Sexual relations during fasting

[Terry]

Are we suppose to not have sex during these long fasting periods? or just every weds. and fri? What if our husband wants to? do we refuse?

I just converted, im still learning

thanks in advance,


-Terry-

[Mourad Mankarios]

Although, there should always be a greater striving towards greater and greater asceticism and austerity in one's life, scripture and tradition is always mindful and considerate of the the weak frame of man. Therefore, while subscribing to the rule of the fast is encouraged certain concessions are made by the church, especially in this particular area. Here is what St Paul has to say:

"Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (1 Cor 7:5)

[Kris]

Are we suppose to not have sex during these long fasting periods? or just every weds. and fri? What if our husband wants to? do we refuse?

I just converted, im still learning

thanks in advance,


-Terry-

Hi,

The Church teaches us that during all fasting periods, married couples are to live as brother and sister (i.e. abstaining from sexual relations).

With respect to the second question, St. Paul teaches us that "the wife hath not authority over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not authority over his own body, but the wife" (1 Cor. 7:4). I don't know what implications this has with respect to refusing your husband.

I think the best thing to do would be to consult your Spiritual Father and ask him for advice concerning your particular situation.

In XC,
Kris

[Andreas Moran]

Dear All,

I had a long argument about this some time ago with a friend. The Holy Tradition of our Church is clear - fasting includes, for married couples, abstention from sexual relations. There cannot be 'concessions': granted by whom and by what authority? Of course, in most things, we fail but the point is then to reconcile onesself with the Church through confession and absolution, and any sensitive pastor will be show understanding. The Holy Fathers - and I'm thinking just now of St Seraphim of Sarov - stress that non-observance of the rules of fasting is not a legalistic matter which can be compormised by the individual but is a sin. We have to remember that the canons of the Church are not like legislation but were the Church's expression and distillation of existing ascetic practice. We do not grow closer to God by ignoring the canons of His Church. Fasting is a therapeutic discipline which brings us closer to God. I assure you I am the weakest of men and the worst of sinners but we must know when we are sinning and not think we are not when we are.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Fasting is an ascetic endeavor, and so is obedience and humility. For an Orthodox couple to agree to abstinance is a good and proper thing, the ideal, but when one partner is not Orthodox, accomodations are necessary. Whatever is done should be a mutual agreement. You should discuss this with your priest and certainly with your husband. You should do what you are capable of in the circumstances you are in and do not try to "overdo" things.

Therapy misapplied can do more harm than good. Discernment is necessary.

[Peter Farrington]

Is it not also the case that someone who is practicing for running a marathon for instance does not begin his training on day one with a 25 mile run if he has no previous experience of training. This would in fact cripple him and incapacitate him from training the next day.

We must surely grow into the practice of the Christian life and not expect that by a mere act of will we can achieve what the saints have taken a lifetime to experience.

The Fathers teach that moderation is the best policy and that we grow in a context of moderation. To pridefully try to achieve more than we are given grace for is as much a sin as not trying at all. But the best path is to be practicing at the level God demands of us right now.

When I first converted to Orthodoxy I fasted less than I do now, and God willing I wil continue to grow in my understanding and experience of ascetic practices. But the Fathers are clear, moderation based on our present abilities and circumstances is the best means of achieveing growth.

In my own context of a mixed marriage the best way to completely turn my wife off of Orthodoxy altogether would be a legalistic attempt to apply all of the ascetic teachings of all the Fathers without any consideration of her.

As has been said, thankfully we can turn to our spiritual fathers for advice. But I do not believe that growth in the use of ascetic practices is sin, especially for an adult convert and especially one in a mixed situation. Indeed the practice of all of the ascetic disciplines is no guarantee of spiritual growth. Too often I have made too close a connection in my own life between ascetic practices and my own spirituality. The Fathers make it clear that there is no direct connection and that God always gives Himself as a gift and not as a reward.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

One often hears from western converts that the canons of the Orthodox Church are guidelines, an ideal to aspire to but not to be treated legalistically - to be applied in moderation according to one's own discretion, disposition and circumstances. If we shall meet the martyrs who suffered in the arenas and those who fasted even in the Gulags, shall we say to them, well we couldn't manage? We should conform to Orthodoxy, not make Orthodoxy conform to us.

[Father David Moser]

One often hears from western converts that the canons of the Orthodox Church are guidelines, an ideal to aspire to but not to be treated legalistically - to be applied in moderation according to one's own discretion, disposition and circumstances.

The canons of the Church are indeed guidelines, something not to be treated legalistically, which are applied usually in moderation *by the bishop or the priest to each person* according to each person's disposition and circumstances in such a manner as to be beneficial to the healing of the soul and each person's salvation.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Fr David,

Please tell me why the Holy Fathers (e.g. St Seraphim, St John of Kronstadt)and contemporary elders stress that the Holy Tradition of the Church on fasting must be followed in its entirety. What of the circumstances of those faithful in the Soviet camps who, in a hell-on-earth situation still kept the fasts? Tell me also why so many in the west think we need not follow the teaching of these Fathers and the example of the martyrs. The word 'canon' means 'rule', 'yardstick', not 'suggestion'. I have said before that it is not a question of being legalistic, much less pharisaic. The canons of the Church are the expression of the ascetic practice of the Church which practice is for the healing of soul and body. They were formulated by Councils inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It is easier now that ever before to fast according to the Church's teaching. I don't hold myself out as a model of ascetic endeavour. But when I fail I know that I have to confess this. It simply is not Orthodox to say to those in normal circumstances that the canons can be relaxed.

[Father David Moser]

Orthodoxy is not a set of rules - it is a course of spiritual therapy. One size does not fit all. What is salvific for one person may be destructive for another (something that we see often in the life of the Church) and it is the grace of priesthood which enables the priest to discern what is needed.

St Seraphim is quite clear that one should not fast so strictly that he injures his own health. The Optina elders prescribe very different spiritual regimens for their spiritual children as can be seen easily by reading their letters and accounts of their lives.

If your spiritual father holds you to a strict following of a certain fasting rule, then that is what is necessary for you. St Macari of Optina is quite clear however that you should not take what your spiritual father tells you to do and apply it to others since that rule is given to you alone.

The modification or relaxation of fasting rules - or making them stricter - is the perview of the spiritual father done on the basis of what is needed for the salvation of his spiritual child It is the essence of the pastoral ministry and we should not presume to judge others, especially those placed in authority over us, for following the rule that they have been given.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Fr David,

Thank you for replying so fully and helpfully. Actually, my spiritual father is not so strict in the sense that he doesn't take issue with transgressions of the fasting rules, though he does not tell me I don't have to confess them. When we go to Russia and visit the Holy Trinity St Sergius Lavra and talk with the fathers we know there about such things, they are very firm about what is required. It is surely the case, is it not, that with all we can buy in a supermarket it is so easy - too easy, arguably - to fast as we should. Of course, fasting is more than dietary rules, but if we try to do what we can, surely this part of it should not be difficult.

This thread actually began with reference to sexual relations during fasts. For an Orthodox couple, sexual relations during a fast is surely not to be condoned, but, depending on the couple, the matter, though something for confession, can be dealt with by a pastor with understanding and sensitivity - would you agree?

