› ›

If I visit a relative during a fast and I am offered non-fasting food ...

mikeforjesusmikeforjesus
edited February 2006 in Faith Issues
Should I not refuse?

Because I read some words from an orthodox site (not coptic orthodox) and it seems to me a person thinks I should not refuse..

we should not be self-righteous prigs?

this seems wrong to me.. I think maybe I should refuse..

The site is not a forum where I asked a question
«1

Comments

  • Marianne87Marianne87
    You should refuse. If that person or the food offered matters more than God, then accept...if you think God is more important..don't.
  • Coptic-IriniCoptic-Irini
    Your relative should understand your situation and respect it; he shouldn't make you feel uncomfortable because he knows how we, as copts, think about fasting. I agree with Marianne, you should refuse.
  • AlexxAlexx
    I do understand why you all think so, however, I believe that you must also stay polite towards the hosts, they have paid you a valuable gift and I don't think you should refuse like that. Your faith should be stronger than that, and you definitely just eat out of politeness. Your faith is inside you, and shouldn't show off in front of others by refusing it (I'm being very tough here, but it seems as if we're hurting the hosts, especially if they're relatives).
    It's not a matter of really looking forward to eat 'ftary' once and grab your chance or whatever, but your fasting spirit goes beyond the food itself.

    I personally also find it difficult when fasting, because I really try to correct myself when thinking about the prohibited food and whether or not I'm allowed to eat certain foods or not, but I found out that it shouldn't be all about food, that we must look to correct ourselves in daily life, so that we may change our sinful manners. A one-time-dinner at a relative's house I think should be allowed, though the FOC must know of it of course.

    pray4me
    :)
  • Marianne87Marianne87

    A one-time-dinner at a relative's house I think should be allowed

    So should a one time sin ;)
    If we are loosing control over that (food being something small) then we might as well loose control over big things (sin)
  • Christ4LifeChrist4Life
    You would not be offending the host when you explain to them the issues of your faith.
  • Unknown
    Marianne87,

    Breaking a fast for a worthy reason is not a mortal sin; the Church does not approach the matter of fasting with such a legalistic mindset (which is what separates us from the RC Church). The words of Christ in relation to the law of the Sabbath come to mind; they can be re-worded for our purposes here: fasting was made for man, and not man for fasting.

    mikeforjesus,

    You ask alot of questions, and that is great, because your questions are thought provoking and theyre very helpful, so I am in no way attempting to discourage you from asking more, but rather I wish to stress the fact that God gave you a mind, and a conscious, and sometimes you just need to choose the best moral choice at the time for your own self. If you think refusing a non-fasting meal will offend your relatives or upset them because they have spent a considerable amount of effort and time preparing the meal for you, then I believe the most appropriate thing to do is to accept the meal. If you think refusing the non-fasting meal will cause your relatives to boast and speak highly of you, praising you for making such a holy choice, again the best choice to make would be to accept the meal. If however, your relatives are fasting themselves, and they are simply offering you non-fasting food casually, and will not mind if you refuse, nor think much of it, then you should appropriately keep the fast.

    Orthodoxy is not about strict rules and regulations; such rules and regulations exist to promote the spiritual life of man, they do not exist to be a burden upon man.
  • godhelpme3691godhelpme3691
    [quote author=Alexx link=board=1;threadid=3253;start=0#msg48085 date=1140116146] Your faith is inside you, and shouldn't show off in front of others by refusing it (I'm being very tough here, but it seems as if we're hurting the hosts, especially if they're relatives).


    When you are offered food that is not fasting, you should refuse and not reveal that you are fasting. Fasting is between you and God ONLY, and is not something to be showing off about. If you tell them that you are fasting, you will be losing your holiness and will start to brag when the people ask why you are fasting.
  • StavroStavro
    + It seems that most of us Copts, myself included, in the Western culture have an identity crisis and lack the courage to stand up for our beliefs and our rites. It shows in small and trivial things, and it gets magnified when it comes to theological discussions and doctrinal positions.

