Why are there carnivores?

[Paul]

Why are there carnivores?

I've been watching this video that was caught on camcorder, of the lions attacking the buffalo.

Buffalo are herbervores, but why aren't lions and why aren't we.

It seems the more cruel to have to kill, to take another animals life for your food.
When nature provides in herbs and vegetables without the need for anyone to be killed or suffer or fear.

It seems in the garden of Eden that that may have been the original case.
But why did God later allow meat eating?

I think it wrong to judge people and maybe even species for eating meat, it's what many do with no thought.
Maybe animals could be tamed to be vegetarians.

I think in lands maybe where there is droughts, how can they grow crops, what else can be done but to eat animals.
After the flood, I doubt vegetation could have been grown for a while, so they would have to eat animals wouldn't they?

I know it's part of most of our cultures, and seems a natural diet of some animals.
But why, is this a cause of the fall?

But why did God permit this?

I can't see it exactly right, and can't see it exactly an evil someone commits to eat meat.

Anyone have any answers on this from the Church Fathers?

Thanks.
In Love.
Paul.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

St Basil the Great in his On the Origin of Man writes:


God did not say: 'I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.' It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise.

What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation, and herbs [are given]...We see however, many wild animals who do not eat fruits. What fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of nature, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods: 'Eat all that in the same way as edible plants '(Gen 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them.

...Nature had not yet divided, for it was in all its freshness; the hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores.

Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with regard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.


There is also an active and ongoing oral tradition within Orthodox monasticism which still teaches the same things. Thus the monastic fast which involves no meat is seen as a partial return to that state of Paradise.

Many of the great monastic saints who practiced a very high degree of fasting ate no animal flesh of any sort.

Starets Silouan would weep if a tree branch was inadvertently broken.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kusanagi]

Man was created to eat herbs and every green thing as commanded by God.
We started eating meat as another commandment after the flood as there was a lack of food and I am guessing that was given to the animals too.
Abstaining from meat he says is to going back to how we were created to eating just plants.

[Paul Cowan]

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.


I don't know that this is so much from a lack of food since the dove returned with an olive branch in it's beak. There must have been foliage on the earth. Perhaps this was a divine condenscension since HE was to require animal sacrifices to atone for our sins? Perhaps He knew we would eat the sacrifice if left to our own devices anyway?

Paul

[Paul]

Would they have grown vegetables on the Ark, also, somehow?

The video I was talking about that drove my mind to this is entitled the battle of kruger on Youtube, I saw a clip of it on the news.

It seems lions start feeding on Buffalo alive.
I watched a couple of other videos of it on youtube, and the lions don't kill them but start feeding on them when they are still alive.

Does anyone know if this is common with lions, or is this something new?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Would they have grown vegetables on the Ark, also, somehow?

I'm not sure. The alternative however apart from eggs from the chickens and milk from the cows, would have been to cook and eat your fellow inhabitants of the Ark.

This would have been one solution to the problem of food supply during the 40 days. (Kind of like Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal).

But the result may have been no animals left to repopulate the earth after the Flood!

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: Stay tuned for further profound thoughts from myself.

[Andreas Moran]

We've touched on this before somewhere, but would it not be beneficial for all practising Orthodox Christians to abstain from eating meat?

[Kris]

We've touched on this before somewhere, but would it not be beneficial for all practising Orthodox Christians to abstain from eating meat?

Then what of this?

"If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the Church. Let a layman be treated similarly." Apostolic Canon 51

[Andreas Moran]

Yes, I know about that canon. But what does 'out of an abhorrence thereof' mean? How can compassion for sentient animals be wrong? And is it possible that such compassion and mortification are two sides of the same coin? I only know that I could not look at a lamb in a field, go up to it, kill it, skin it, butcher it, roast it and eat it. And if I can't do it, why should I rely on somebody else to do it for me? But I wholeheartedly agree with not abstaining from wine so I'm not entirely in breach of this canon!

[Father David Moser]

sentient animals

I think I understand your comments in the way that you meant them - however I wanted to point out that the above category does not exist. An animal is not sentient (if by sentient we mean "self aware" in the way that mankind is aware of himself). Sentience is a function of the spirit which animals do not possess - only mankind was given a spirit as part of his creation. The spirit is that element which makes our soul immortal, capable of union with God, like God, in the image of God. Animals do not have a spirit - their soul is mortal - thus an animal cannot be sentient.

Now, if by sentient, you mean "rational" or "reasoning" - well then that's different, however, that is not the usual meaning of sentient (at least as I am familiar with the word). If this were the case then computers would be sentient superbeings (at least from our perspective) because of their ability to "reason" at an accelerated rate and their hyper-rational nature.