[Peter Farrington]

Tell me also why so many in the west think we need not follow the teaching of these Fathers and the example of the martyrs. The word 'canon' means 'rule', 'yardstick', not 'suggestion'.

Dear Andreas

I commend you rigourous application of the ascetic teaching of the Church Fathers to your own life and would wish that I were stricter in my own life.

But I think that you are unfair to many in suggesting that they lack a desire for transformation in their own life. Certainly I am grateful to God that in my own life I have slowly learned to appreciate the value of fasting more and more and seek each year to enter into the seasons of fasting more completely. But to be honest the actual practice of fasting is surely the least important aspect of the fasting seasons. (And I said least important not un-important).

There are a great many people in the UK who eat less than I do on every day because they are concerned for their appearance. There are others, such as in Darfur, who eat less than I do every day because they have no choice. Therefore I cannot be satisfied merely by following the fasting canons of the Church however exactly I might do so.

Surely the seasons of fasting are opportunities for growth in Christ and should therefore not be seen as rules and laws to be followed. That does strike me as pharasaical. I do not believe Christians live under a greater burden of Law than the Jews. Is it not the case that the fasts are opportunities and invitations to a closer walk with God, not demands for certain behaviour under the threat of punishment.

From my reading of the Fathers and discussion with my priest and bishop I believe that Father David entirely describes the Orthodox position. The ascetical teachings of the Church are never applied indiscriminately and universally but always with the salvation of an individual in mind.

My priest often says that 'it was devout people, at a particularly devout time of the year who crucified our Lord'.

And I need to watch for that in myself. It is too easy for me to confuse the practice of asceticism for real spirituality. Perhaps that is why God allows me to be a useless practictioner and a mere beginner in asceticism. I have nothing to be proud of in myself at all. That may be best.

Best wishes

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Peter,

I fear I have not been expressing my self clearly. I am not saying that I am a strict ascetic - I'm not , and I certainly don't cut an ascetic figure! I am not trying to apply to others what I do. I have not said that fasting must be undertaken even if it injures the body, our friend in our efforts to attain salvation. Clearly, a spiritual father will provide a measure of dispensation where necessary. It is a question of what is judged necessary, and that cannot, according to what I have always been taught, be merely to accommodate weakness. When someone said to St Seraphim, why is fasting not observed as it should be, he said that all that is required is a firm resolve.
I am not criticising anyone or pointing to any lack of desire to do the job properly.

Certainly, the practice of fasting is only part of what we should do. If we cannot find the resolve to do the least important things, what chance have we of doing more important things? Of course, we should not feel satisfaction if we do follow the fast - we attribute everything to God. You are right that the fasting periods are times prescribed by the Church for spiritual growth. And of course, the canons of the Church are unlike the old law. But I repeat, the canons are the Church's prescription for spiritual health based upon accepted ascetic practice. They are a means to an end which is why, as we all know, fulfillment of the rules is no cause for self-congratulation.

What I am trying to say is this: the canons are there to be followed by all save those with compelling reasons for not so doing. Failure to follow them cannot be met by a dispensation from following them. We should ackowledge our weakness and repent of it and continue to strive. We are to be supported in our effort by our spiritual father but not relieved of the necessity of making the effort. There will be degrees of success in this effort, of course, and we should not be discouraged if our success is very modest (as mine is) - I think of the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Romans 14:1-6 probably applies to more than simply food, but ascetic endeavor in general, don't you think?

[Father David Moser]

For an Orthodox couple, sexual relations during a fast is surely not to be condoned, but, depending on the couple, the matter, though something for confession, can be dealt with by a pastor with understanding and sensitivity - would you agree?

In principle yes, I would agree with your statement. These fasting rules are important, however, they must be applied to each person by the spiritual physician for the benefit and healing of the soul. And so yes, the "matter" is indeed a pastoral one, to "be dealt with by the pastor with (hopefully) understanding and sensitivity."


Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Living, as we do, in small world where it is now common for Orthodox people from different countries to encounter each other, differences in approach can be perplexing. There is no doubt that in Russia, a very high degree of compliance is required. In, for instance, the Greek diaspora in England, there is a degree of latitude which would be entirely unacceptable in Russia. In England, in the Antiochian Church, there is no problem with a child having a non-practising Protestant godparent as well as an Orthodox godparent, and a married couple may be godparents, a matter I have mentioned previously. On the other hand, when I was in Moscow for Pascha, the parish priest insisted on confession before every Holy Communion during Holy Week, even though only a couple of days separated the liturgies. I think the Russians could relax a little about some things and the Greeks could tighten up on a few.

[Olga]

I think the Russians could relax a little about some things and the Greeks could tighten up on a few.

My thoughts exactly, Andreas! Having a foot in both Slavic and Greek camps, I've seen much of how both sides operate.

[Andreas Moran]

Having a foot in each camp as I now do (and my wife) has its rewards. In September, my wife, Lydia, and I were on holiday in Greece and we stayed a few days in Meteora. At the evening service and at the (very early) liturgy at the Holy Monastery of Aghios Stephanos, both of us thought we had died and gone to heaven! Last summer, we were invited to stay in the Holy Trinity St Sergius Lavra for a week, and that was unforgettable. Enriching as well as perplexing! On balance, though having a foot in both camps, I'm inclined to rest my weight on the foot in the Russian camp.
But this is a long way from the theme of this thread . . .

[Kris]

In England, in the Antiochian Church, there is no problem with a child having a non-practising Protestant godparent as well as an Orthodox godparent, and a married couple may be godparents, a matter I have mentioned previously.

I attended one of the Antiochian churches in London not too long ago, and was shocked to see a little girl serving as an altarboy (well, altargirl). I used to think the Greeks were relaxed when it came to observance of the canons; but the Antiochians seem to ignore them completely.

[Andreas Moran]

. . . hence my inclination to the Russians. After all, a canon that you don't have to follow is a contradiction in terms.

[Peter Farrington]

I would not be happy with an altar girl to be honest, and I don't think the British Orthodox Church would allow such at any time, we are traditional in our Orthodoxy though I hope we are imaginative in our mission and culturally sensitive in our practice.

But I would also have to say that I don't sense in my Church that we view the canons as rules, or describe our Christian faith as a matter of laws and regulations. Indeed had Orthodoxy been ever presented as such I would have been put off it.

Surely the bishop, and the priests under him are always the ones to apply the Tradition of the Church as they see best for the salvation of souls. The blind obedience to rules and laws is more liable to damage than heal? That is what I have always understood from the majority of the spiritual Fathers.

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

The issue of the little altar girl is interesting. I mentioned it to my wife who said that in Russia during the Soviet time, there were altar girls who would be under the age of menstruation. Similarly, it is common to see nuns of a certain age cleaning etc in the sanctuary though women are not normally permitted there. I wonder if deaconesses in the early Church went into the sanctuary?

I still can't get my head around this idea that canons are not really canons. I hope no one blindly follows the canons of the Church - that would be pharisaic. But I'd be interested to hear of an example of what release from the canons a priest may grant and to know the authority by which he grants it. What canon can seem so oppressive to an Orthodox Christian that his or her salvation might be in peril unless he or she were told that it didn't apply to them? I remember when I first became Orthodox and I approached my first fasting period. I thought, 'what on earth am I going to eat?' I got fed up with beans on toast, and all those Cypriots I knew had a book full of Lenten recipes used for generations. But I thought, 'if you didn't like the rules, you shouldn't have joined the club', and got used to it and I'm alive to tell the tale. Subsequently, there were sometimes fasts which I didn't manage to observe (one way or another) as I knew I should have done. But I confess these things, and I certainly don't expect anyone to tell me that in fact I don't have to bother trying.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Andreas

For me the issue is indeed what you allude to last of all, it is a matter of trying. But that trying should be under the guidance of a spiritual father, and he may well prescribe (and that is an important medical analogy) a certain regimen and not another.

