions (though I still stand by the notion that judging someone is wrong).
And you are right that anytime the fast is broken or a rule is "bent", as brought up through the thread, it is for the betterment of someone...I just feel that we are still looking at the fast in a very rigid and strict way. I don't even think that a fast being broken for the betterment of some situation is something anyone can just do on his own accord (I would think it requires a certain level of spiritual understanding, plus if possible the permission of your FOC).
Hence I still feel what the church did is wrong, but not necessarily because it broke the fast (yet this is wrong too based on breaking church rules), but because it did something spiritually un-edifying (causing others to stumble, bringing on temptation to break the fast, breaking the unity with church canon, etc.). And maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like that is also what Remnkemi is trying to get at to some extent.
[quote author=markh113 link=topic=11829.msg141434#msg141434 date=1310589342] I don't even think that a fast being broken for the betterment of some situation is something anyone can just do on his own accord (I would think it requires a certain level of spiritual understanding, plus if possible the permission of your FOC).
I don't think getting permission from your FoC is possible in most cases. But we should definitely talk to him about it afterwards.
It definitely takes spiritual understanding. You need to know when it is OK to bend the rules and whether it will edify others. At the same time, you must not puff yourself up in the process.
Thank you markh113. This is exactly what I was trying to say.
Maybe another example will help. There was a question on another forum about walking on the altar with shoes. One person questioned how can someone walk in the altar with shoes on. I believe they were talking about a specific incident of a foreigner who walked in the altar with shoes before some deacons nearly tackled him down to prevent such an abomination (nothing hypothetical). They claimed it was against the Bible to walk with shoes in the holy places. It is a rule in our church, yet in nearly all other Orthodox Churches, it is not a rule. Here is a "rule" that was broken. And the Copt who asked the question judged and condemned those who walk with shoes. And it is not the first time I heard a Copt stumble because shoes in the altar. It would be better for these Copts to learn how God in his mercy has led foreigners to his house. (Lest anyone think I am making excuses, I am not advocating walking in a Coptic altar with shoes)
But it is not shoes that is wrong, nor the person who walked in the altar with shoes. It is the weak brother that is doing something wrong for passing judgment. This is what St Paul is talking about in Romans 14 about food. We have become so rigid about rules that we are ignoring the spirituality of the rules. The letter kills, the spirit makes alive.
Yes that church may have done something inappropriate, and I personally feel that it should not have served the fetari food...but to pass judgement on it is not right; passing judgement, no matter what the circumstance, is wrong. I'd just like to point out that Romans 2:1 says " Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." We can say something someone did is wrong but that isn't judgement. It is never ok to judge another person, whether it is 1 person, or taunts serving food, or a whole church. You can only judge yourself, and in fact, you MUST judge yourself.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11829.msg141439#msg141439 date=1310597340] Thank you markh113. This is exactly what I was trying to say.
Maybe another example will help. There was a question on another forum about walking on the altar with shoes. One person questioned how can someone walk in the altar with shoes on. I believe they were talking about a specific incident of a foreigner who walked in the altar with shoes before some deacons nearly tackled him down to prevent such an abomination (nothing hypothetical). They claimed it was against the Bible to walk with shoes in the holy places. It is a rule in our church, yet in nearly all other Orthodox Churches, it is not a rule. Here is a "rule" that was broken. And the Copt who asked the question judged and condemned those who walk with shoes. And it is not the first time I heard a Copt stumble because shoes in the altar. It would be better for these Copts to learn how God in his mercy has led foreigners to his house. (Lest anyone think I am making excuses, I am not advocating walking in a Coptic altar with shoes)
But it is not shoes that is wrong, nor the person who walked in the altar with shoes. It is the weak brother that is doing something wrong for passing judgment. This is what St Paul is talking about in Romans 14 about food. We have become so rigid about rules that we are ignoring the spirituality of the rules. The letter kills, the spirit makes alive.