Yes, yes this is all sophistry and wordplay, I know, but we do have to be careful about how we express such things because even such a small and seemingly meaningless turn of phrase may lead to grievous error.

Fr David Moser

[Paul Cowan]

I only know that I could not look at a lamb in a field, go up to it, kill it, skin it, butcher it, roast it and eat it.

Dogs today are more household pets than the work animals they were bred to be. Yes, there are still sheep dogs out there, but I dare say a chihuahua is not a work animal.

Many people own horses for the pleasure of the ride. Few still use horses as work animals. (at least in this country).

That said, the mentality of times of old was to use animals for thier purpose, work or food, not as pets. Humans (at least in my house) seem to humanize animals making them cute furry little people. They are not. They are animals that use instinct to survive.

As Fr. David said they reason and problem solve, but this does not make them self aware. My pet dog knows how to get the ball I hid from him. He does not know that he is a dog.

Paul

[Andrew]

Would they have grown vegetables on the Ark, also, somehow?


I think I read somewhere that hydroponic growing was engineered by English sailors with green thumbs. When out at sea they'd bring flowers with them and keep the roots soaked in nutrient rich water. I don't know if this is true, but if it is then I don't see how this couldn't have been the case in the time of Noah.

[Andreas Moran]

Yes, of course, I meant 'sentient' in the second sense mentioned by Father David. My Chambers's dictionary defines 'sentient' as 'conscious, capable of sensation'. Etimology is from Latin, 'sentiens', to feel. As a lawyer, I know only too well the importance of accuracy in the use of words!

As to Paul's post, I was not making out a case for the sentimental regard for animals or their use as pets - I don't have any pets. There are many stories of Holy Fathers (St Petroc, St Cuthbert, St Seraphim, and many others) and their kindness towards animals, and one Father said he was worse than a dog because a dog loves (yes, loves) and does not judge. A bird did a prostration before St Cuthbert, we are told, and otters came to warm his feet after he had stood in the sea praying. Elder Paisios was angry with a visitor to him who, on the way, killed a snake the Elder described as his friend. The trust some animals have in humans may flow from instinct but it is trust nonetheless. I just think that the slaughter of animals for food is a kind of violence which sits ill with the spiritual life. Is this view to be condemned?

[Kusanagi]

Acts 10:11

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. (1 Corinthians 10:33-35)

For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:2-4)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I just think that the slaughter of animals for food is a kind of violence which sits ill with the spiritual life. Is this view to be condemned?

I think there is some of this attitude mainly within the monastic understanding of refraining from eat.

At times the verse from Gen 9:2 is cited: "And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given." Thus the eating of meat is seen as being a result of the falleness of man.

Of course though discernment is needed. Monastics do after all eat fish and shell fish which is a sentient form of life in the way you speak of it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

One can wonder how far to take this, but I think of fish and shellfish differently from lambs and pigs. Having said that, I don't like the idea of dropping live lobsters and crabs into boiling water. Our Lord ate fish for sure. Did He eat meat???

[Father David Moser]

One can wonder how far to take this, but I think of fish and shellfish differently from lambs and pigs.

You are actually in good company. St Basil the great makes a very great distinction between the "cold blooded" nature of the fish and the "warm blooded" nature of the land animals stating that the soul of the cold blooded creatures is of an inferior nature (although he doesn't go into great detail about how they are inferior). Also shellfish, which have no discernable blood, could be said to not be "animals" at all, but rather plants (not in the biological sense, but in the spiritual sense as the soul is closely identified with the blood by St Basil). This is how I understand the fact that shell fish are permitted to be eaten during the fast and that fish is sometimes permitted while "meat" is not.

Fr David Moser

[Herman Blaydoe]

Did He eat meat?

I think it is a reasonable asumption that He did. The New Testament records that Jesus did eat the Passover feast (see Luke 22:7-13).

What was the Passover Feast? It certainly included lamb.

". . . observe the Passover to the LORD. 'In the second month on the fourteenth day at twilight, they shall observe it; they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 'They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statute of the Passover they shall observe it. 'But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and yet neglects to observe the Passover, that person shall then be cut off from his people, for he did not present the offering of the LORD at its appointed time. That man will bear his sin. (Numbers 9:10-13).

If our Lord did not observe the Passover, how could He have kept the Law?

We also know that the earthly guardians of the child Jesus offered the prescribed animal sacrifices on His behalf. Whether or not He actually ate thereof, the animals in question did not survive the rite.

