Fasting and pregnancy

[Basil Shannon]

My wife is pregnant with our third child. I will certainly talk with my priest, but does anyone know if it's customary to observe the fast, at least to some degree, when one is pregnant? We thought we might have my wife at least observe a lacto ovo vegetarian diet during our upcoming fast.

Thanks,
Basil

[Martha Columba]

Hello Basil,

Many congratulations, first & foremost.

I'm pregnant, and this question is one for her (in prayer), her priest, and medical professional. It can be very difficult to get everything the growing baby needs, even on ovo-lacto veg with vitamin supplements. The best source of nutrition for a growing baby is a good rounded diet.

This may present other issues within the family if she is forbidden from fasting -- but just think, you will be doing the best for the baby.

Your priest will have specific suggestions how to keep the fast, e.g., eating simply (even if this includes lean red meat).

Hope this is helpful and congrats again,
+M

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Congratulations, Basil! My wife just gave birth to our first child!!!

In regards to fasting, pregnant women are not required to fast. As you mentioned, it's best to discuss with your priest, but one thing that my wife found helpful was still doing her best to observe the Wednesday and Friday fasts--at least in terms of the foods eaten, but not necessarily the number of meals.

Aaron

[Irene]

I don't actually know of any pregnant woman who does the fast - (the refraining from eating meat/dairy) at all and we all do the fast strictly the rest of the time. It is hard enough to eat anything at all for many pregnant women! If women do fast and have healthy babies then that is great and probably women in the past did fast. I think that I even heard there were Saints who from before they were born influenced their mothers to fast. Wish I could remember where I heard this who the Saints were and if this is true.

The nutritionists say that we aren't getting the nutrition from our food that we did in the past because of cold storage, transport and modern farming methods, and you have to be very clever and careful with your food and supplements to eat vegan and get a balanced diet. At all times what is best for the baby and mother is what is important and the nutritional demands on a mother's body are enormous - this is the time when calcium can be drawn from the mother's bones to support the baby if the mother isn't getting enough in her diet.

It is best, first and foremost to concentrate on the prayer, reading spiritually enlightening books, going to Confession and Holy Communion regularly and keeping away from modern entertainment - tv, try and stick to documentaries or old fashioned more moral shows if she needs something to relax her.

In Christ
irene

[Herman Blaydoe]

There is some valuable information on the subject at the wonderful Theologic Orthodox website: Expecting (http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/forfolks/expecting.htm)

[Alex Haig]

Congratulations Basil!

I've always been taught that economy can be shown with the fasting rules. The rules were made firstly for monastics (and healthy ones at that) - we must try our hardest to keep to them while in the world but not at the expense of our own health. Often you will find general dispensations that the fast does not need to be kept - or at least a lessening of the fasting rules - are given to children, pregnant women, the sick and elderly &c.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Olga]

As I understand it, according to Canon Law, it is forbidden for a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding to observe any fast. From the Canons of Bishop Timothy - can't remember which Council off the top of my head, but I can supply the actual reference if people wish.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Olga,
If you could would you be able to provide the Canon reference? I have found the topic of this thread most helpful.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[christopher r. vianzon]

Fasting during pregnancy. There exists danger to the foetus in some instances - especially if the woman is also diabetic. Any fasting of a pregnant woman should be under strictly controlled and supervised conditions and for a clearly defined reason. Fasting is contraindicated when breast feeding since milk flow is likely to cease and will be difficult to start again.

[christopher r. vianzon]

Fasting and Abstinence.

It is a traditional doctrine of Christian spirituality that a constituent part of repentance, of turning away from sin and back to God, includes some form of penance, without which the Christian is unlikely to remain on the narrow path and be saved (Jer. 18:11, 25:5; Ez. 18:30, 33:11-15; Joel 2:12; Mt. 3:2; Mt. 4:17; Acts 2:38). Christ Himself said that His disciples would fast once He had departed (Lk. 5:35). The general law of penance, therefore, is part of the law of God for man.
The Church for her part has specified certain forms of penance, both to ensure that the Catholic will do something, as required by divine law, while making it easy for Catholics to fulfill the obligation. Thus, the 1983 Code of Canon Law specifies the obligations of Latin Rite Catholics [Eastern Rite Catholics have their own penitential practices as specified by the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches].

Canon 1250 All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the entire Church.

Canon 1251 Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Canon 1252 All persons who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence; all adults are bound by the law of fast up to the beginning of their sixtieth year. Nevertheless, pastors and parents are to see to it that minors who are not bound by the law of fast and abstinence are educated in an authentic sense of penance.