In the Orthodox West fasting could be as extremely strict as anything in the East but there was also a very important sense of moderation. This comes out throughout the desert fathers as well.

A spiritual father may well discern that we should fulfill the full measure of the canon, but he may also discern that we should not for some/many reasons. He may insist we eat meat even or do something contrary to the canon on an occasion to show us that the keeping of canons does not save us.

I am sure you agree that we have enough to do in our own salvation and should humbly follow the instruction we are given, but there is so much variety in the Tradition about the matter of fasting that one particular practice cannot be elevated to an absolute mark of Orthodoxy.

The Coptic Tradition, for instance, one of the most conservative, allows no sea-food at all during Lent, and also practices the Syrian strict Fast of Nineveh two weeks before Lent. But during the Advent fast fish is allowed. Why so? Not least because different cultural and environmental situations produce different practices. Would it be keeping the Fast to feast on Lobster in Great Lent, just because it is allowed by canon? when in fact it would be a great luxury and completely against the spirit of the Fast? Likewise it is possible to have a spirit of fasting even while eating food forbidden by the canon, as I will do if my non-Orthodox wife has spent time providing such food for me, this also is all described in the tradition which surely presents to us, not least in the Desert Fathers, a real diversity and flexibility with regard to the canons, with one constant aim in view, the salvation of our souls.

Best wishes

Peter

[Andreas Moran]

Yes, Peter, but just what is so intolerable about the fasting rules of the Church? When we fast, we still eat better than half the people in the world. I can pop down to Tescos and get almost anything I like and still follow the canons. What I want to know is this: exactly what part of the fasting rules would a priest point to and say, 'you don't have to do that', and what would be the justification for that? On what grounds might a priest say, 'you can have milk on Wednesdays and Fridays because I say you can'?

[Kris]

The issue of the little altar girl is interesting. I mentioned it to my wife who said that in Russia during the Soviet time, there were altar girls who would be under the age of menstruation.


Hi,

That's very interesting, and when I think about it it actually makes some sense. Are we not told by Holy Tradition that the most holy Theotokos spent much of her young life in the Holy of Holies in the Temple?

I am not saying I now approve of altar girls, but it would be interesting to see whether any of the canons make allowances for those under the age of menstruation with respect to entering the Sanctuary.



I wonder if deaconesses in the early Church went into the sanctuary?


From what I understand, the role of a deaconess in the early Church did not correspond in any way to that of a deacon. As such, I don't believe there would have been any need for them to enter the Sanctuary.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Andreas

I am not a priest, but I can think of plenty of circumstances. A convert from a background that has no experience of fasting might well find the strictest rules impossible and would fall into despair. The tradition clearly shows that a development of fasting practice is normal. This is the same as someone wanting to become an athlete. His trainer would not say - right! Day One. Let's start with a 25 mile run! But the aim would be to manage the athletic regime so that the athlete, perhaps very unfit at the beginning, could come to the position where he or she could manage a 25 mile run.

If I had been told on my first day as an Orthodox that I now must fast the strictest fasting regime and would be sinning if I failed to then I would have despaired, because even now I am still growing into the practice of fasting, and there are some who fast more than I, and others who fast less, but I know that we are all seeking to commit ourselves more and more to a process which has our salvation as the goal.

It is great that you are able to fast strictly, but many, especially converts coming to fasting, cannot so easily leap from nothing to everything, and the tradition wisely allows for growth by a steady increase of strictness.

If a priest says, 'Have a cake, it doesn't matter', during a fast then I would be concerned. But if a priest says, 'Let's start by trying not to eat anything until noon time' to a person who has no background or experience in self-control then I would consider that wise (not being a priest though so my opinion may be more or less relevant).

Best wishes

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

If you go to the gym and the coach says you must benchpress 400 lbs, do you expect to just sit down at the bench and put 400 lbs on the bar? What if you can't do it right away? Should you simply give up and join another club?

Or perhaps do you set the goal and work towards it?

There is no reason not to set high goals and work towards them, it is something else to simply expect to meet them immediately. Perhaps some people can, but is it bad if others end up setting the bar a little lower? What is the Holy Apostle Paul telling us about judging another man's servant about what he eats or does not eat?

Do you eat or drink NOTHING for the first two days of Lent? And nothing between sunrise and sunset afterwards? Truth is, there have been DIFFERENT fasting requirements at different times in different places.

Personally, I hope nobody who is following a strict Lenten fast is required to drive. Low blood-sugar at 55 mph is not a good combination. Each person should do what they are capable of given their particular situation, always striving to do better.

[Andreas Moran]

Thanks, Peter and Herman,

As I understand them, the fasting rules are as set out by Bishop Kallistos in his Introduction to the Lenten Triodion.
From week to week, as far as Wednesdays and Fridays are concerned, I just can't see the problem. Not because I'm a great ascetic but because it just cannot be a problem to go without meat, fish and dairy produce on those days. I mean, I have my corn flakes with soya milk and a cup of coffee. I have a prawn sandwich for my lunch, and I have a vegetable meal in the evening or veg. soup and bread, or a seafood meal.
When I was receiving instruction about the Church, I was told about these things. OK, I thought, that's how it is. I didn't think, 'O gosh - that's impossible'. I thought, well that's what people do, and I'll do the same.

But what I still want to know is: what bits of the rules are so hard that it's not possible to keep them? With all you can get in Tesco, why do you say, it's such a burden that people can't be expected to manage?

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Andreas

But isn't it more an issue of 'what is it to do with us?'

As far as I can see you are not fasting in accordance with the strict Coptic Orthodox tradition, someone from the EO can comment perhaps. And I am only saying this to make a point about how it is pointless to watch each other.

i. Why are you eating breakfast? On a Wednesday or Friday surely you should be fasting from all food until the 9th hour, 3 pm?

ii. What time are you eating lunch at? You should not be eating at lunch time.

ii. Does your prawn sandwich have any mayonnaise in it?

iii. The Fathers didn't have substitute Soya milk? Do you not feel you are cheating by merely swapping dairy for pretend dairy?

iv. Why are you having more than one meal on a strict fast day?

You must understand that like St Paul I am writing like a mad man! But do you see that in fact your practice seems to me to be very liberal compared with the strict practice my own Coptic Orthodox Church encourages, and which is rooted in the Desert Fathers.

But it doesn't mean a thing. What matters is your salvation, your own practice and the instruction of your own priest and bishop. Holiness is not measured by any particular practice because there are atheists who eat less than even this strict ascesis. What matters is our heart, the goal we have in view, and whether we are obediently doing our best.