He also seems to believe that killing a fatted calf is a fitting way to celebrate the return of the prodigal son.

[Andreas Moran]

Food for thought! I'm happy to be in the company of St Basil! I do think of the penultimate line in the Psalms: 'Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord'. Does that include 'everything that hath breath'? If so, do we then kill and eat what hath praised the Lord?

[Kris]

I do think of the penultimate line in the Psalms: 'Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord'. Does that include 'everything that hath breath'? If so, do we then kill and eat what hath praised the Lord?

The Book of Daniel likewise says "O all ye things that grow in the earth, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever."

[Father David Moser]

the proscribed animal sacrifices ...

Pet peeve alert
Picky note on spelling (but one which could have enormous consequences)

proscribed = outside the bounds, prohibited
prescribed = expected, demanded, recommended

Fr David Moser

[Kusanagi]

I would also like to add that St Basil of Poiana Marului said that when God feeds his people it is never meat. Usually bread or fish. As in the examples of Prophet Elijah, St Paul the first Hermit, St Onuphurios.
Fish - a simple monk on Athos stretched out his hands and ask God for fish and he received a big fish.

[Katerina]

Wow, this thread has certainly given me a lot chew on (pardon the pun!) :-)

I often think as to why people have taken animals into their homes as "pets", when all I have ever remembered from grandmothers from the old country was that they always lived outside the home, in barns, in the yard, didn't have special foods etc. They ate scraps and were healthy, they served a purpose to man like horses, cows, and the like. Nowadays, we have special pet foods and animals have diseases we have not seen before. Could it be because they have gone way off the scale as to what God meant them all to be for us? Society "humanized" them, and this leads people to have the attitude that animals "understand" us better than people! (when we should be turning to God for that understanding and fulfillment.) This may be why we have so many organizations dedicated to saving animals (I know of course, that there should not be abuse to anything God created but some of these organizations go above and beyond, and the ordinary human takes a back seat to the animal in some cases, KWIM?).

There are so many species of animals God created, and they all have a different place and use in nature. Some are food for others, while still others eat plants or bugs, and I think God intended for all this to be a sort of balance in His earthly world. My thinking is that as in everything we have been taught by the Holy Fathers in our Orthodox faith, we should be "moderate" in all things. This includes eating meat, no? I never even really gave a thought growing up, about eating/not eating meat. I just thought it was a normal part of the good things God gave us for food on this earth, along with herbs and seeds and greens etc., and that lent was given to us mortals for furthering our spiritual lives and helping us to repentence during this struggle....does it make sense that not eating meat, and lenting is akin to "if we didn't know evil (I don't know if what I am trying to say will come out clearly- sometimes my words don't explain fully what I mean!) how would we know what good is"? Lenting from meat and animal byproducts helps us to "rest" from the passions that meat and those types of food can bring out in us, and focus on more spiritual, inward movements of our soul. Does this make any sense, or is it just the muddled thoughts in my simple brain? I figure that lenting is giving us the right "balance" we need as Orthodox living in the world.

I also remember something about dogs in particular, being animals that are "dirty". If a dog enters into a church, Services are immediately suspended if they are going on, and the church MUST be blessed again. I know of this happening in my own childhood parish a few years back. If so, wouldn't that then be consistent in saying that animals need to be in their proper place, and we shouldn't make them our revered pets the way we have in our society nowadays? Animals are instinctual, and they seemingly do the "right" thing because they do not really know there is a "wrong" thing, while we as humans do. We have a will, they do not. Which is why we are ultimately all right in thinking that God gave us animals as work helpers, and yet other animal species as food for us.


Hopefully I have not strayed too far off topic, and that you understand what my thoughts are about. Forgive me if they are quite jumbled!

In IC XC,
Katerina

[Herman Blaydoe]

I would also like to add that St Basil of Poiana Marului said that when God feeds his people it is never meat.

Sorry, but not QUITE true...I believe quail is considered meat.

“I have heard the complaints of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. And you shall know that I am the LORD your God.’” (Exodus 16:12)

[Kusanagi]

Sorry, but not QUITE true...I believe quail is considered meat.