Can. 1253 It is for the conference of bishops to determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence and to substitute in whole or in part for fast and abstinence other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

The Church, therefore, has two forms of official penitential practices - three if the Eucharistic fast of one hour before Communion is included.

Abstinence The law of abstinence requires a Catholic 14 years of age until death to abstain from eating meat on Fridays in honor of the Passion of Jesus on Good Friday. Meat is considered to be the flesh and organs of mammals and fowl. Also forbidden are soups or gravies made from them. Salt and freshwater species of fish, amphibians, reptiles and shellfish are permitted, as are animal derived products such as margarine and gelatin which do not have any meat taste.

On the Fridays outside of Lent the U.S. bishops conference obtained the permission of the Holy See for Catholics in the US to substitute a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing. They must do some penitential/charitable practice on these Fridays. For most people the easiest practice to consistently fulfill will be the traditional one, to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year. During Lent abstinence from meat on Fridays is obligatory in the United States as elsewhere.

Fasting The law of fasting requires a Catholic from the 18th Birthday [Canon 97] to the 59th Birthday [i.e. the beginning of the 60th year, a year which will be completed on the 60th birthday] to reduce the amount of food eaten from normal. The Church defines this as one meal a day, and two smaller meals which if added together would not exceed the main meal in quantity. Such fasting is obligatory on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The fast is broken by eating between meals and by drinks which could be considered food (milk shakes, but not milk). Alcoholic beverages do not break the fast; however, they seem to be contrary to the spirit of doing penance.

Those who are excused from fast or abstinence Besides those outside the age limits, those of unsound mind, the sick, the frail, pregnant or nursing women according to need for meat or nourishment, manual laborers according to need, guests at a meal who cannot excuse themselves without giving great offense or causing enmity and other situations of moral or physical impossibility to observe the penitential discipline.


Aside from these minimum penitential requirements Catholics are encouraged to impose some personal penance on themselves at other times. It could be modeled after abstinence and fasting. A person could, for example, multiply the number of days they abstain. Some people give up meat entirely for religious motives (as opposed to those who give it up for health or other motives). Some religious orders, as a penance, never eat meat. Similarly, one could multiply the number of days that one fasted. The early Church had a practice of a Wednesday and Saturday fast. This fast could be the same as the Church's law (one main meal and two smaller ones) or stricter, even bread and water. Such freely chosen fasting could also consist in giving up something one enjoys - candy, soft drinks, smoking, that cocktail before supper, and so on. This is left to the individual.

One final consideration. Before all else we are obliged to perform the duties of our state in life. Any deprivation that would seriously hinder us in carrying out our work, as students, employees or parents would be contrary to the will of God.

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Fasting in the Orthodox Church is not done as a 'penance.' Rather, it is done to learn self-control and sobriety. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Aaron

[Basil Shannon]

Thank you for all the great answers. I assumed she would be exempt, but appreciate the insight. Now I will have to find a way to fast myself, while grilling my wife a steak.

Basil

[Prst Seraphim Holland]

I think "grilling a steak" is not a good idea, in general, for a person who needs to eat meat, or other food normally abstained from by during fasting days.

I teach my flock to always observe the spirit of the law. If you need meat, there is no problem, and you may easily "keep the fast". Eat simple foods, as MEDICINE. Fulfill your body's needs, but not your desire for tasty food. A plain hamburger, tuna fish, salmon out of the can, plain egg whites, cottage cheese instead of pizza, or a multitude of other plain foods fulfills the need for proper nutrition.

I believe that eating foods such as meats and dairy products because of their delicious taste would ALWAYS be breaking the fast. Eat the food plain, in order to provide your body what it needs, and what your soul needs as well. If you love hamburgers with ketchup and mustard, leave them off. If you love fried chicken, eat boiled chicken. If you love steak, eat plain hamburger. There are many other examples. You need not eat food that you despise, but you should try to eat the food ONLY because you NEED it, not because you WANT it.

NOBODY should dispense with the fast! The spirit is what gives life, and we all must strive to fulfill it.

[Irene]

As a woman who has children I would like to say that I found it very difficult to eat at all during my pregnancys - food was my enemy and there was no delight in anything cooked for me by someone else, I had to force myself to eat for the sake of my babies. I am of course not alone in this.

As the person who was expected to cook for my husband, I found it very difficult, and he was almost forced to fast for nine months himself.