    + I believe the above mentioned situation can be a great chance for witnessing and to preach, opening many opportunities to explain many aspects of the faith if there is more inquiry and interest in the subject. This will require some preparation to have a background about various aspects of the faith, among them fasting.

    + The situation can also convey a negative image about our faith, for in the strength of our faith and our adherence to it The Lord is glorified, and in our compromise on the faith the same faith is tarnished. How strong is a faith that cannot observe, because of passion or social embarassment or whatever reason, the elements of this faith ?

    + Marianne 87 has made a good point. We are taught not to let the small sins creep into our lives, for if out of social embarassment we will eat non-fast food, we will, sooner or later, compromise on other moral issues in a culture that is becoming more and more liberal.

    Because I read some words from an orthodox site (not coptic orthodox)

    Stick to coptic or OO sites.
  • AlexxAlexx

    Orthodoxy is not about strict rules and regulations; such rules and regulations exist to promote the spiritual life of man, they do not exist to be a burden upon man.

    Exactly, well said Iqbal ;)
  • Unknown
    Stavro,

    Marianne 87 has made a good point. We are taught not to let the small sins creep into our lives, for if out of social embarassment

    I didn't interpret Marianne87 as addressing the issue of social embarassment. She seemed to be implying that any deviation from a strict fast per se constitutes a sin. I don't believe that this is the Orthodox attitude. There is certainly something wrong with refusing to fast due to a sense of social embarassment, and this certainly may be termed sin in the sense of missing the mark and falling short of making the perfect moral choice. However, we must recognise the possibilty of worthy or higher reasons to break a fast (such as the reasons put forth in my intial response), else we truly learn nothing from Christ's denouncement of Pharasaic legalism. I would go so far as to say, that the insistence to fast in conscious disregard of the worthy or higher moral reasons calling for an exception, is itself missing the mark and hence sin.
  • egyptionorthobeautegyptionorthobeaut
    i don't know...i kinda agree on both sides. i really can't make up my mind because you should respect God and if you fast, you fast. and you should explain to your relatives that you don't want to do this on acount of your religion and that YOU WANT TO FAST. but you also should be polite because they are offering you something and you are thankful for that....but i don't know. i think you shouldn't take the non-fasting food.
  • Marianne87Marianne87

    I didn't interpret Marianne87 as addressing the issue of social embarassment. She seemed to be implying that any deviation from a strict fast per se constitutes a sin.

    You misunderstood what I said...I wasn't referring to fasting as a sin..and that's not what I think at all. I was just referring to the fact that if you don't have self control over something as small as food...which is the whole point of fasting is to have self control...then it would make it harder and harder to have self control over something as big as a sin. What I am saying is...if that food or your relative is more important than your fasting...then don't refuse it...but if you value your fasting more than your relative then you should by all mean refuse that.
  • marian6marian6
    My opinion is that it's easy (..ehum :P) to fast when u are at home, and the whole family is fasting 2 and ur mom makes only (delishes.. :P) fasting food, then everybody can do it.
    But, as it is said be4, fasting is about controlling urselves. The hardest time 2 fast, is when u r among non-fasting friends. But here u learn the most!

    GBU
    Marian
  • StavroStavro
    Dear Iqbal,

    I agree with your point of view, but I do not believe that we are debating the same issue here. You are speaking in a broader sense, whereas I was specifically addressing the question in this topic. I must clarify that I am addressing a certain behavior, unrelated to persons.