“I have heard the complaints of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. And you shall know that I am the LORD your God.’” (Exodus 16:12)

the whole passage i have is:

11 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “I have heard the complaints of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread. And you shall know that I am the LORD your God.’”
13 So it was that quails came up at evening and covered the camp, and in the morning the dew lay all around the camp. 14 And when the layer of dew lifted, there, on the surface of the wilderness, was a small round substance, as fine as frost on the ground. 15 So when the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.
And Moses said to them, “This is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat. 16 This is the thing which the LORD has commanded: ‘Let every man gather it according to each one’s need, one omer for each person, according to the number of persons; let every man take for those who are in his tent.’”
17 Then the children of Israel did so and gathered, some more, some less. 18 So when they measured it by omers, he who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack. Every man had gathered according to each one’s need. 19 And Moses said, “Let no one leave any of it till morning.” 20 Notwithstanding they did not heed Moses. But some of them left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and stank. And Moses was angry with them. 21 So they gathered it every morning, every man according to his need. And when the sun became hot, it melted.
22 And so it was, on the sixth day, that they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. And all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23 Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.’” 24 So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. 25 Then Moses said, “Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none.”

---------------

From what I understood they only ate Bread unless i misread it somewhere and I think like the Orthodox New testament bible the word meat does not actually refer to the flesh but to food in general.

[Father David Moser]

I would also like to add that St Basil of Poiana Marului said that when God feeds his people it is never meat. Usually bread or fish.

Not to contradict a saint - however what about the time when God fed the Hebrew people in the wilderness by raining quail (poultry) down upon them?

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

I do not understand... why can't we eat meat when we all know the story of Saul/Paul from the NT?

[Herman Blaydoe]

From what I understood they only ate Bread unless i misread it somewhere and I think like the Orthodox New testament bible the word meat does not actually refer to the flesh but to food in general.

Read it again. It specifically says "...meat at twilight..." (evening) and "...bread at morning..." The quails came in the evening, and the bread (manna) arrived with the morning dew. And generally speaking, bread does not necessarily STINK as it rots, but meat certainly will. You might want to check out Numbers Chapter 11 as well.

[Father David Moser]

I do not understand... why can't we eat meat when we all know the story of Saul/Paul from the NT?

To which story about the Holy Apostle Paul do you refer? Are you possibly thinking of the vision given to the Apostle Peter in which he was shown a multitude of animals and told to "kill and eat"?

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

To which story about the Holy Apostle Paul do you refer? Are you possibly thinking of the vision given to the Apostle Peter in which he was shown a multitude of animals and told to "kill and eat"?

Fr David Moser

I need my 'blush' smiley here. Yes, Father, you are right. It was the story about Apostle Peter and Cornelius.

[Herman Blaydoe]

If you do not want to eat meat, then there is nothing to say you have to eat meat. But if your brother thinks that PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals, then it is not right according to Holy Scripture to judge him, or so it seems to this simple mind.

[Kusanagi]

St Basil of Poiana Marului says of old God sent manna but in the new to his saints he sends fish, wine and bread.
Jesus performing the miracles of the loaves and fishes, no meat was involved.

Meat was allowed to be eaten out of our weaknesses and St Basil the Great said during the 40 years in the desert those that wanted meat died as they seeked after it and was not satisfied with the manna from heaven.

Also meat was abstained for the reason that it feeds the passions.
But there is no canonical law forbidding eating of meat.

[Father David Moser]

St Basil of Poiana Marului says of old God sent manna but in the new to his saints he sends fish, wine and bread.
Jesus performing the miracles of the loaves and fishes, no meat was involved.

Is St Basil simply making a connection of the various miraculous provision by God for the people in various times (which is quite prevalent in the fathers in that all of these miracles lead us to the Holy Mysteries) or is St Basil actually saying that the eating of meat is not sanctioned by God. I'm very curious as to the context of these remarks by Basil of Poiana Marului. Also were these remarks made to monastics about the monastic life - or were they general pastoral remarks to monastics and laymen alike - or were they doctrinal statements?


Meat was allowed to be eaten out of our weaknesses

Context is king here - who said this and in what context??


and St Basil the Great said during the 40 years in the desert those that wanted meat died as they seeked after it and was not satisfied with the manna from heaven.

Ah yes, but does St Basil say that this is a general principle about the eating of meat or was he making a comment about being content with what God provides. I do not see that St Basil draws the conclusion that you seem to want to indicate here.


Also meat was abstained for the reason that it feeds the passions.

This is true - however, that does not imply that eating meat is a concession to our weakness or an inferior spiritual practice.


But there is no canonical law forbidding eating of meat.

Of course not.

Until the time of Noah there is no indication that the diet of Eden had been altered. In Genesis 3:17-19 we are told that God said to Adam:

... and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth...

