Antiochian Reflection on Fasting

[Brigid]

I was confused by the following reflection on fasting for Great Lent. The writer seems to suggest that there are no clear guidelines for fasting and that so long as you make some kind of 'change' that's ok. He even sees a scenario where one eats meat at weekends. Is fasting really such an arbitrary thing?

Published by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, February 2005
REFLECTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF FASTING IN GREAT LENT

By Father Joseph Allen

There always seems to be requests that some guidelines be given for Fasting during the season of Great Lent. This is especially needed since in a Pan-Orthodox parish like ours, each of the ethnic groups seem to have a different way of Fasting.

Code: Select all

It must first be said that few of us really "fast." We may name it "fasting," but what we do is ABSTAIN from certain foods since "Fasting" with reference to food, really means not to eat at all! Fasting has always been practiced in the Scripture and in the Church. However, it is never isolated from other aspects of our Christian living, e.g., attending the services, our prayer life, our works of charity , etc. Also, Fasting is never an end unto itself: it is always a MEANS to an end, namely FREEDOM, i.e., to be free FROM and free FOR. It is to make a statement (spiritually and physically) that we are free FROM the "things" of this world in order to be free FOR communion for God. In a sense, it means that we are not held in bondage to anything of this world. And that is why MORE than "food" and "recipes" are involved! Indeed, this is why St. John Chrysostom reminds us that Fasting has more to do with what comes OUT of the mouth, as what we eat. Thus, in the Eastern Christian spirituality, Fasting is much more a Christian "attitude" then a set of laws. We USE food in Fasting because food is the "medium," the "vehicle," through which we may touch all the other realities of this life; we cannot live without it. Therefore, in making a statement through food, we make a statement about this life.



If this is clear in our minds, then, how CAN we make this "statement" through this medium of food? What practical guidelines DO we have? The answer during Lent is CHANGE! After all, Great Lent is a time for "change and increase." First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with children doing it by relinquishing their favorite sweets; it's THEIR way of making this statement. Second, as history has shown, every family in every culture has always found a different way to express this; there has never been only one way! In the Middle East it was done one way, in Greece another, in the Slavic lands another, in Rome still another. But, wherever it was practiced, the point always remained: if Lent represents a "change," (and parents: it will BE a change only if we MAKE it a change in our families!) then our Fasting should show it. If your custom has been to fast from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays during the rest of the year, (which has been the Apostolic practice), add Mondays during Lent. Others do not eat meat all during Lent, and still others eat meat only on week-ends. But the REAL issue is that your family should AGREE that this way represents the "change" needed to make a statement that we are in that season which leads us to Holy Week and the glorious Resurrection!

It is critical that we not allow Great Lent to pass us by as if it is no different than any other time of the year! 

http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/161/FASTING.htm

[Schultz]

I don't see the author saying that fasting is "arbitrary" at all, but something that is, in practice, different for different people. While the ideal is for every Christian to hold to all aspects of the fast, not everyone is spiritually capable from the get-go to do so. And, as the author points out, fasting is a means to an end. I am reminded of the words of St. John Chrysostom:

"For the honor of fasting consists not in abstinence from food, but in withdrawing from sinful practices, since he who limits his fasting only to abstinence from meats is one who especially disparages fasting. "

and

"I speak not of such a fast as most persons keep, but of real fasting; not merely abstinence from meats, but from sins as well. For the nature of a fast is such that it does not suffice to deliver those who practice it unless it is done according to a suitable law. So that when we have gone through the labor of fasting we do not lose the crown of fasting, we must understand how and in what manner it is necessary to conduct the business since the Pharisee also fasted, but afterward went away empty and destitute of the fruit of fasting. The Publican did not fast, and yet he was accepted in preference to him who had fasted in order that you may learn that fasting is unprofitable unless all other duties accompany it. "

(both from the Homilies on the Statues)

I think that the article above is an attempt, to teach that fasting isn't just about meat, but about other things as well. I can see without some grounding in the faith one can take it as permission to be arbitrary in one's fasting, but I don't think that was the intention of the author.

In Christ,
Schultz.

[joasia]

Brigid,

No wonder you're confused. The author has no idea about the meaning of fasting. He makes it sound more like, it's something some people do, but it's no big deal.