    I was refering to the last post of Marianne87 in which she points out to the possibility of opening the door to bigger compromises. I interpreted it differently, and I did not read your first post. It is not a mortal sin in itself, if such thing such as mortal sin exists. I agree that orthodoxy is not a set of rules with rewards and punishments, but it is definitely a spiritual life that is illuminated by the grace of God and that brings forth fruits in the form of works and deeds. I have argued in the favor of your position on a communion related topic on another forum, adressing the "Sabbath for man or the man for Sabbath" question. Because of this understanding I did not comprehend why fasting should offend the host. If it did, so be it. Our faith is offending to others in many aspects. It just shows how weak a faith we have, nothing else.

    I do not see the higher reasons that overrides fasting present in the original question of the topic. It seems that the social embarassment factor and not coming across as " self-righteous prigs?" are the reasons for omitting the fast. This attitude, in my opinion, is dangerous and the motives for such behavior alarming. It reflects lack of understanding of a core practice in Orthodoxy, emptying it from its value and therefore not being able to appreciate its significance.

    There are situations when the purpose of fasting is satisfied in a different manner, and therefore the Church allows people to omit it. Fasting, in its true meaning, is breaking the body and its desires, the shell that contains the spirit, so that the spirit is released. When illness strikes the body, and it is afflicted and "broken", there is no need for fasting to accomplish what already has been achieved by other means. Therefore, in case of illness, the church allows its members not to fast. The same applies for draught, famine, and in case of pregnancy.




  • mikeforjesusmikeforjesus
    what if someone has clinical depression and social anxiety... terrible afflictions I think to some maybe.. should they fast then maybe?
  • Marianne87Marianne87
    Pay attention that the diseases mentioned by Stavro are all physical not emotional. When there is emotional illness that's when fasting is even more encouraged because it does help.
  • whywhy
    just say u aint hngry in stead of sounding rude..if ur relative doesnt understand ur position!!
  • mikeforjesusmikeforjesus
    what if I am hungry?
  • mazzamazza
    starve yourself :P
  • Marianne87Marianne87
    [quote author=mikeforjesus link=board=1;threadid=3253;start=15#msg48153 date=1140158806]
    what if I am hungry?



    Eat before you go..eat after you come back...nothing is going to happen to you if you don't eat for a couple of minutes. For God's sake, Jesus fasted 40 days and 40 nights. Jesus was crucified for us..can't we like not eat a couple of certain food for Him. I think Jesus deserve much more than 55 days of fasting.
  • mikeforjesusmikeforjesus
    People even priests I think want me to eat more.. some might think I have an eating disorder.. but I dont think I do.. I do not think I look fat and I do not think I eat less to not feel ? I look fat.. (maybe only some people with eating disorders think they look fat and eat less because ? of that) ..

    People who fasted for a long time like St Bishoy and Moses the Leader... maybe were given special help from God?

    But I think I should probably eat before I go or when I come back or maybe both as was suggested?
  • whywhy
    yep that way...u can easily refuse food when offered!!

  • Unknown
    I think I’m on the same page with Stavro, but am yet to get that same impression with Marriane87, so if you (Marriane) concur with this post, please let me know, or if you still have issues with what is said, please let me know also.

    Just for the sake of clarification, I wish to answer a couple of comments made:

    Stavro you state:

    I do not see the higher reasons that overrides fasting present in the original question of the topic. It seems that the social embarassment factor and not coming across as " self-righteous prigs?" are the reasons for omitting the fast.

    I interpreted mikeforjesus as speaking of one feeling self-righteous within themselves, rather than one being perceived as self-righteous by others (maybe he can clarify for us what he really meant exactly). As such I didn’t interpret the situation in question as one of avoiding social embarrassment, but rather as a matter of avoiding prideful thoughts. One may feel very self-righteous in response to the praise they incur, and the “holy image” they publicly set up for themselves, in their open refusal and insistence not to eat non-fasting food for the sake of legalistically fulfilling their religious obligation to God – again it all depends on the exact nature of the situation one is in and the kind of people one is dealing with. Some people may consider one’s decision to fast a joke, and thus they may mock the one insisting to fast as a self-righteous prig; the one choosing to break their fast is thus motivated by the desire to avoid social embarrassment, and in this case I absolutely agree with that this certainly cannot be justified.