There is no mention here of eating meat - not until Noah was the eating of meat sanctioned by God as it says in Gen 9:3


And every living thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you:

This is God's instruction to Noah after he exited the ark. Now Noah was no spiritual "slouch" and in fact was the only righteous one to be found upon the earth. Surely if God were inclined against the eating of meat he would not have started Noah out as the first person to be given the animals (every living thing that moves and lives) as food and to eat meat. Remember Noah and his sons were God's "restart" of humanity. So I don't see how this giving of the animals to Noah as food can be construed as God's concession to our "weakness" for Noah "found grace before the Lord ... a just and perfect man ... he walked with God" (Gen 6:8-9).

It may well be that abstinence from eating meat has spiritual benefits - that is pretty much an established fact - but there is no indication that a meatless diet/vegetarian lifestyle is "preferred by God" or that it is necessarily a more spiritual path.

Fr David Moser

[Paul Cowan]

In my heart of hearts, I had no qualms eating my roast beef sandwich with swiss on toasted white bread tonight for dinner. I also partook of macaroni and cheese. Both cheeses from cows made with animal renent. Oh yeah, and the chocolate milk was from the brown cows in the northwest Panhandle of Texas. (They give the best chocolate milk in the state.)

If God sees the heart (and He does), He knows I did not eat it out of disrespect. As a matter of fact, I am very careful and particular how I prepare the food He provides for me.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

Anyone been to an abattoir?

[Katerina]

Never been to an abattoir, but I've been in the meat district of NYC, and read the absolute horrors of one! I read a novel all about the slaughtering of animals for marketing and consumption...suffice it to say for a good while, I didn't partake.

I now eat local grass fed meat (no cruelty, no antibiotics or hormones).

There are always horrors in this world, no matter where you turn. I daresay this is not enough to say you won't ever eat meat because of this...unless of course, you are Hindu where sacred cows wander the streets of Calcutta...

[Andreas Moran]

Not long ago, there was a TV programme about the training of soldiers. To toughen them up, a small group was taken to the local abattoir. One trooper fainted, two were sick (and that's in England - what about other countries' slaughtering practices?). I think the link is lost between a tasty bacon sandwich (which I miss), steaks and sausages, and their origins.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've enjoyed reading the posts in this thread from the past few days. I must say that I've a great deal of respect for Andreas' question, and look forward to further discussions about the topic.

A few things to bear in mind:

Firstly, there is a difference between abstaining from something (like meat) 'out of abhorrance of it' - which is the language used in the canon mentioned earlier in this thread - and abstaining for cause of concern, care, love, compassion, ascetic growth, etc. The canon condemns the abstaining of several things on grounds of an 'abhorrance', indicating above all a (wrong) belief that such a thing is intrinsically wrong or evil (this canon is most often quoted in reference to marriage and/or sexual relations, against those who argue that all such are evil). The point of the canon is that what God creates cannot be abhorred as evil, since God creates only the good. An so the apostolic canon:
'If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the Church. Let a layman be treated similarly.'
The focus of the canon is clearly on the 'blasphemous misrepresentation of God's work of creation', rather than on the simple act of abstaining. In point of fact, the canon explicitly provides one context in which abstaining from such things is good and holy: namely, what it calls 'a matter of mortification' - since mortification, as part of the ascetical project, is ultimately an act in reverence of creation (through transforming fallen man into a true relationship with it), rather than a dismissal of it.

One might certainly ask whether abstaining from the eating of meat on grounds of the glorification of God's creation - of diminishing suffering, which ultimately is always caused by human sin; of regaining the intimate relationship with the animal kingdom that is evidenced in the lives of the saints and the patristic writings on Eden, etc. - is not in fact a perfectly reasonable justification for holy abstinence.

Secondly, the passage in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 10.11-15, etc.) regarding St Peter's vision of the many 'unclean' animals, needs to be read for its authentic message, and not as a tract on vegeterianism. The point of that vision, as seems to me very clear in the text, is that man is not to cast as 'unclean' (i.e. unholy, impure, untouchable) that which God has created, and which by his own self-sacrifice he has redeemed, as he redeemed the whole of creation. Man is not to take the ox which God has made and say 'good, clean', but then to take the pig which God has made and say 'foul, unclean'. So St Peter hear's God's voice: 'What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common'.

It seems to me that this speaks very much in the same vein as the apostolic canon: it's primary concern is that humanity not seek to debase God's creation by insisting that aspects of it are 'common' - debased, dirty, foul, evil, etc. All that God has made, all that God has redeemed, is holy. Which is precisely why - to refer to the psalm verse Andreas has already mentioned - we can sing at every matins service, 'All creation hymns thee...', 'Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord...'.

Thirdly, passages such as St Paul's comments on judging a brother with respect of what he eats, should be taken as just that: comments on judgement.