The author's attitude is along the lines of an ecumenist that doesn't really care about the meaning of fasting but has to put a spiritual spin on it somehow.

The only true statement he made was in reference to the fact that fasting is not just food(that's the spin he used). We have to guard our hearts and what comes out of the mouth may be more detrimental to what we eat. But, the holy fathers meant it in a way to say, that there are fanatics out there who think that they are being pious by fasting to extremes, yet they may go around gossipping, slandering or insulting others. Then their fasting of food is not counted worthy by God, because their words have defiled it...not only words, but thoughts too.

It's like saying that a person watches her calories, but orders a diet coke with a cheeseburger. The diet coke is suppose to be the effort, but the cheeseburger kills the result. See...I'm already thinking about cheeseburgers and it's only day one of no meat.

But, the author puts a twist on it, as all ecumenists do, by making it sound like we don't have to fast food, necessarily, as long as we behave with our words.

It's right to be good to people, but God did instruct us to fast too...the Apostles and the predessors thereafter, continued the tradition. Fasting may have been more strict in the first centuries, but the people were more pious then. Look at us now. Are we so pious? So we need to still eat( I can't even imagine not eating anything for 40 days). We cut out meat, poultry, any dairy products and for stricter rule oil, during the week. But, the main thing is meat and dairy products. Oh yeah, and anything that bleeds..which includes fish. Shell fish is permissable.

Now this is the tradition I was taught. I assume it is the basic Orthodox fasting tradition for Great Lent, but there may be others here who have a different or laxer opinion.

The way the author talks about it...like some people don't eat meat, some do..is basically saying , some follow it and some don't. But, he wants it to sound, like: either choice, it's personal and okay.

There is a specific instruction for fasting, but the author is just using the ignorance of people, in order to preach falsehood.

[Joseph]

I think Joasia is right on with his interpreation. Having been in the Antiochian Archdiocese I know that many, if not most, pretty much ignore the fasts with non-fasting meals often being offered in the parish during the fast. This article is typical of the effort to "dumb down" the standards and make everyone feel comfortable whatever they are doing. I have even heard that the some of the bishops and priests pretty much ignore the fasts also.
This is a pretty typical and subtle approach of the innovators. They stress the spiritual significance and de-emphasis the literal aspect. The people who don't want to fast love this kind of explanation.
Regardless of our abilities or willingness, what we need are bishops and priests who will hold up the standard and encourage us to move towards it rather than lowering the standard and making us feel good in our sinfulness.

[Brigid]

Thanks for all the comments. It was my understanding that whatever ethnic tradition we may spring from, the giving up of meat and dairy completely during Great Lent was the basic Orthodox fasting rule. The Irish tradition though is that St Patrick's Day always falls outside Lent

[joasia]

The Irish tradition though is that St Patrick's Day always falls outside Lent

I don't know how they got that rule. Technically, March 17 falls within the schedule of Great Lent for catholics and Orthodox. Maybe it's a protestant influence.

[Sabbas]

I go to an Antiochian church and most of the people follow the fast. The ethnic Orthodox have very delicious Lenten dishes which make very easy. For instance on the weekend fried cauliflower using a lot of olive oil is excellent. However some just do a little. They fail to realize that there is a method to what they perceive as madness. I remember last year was the first time I went through Lent and I definitely did not doubt the power of fasting afterward. The article seemed to be trying to win over the lackadasical Antiochians but I was greatly disheartened by the relativism it evinced at the end.

If your custom has been to fast from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays during the rest of the year, (which has been the Apostolic practice), add Mondays during Lent. Others do not eat meat all during Lent, and still others eat meat only on week-ends. But the REAL issue is that your family should AGREE that this way represents the "change" needed to make a statement that we are in that season which leads us to Holy Week and the glorious Resurrection!

The teachings of the Orthodox Church are not to be toyed with by human wisdom. No Meat or Dairy has a very specific reason. Frankly when I first took it out of my diet I felt less lusty and angry during the day. I was able to get through the day feeling a really positive moral change that just wouldn't be there if I had made up my own rules. Rather in trying to be humble and follow the Church is where the benefit was derived.
I hope I am not nor have been judgmental but let us look at what happened when the Roman Patriarchate apostasized. The Fasting rules quickly changed and made no sense like chickens being declared aquatic animals so that people could eat them during Lent!