Best wishes

Peter

[Kris]

As far as I can see you are not fasting in accordance with the strict Coptic Orthodox tradition


Nor in accordance with the strict Byzantine tradition.



i. Why are you eating breakfast? On a Wednesday or Friday surely you should be fasting from all food until the 9th hour, 3 pm?

ii. What time are you eating lunch at? You should not be eating at lunch time.

ii. Does your prawn sandwich have any mayonnaise in it?

iii. The Fathers didn't have substitute Soya milk? Do you not feel you are cheating by merely swapping dairy for pretend dairy?

iv. Why are you having more than one meal on a strict fast day?


I would ask the same questions. Not, by any means, because it is a sin to eat more than one meal per day, or before 3pm, or to "cheat" by using soy substitutes for prohibited foods, but because you seem to equate this form of fasting with a strict practice (in the sense that it complies exactly with the canons & Fathers).

As well as the prohibition of all meat, fish, dairy, oil and wine, a strict fast (the kind that is to be followed on Wednesdays and Fridays for example) also involves a period of total fasting from midnight to 3pm, followed by only a single meal.

See this (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/exo_fasting.aspx) article for more info.

Again, I am not suggesting that anyone has to undertake this level of asceticism (indeed, to do so without the consent of ones spiritual father would be a great error). But this is what the canons proscribe, and is what Peter is referring to when he talks about the difficulty strict fasting poses for people (although I would disagree with the idea that it is more difficult for converts - I think the opposite is often true).

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

But this is what the canons proscribe, and is what Peter is referring to when he talks about the difficulty strict fasting poses for people (although I would disagree with the idea that it is more difficult for converts - I think the opposite is often true).


Let's agree it is difficult for some folk, myself included.

Thanks for the input on Byzantine practice, I thought it was stricter than Andreas described, again though I am not judging Andreas at all.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I wonder if deaconesses in the early Church went into the sanctuary? From what I've read on the subject I believe the Deaconesses didnt have the same litrugical role of a deacon. The deaconesses was specifically to help with the baptism and chrismation of women.

Here is a wikipedia quote on the subject:


Deaconesses trace their roots to Biblical times when women were set apart by the early church to care for the poor, for widows and orphans, and provide catechism instruction to female candidates for baptism. The Apostle Paul commends a deaconess, Phoebe, to the Romans in the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Paul's reference to Phoebe, "deaconess of the Church of Cenchrae", in Romans 16:1 should be understood against the background of developing ministries in the early Christian church rather than as a reference to an established female diaconate at the time. The office gradually developed, and was recognized by the Church, though it was not considered to be an ordained ministry (the First Council of Nicea stated in 325 that deaconesses did not receive ordination and were to be considered as part of the laity). Deaconesses carried out various tasks and ministries which did not require Holy Orders – they helped with the Baptism of women converts, especially when it was done by total immersion; they presided at prayer services for women; and they distributed Holy Communion in the absence of a priest. As adult baptisms became less frequent, deaconesses became rarer, but were found in the Roman Catholic Church until the eleventh century.Here is an article on the subject I found :


Council of Nicea on the Deaconess

The principal work of the deaconess was to assist the female candidates for holy baptism. At that time the sacrament of baptism was always administered by immersion

A.D. 325 Emperor.-Constantine Pope.-Silvester

It has been supposed by many that the deaconess of the Early Church had an Apostolic institution and that its existence may be referred to by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (xvi. 1) where he speaks of Phoebe as being a dia/konoj of the Church of Cenchrea. It moreover has been suggested that the "widows" of 1 Tim. v. 9 may have been deaconesses,

and this seems not unlikely from the fact that the age for the admission of women to this ministry was fixed by Tertullian at sixty years (De Vel. Virg. Cap. ix.),

and only changed to forty, two centuries later by the Council of Chalcedon,

and from the further fact that these "widows" spoken of by St. Paul seem to have had a vow of chastity,

for it is expressly said that if they marry they have "damnation, because they have cast off their first faith" (1 Tim. v. 12).

These women were called diako/nissai, presbuti/dej (which must be distinguished from the presbute/rai,

a poor class referred to in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 28)

who are to be only invited frequently to the love-feasts, while the presbuti/dej had a definite allotment of the offerings assigned to their support), xh=rai, diaconissoe, presbyteroe, and viduce.

The one great characteristic of the deaconess

was that she was vowed to perpetual chastity.

The Apostolical Constitutions (vi. 17) say that she must be a chaste virgin (parqe/noj a0gnh;) or else a widow.

The writer of the article "Deaconess" in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities says:

"It is evident that the ordination of deaconesses included a vow of celibacy."

We have already seen the language used by St. Paul and of this the wording of the canon of Chalcedon is but an echo (Canon xv).

"A woman shall not receive the laying on of hands as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination.

And if, after she has had hands laid on her, and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the Grace of God and give herself in marriage,

she shall be anathematized and the man who is united to her."

The civil law went still further, and by Justinian's Sixth Novel 6 those who attempted to marry are subjected to forfeiture of property and capital punishment. In the collect in the ancient office there is a special petition that the newly admitted deaconess may have the gift of continence.

The principal work of the deaconess was to assist the female candidates for holy baptism. At that time the sacrament of baptism was always administered by immersion (except to those in extreme illness) and hence there was much that such an order of women could be useful in.

Moreover they sometimes gave to the female catechumens preliminary instruction,

but their work was wholly limited to women,

and for a deaconess of the Early Church to teach a man or to nurse him in sickness would have been an impossibility.

The duties of the deaconess are set forth in many ancient writings, I cite here what is commonly known as the XII Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, which met in the year 398:

"Widows and dedicated women (sanctimoniales) who are chosen to assist at the baptism of women, should be so well instructed in their office as to be able to teach aptly and properly unskilled and rustic women how to answer at the time of their baptism to the questions put to them, and also how to live godly after they have been baptized."

This whole matter is treated clearly by St. Epiphanius who, while indeed speaking of deaconesses as an order (ta/gma), asserts that "they were only women-elders, not priestesses in any sense,

that their mission was not to interfere in any way with Sacerdotal functions, but simply to perform certain offices in the care of women" (Hoer. lxxix, cap. iij).

From all this it is evident that they are entirely in error who suppose that "the laying on of hands" which the deaconesses received corresponded to that by which persons were ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate, and episcopate at that period of the church's history.

It was merely a solemn dedication and blessing and was not looked upon as "an outward sign of an inward grace given." For further proof of this I must refer to Morinus, who has treated the matter most admirably. (De Ordinationibus, Exercitatio X.)

The deaconesses existed but a short while. The council of Laodicea as early as a.d. 343-381, forbade the appointment of any who were called presbuti/dei (Vide Canon xi); and the first council of Orange, a.d. 441, in its twenty-sixth canon forbids the appointment of deaconesses altogether, and the Second council of tile same city in canons xvii and xviii,

decrees that deaconesses who married were to be excommunicated unless they renounced the men they were living with,

and that, on account of the weakness of the sex, none for the future were to be ordained.

Thomassinus, to whom I refer tim reader for a very full treatment of the whole subject, is of opinion that the order was extinct in the West by the tenth or twelfth century, but that it lingered on a little later at Constantinople but only in conventual institutions. (Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l' Eglise, I Partie, Livre III.)here is a link to another article on the subject which also has links to other articles: http://www.piney.com/ShellyDeaconess.html

[Scott Pierson]

But I'd be interested to hear of an example of what release from the canons a priest may grant
I know Bishops and priests(?) are allowed to lessen the requirments of the canons on fasting for others but can they do the same for all cannons? Like if a cannon said " You should not throw the Eucharist on the floor and stomp on it" could a Bishop say " this cannon will not apply to you because this is a special occasion" ? What I'm asking I guess is : are there certain canons that can not be looked over for the purpose of economy?