It seems that the real question is: why does one act? I rather do believe there is good evidence in the patristic and monastic contexts especially, for upholding a positive view of refraining from eating animals, if done for the right reasons.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The larger context then should be that we do not eat animals precisely because God created them good.

To eat them necessarily involves taking their lives which is the violation on some level of the fact that God created them as living creatures of a specific kind.

Fasting then is to take us on some level to a pre-Fall state in relation to God's creation. Monasticism according to its fasting rules goes one step further. And some who have a special blessing for this return almost to the state of Adam & Eve before the Fall in this regard.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

I also have a lot of sympathy with the arguments put forward by Andreas, and recently by Matthew. I have spent several longish periods as a vegetarian, for these and other reasons, though I seem to lack the strength of mind to make it permanent.

Nonetheless I don't see any traditional basis for imposing vegetarianism on, or expecting it of, all Orthodox Christians.

[Nina]

Q - Why are there carnivores?

A - Because the T. rex went extinct.

E - If there were still T. rexs, there would be no carnivores left alive. They would devour everything (humans included) and then each other. The last (and the fittest) one would have died of hunger. Let's be grateful for the benign carnivores that surround us today.

P.S "E" stands for 'explanation'.

[Kusanagi]

Forasmuch as the divine apostle said that everything in the old law is a foreshadowing of what was to come and be made known [Hebrews 10:1], the most sacred Gregory the Theologian says that those three cities built by the people of Israel in Egypt, Pitho, Ramessy and On [Exodus 1:11], foreshadowed for
us the three principle passions, I mean: love of pleasure, love of money and vainglory.

It was the first of these that the Israelites carried off with them when they left Egypt, as if it were a kind of reward for their bondage. Because of the abundance of it, however, they were especially tempted by it and kept attempting to return to Egypt, as is recorded in the second and fourth books of Moses, which are called Exodus and Numbers. There it says the entire assembly of the sons of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron saying, “Oh, if we had only died stricken by the Lord ni the land of Egypt when we sat by the flesh pots!” [Exodus 16:3]. Likewise, “and the children of Israel sat down and wept saying, ‘Who will feed us meat? For now our soul is consumed and there is nothing before our eyes but manna alone!’ And Moses said ‘Where do I have meat to give to all these people, for they weep against me, saying, “Give us meat so we can eat”?’ And God commanded Moses to say to them, ‘Purify yourselves in the morning and you will eat meat, for you have wept before the Lord saying, “Who will feed us meat, for we were well off in Egypt?” The Lord will give you meat to eat until it comes out of your nostrils, and it will be an abomination for you.’” [Numbers 11:4-20].

This exodus of the ancients from Egypt is taken by the fathers with divine vision as a model of monastics leaving the world and denying it; the nourishment or food prepared by them from the seeds and fruits of the earth can serve as the image and perfect likeness of the manna from heaven. Just as manna—and not meat—was sent by God from on high, so also in the beginning it was the seeds of the earth and fruit of the trees that were given for food by God Himself [Genesis 1:29], and not meat, which the ancients lusted after while disdaining the heavenly manna, and they fell in the wilderness. For it is said, “When the meat was still in their teeth, the Lord was greatly angered against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague, and the name of that place was called Graves of Lust, because it was there that they buried the people who had become lustful” {Numbers 11:33-34]

Basil the Great asks:
Whose bones fell in the desert? Was it not the bones of those who sought to eat meat? For as long as these people had been satisfied with manna, they vanquished Egypt and passed though the midst of the sea, but when they remembered meat and the fleshpots, they did not see the promised land.

Here then, having discovered the origin and motive for all those who are battling against the good tradition of our divinely inspired fathers, that they who voluntarily give the monastic vow are to abstain from meat, we set forth this alone in reply to them. If certain monks in antiquity partook of meat, this was considered by God as something equivalent to the bloody sacrifices of the old law. “For it is clear that from the beginning, God did not want to grant them such sacrifices, but condescending to their weakness and seeing them in a frenzy and stricken with desire for sacrifices, He permitted it,” says the divine Chrysostom.

The same applies to the eating of meat. From the beginning this was not the will of God for monks, so it must be a condescension, although it was quite inappropriate. For this reason it was later set aside by the God-bearing fathers, which will be sufficiently and truly demonstrated below.

Insofar as the monastic vow seeks for our ancient state and passionlessness and not the obvious condescension shown to Noah [Genesis 9:3], we must consequently permit ourselves the food given by God to Adam in Paradise and not to Noah after the flood. Now this is the first witness testifying to a monk’s fear of God, his love and reverence.