Do you see what I am trying to get at?
Reminimi
This example does not apply.
There is no canon about the shoes in the altar. Wearing shoes in the altar is a ritual matter that every Church applies differently.
This is in contrast to breaking the fast by selling non fast food inside the church premises. There are canons that prohibit this.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11829.msg141467#msg141467 date=1310613454] + Irini nem ehmot,
The Pharisees thought as you did. Remember the Pharisaical rule to never do anything on the Sabbath? Christ sure showed them.
The Pararisees INVENTED their own rules and traditions to break God's commandment.
You are confusing absolution with breaking the rules. Whe a priest gives a sick person an absolution not to fast, he is not breaking the rules. But when the church plainly and generically say it is ok not to fast while there is a general fast, then she is breaking the rules.
That is why I am saying the Church would never do such a thing.
The examples provided earlier give examples where the rules of fasting are broken for the salvation of another. The rules were broken. Full stop. So you're wrong to use the word 'never'. (Once again, this is not regarding the OP, this is a separate discussion entirely.)
You are confusing absolution with breaking the rules. Whe a priest gives a sick person an absolution not to fast, he is not breaking the rules. But when the church plainly and generically say it is ok not to fast while there is a general fast, then she is breaking the rules.
I think there's a slight fact that we aren't taking into consideration here, and that is that a few people selling fetari food in church during the fast is not the same as the church condoning the breaking of the fast. If the same taunts had a bake sale during the fast out of their backyard no one would say the church is breaking the rules, so why should it matter that they are doing it inside the physical church? According to the first page of this thread, the priest doesn't know this is occurring...it's the same as if someone sins inside the church, it doesn't mean the church condones it.
There is absolutely nothing exist that might justify breaking God's commandment
You're right that David got permission from the priests to partake of the showbread, but isn't that technically going against God's laws? In my opinion, this law is considered more of "God's law" than the rites of fasting, as this law was instituted by God himself in the Old Testament. Yet In the new Testament, Jesus said that what happened was ok because He desires mercy, not sacrifice. I'm not comparing the story of David to what's happening here with the fasting food, I'm just saying that God's law is based on the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11829.msg141449#msg141449 date=1310606170] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11829.msg141447#msg141447 date=1310604832] Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of judgment.
But when you throw out a term, define it and how you are using it. Lest we go back and forth, not realizing that a disagreement doesn't exist.
Unworthy1 Not sure what you are after?
Concerning judgment - you say that there are times when judging is appropriate, Mark says that there is never a time to judge. Does a disagreement exist? Maybe. It depends what type of judgment you mean. Judgment of the person or their actions. Can we say "this person is a sinner, he serves 'fetari' food during the fast" ?
But like I said, I don't want to get into this issue on this thread.
Main point: Define the terms you are using if there could be any ambiguity.
Why are we separating the people from the church? The people are the church! We are all members in the Body of Christ.
I agree but when the church "deems" something as correct or incorrect, that can't be based on what a few people do. For example, someone may be a member of the church, but doesn't see why fasting wednesdays and fridays is useful, so they don't fast them. According to the above logic, since he is the church, the church now condones skipping wednesday and friday fasting. It can be applied to anything. My individual actions do not mean the church ok's or does no ok something. The conversation thus fur seems to have generalized what a few people did with food to the governing body of the church, which I find is a lacking argument, especially since the priest doesn't know.
It can be concluded that a few people made a mistake and that's all that can be concluded in my opinion, and no one in the thread so far has said that what they did is ok. The argument is wrong based on the false notion that the Church (capital C) OK'd it.
If the food is being sold for the Church then the Church is involved.