[Olga]

Sorry about the delay... Attached is an extract from the Canons of Timothy of Alexandria; I have highlighted the parts to do with fasting and pregnancy or breastfeeding.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Olga-
I wasn't able to open the attachment. But I was able to find Canon 8 of Timothy of Alexandria in the Rudder. Thank you- it is very helpful.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hopefully not too far off the present topic of this thread.

Thanks be to God we now have five expectant mothers in our parish. The question of the mother with new-born child remaining away from the church for 40 days has come up. As it was told to me this is done mainly for the spiritual & physical recuperation of mother & child (of course the child is not baptised for 40 days so it could not receive in any case). Interestingly however we can find no canonical reference to such a practice. If so, how did this practice arise? Is our understanding described above correct? Also- is this a universal Orthodox practice or only Russian? (we are a Russian parish) What do those of the Byzantine tradition do?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

My understanding of the 40-day rule is that it is an adaptation of the Jewish custom of a woman being considered "unclean" after giving birth, then presenting herself and her newborn child (what we now call "churching") to the temple or synagogue for the purification rite for herself. I have been told by at least one priest that there is no actual prohibition of a woman entering a church before the 40 days have passed, however, she may not in most cases be in a fit state physically or otherwise to wish to come to church. Greeks certainly church babies just as the Slavs do, so I would assume that all other Orthodox do as well. Regarding baptism of babies before they are 40 days old, my experience is that Greeks tend to wait six months or more before baptising, whereas Russians tend to "get in early", when the baby is a month or two. Having seen plenty of baptisms in both cultures, I think early baptism has major advantages - MUCH easier for the priest to handle a small baby, and they hardly cry at all! I also have a couple of Russian friends who were baptised at home by a priest before they reached 40 days, and where it was not as an emergency. These early baptisms were apparently quite common at the time (1950s).

[Irene]

Dear Father Raphael,

Regarding the 40 day rule, it is interesting that you have found nothing in the canons about this. My understanding as a convert who was taught by Russian in-laws, is the same as Olga's. We have a very young new mother (convert) in our parish who asked our Priest why she had to wait 40 days before returning to Church. I said it was so mother and child recover from the birth and our Priest agreed - he said nothing about the "unclean" part.

As a part of a new lay-mission and a mother, I'll probably be asked this again a lot in the future -so I'll be very interested in anything else that comes up about this question.

in Christ
irene

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

In regards to the 40 days, it's interesting that new studies indicate a baby's immune system is best suited to be in public at around 38 days.

Also, I have heard that during the 40 days there is no need for the mother to go to church because she has already been in such an intense communion with God by helping bring life into the world.

Aaron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks to all for their helpful replies.

It really does seem that the practice of the mother & child staying away from the church for 40 days is not to be found in the canons of the Church. Most canons relating to the discipline of the Church are means of attempting to prevent sinful situations from arising in the Church. So perhaps we can infer that the Church in fact never thought the mother being in church during the 40 days was somehow sinful. Perhaps the point of this is that, as you say Olga, "I have been told by at least one priest that there is no actual prohibition of a woman entering a church before the 40 days have passed, however, she may not in most cases be in a fit state physically or otherwise to wish to come to church". And as Irene said, if a mother does stay away for the 40 days, "it was so mother and child recover from the birth and our Priest agreed."

All of this leads me to think that the practice of mother & child staying away for 40 days arose not from a canonical prohibition but rather as an economia so that mother & child could recuperate. This would mean that a mother could come before the 40 days according to parish practice & also the health of mother & child.

Something which may illuminate our understanding of the above is the following: In the Trebnik the service of Baptism is actually preceded by "Prayers on the First Day After a Woman Hath Given Birth to a Child" then, "At the Naming of a Child When He Receiveth His name, On the Eighth Day After His Birth" and "For a Woman on the 40th Day After Childbirth."

In the Slavonic there are no rubrics which indicate the place of the first Prayer whether this is to be done at home (or hospital nowadays) or church (hard to see how mother & child could be in the church the first day after childbirth). But in the last of the prayers for the First Day we find the following significant words, "Look down from heaven...and pardon this Thy servant _, and all the house wherein the child has been born..." So probably these prayers were originally said by the priest over mother & child at home were she had just given birth.

In the prayers for The Naming of the Child on the 8th Day there is the following rubric, "Then, taking the infant in his arms [ie the priest's arms], he stands before the door of the Temple, or before the holy image of the most holy Birth-giver of God, and makes the sign of the Cross, saying, 'Rejoice O Virgin...'" This indicates that the mother would be in the church with her child eight days after childbirth.