QUESTION: Where did monks receive the custom of not eating meat, which is clearly in contradiction to the divine apostle Paul who told Timothy, “In the last times some will fall away from the faith through hearkening to the deceiving spirits and teachings of demons, liars in their hypocrisy, burned up by their conscience, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be eaten by the faithful and those who know the truth” [1 Timothy 4:1-3]?

REPLY: Although heretics called Manicheans, Encratites, Eustathians, Marcionites, Saturninans and Priscillianites claimed that the flesh of all animals, as well as wine and marriage, are impure, there is no need for us now to harbour any doubt about such questions, because through the grace of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, while cursing the heretical blasphemy concerning foods, holds abstinence in esteem. We must pay attention to how the devil, when he saw that all these weapons of his had become so completely ineffective, reverted to his original schemes and warefare through which he evicted teh first-created man from paradise and brought the condemnation of death down upon him.

And concerning these things the divine Paul not only with pen and ink but also with tears wrote to the Philippians saying, “Many,” he says, “are walking about, of whom I have spoken to you many times, and now I tell you again with tears: enemies of the cross of Christ, whose god is the belly and glory in their shame, who are earthly minded” and so on [Philippians 3:18-19].

Commenting on this, the divine Chrysostom says:
Nothing is so useless and alien for a Christian as to look for entertainment and relaxation. Your master was crucified and you are sating yourself? DO bnot merely carry your cross, but also bear the suffering of the cross. For everyone who is a friend of satiety and relaxation in this life is an enemy of the cross of Christ. Paul weeps for those that others laugh about, whose god, he says, is the belly. This is their god because they say, “Let us eat and drink!” Do you see how evil satiety is? Some people’s god is in their shame. Now if these things were thus spoken about them, that is the Jews, what about those present here; will they escape this rebuke and no one be found guilty of this? Is there no one here whose god is the belly and whose glory is in shame? I desire and I desire very strongly that none of these things be applicable to us and to find no one guilty of what we have just mentioned. But I am fearful that this applies to us even more now than it did then to those for whom it was spoken. For when a person spends his entire life for his belly in drinking and eating, is it not proper to say about him that his god is in his belly and his glory in shame?

For this reason we monks must be especially flee from such excessive audacity and fearlessness before God. The whole generation of Latins and Lutherans care little about such things, while searching high and low both in the Scriptures and in history with a spirit insistent on having its own way, collecting quotations and precedents for eating meat all the time. They have become like hornets and wasps that are unable to gather honey from the flowers of the field or the fruits of the orchards or garden vegetables, but feed themselves on the carcasses of dead beats, or to speak even more truly, they are like the maggots that are born of excrement and feed on excrement. Just as bees gather honey from flowers, each of us who considers such peoples’ ways to be an abomination must become like bees and gather from the Holy Scriptures and the lives of the holy monastic fathers words flowing with honey, that can extinguish the lust of the pleasure-loving demon and submit us to obedience to Christ and the tradition of our Holy Fathers who absolutely denied the eating of meat to monks.

QUESTION: Since God allowed the righteous Noah to eat meat after the flood, for He said, “Every beast will be food for you, like the green herbs; I have given them all to you” [Genesis 9:3], why is it a sin or a virtue for monks to eat or not eat meat?

REPLY: Up to the time of the flood, the general rule for all men given by God to Adam in Paradise was not to eat meat. “Lo, I have given you,” said God, “every seed bearing plant that scatters its seed, and every tree that has fruit bearing seed, this will be food for you and for all the beasts of the earth and for all the birds of the sky and for every creeping things that creeps on the earth and that has a living soul” {Genesis 1:29-30]. But eating meat after the flood is viewed far more as something permitted, condescension to our incontinence, rather than a law of God. Basil the Great says:

After the flood God permitted Noah and all men after him to eat meat, not because this was necessary for our nature, but rather as condescension to our weakness. For the Lord knew the mercilessness of men, and so he permitted them such pleasures. And due to this permission, the other animals also started to eat fearlessly, rising up one against the other. It is possible even now for those who want to do so to imitate the life that existed in Paradise by avoiding the pleasure of eating many different kinds of food and directing themselves towards that life by using as food the fruits and seeds that come from up in the trees. We reject anything unnecessary as being excess, but we do not consider them abominable for the sake of the Creator. Yet neither do we hold them permissible, because of our flesh’s inclination to passion.

[Father David Moser]

Sigfrid,

I'm not sure in your post here what is you and what is St Basil so it is difficult to respond.

As for St Basil's words - as you explicitly remark in your 'title', these are words about the monastic life, which is a different path than that of the laity. Thus while those words are important - they still do not argue for or against the practice of vegetarianism.