I have already said that if it were just some non-fasting food brought to a pot-luck Agape that would be different, but in this case the food is being sold for the Church.
i agree it's wrong to sell fitari food, and anyone bringing fitari food to a shared meal should be discretely told that we are in a fast. i, personally find it hard to see fitari food in the church, because i got used to not having to ask what was in the food and just eating it. i do not want to accidently break my fast by eating something given or sold to me by a senior church member (i understand there is the possibility of new people bringing non-fasting food, but i would always ask them what was in it).
maybe i just got lazy.
what i would like advice on is how to go about asking what is in the food. like when i see something looking like cream i usually just avoid it, but then if someone is directly offering it to me, i find it hard to ask if it is sayami as it makes me look superior to them, like i am keeping the fast and they are not.
like the time i asked someone if honey is ok during lent. she was a senior church member but then my question made her feel really bad as she was struggling to keep the fast anyway, without worrying about 'small' things like honey.
so if anyone can also answer my question 'is honey ok during fasts?' i would be very grateful. to make you feel better, i ate meat on wednesday and drank milk during the apostles' fast when i was travelling.
Dear mabsoota, Honey is ok during fasting. Your confusion may stem from the practice that some people in their ascetic fasting styles, refrain from honey and sweets during some fasts (specially the Holy Week, where a larger percentage of people do such). According to church rules, as long as it is non-dairy products or meat (excepting fish as you well know in some of the fasts) then it is ok. Honey is a non-dairy product anyway... Oujai
what do people think about eating stuff that looks like cream, milk chocolate etc. during the fast? should we just avoid it (it may be fitari and if it's fasting food it looks and tastes so much like non-fasting food that we should avoid it anyway), or should we join with people eating it in order not to be proud? coz i once asked if a cake was sayami, and was told 'yes' but it looked too good to be true, so i didn't take any. maybe i offended that person that brought it, what do you think? also some people in my church thought digestive biscuits were sayami (they contain butter, at least the last time i looked at the ingredients they did) so i don't know if i should just trust what they say, or risk offending them by not trusting them.
Dear mabsoota, I personally don't like that. It is a stretch, but why? Are we really missing the taste of meat so much so we replicate the food with soya beans? Missing milk? Missing cakes? So what is fasting all about then? Well, yes, back to the endless argument, it is not food that makes up fasting, but you know what? If you wish to attain self-discipline within fasting, you should really refrain of these foods. As you would from crisps with chicken flavour, or what... Call me extremist, but this is the way I see it. I don't refrain from halwa, or sweets though like other people Oujai
Comments
Pope Shenouda says in his book "Spirituality of Fasting" that the fast that is focused purely on what to and what not to eat is pointless, for it is the spirituality that comes in the fast that's important. I'm sure many people have heard the story of the priest who, in order to bring someone to church, went to his house during Holy Week and had chicken because the man said that's the only way he would go to church. You think if the priest asked God if he can do that, God would say "no because these are the church rules"? Are we basing what's right and wrong on formalities? Because right now we are treating the fast as a formality, and in so doing we are saying our formality is the right way to do things. In other words, we, the COC, are the only ones who got things right because we fast a certain way.