Then we have the Prayers for a Woman on the 40th Day- ie what we often call the churching of the child. At this time in the prayer for the mother we hear, "Make her worthy of the communion of Thy holy Body & of Thy Blood." This strongly suggests that the mother would refrain from communion for the first 40 days after child-birth.

In current practice some of these prayers are run together at the 40th day when the mother returns to the church. But the prayers themselves indicate that there is another time-frame possible.

I would suggest that the following is fully in accord with the logic of what is in the Trebnik. 1)Prayers for 1st day after childbirth at hospital. 2)Naming of the Child- at the church. Not necessarily on the 8th day but when it is suitable health-wise for mother & child to return to the church. 3)40 days- prayers for mother & churching of the child. At this point the mother may return to the Chalice again. 4)Baptism.

As we can see the only actual 'prohibition' is for the mother to refrain from communion for the 40 days after childbirth. Perhaps it was partly because of this that mother & child stayed away from the church for 40 days. On the other hand I think we would gain great profit from going through the prayers and seeing them in their proper time-frame. Then the 40 days and each step along the way (1st, 8th, & 40th days) assumes great significance.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

According to http://www.theologic.com/oflweb/inchurch/namingservice.htm:

"The child may be taken to Church by his or her father, future godparents — or even the midwife who delivered him/her, according to the rubrics in the prayer book of the Church of Greece!* Fr. Michael Henning suggests, 'This service of naming an eight-day old baby may be conducted in the home before the icon corner if weather conditions or the child’s health make it impossible for the child to be brought to Church.' (Marriage and the Christian Home, St. Nectarios Press, 1987) In both Greece and Romania, the naming is routinely done at home."

*Thanks to Archimandrite Seraphim of St. Gregory Palamas Monastery, Hayesville, OH, for finding, translating, and explaining the rubrics and commentary!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The above from Aaron caused me to go back to the Trebnik again. There is an interesting rubric in the Slavonic at the beginning of the Prayer of Naming the Child on the 8th Day. It says, "Let it be known that 8 days after the birth [of the child] the child is taken from the midwife to the temple [the priest] stands before the gates of the temple."

Then at the end of the Prayers for the Woman on the 40th Day (churching) the rubrics say, "then the priest takes the infant, and makes with it the sign of the cross in front of the gates of the temple." After which it says, "then he beareth him [ie the infant] into the Temple."

This makes it clear that the gates of the temple is the entrance way between the narthex & main part of the church. In the churches of Mt Athos this entrance is marked by a curtain which can be opened or closed according to the service. Certain services are done in the narthex; also penitents stand in the narthex.

Significantly we see from the rubrics that the mother & child would pass from the narthex to the main part of the church at the end of the 40th day. Looked at closely there is thus not only a significant time element to the way the mother & child returns to the Church (1st, 8th & 40th days). There is also an important 'space element' within the temple itself.

This is similar to how for a Baptism the exorcism prayers (actually the Trebnik calls these The Prayers for Making of a Catechumen) are done in the narthex while the Baptism is done in the main part of the temple.

This shows an interesting correspondance between the prayers for a mother before the 40th day and prayers for catechumens- both are done in the narthex (remember that these exorcism prayers are also read for an infant). And the churching and Baptism are both done in the main temple. Obviously the two on-going sets of prayers apply to the same infant which will be baptised. I do not know enough about the history of liturgics to know whether these two things were at one time more coordinated than in modern practice. But it's an interesting question.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Reading more carefully the above I see I have made a mistake. The rubrics for the Naming of the Child on the 8th Day do say, "Then, taking the infant in his arms [ie the priest's arms], he stands before the door of the Temple, or before the holy image of the most holy Birth-giver of God, and makes the sign of the Cross, saying, 'Rejoice O Virgin...'"
The infant is in the church but this does not necessarily mean that the mother is in the church at the same time.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Warren Bensinger]

Father bless.

Should we consider that the 1st and 8th day would be other days than Sunday? Therefore the prayers would be done in the home. You mentioned the 8th day prayer in front of the Temple (not in) or before the icon of The Blessed Birth Giver of our God, which could be in the home??

The 40th day could be another day than Sunday also, so would that be a private happening also? And what does the Church say about private things or is it only Baptizim that can't be private?