[Andrew]

I know Bishops and priests(?) are allowed to lessen the requirments of the canons on fasting for others but can they do the same for all cannons? Like if a cannon said " You should not throw the Eucharist on the floor and stomp on it" could a Bishop say " this cannon will not apply to you because this is a special occasion" ? What I'm asking I guess is : are there certain canons that can not be looked over for the purpose of economy?

If it is in the interest of a person's salvation, then yes. Love is the ultimate rule. Out of love for the Church and our holy fathers we won't go out and trample upon the canons, but some conditions demand certain amounts of leniency.

[Herman Blaydoe]

What I'm asking I guess is : are there certain canons that can not be looked over for the purpose of economy?That is what is called discernment and why we have bishops and don't simply decide these things for ourselves.

[Scott Pierson]

That is what is called discernment and why we have bishops and don't simply decide these things for ourselves.Thats a good point. I was just wondering if there are certain canons that are so "set in stone" so to speak that they are always applicable and therefore the bishops are "not allowed" to change them ? I'm sure their are some cannons the violation of which would never be required for someones salvation. My example above for example... if there is a cannon prohibiting the rejection of Christ followed by stomping on the Eucharist. Breaking that would never save anyone.

I've heard that while it is possible to avoid strict application of the letter of the cannons we are never allowed to go against the spirit of the cannon. Is that true?

[Ian Leyda]

My priest often says that 'it was devout people, at a particularly devout time of the year who crucified our Lord'.


Very interesting observation.

[Peter Farrington]

I've heard that while it is possible to avoid strict application of the letter of the cannons we are never allowed to go against the spirit of the cannon. Is that true?

Hi Scott

Yes, I think this is truer.

But some canons are difficult to understand. Why should it be bad to go to a Jewish barber? Nowadays that would surely just be plain anti-semitic? But in the past, in a particular context, it might have had value and meaning.

Should such a canon have any force today?

In what sense are canons provisional? Provisional does not mean useless, it means, applicable to a time and context.

I do sense that some want everything tied up all neatly. And it is part of my psychology that I have sometimes in the past wanted to compile a book of Coptic Orthodox canons, but that is because I tend to think that having such a book is the same as living the life.

I would suggest that many of the canons are for particular times, places and situations. It is for our bishops and priests to apply them, or not, to our own time, place and situation.

Best wishes

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

Truth does not change. God doesn't suddenly stop being a Trinity, nor does Christ stop being God. That the Theotokos is ever-virgin is not a question in the the mind of the Church. However, how we express that dogma in a particular cultural millieu might be different from how we express it in another. Does that constitute "change"?

As to canons, they are guides. It is no accident that the compilation of the canons is called "The Rudder". Sailors know that steering a ship is not like steering a car. In order to get the right effect, different amounts of rudder must be used, depending on wind, current, the size of the boat, the situation at hand. The same amount of rudder does not always have the same effect, compensations have to be made. If there is a strong current, more rudder might be necessary. If the wind is blowing a certain way, very little rudder has great effect. It takes a skilled hand to keep a ship on course. A guide, in the hand of an artisan, creates beauty. In the hands of a novice, it can create chaos.

Sometimes applying one particular canon in a particular circumstance is appropriate, but it may be too much or too little for another, different situation. That is why we have discerning bishops and do not try to apply the canons willy-nilly ourselves.

[Peter Farrington]

That's a perceptive post Herman, I agree very much.

If I could add another analogy, it is like tools, a hammer and chisel perhaps, in the hands of a master craftsman and in the hand of a bungler like myself. The tools are the same but their use and misuse cause completely different results.

The gift of the master craftsman is to know when the rules do not apply, not in applying them blindly.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

I do sense that some want everything tied up all neatly.

Yeah I'm one of those people I like everything to be black and white and go crazy untill I can figure everything out.

[Andreas Moran]

I never claimed I fasted strictly. All I have been trying to say is that if we fail to observe the canons (as you all think I do habitually, and as I know I do by my own estimation) we should accept that as failure and not seek or expect dispensation from them. I know soya milk is a bit of a cheat because it's a substitute but I have a weight problem and what I have is better than bread. I'm not a Copt, of course, but well done to all of you who manage better than I. The idea of not having breakfast (wonderful meaning!) or lunch on Wednesdays and Fridays - is that in the canons? They don't go to that extreme at the monastery in Essex.

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Andreas

As has been explained, the Byzantine and Coptic traditions are the same.

What is in question is not whether you personally fast strictly or not, which is none of my business, but your suggestion that the strict practice is easy.

As you will have seen from the posts the canons require that we do not eat anything till 3pm, then have only a small vegan meal.

I do not know why the monastery in Essex chooses not to use the strict application. My only experience is of Egyptian monasteries where the strict practice did seem to apply. The practice at the Essex monastery is I am sure a sensible application based on their own situation.

Best wishes

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

All I have been trying to say is that if we fail to observe the canons (as you all think I do habitually, and as I know I do by my own estimation) we should accept that as failure and not seek or expect dispensation from them.That is true to a point, however, we do well to remember how this thread originated. A young woman, new to the Faith, was asking if she should deny her husband who was NOT Orthodox during the Fast. This seems like a situation that is not explicitly covered by the Canons in the first place, and in the second place, a strict application by people who do not know the specifics of the situation might lead to the destruction of a marriage. Sometimes economia leads to healing while acriva leads to dispair. Sometimes a light hand is needed at the "rudder", and this particular instance sounds, to this simple mind, like it might be one of those times. At best, I hope the original poster has had access to wise, educated and discerning council and is not reliant on speculative internet debate.

[Maria Murray]

To return to the original question, I'd like to ask. If I want to follow all fasting rules, should I have an argument with my non-Orthodox husband when I want to follow this rule and he doesn't? That seems very wrong too. What do you think?

[Herman Blaydoe]

1 Corinthians 7:4-5 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 7:34 There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband.

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

[John Charmley]

To return to the original question, I'd like to ask. If I want to follow all fasting rules, should I have an argument with my non-Orthodox husband when I want to follow this rule and he doesn't? That seems very wrong too. What do you think?

Dear Maria,

The advice from my own priest was that for the sake of marital harmony I should exercise a certain 'economy' as necessary. His general view was that there are times in a mixed marriage when there is another form of obedience in not observing strictly Orthodox rules; there are, are he pointed out to me, other areas in which I can practice a discipline.

He would have agreed with Herman - and have been grateful for his texts.

I hope this helps a little; I do sympathise.

In Christ,

John

[Mary James]

I've been told that it is best to abstain from relations with your souse during fasting periods. However, if one person in that marriage can't handle that for a certain period of time, than it's better to break that abstaining so that person doesn't fall into another sin that has to do with sexual immorality outside of marriage.

It is very possible to abstain during the long fasts by keeping a constant guard over yourself, not eating too much but eating mostly dry foods, sleeping only 6-7 hrs and increasing your prayer rule a lot by the blessing of your spiritual Father. Easier said than done, right? lols.