During the very early church, they would have an Agape meal prior to partaking of the Eucharist, yet if someone does that today they cannot approach communion. So, the early church had it wrong and we have it right? These rules aren't an end to themselves, but they point to a deeper, more spiritual meaning. Please no one get me wrong, those approaching communion should fast from midnight or 9 hours if from midnight is shorter, but that fast is not an end to itself. You can fast 24 hours for communion yet you will never be worthy to partake of it (not to mention according to church rules, there are certain things that keep you from communion, regardless of the fast). We can only approach communion through God's grace and mercy. St. Paul says we must judge ourselves before we approach communion, it's not just checking off a list of things one must do prior to communion and that's it. Therefore, preparing for communion is not an ends to itself, it's only a means to show Christ that we truly want to partake of His body and blood and we've repented from sin...Sorry for the tangent, but I think the same thing applies here. Fasting is not an ends to itself, or else it's no different than ascetic yoga. (not to mention, the buddists fast much more ascetically than we do). So personally I don't think we can look at the fast as this rigid aspect of the church that will condemn you/save you. For example, that the reason one is "cut off" from the church if he doesn't fast when the church fasts is because he is breaking the unity of the church; it is not because he is technically not fasting (that's another example where the fasting isn't an end to itself). I personally feel the way people are upholding the fast through this whole thread is in a way treating it as a formality. YES church rules are church rules and they FOR SURE should be obeyed; when the church fasts, you should fast; if you aren't fasting without an absolution from your FOC you are in the wrong; You must fast before communion and have confessed within 40 days prior to communion (you think if you haven't confessed for 41 days you can't approach communion because you broke the rule? It's because we sin everyday and 40 days without confession hints that one might not be repentant. At the same time, if you aren't repentant and confessed within the 40 days, you shouldn't approach communion anyways). Yes it's wrong to break these church rules in that YOU ARE BREAKING CHURCH RULES, which are set up to help us mature spiritually and prepare us for our interaction with God, but all church rules/rites/customs have a spiritual root to them. Yes that church may have done something inappropriate, and I personally feel that it should not have served the fetari food...but to pass judgement on it is not right; passing judgement, no matter what the circumstance, is wrong. I'd just like to point out that Romans 2:1 says " Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." We can say something someone did is wrong but that isn't judgement. It is never ok to judge another person, whether it is 1 person, or taunts serving food, or a whole church. You can only judge yourself, and in fact, you MUST judge yourself.
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged"
Although everyone brings up counter-factuals to argue that fasting is not about rules (which I don't disagree with), keep in mind ALL of these stories where a fast is broken, or any other law for that matter, is done for the BETTER of someone else (e.g. bringing someone closer to church, etc.). As Anba Sarapamoun said upon breaking his fast to save a woman from adultery, "I ate chicken to save one of Your sheep" (paraphrased).
What we are talking about isn't necessary at all and isn't for anyone's good. It is one thing to break the fast to save someone or not to embarrass your host, etc. It is another thing to break simply because it is not an end and can be broken. We should not make the two scenarios equal.
As for your comments on judgment:
[quote=1 Corinthians 6:1-5] 1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
I agree with you on every point, and maybe I misinterpreted the previous posts as passing judgement on someone instead of passing judgement on someone's actions (though I still stand by the notion that judging someone is wrong).
And you are right that anytime the fast is broken or a rule is "bent", as brought up through the thread, it is for the betterment of someone...I just feel that we are still looking at the fast in a very rigid and strict way. I don't even think that a fast being broken for the betterment of some situation is something anyone can just do on his own accord (I would think it requires a certain level of spiritual understanding, plus if possible the permission of your FOC).
Hence I still feel what the church did is wrong, but not necessarily because it broke the fast (yet this is wrong too based on breaking church rules), but because it did something spiritually un-edifying (causing others to stumble, bringing on temptation to break the fast, breaking the unity with church canon, etc.). And maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like that is also what Remnkemi is trying to get at to some extent.
I don't even think that a fast being broken for the betterment of some situation is something anyone can just do on his own accord (I would think it requires a certain level of spiritual understanding, plus if possible the permission of your FOC).
I don't think getting permission from your FoC is possible in most cases. But we should definitely talk to him about it afterwards.
It definitely takes spiritual understanding. You need to know when it is OK to bend the rules and whether it will edify others. At the same time, you must not puff yourself up in the process.
Maybe another example will help. There was a question on another forum about walking on the altar with shoes. One person questioned how can someone walk in the altar with shoes on. I believe they were talking about a specific incident of a foreigner who walked in the altar with shoes before some deacons nearly tackled him down to prevent such an abomination (nothing hypothetical). They claimed it was against the Bible to walk with shoes in the holy places. It is a rule in our church, yet in nearly all other Orthodox Churches, it is not a rule. Here is a "rule" that was broken. And the Copt who asked the question judged and condemned those who walk with shoes. And it is not the first time I heard a Copt stumble because shoes in the altar. It would be better for these Copts to learn how God in his mercy has led foreigners to his house. (Lest anyone think I am making excuses, I am not advocating walking in a Coptic altar with shoes)
But it is not shoes that is wrong, nor the person who walked in the altar with shoes. It is the weak brother that is doing something wrong for passing judgment. This is what St Paul is talking about in Romans 14 about food. We have become so rigid about rules that we are ignoring the spirituality of the rules. The letter kills, the spirit makes alive.