Your help is wonderful.
Thank you.
warren
t.s.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Warren,

Yes the 1st & 8th days are often not Sundays. So the prayers could be in the home (Aaron's link above suggests this) or perhaps the child could be brought to the church by the father. The rubrics for the Prayers for the 8th Day clearly imply that this is done in the church (but as I was saying yesterday I think this actually means in the narthex. However few church buildings in the west are designed to accommodate this properly).

In fact current practice is often quite different from the above. The priest tries to visit the mother & child as soon as possible to do the first day prayers. The 8th & 40th day prayers are as often as not done on the closest Sunday rather than the exact day itself. This is so that these prayers may be said with mother & child amidst the people. The alternative is mother & child alone with just father & perhaps some relatives & friends.

This brings up your question of things like Baptisms being done privately. All that is done within the Church is done within the larger Body so nothing is private in the Church. At times a family will want to do things in a more private way- but one can easily see the difference from the above example of the prayers done on the 8th or 40th days. When this is done on the closest Sunday with all of the rest of the people present there is a tangible significance which frankly is missing when only parents & friends are present.

Baptism is another matter. In more ancient times Baptisms were done as part of the Divine Liturgy. This rarely done now. So this means that Baptisms are rarely done on Sundays with all of the people present. Rather they are shifted to a day which is convenient for the family, relatives, etc. This can give the impression of a private service & the family can even at times see it this way themselves, but Baptism is not a private service.

In all of these situations pastoral discretion is needed. There are times when we are trying to re-establish the proper tradition of the Church concerning the services. At other times for pastoral reasons one can for instance change the 40th day to the nearest Sunday. But finally at the end of the day we have the practice that our jurisdiction or parish may follow. We must learn to use any knowledge we gain for positive and not destructive purposes.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Warren Bensinger]

Father bless:

I'm sorry to hear you say that most Baptizim is not done during Liturgy. I'm quit new (only 4 years old this Oct.) and our Antiocian church always does a Baptizim during Liturgy. A person that is being Chrismated only may be on Sat. though.

This was one of the many things I saw in Orthodoxy that told me I was home. When I saw the looks on the faces of children that had been Baptized and were watching a new Baptizim and the chance the parents had to talk them through what they were seeing and what it ment. Also when the Preist takes the baby and lay's it on the (what do you call it???) Soleia at the center door and leaves it. Then the Sponsers come up and take it into there arms as the church would do if the parents were gone. It's the most touching thing I've ever experianced.

Sorry for the long windedness. I get carried away every time I think of that.

Still learning to love.
warren
t.s.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Warren,
God bless.

You wrote:


"I'm sorry to hear you say that most Baptizim is not done during Liturgy. I'm quit new (only 4 years old this Oct.) and our Antiocian church always does a Baptizim during Liturgy. A person that is being Chrismated only may be on Sat. though."

This brings up the question: what about adult baptisms? I have seen baptismal Liturgies but I do wonder if an adult baptism would fit into that service properly?

My point here is that adult baptisms in the ancient Church were often done in a Baptistry- attached to but not in the main part of the Church. The catechumen would be baptised & then afterwards brought into the church for the Liturgy. This is quite different from the liturgical structure of the 'baptismal Liturgy.' In this baptismal Liturgy the first part of the Liturgy is often replaced by the Baptism - then we have the epistle & Gospel; then back to the normal structure for Liturgy. The question here is: could or should this same structure work for adult Baptisms?

I think this question comes from the larger one (asked the other day) of whether any service or sacrament can be considered as private in the Church. At that time we said that nothing can be considered private within the Church since it is accomplished within the Body.

But from here I think we do at times make the mistake of thinking that, "if not private then it must be public." This way of thinking has affected much recent thinking about Orthodox liturgics. Knowing that nothing is private we feel compelled to make everything 'open'. And I think this has affected how we see the issue of how baptism relates to Liturgy.

Because nothing is private does not mean it is public. For example both confession & spiritual counsel are are done in confidence between spiritual father & spiritual child. For modesty's sake adult baptisms were also not done in full view of the whole congregation. Traditionally the priest draws the curtain on the Royal Doors at the communion of the clergy.

And- (another thorny question) is the 'closed' or full iconstas an aid or hindrance to worship?

These questions take this thread a bit off track. But how we answer these questions does affect how we define liturgical life. It will deeply affect liturgics. And it will affect how we see such things as the connection between Baptism & Liturgy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Basil Shannon]

Thanks for all the information on this thread.