    On the other hand, some people may consider one’s decision to fast, a very holy thing, and they may consistently praise and honor that person, or that person may know that others are at least thinking great things of him without them having to verbally praise him as such, which in turn invokes a feeling of self-righteousness within the one who is fasting; it is in this circumstance that I argue that one may consider it a thing more pleasing to God to break the fast for the purpose of humbling themselves.

    Marriane, you state:

    I was just referring to the fact that if you don't have self control over something as small as food...which is the whole point of fasting is to have self control...then it would make it harder and harder to have self control over something as big as a sin.

    Well, generally speaking yes. But my point is that context is what really determines whether or not the general rule applies, or if an exception can, or even should, be applied. Fasting is simply an instrument to commune with God and to consolidate our unity with Him through the exercise of virtues such as self-control and obedience amongst other things – virtues that are pleasing to God and that go to progress our spirituality and to renew our nature. However, as I stated, fasting, if viewed legalistically, can also challenge certain virtues (which also serve to consolidate our unity with God etc. etc.), such as humility or love (which is itself the greatest virtue that we are called upon to cultivate and practice at all times), and hence it can go to inhibit our very spiritual progress which the practice of fasting is intended to promote in the first place. In this sense, fasting can, in certain contexts, inhibit one’s spirituality rather than progress it. With respect to the issue of self-righteousness, I consider this a valid point, for if one foresees that an open refusal to eat from the delicacies being offered and that are being eaten by all, will acquire for them unique praise and promote for themselves some sort of a “holy image” that will tempt them with prideful thoughts, then in this sense the fast is broken for the sake of the virtue of humility. In such a case, one does not break their fast for a desire of food, nor out of a weakness in self-control; if their intentions are truly genuine then despite their physically consuming such food, their taste buds will not enjoy what is being consumed, for inside they truly harness no desire to break their fast for any material or shallow purpose, and would in fact have genuinely preferred that the situation calling for them to break their fast, had not existed. This is why I appealed to one’s use of their conscious, because the individual can only know for his or her own self what his or her true motivations and intentions are – not a rule book, nor abouna, nor even the Patriarch can tell them these hidden aspects of their own inner being (though they can reveal their genuine thoughts and intentions to someone like Abouna who can in turn discern the nature of such thoughts to that person if he is having trouble deciding whether they’re worthy or not).

    In the end, my point is to stress against legalism, for 'the letter kills, but the spirit gives life'” (2 Cor. 3:6). We must remember that “the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17)" and "at all times it is essential to bear in mind that 'you are not under the law but under grace'” (Rom. 6:14) Jesus said that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:12), and I am simply re-applying this principle to the rule of fasting: it is lawful to break a fast for worthy reasons – it is not a sin by which you will incur the wrath or condemnation of God.

    This is an appeal to the spiritually mature to discern circumstances in which fasting will inhibit their spiritual progress rather than progress it; it is not an attempted justification for the spiritually immature to find fraudulent excuses to break their fast in the absence of true and worthy intentions or motivations.
  • mikeforjesusmikeforjesus
    I want alot of what you said Iqbal to be true.... what you said makes sense to me.. but Im still not sure if fast breaking ever is pleasing to God.. it seems like it is sometimes.. but why then does the church not explain when it is okay to break the fast (apart from sickness) or maybe it does?