[Father David Moser]

I've been told that it is best to abstain from relations with your souse during fasting periods.

I came across an old (as in centuries old) instruction to married priests clergy in Russia. (I'll have to dig it up and post a copy) They were instructed to abstain from marital relations on the day before and on the day of receiving the Holy Mysteries as well as during the first week of Lent, Holy Week and the two weeks of the Dormition Fast. This was the rule for clergy. It seems to me that this is a "doable" rule for nearly every married person, whether layman or clergy.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

I came across an old (as in centuries old) instruction to married priests clergy in Russia. (I'll have to dig it up and post a copy) They were instructed to abstain from marital relations on the day before and on the day of receiving the Holy Mysteries as well as during the first week of Lent, Holy Week and the two weeks of the Dormition Fast. This was the rule for clergy. It seems to me that this is a "doable" rule for nearly every married person, whether layman or clergy.

However did such laxity be voiced in Russia? It's certainly not the rule now.

[Nina]

I came across an old (as in centuries old) instruction to married priests clergy in Russia. (I'll have to dig it up and post a copy) They were instructed to abstain from marital relations on the day before and on the day of receiving the Holy Mysteries

I have heard that in older times the person who made Prosphora could not touch her husband three days prior to baking day. And in other traditionally Orthodox areas, most of the women brought a Prosphoron at church.

[Alice]

I came across an old (as in centuries old) instruction to married priests clergy in Russia. (I'll have to dig it up and post a copy) They were instructed to abstain from marital relations on the day before and on the day of receiving the Holy Mysteries as well as during the first week of Lent, Holy Week and the two weeks of the Dormition Fast. This was the rule for clergy. It seems to me that this is a "doable" rule for nearly every married person, whether layman or clergy.

Fr David Moser

Father Bless!

Definitely doable!

I am surprised that they forgot to mention Wednesdays and Fridays as well...after all, there are other days to the week, and such rules teach a couple chastity within marriage--teaching us to redirect our focus unto less earthly matters!

In Christ,
Alice

[Max Percy]

I came across an old (as in centuries old) instruction to married priests clergy in Russia. (I'll have to dig it up and post a copy) They were instructed to abstain from marital relations on the day before and on the day of receiving the Holy Mysteries as well as during the first week of Lent, Holy Week and the two weeks of the Dormition Fast. This was the rule for clergy. It seems to me that this is a "doable" rule for nearly every married person, whether layman or clergy.

Fr David Moser

I have wondered about this myself when there was Eucharist every day and these Russian priests had many children. I know there is a book on this subject by a woman whose last name is Lubin, I think.

For myself, I always chuckle about this topic as a married person with five children because it is such a non issue due to fatigue. Then I get slightly green with jealousy at all those who are enjoying marital relations way more than I am able to.

[Max Percy]

I have wondered about this myself when there was Eucharist every day and these Russian priests had many children. I know there is a book on this subject by a woman whose last name is Lubin, I think.

For myself, I always chuckle about this topic as a married person with five children because it is such a non issue due to fatigue. Then I get slightly green with jealousy at all those who are enjoying marital relations way more than I am able to.

Okay-

That was a thread killer.

I guess that was a bit TMI.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I remember a priest sharing the following story:

"When I was first ordained and assigned to my first parish as a young married priest, a couple of the older parishioners quickly pulled me aside with a nod and a wink and told me: 'you know Father, that you should not have marital relations on Sunday because of the Eucharist, nor on Saturday because you must prepare for Sunday. Monday is bad because of the angels and of course Wednesday and Friday are fasting days. Tuesday and Thursday evenings are bad because the new day starts at Vespers.' I said, "that is very interesting. Did you follow these rules yourselves?'. 'Oh no Father,' they replied, 'because we were young and foolish.'"

I suspect they were simply trying to avoid having to support a large priest's family....

[K. Venoutsakopoulos]

. . . hence my inclination to the Russians. After all, a canon that you don't have to follow is a contradiction in terms.

Hi Everyone,

May the Holy Spirit blanket us all and enlighten us.

This is my first posting and I would like to say as a Greek Orthodox Christian I am trying hard - as we are all trying hard, Greek or not - to make my Father proud of me in this life. I have attended Russian/Serbian/Macedonian Orthodox services in Australia - for various reasons on occassion and I attend a Greek Orthodox church every week with my family. I find that in any of these churches you will find many types of people..
1) Those that are there out of habit or to be seen or to catch up with friends
2) Those that are there to pray, repent and give thanks to The Lord and to be part of the Divine Liturgy.

I would hazard to say that there are some Russian Orthodox Christians who follow the canons of the Church better than some Greek Orthodox Christians and Vise Versa! Let us not generalize like this because I try my hardest to follow the canons to the tee.

Yours in Christ
Katina

[Nina]

I read -and can't recall where- that it is not allowed also for lay people to have marital relations on Sunday after Liturgy. Is this correct?

[Andreas Moran]

I read -and can't recall where- that it is not allowed also for lay people to have marital relations on Sunday after Liturgy. Is this correct?

That's what I was told, and indeed 'never on Sunday' at all.

[Nina]

That's what I was told, and indeed 'never on Sunday' at all.

Why not? Any Patristic/canonical reasons? Is Sunday after Vespers, Monday?

[Andreas Moran]

Originally Posted by Andreas Moran
That's what I was told, and indeed 'never on Sunday' at all.

Why not? Any Patristic/canonical reasons? Is Sunday after Vespers, Monday?

It's what Bishop Eirenaios told me - I didn't ask him why. I suppose it's because Sunday is a 'little Pascha' and I suppose we don't have marital relations on Pascha. Maybe the Fathers here can comment. To widen the point from marital relations to ascetic practice generally, it's worth recalling that Russians don't eat meat on the day they have Holy Communion - indeed, some fast for that day as they did the day before. Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) has written that ascetic practice is necessary after as well as before Holy Communion by way of respect for what we have consumed and in order to preserve grace.

[Michael Stickles]

Is Sunday after Vespers, Monday?

As regards abstaining from marital relations, I've seen conflicting statements on this. Every source I've read speaks of abstaining the night before partaking of Holy Communion; many speak of abstaining on Sunday after receiving Communion; but only a couple specified whether Sunday night (liturgically Monday) is included - and those sources did not agree. For a few others I thought I could infer their position from their choice of phrasing, and there were differences in those sources also.

I gave up trying to figure it out and just asked our priest.

In Christ,
Michael

[Andreas Moran]

I was taught that though the liturgical day starts at 6pm, fasting runs midnight to midnight.

[Michael Stickles]

I was taught that though the liturgical day starts at 6pm, fasting runs midnight to midnight.

This was another one where, back when I was searching for information on fasting, the sources I found were not in agreement. An article on orthodoxinfo.com (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/fast_timing.aspx) specified midnight-to-midnight; the Italo-Greek Orthodox Church's fasting rules (http://igoarch.org/index.php?view=article&catid=112%3Afasting-&id=111%3Afasting-rules-of-the-italo-greek-orthodox-church&option=com_content&Itemid=143) prescribed Vespers-to-Vespers; and the vast majority of online sources I looked at did not specify one or the other. The one thing most every source agreed on was that (regarding fasting in general) "Neither in ancient nor in modern times has there ever been exact uniformity..." (from the OCA page on fasting rules (http://www.oca.org/OCFasting.asp?SID=2)).