My wife has one other question. She will be chrismtated this Saturday and commune Sunday for the first time. Glory to God! She is currently experiencing morning sickness due to the pregnancy and gets very ill if she doesn't have a little to eat periodically. She is worried that fasting from midnight until she takes the Holy Mysteries will be impossible. In a case like this, is a communicant allowed to nible on a little food in the same way children are?

She will ask our priest, but wanted to know what to expect.

Thanks.

Basil

[Olga]

I would expect the majority of priests would regard the vagaries of pregnancy in the same light as other illnesses or infirmities, and allow some leeway with regard to a little sustenance prior to Communion. People who are on medication for heart conditions or other serious medical conditions, may need to accompany their medication first thing in the morning with a little food (a piece of bread or toast and a little water or tea), or the medication will "knock them around" if taken on an empty stomach. One priest I know (who's a stickler for rules and regulations) gave this advice to a man in the above circumstances: "The medication you are taking is keeping you alive, and the food you are taking is not for "for pleasure", but as a necessary accompaniment to the medication. " This priest had no qualms about this man taking Communion. Another case I saw for myself one Holy Saturday morning was an asthmatic woman who had not taken her medication as usual in the morning because she wanted to take Communion. What happened? While she was waiting in line among the throngs, it all got too much for her and she had an asthma attack. She was taken away by ambulance, and didn't even get to have Communion after all.

[Gregory Erickson]

Olga,

That makes me very sad. Rules are made for people, not the other way around. Did that woman receive advice from her priest to not take Communion if she took food with her medication?

[Olga]

Gregory

It would be safe to assume that the asthmatic woman did not take her medication because she felt that it was contrary to the "rules of fasting" (dare I say a case of overzealous or misguided piety?), and not because her priest told her so. The priest in the church where this unfortunate incident happened is the same one who gave the advice to the man mentioned in my earlier post.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This last brings up a very important point. It is possible to follow the fasting rules out of a sense of obedience & humility. It is also possible to follow these rules being guided only by oneself or even out of self-will.

The point is that it is not the consequent suffering which is wrong- rather it is the spirit which has led one to this. To say it the other way around: one can see people being very strict with themselves: some as part of a struggle against themselves & some out of self-will.

So the way in which we have prepared to receive the precious Body & Blood of Christ: have we gone to someone for spiritual advice & guidance about this?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Maria Murray]

As I understand it, according to Canon Law, it is forbidden for a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding to observe any fast. From the Canons of Bishop Timothy - can't remember which Council off the top of my head, but I can supply the actual reference if people wish.
I searched and couldn't find the Canon you referred to. I'd like to find out if in those situations fasting is FORBIDDEN or it is simply NOT REQUIRED? I am asking because I have been exclusively breastfeeding and fasting without any visible effects, the baby's been getting pretty chubby actually ;-) However if it's forbidden, that would be a different issue and I'd need to change what I'm doing. Thanks.

[Father David Moser]

Well, I don't know about canons - but as a pastor I generally tell my pregnant and breastfeeding mothers that they should not fast. It rarely necessary to forbid them to fast, but I would do it if it became an issue. Many of the fathers, St Seraphim particularly comes to mind here (as well as a number of the Optina fathers) are very clear about the fact that we should not fast so severly that we injure our health (and in the case of a pregnant or nursing mother that would mean the health of the child).

Fr David Moser

[Maria Murray]

Dear Father David, thank you so much for your wise thoughts.

[Olga]

Below are the canons of Bishop Timothy of Alexandria relevant to this thread which have canonical force (it seems I have already posted them in an earlier part of this thread, but I'm happy to do so again):


APPENDIX CONTAINING CANONS AND RULINGS NOT HAVING CONCILIAR ORIGIN BUT APPROVED BY NAME IN CANON II. OF THE SYNOD IN TRULLO.

THE CANONICAL ANSWERS OF TIMOTHY, THE MOST HOLY BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, WHO WAS ONE OF THE 150 FATHERS GATHERED TOGETHER AT CONSTANTINOPLE, TO THE QUESTIONS PROPOSED TO HIM CONCERNING BISHOPS AND CLERICS.


QUESTION VIII.


Ought a woman in child-bed to keep the Paschal fast?
Answer. No.



QUESTION X.

Is a sick man obliged to keep the Paschal fast?
Answer. No.

Hope this helps.

[Mary James]

A friend of mine just recently gave birth. While she was pregnant, her spiritual Father said it is not required for a pregnant women to fast. So of course, she didn't fast... but instead, her prayer rule increased during Lent and the only time she was told to fast was before taking communion.