    God Bless you all!
  • Marianne87Marianne87

    This is why I appealed to one’s use of their conscious, because the individual can only know for his or her own self what his or her true motivations and intentions

    Well this makes sense...but I think my point of having self control is something basic that the church tries to teach us through fasting, and to not be able to handle that in front of someone who offer them nonfasting food is kind of challenge.
    May I provide a bit of an extreme example here but just to get a point across..say that same person offer you an alcoholic drink...and you refuse because you think it's wrong...and they start praising you about it...would it have been better then to take the drink from the first place to avoid praise...I highly doubt anyone's answer would be yes to this question. Fasting is something that you promise God to do wherever you are and no matter how hard it is...so just to brake that promis for the sake of avoiding a temptation isn't right. Maybe it's just me...but I wouldn't break a promise just because I am afraid I am going to get pride if I tell people that and that. If someone praise you on fasting, then in silence you could just say a prayer to God and try to be humble.
  • Unknown

    Well this makes sense...but I think my point of having self control is something basic that the church tries to teach us through fasting, and to not be able to handle that in front of someone who offer them nonfasting food is kind of challenge.

    Again you miss the point, since as I explicitly emphasized, one would be breaking the fast for the very sake of virtue (e.g. humility), and not because they lack the ability to practise another (e.g. self-control). So self-control is not an issue here.

    May I provide a bit of an extreme example here but just to get a point across..say that same person offer you an alcoholic drink...and you refuse because you think it's wrong...and they start praising you about it...would it have been better then to take the drink from the first place to avoid praise...I highly doubt anyone's answer would be yes to this question.

    This is an invalid analogy; you cannot compare the consumption of alcohol which in and of itself may be (though not necessarily) wrong, depending upon the circumstances, with the consumption of food, which in and of itself is never wrong.

    Your example also seems to presume that there is something wrong with the consumption of alcohol per se. In fact, there is not. Neither the Bible nor the Tradition of the Church has ever condemned the consumption of alcohol per se. Furthermore there was in fact an article in one of the old editions of the Coptic Church Review which even recalled how it was a regular habit for Copts to drink a glass of wine on Friday evenings.

    Fasting is something that you promise God

    You’re making the same mistake by viewing fasting through legalistic lenses, as if it were some sort of a binding contract. Fasting is not a promise nor a contract, it is simply a regulation that the Church enforces for the sake of assisting us to cultivate the necessary virtues for our salvation. Fasting is not intended to burden man. We are not fasting for God, we are fasting for ourselves. God doesn't get anything out of us fasting; he inspired the Church to regulate periods of fasting for the sake of our salvation alone.

    Again, I refer you to the dialogue between the Pharisees and Christ concerning the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not even a simple regulation like fasting is; it was one of the Ten Commandments - so it would have been considered a much greater thing. The Pharisees reasoned like you; they insisted that there can be no excuse to break this commandment of God, but Christ reminded them that God does not enforce commandments or regulations for the purpose of us robotically and blindly submitting as if we were under some binding legal obligation. As such, it was lawful for Christ’s disciples to pick out food to eat on the Sabbath, and it was lawful for Christ Himself to heal on the Sabbath. Would you like to try and explain to me how your insistence that we fast no matter what the circumstance, differs from the Pharisees insistence that the Jews follow the Sabbath no matter what the circumstance?
  • Marianne87Marianne87
    I am in no way trying to put fasting as more than a regulation. My only question or concern is why do we have to break the fast just for the sake of pride...I mean why can't it be the other way...why can't you value your fasting over anything else, why does it have to be something more or less valuable. I completely understand your point that the fasting is for our benefit and so is anything that we do in life, but if it's for our benefit why must we give it up just to avoid praise..maybe I just don't see the point of sacrificing something so you don't get the other(e.g. break the fast for the sake of a virtue)
    In a more clear way what I am trying to say is it important to have a virtue or is it important to practice regulations given by the church for the sake of your spiritual life?
    When I look at virtues..it's something of a more value. I tend to think those with a higher degree of spiritual life are more likely to have virtues than others (I might be wrong) so that's why I am more in following the basic things that you can do in your spiritual life and just go step by step from there..
    I hope what I said made sense of what I am trying to ask here
  • Unknown

    My only question or concern is why do we have to break the fast just for the sake of pride...