When I checked with our priest about whether we should consider a day for fasting purposes as being the "clock" day (midnight to midnight) or the liturgical day, his response was "as long as you are consistent for 24 hours". Of course, that could have had less to do with traditional Orthodox practice, and more to do with not wanting the new converts to overburden themselves with rules.

Even if midnight-to-midnight is more proper for most fasting purposes, I'm not sure if that would necessarily apply to the marital fast around Holy Communion. I was taught that abstinence was prescribed the night before, but not the previous morning; so, the Saturday portion of the fast would not conform to the midnight-to-midnight cycle.

In Christ,
Michael

[Nina]

I gave up trying to figure it out and just asked our priest.

In Christ,
Michael

Yes that is the best dear Michael since our spiritual father knows our strengths and weaknesses and especially in delicate matters like this one.

[Father David Moser]

This was another one where, back when I was searching for information on fasting, the sources I found were not in agreement. An article on orthodoxinfo.com (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/fast_timing.aspx) specified midnight-to-midnight; the Italo-Greek Orthodox Church's fasting rules (http://igoarch.org/index.php?view=article&catid=112%3Afasting-&id=111%3Afasting-rules-of-the-italo-greek-orthodox-church&option=com_content&Itemid=143) prescribed Vespers-to-Vespers; and the vast majority of online sources I looked at did not specify one or the other. The one thing most every source agreed on was that (regarding fasting in general) "Neither in ancient nor in modern times has there ever been exact uniformity..." (from the OCA page on fasting rules (http://www.oca.org/OCFasting.asp?SID=2)).

Of all the "options" that are out there, I have found that "sleep to sleep" works best. IOW you begin the fast when you retire for the night and end the fast when you retire for the night on the next day.

The "vespers to vespers" thing is always prone to manipulation - even if you are going to be the strictest follower of the clock, something always comes up. I would suggest this only if you are in a place where there are daily services and you attend vespers each and every day and your meals are consistently either before or after the service. That is the only way that "vespers to vespers" works. Midnight to midnight is a little better, but then there is always the binge eating that happens from 11:30 until midnight. And if you don't happen to have a clock handy, how do you know when it is midnight. Sleep to sleep is the most natural and the easiest way to handle this.

Fr David Moser

[Paul Cowan]

Midnight to midnight is a little better, but then there is always the binge eating that happens from 11:30 until midnight. And if you don't happen to have a clock handy, how do you know when it is midnight. Sleep to sleep is the most natural and the easiest way to handle this.

Fr David Moser

OK, Fr. David, Where is the camera? Did you put it in my fridge or is it behind the plates in the cupboard? I hate fast days only because I know I can't have something, I want it more and end up gorging on what I am allowed to have. This has nothing to do with marital relations but food is my biggest enemy. Well , maybe my stomach is. Or maybe my brain, well at any rate; I am my biggest enemy. I like the sleep to sleep format.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

Sleep to sleep is the most natural and the easiest way to handle this.

I like this idea - then you feel neither guilt at failing to watch the clock nor pride at having watched it successfully!

[M.C. Steenberg]

I was taught that though the liturgical day starts at 6pm, fasting runs midnight to midnight.
This is very much a local custom, rather than a norm. On this whole matter, we have one of the least normalised norms in the Church. I've seen every conceivable, imaginable practice. But the resounding guidance I've heard over and again, is that the pattern kept should be consistent. If fasting is to end in the evening, it should begin in the evening; if it is to end at a given hour, then it should begin at the same hour. Etc.

[Nina]

My spiritual father said we can't have marital relations before receiving Holy Communion. I can't ask him right now since he has been busy, so I would like to know does that "before" imply that to receive Holy Communion on Sunday we can't have martial relations during the entire day on Saturday, or just after 6PM on Saturday?

[Andreas Moran]

Fasting before Holy Communion is a tricky one - there are so many variants . Some Russians fast (including abstaining from marital relations) for a week before partaking but that's because they partake infrequently. Others for three days. I was told not to do anything unusual because most people don't fast properly anyway, and so just to follow the Church's minimum is more than most do. As to food, this meant eating normally until midday Saturday but to take fasting food thereafter. Friday is normally a fast day anyway, so I would have thought that to fast from marital relations Friday and Saturday would be good. I have found that it helps to think well before hand, 'how will I feel when I approach the chalice?' But this is just personal opinion: you need to ask your priest.

[Nina]

Fasting before Holy Communion is a tricky one - there are so many variants . Some Russians fast (including abstaining from marital relations) for a week before partaking but that's because they partake infrequently. Others for three days. I was told not to do anything unusual because most people don't fast properly anyway, and so just to follow the Church's minimum is more than most do. As to food, this meant eating normally until midday Saturday but to take fasting food thereafter. Friday is normally a fast day anyway, so I would have thought that to fast from marital relations Friday and Saturday would be good. I have found that it helps to think well before hand, 'how will I feel when I approach the chalice?' But this is just personal opinion: you need to ask your priest.

I have asked my SF (and it was not matter of food but marital relations). And I will ask him again for the exact times before since he told me only one day before receiving. Just wanted to know if the one day is like 24 hours before 11 on Sunday, or the entire Saturday, or from 6PM Saturday. Anyway I better ask him.

[Paul Cowan]

Rules and regulations are great for their purpose, but watch out for the legalism that slips in. Most people fast from sleep to sleep, so I would assume all "fasting" is the same. If your Fast cycle is sundown to sundown, so be it. I have a hard time watching the clock at 5:59pm so I use bedtime as my rule.

Paul

[D. W. Dickens]

This thread is very helpful. As a new convert it is good to see the ins-and-outs of the pastoral work of the Church.

It seems to me that this is both an opportunity and a hazard of the Internet. As much that has been private (a priest's pastoral advice) is now openly and widely discussed outside not just the immediate parish community but around the globe... we can see a great wealth of wisdom and appreciate the great burden our spiritual fathers carry in attempting to discern these things for our salvation.

Everyone should pray for their priests in this time of much information, but often little wisdom!

For my wife and I, such abstinence isn't much of a burden (it helps that she's pregnant *grin*), but in the fast itself, in humility and repentance most of all, we are weak.

[Alice]

I have asked my SF (and it was not matter of food but marital relations). And I will ask him again for the exact times before since he told me only one day before receiving. Just wanted to know if the one day is like 24 hours before 11 on Sunday, or the entire Saturday, or from 6PM Saturday. Anyway I better ask him.

Dearest Nina,

I have always understood that abstaining for Holy Communion on Saturday should be for the whole day...ditto for Sundays when having received Holy Communion...

If one receives every or most Sundays as per their spiritual father's rule, then they also will, most likely, be fasting and abstaining from sexual relations on the fast days of Wednesday and Friday, so--that leaves just Monday, Tuesday and Thursday for marital relations! (Except ofcourse during Fasting periods such as Lent, etc.)

That is why one hears the joke about this being 'Orthodox birth control' in some circles!! *wink*

Fondly,
In Christ,
Alice :)

[Nina]

Ok, ok. Sorry... it is my fault for asking. Since all cases are different and I have different rules from my SF. I did not think of it.

[Alice]

Ok, ok. Sorry... it is my fault for asking. Since all cases are different and I have different rules from my SF. I did not think of it.