Do you see what I am trying to get at?
There are times when judgment is appropriate
But when you throw out a term, define it and how you are using it. Lest we go back and forth, not realizing that a disagreement doesn't exist.
Thank you markh113. This is exactly what I was trying to say.
Maybe another example will help. There was a question on another forum about walking on the altar with shoes. One person questioned how can someone walk in the altar with shoes on. I believe they were talking about a specific incident of a foreigner who walked in the altar with shoes before some deacons nearly tackled him down to prevent such an abomination (nothing hypothetical). They claimed it was against the Bible to walk with shoes in the holy places. It is a rule in our church, yet in nearly all other Orthodox Churches, it is not a rule. Here is a "rule" that was broken. And the Copt who asked the question judged and condemned those who walk with shoes. And it is not the first time I heard a Copt stumble because shoes in the altar. It would be better for these Copts to learn how God in his mercy has led foreigners to his house. (Lest anyone think I am making excuses, I am not advocating walking in a Coptic altar with shoes)
But it is not shoes that is wrong, nor the person who walked in the altar with shoes. It is the weak brother that is doing something wrong for passing judgment. This is what St Paul is talking about in Romans 14 about food. We have become so rigid about rules that we are ignoring the spirituality of the rules. The letter kills, the spirit makes alive.
Do you see what I am trying to get at?
Reminimi
This example does not apply.
There is no canon about the shoes in the altar. Wearing shoes in the altar is a ritual matter that every Church applies differently.
This is in contrast to breaking the fast by selling non fast food inside the church premises. There are canons that prohibit this.
Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of judgment.
But when you throw out a term, define it and how you are using it. Lest we go back and forth, not realizing that a disagreement doesn't exist.
Unworthy1
Not sure what you are after?
There is nothing out there that may lead the Church to break her rules.
Why are you bolding everything?
And what you said in the latter portion is false. The scenario in this thread is not an example of it, but there are times when the rules are broken.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Why are you bolding everything?
And what you said in the latter portion is false. The scenario in this thread is not an example of it, but there are times when the rules are broken.
What do you think bold is made for?
Show me how my statement is false within the context of what we are talking about here.
Will repeat again:
There is absolutely nothing exist that might justify breaking God's commandment
The Church would never lead her children to break the rules
My God man! You're 0 for 2 in reading what I've written.[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11829.msg141456#msg141456 date=1310611357]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Why are you bolding everything?
And what you said in the latter portion is false. The scenario in this thread is not an example of it, but there are times when the rules are broken.
Can you see it now?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
My God man! You're 0 for 2 in reading what I've written.[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11829.msg141456#msg141456 date=1310611357]
+ Irini nem ehmot,
Why are you bolding everything?
And what you said in the latter portion is false. The scenario in this thread is not an example of it, but there are times when the rules are broken.
Can you see it now?
I have the word "never" in there for a reason. Let me repeat it again:
The Church would never lead her children to break the rules
The Pharisees thought as you did. Remember the Pharisaical rule to never do anything on the Sabbath? Christ sure showed them.
+ Irini nem ehmot,
The Pharisees thought as you did. Remember the Pharisaical rule to never do anything on the Sabbath? Christ sure showed them.
The Pararisees INVENTED their own rules and traditions to break God's commandment.
You are confusing absolution with breaking the rules. Whe a priest gives a sick person an absolution not to fast, he is not breaking the rules. But when the church plainly and generically say it is ok not to fast while there is a general fast, then she is breaking the rules.