    First of all, I never said anyone has to do anything. My main point is to stress that we do not have a legalistic conception of fasting, and that it is not necessarily "sinful" for one to break their fast. As an example to demonstrate a reasonable grounds for one to break their fast, i have brought up the issue of avoiding prideful thoughts that may arise from the praise and honor that one may incur from their public insistence to fast. I'm not postulating some sort of standard rule; it is up to each to discern with the guidance of their FOC whether their motivations and intentions are worthy or not.

    I mean why can't it be the other way...why can't you value your fasting over anything else, why does it have to be something more or less valuable.

    This has nothing to do with the “value” of fasting. It has to do with the recognition that maybe the insistence to fast in a particular circumstance, will go against the very intended purpose of fasting in the first place: the exercise of virtue.

    In a more clear way what I am trying to say is it important to have a virtue or is it important to practice regulations given by the church for the sake of your spiritual life?

    ??? One’s spiritual life is determined by their ability to exercise true virtue; the spiritual person is the one who is able to control himself and who is able to be humble (self-control and humility being spiritual virtues). If one’s insistence to fast will most likely result in an unavoidable feeling of pride, then they have gone backwards in their spiritual life and not forwards if they start to feel self-righteous about the fact that they're fasting whilst all those around them are not. If one breaks their fast for the purpose of avoiding pride, then one is going forward in their spiritual life . This is not the case of one sacrificing self-control for the sake of humility (which are two equally significant virtues), for as I said in my previous post, if one’s intentions and motivations are genuine, then they are breaking their fast for a particular purpose (to preserve humility), and not because they actually desire the food, nor because they are weak in the flesh and unable to control themselves. One can only be said to lack self-control when they have an urge or inclination that they are unable to stand strong against, and which they subsequently satisfy i.e. they “given in”; however if one deliberately makes a conscious decision to break their fast for an exclusive purpose, then it has nothing to do with self-control.
  • Marianne87Marianne87
    ok makes sense...thanks :)
  • Unknown
    Evidence from the desert Fathers supporting my argument that one may break their fast for the sake of evading pride (i.e. the pursuit of humility), or for the sake of offending or upsetting one who has truly toiled to make the food they did (i.e. the pursuit of love and hospitality), according to the fact that fasting is a means to an end i.e. the achievement and fortification of spiritual virtues, and not an end or a virtue in and of itself:

    •   Abba Isidore said, "If you fast regularly, do not be inflated with pride, but if you think highly of yourself because of it, then you had better eat meat. It is better for a man to eat meat than to be inflated with pride and to glorify himself."

    •   Once two brothers came to a certain old man. It was his custom not to eat every day but when he saw them he received them joyfully and said, "A fast has its own reward, but he who eats for the sake of love fulfils two commandments: he leaves his own will and he refreshes his brothers."

    •   It was said of an old man that he dwelt in Syria on the way to the desert. This was his work: whenever a monk came from the desert, he gave him refreshment with all his heart. Now one day a hermit came and he offered him refreshment. The other did not want to accept it, saying he was fasting. Filled with sorrow, the old man said to him, "Do not despise your servant, I beg you, do not despise me, but let us pray together. Look at the tree which is here; we will follow the way of whichever of us causes it to bend when he kneels on the ground and prays." So the hermit knelt down to pray and nothing happened. Then the hospitable one knelt down and at once the tree bent towards him. Taught by this, they gave thanks to God.

    •   We came from Palestine to Egypt and went to see one of the fathers. He offered us hospitality and we said, "Why do you not keep the fast when visitors come to see you? In Palestine they keep it." He replied, "Fasting is always with me but I cannot always have you here. It is useful and necessary to fast but we choose whether we will fast or not. What God commands is perfect love. I receive Christ in you and so I must do everything possible to serve you with love. When I have sent you on your way, then I can continue my rule of fasting. The sons of the bridegroom cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them; when he is taken away from them, then they will fast."
Sign In or Register to comment.