This is the beauty of Orthodoxy. One's spiritual father knows what he can prescribe to each individual for the good of their soul and according to their needs and struggles! Sorry if I scared you! *EEK*

(I admit, the above generalized rule is not all that appealing for newlyweds!! You can't help but giggle at the joke converts have of the generalized rule as being 'Orthodox birth control' though...)

Love,
Alice

[Herman Blaydoe]

A priest-friend once shared an amusing anecdote. When he reported to his first parish as a newly-ordained and relatively newly-married young priest, a trio of older women pulled him aside. They asked him in hushed tones if he knew the rules concerning marital relations. He said he believed so but they decided to "fill him in" anyway. They said, "You know that you must abstain on Sunday because that is the day of the Eucharist." Father responded, "Of course!" They said "And you know that Saturday is the day of preparation, so you should abstain that day as well. And of course Wednesday and Friday are Fasting days. And remember that on Monday you should abstain 'for the angels', and Tuesdays and Thursdays are out because they are days of preparation for the fasts." The Father said, "That is very interesting, did you follow these rules?" They replied, almost as one: "Oh no Father, because we were young and foolish..."

Herman the not-so-young but still foolish Pooh

[Alice]

A priest-friend once shared an amusing anecdote. When he reported to his first parish as a newly-ordained and relatively newly-married young priest, a trio of older women pulled him aside. They asked him in hushed tones if he knew the rules concerning marital relations. He said he believed so but they decided to "fill him in" anyway. They said, "You know that you must abstain on Sunday because that is the day of the Eucharist." Father responded, "Of course!" They said "And you know that Saturday is the day of preparation, so you should abstain that day as well. And of course Wednesday and Friday are Fasting days. And remember that on Monday you should abstain 'for the angels', and Tuesdays and Thursdays are out because they are days of preparation for the fasts." The Father said, "That is very interesting, did you follow these rules?" They replied, almost as one: "Oh no Father, because we were young and foolish..."

Herman the not-so-young but still foolish Pooh

LOL!! :-)
That is very cute!

[Michael 'Anthony' Cornett]

In regards to marital abstinence, I have heard all days of normal fast (Wed & Fri, unless it's an extended fast), as well as Saturday before receiving communion, and 24hrs after receiving communion to preserve. Unless I misheard him, I also heard from Wednesday THROUGH Sunday...This didn't seem normal, and I haven't heard of any canons that recommend this...Has anyone ever heard of such a recommendation?

[Michael Stickles]

In regards to marital abstinence, I have heard all days of normal fast (Wed & Fri, unless it's an extended fast), as well as Saturday before receiving communion, and 24hrs after receiving communion to preserve. Unless I misheard him, I also heard from Wednesday THROUGH Sunday...This didn't seem normal, and I haven't heard of any canons that recommend this...Has anyone ever heard of such a recommendation?

I believe so, although I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details. Basically, what I had heard is that the length of the marital fast before communion varies depending upon the frequency of communion. The less frequently one communes, the longer the fast. Just Saturday (or just Saturday evening) would be for those who commune weekly, or almost weekly; I think that for those who commune only four times per year, it was four days (so, starting on Wednesday). I never checked that with anyone who practices infrequent communion - maybe if anyone else knows for sure, they can confirm or correct me on that.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael 'Anthony' Cornett]

So the Thursday thing isn't on anyone's radar?

[Michael Albert]

So the Thursday thing isn't on anyone's radar?
I have also been taught that Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are the non fasting days for marital relations (With obvious exceptions regarding Lent and feast days). But I have another question.

Are their any guidelines about not having marital relations on the day that you receive the Mystery of Reconciliation--being that it is a Mystery (Sacrament) of the Church?

[Michael Stickles]

Are their any guidelines about not having marital relations on the day that you receive the Mystery of Reconciliation--being that it is a Mystery (Sacrament) of the Church?

I have never heard of nor read about any such guidelines.

[Mark Harris]

in Romania if you follow Wednesday and Friday fasting (or any other fasting such as now ) this is also inclusive of abstaining from marital relations. v tough all round!

[Stavrus]

With respect to all of you, I don't see a problem in this issue. Take it easy.
Stavrus

[John Konstantin]

As someone un-married I am wholly unqualified to add anything to the above debate apart from the sin of jealousy. I would love to have your problems.

[Stavrus]

I think that God does not care for these relationships, and such relationships do not prevent fasting. It is some thing natural and needed for the human natural especially when we put into consideration the long times of fasting i. e. 40 days for the Nativity Feast and 40 for the Pascha, 15 days for the 15 Aug. etc.

[Kusanagi]

But if practising of fasting you would get used to it and not struggle so much even to abstain from marital relations during the long fasts. My spiritual father who advised me who is Greek said during the fast shouldn't be just fasting from food, but also from TV, radio, games, the internet (which i am failing now :) ), newspapers, as these are many distractions that takes your mind off the purpose of fasting and it's aim to focus more on God.

[John Konstantin]

Well for all of you fasting from marital relations what a blessing it is for you. You get to appreciate the great gift you enjoy that the un-married do not. Stop complaining! :)

[Paul Cowan]

There are so many things I would like to say in response to that Sbdcn John. But let me ask which great gift are you referring? The gift of sex (lets call it what it is shall we) with my spouse or the gift of abstaining from sex during fasts?

Sounds like you are "itching" to get married as St. Paul recommends. St. Paul said, "I wish all men were as I am". Yet both are blessed by God. He also says let the two separate for a time but to come back together so as not to be tempted. Monastics hold the high water mark. We are to strive not to "miss the mark". We all miss the mark. Very few of us are monastics and (pssst, come closer) they miss the mark too.

Abstinence is a beautiful thing once you accept it as a way of life. Or rather, the way life will be. Its a mind over sex (matter) thing. We will only be temtped as much as we are allowed to be or are given to it.

Paul

[John Konstantin]

Dear Paul I can assure you I am not itching in any direction. But thank you for your concern. I merely point out that for those entitled to sex as you so beautifully put it are only asked to refrain temporarily. The young, un-married, widowed, monastics and others I am sure, don't even have the opportunity,either by calling or situation to have a choice. And therefore to hear those that do have a choice bemoan their pridicament, rather rings hollow.

[Paul Cowan]

Yes, i hear you. Believe me I do. Once the tastes of the flesh is sweet to the tongue, it is hard not to crave that delight (whatever that delight may be). I would like to think for a monastic who has a taste of a really good brisket (for example only becuase I am partial to good BBQ as many here know) that this taste of "the flesh" becomes difficult for them not to dwell upon. Especially if it is Texas brisket. But that is another thread. Or perhaps growing up they enjoyed 8+ hours sleep every day. Now they only may get 4 hours uninterrupted sleep. How they may long to be able to "sleep in" and on a soft bed.

This thread is focused on sex. It could just as easily be focused on any other fleshly delights. Sex has become so pervasive in our society, you can see how many people read this thread in the thread count. It is rather out of balance I dare say just becuase of the title. I would never dare to think anyone does not follow the fast to the letter. That is anyone except me. I regularly "miss the mark" when it comes to fasting. I am eating, I mean feasting, as I type this. Am I hungry? no. Have I done my evening prayers? no. I didn't eat turkey for Thanksgiving this year. That's a step in the right direction I suppose.

Paul