That is why I am saying the Church would never do such a thing.
The examples provided earlier give examples where the rules of fasting are broken for the salvation of another. The rules were broken. Full stop. So you're wrong to use the word 'never'. (Once again, this is not regarding the OP, this is a separate discussion entirely.)
The first is a personal choice when one person breaks the rule for a certain situation.
The second is when the Church plainly condones breaking the rules as in selling non fast food to the congregation.
We are addressing the second criterion and I believe in the examples you are referring to, the Church did not lead her children in breaking the rules.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11829.msg141447#msg141447 date=1310604832]
Let's not turn this thread into a discussion of judgment.
But when you throw out a term, define it and how you are using it. Lest we go back and forth, not realizing that a disagreement doesn't exist.
Unworthy1
Not sure what you are after?
Concerning judgment - you say that there are times when judging is appropriate, Mark says that there is never a time to judge. Does a disagreement exist? Maybe. It depends what type of judgment you mean. Judgment of the person or their actions. Can we say "this person is a sinner, he serves 'fetari' food during the fast" ?
But like I said, I don't want to get into this issue on this thread.
Main point: Define the terms you are using if there could be any ambiguity.
It can be concluded that a few people made a mistake and that's all that can be concluded in my opinion, and no one in the thread so far has said that what they did is ok. The argument is wrong based on the false notion that the Church (capital C) OK'd it.
I have already said that if it were just some non-fasting food brought to a pot-luck Agape that would be different, but in this case the food is being sold for the Church.
"For the lips of a priest should keep knowledge, And people should seek the law from his mouth; For he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts."
i, personally find it hard to see fitari food in the church, because i got used to not having to ask what was in the food and just eating it. i do not want to accidently break my fast by eating something given or sold to me by a senior church member (i understand there is the possibility of new people bringing non-fasting food, but i would always ask them what was in it).
maybe i just got lazy.
what i would like advice on is how to go about asking what is in the food. like when i see something looking like cream i usually just avoid it, but then if someone is directly offering it to me, i find it hard to ask if it is sayami as it makes me look superior to them, like i am keeping the fast and they are not.
like the time i asked someone if honey is ok during lent. she was a senior church member but then my question made her feel really bad as she was struggling to keep the fast anyway, without worrying about 'small' things like honey.
so if anyone can also answer my question 'is honey ok during fasts?' i would be very grateful.
to make you feel better, i ate meat on wednesday and drank milk during the apostles' fast when i was travelling.
Honey is ok during fasting. Your confusion may stem from the practice that some people in their ascetic fasting styles, refrain from honey and sweets during some fasts (specially the Holy Week, where a larger percentage of people do such). According to church rules, as long as it is non-dairy products or meat (excepting fish as you well know in some of the fasts) then it is ok. Honey is a non-dairy product anyway...
Oujai
what do people think about eating stuff that looks like cream, milk chocolate etc. during the fast?
should we just avoid it (it may be fitari and if it's fasting food it looks and tastes so much like non-fasting food that we should avoid it anyway), or should we join with people eating it in order not to be proud?
coz i once asked if a cake was sayami, and was told 'yes' but it looked too good to be true, so i didn't take any. maybe i offended that person that brought it, what do you think?
also some people in my church thought digestive biscuits were sayami (they contain butter, at least the last time i looked at the ingredients they did) so i don't know if i should just trust what they say, or risk offending them by not trusting them.
I personally don't like that. It is a stretch, but why? Are we really missing the taste of meat so much so we replicate the food with soya beans? Missing milk? Missing cakes? So what is fasting all about then? Well, yes, back to the endless argument, it is not food that makes up fasting, but you know what? If you wish to attain self-discipline within fasting, you should really refrain of these foods. As you would from crisps with chicken flavour, or what... Call me extremist, but this is the way I see it. I don't refrain from halwa, or sweets though like other people
Oujai