You still have not given any support for your claim that the giving of animals to mankind as food is somehow a condescension to our weakness.

Fr David

[Nina]

As for St Basil's words - as you explicitly remark in your 'title', these are words about the monastic life, which is a different path than that of the laity.
Fr David

Yes, and whoever from laity ranks can simulate the monastic example in this regard (and other), excellent!

However there are different practices of ascesis even in monastic ranks. There was an elder (sorry I do not remember who) who did not dare interrupt life be that of an animal, or plant. Because plants are living beings also. He had a dried up fish skeleton hanging at the door of his cell, and boiled to eat it - this was his feast, because when he fasted he would have only water and bread. After eating the broth from the skeleton he would hang the skeleton at the door for next use and ask forgiveness from God for indulging.

Also as we all know many Holy Fathers tell us that "it is better to eat meat, than to "eat" the flesh of our neighbor by slander, judging etc." At least from what the Fathers say that I know of, I have never read that one can not enter Heaven because of meat consumption - the quantity and manner of preparation is important, but not the fact that one eats meat. And out of 10 verses from the Holy Fathers, 9 will, in diverse ways, mention the love for our neighbor.

It is not that I am a big meat eater. Actually since the fasting of Panaghia finished I have not had any meat (only fish on the day of Panaghia). This does not mean I am a vegetarian, because tomorrow I plan to have meat. Also once I saw a chicken being slaughtered and I fainted so now I run away faster than a bullet if there is such thing in front of me in reality, or TV, or reality TV. So after establishing that I have no interest in protecting carnivores (because I can live without meat if I choose to), I wanted to emphasize that what Fathers say speaks louder than all our personal sensitivities. How can I be a vegetarian and think that I am respecting life when there are so many homeless sleeping on the sidewalks with flies standing on their faces??? Isn't that life? Also aren't our neighbors flesh when we hurt them with words, behavior etc?

[Andreas Moran]

I would not, of course, say that eating meat is canonically unsound - it must remain a matter of personal choice. Equally, for the reasons Matthew has most helpfully articulated, it is not wrong to abstain from eating meat. It appears there are benefits from not eating meat and no advantages in eating meat. (It is said, I believe, that environmentally, meat production is wasteful of space.) I only feel that those who eat meat might reflect on what is involved in the provision of meat. There is (I'm sure, deliberately) no linkage between that well-packaged prepared meat meal in the supermarket and its origins, and not much between between well-presented slices of ham at the deli counter and the pig it came from. But in my mind, I make the linkage back to the animal and what has happened to it, and that linkage makes me feel that the violence involved to God's creaures does not justify having something I can easily do without, and which abstention may well confer some benefit. (And being as weak and sinful as I am, I need every benefit I can find.)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I only feel that those who eat meat might reflect on what is involved in the provision of meat. There is (I'm sure, deliberately) no linkage between that well-packaged prepared meat meal in the supermarket and its origins, and not much between between well-presented slices of ham at the deli counter and the pig it came from. But in my mind, I make the linkage back to the animal and what has happened to it, and that linkage makes me feel that the violence involved to God's creaures does not justify having something I can easily do without, and which abstention may well confer some benefit.

Although I don't think this changes the basic point of this thread I think there is something important in what is said above.

First off when the fasting rules were developed meat was not remotely as available as nowadays. I would think that on many non-fast days most Orthodox villagers would have had nowhere near the amount of meat available as we have. There must have been some seasons when a non-fast day would have meant more in the way of consuming dairy products than meat.

Secondly since in those days most Orthodox lived so close to the animal they would have to consume- they would have raised it, fed it and then slaughtered it or at least prepared it- there would have been no doubt about what eating meat involved.

Of course though nowadays the route from animal to our plate is very different what with industrial farms & packing. In many cases food as sold in stores purposely presents what is most appealing to the senses.

It's possible though that rather than this presenting us with an either/or situation of meat/no meat this may instead affect our whole sense of diet. In other words fasting (which also includes what we do eat, not just what we don't eat) can be a way of showing our responsibility for the larger world in which we live.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Eric Waltemate D.C., L.Ac]

Anyone been to an abattoir?


We get our meat from a Pakistani butcher. No antibiotics, no hormones, and killed humanely according to (I'm assuming) Muslim law.

[Father David Moser]

I would not, of course, say that eating meat is canonically unsound - it must remain a matter of personal choice. Equally, for the reasons Matthew has most helpfully articulated, it is not wrong to abstain from eating meat.

And this is exactly the point that I wish to focus upon. I think that those who choose to embark upon a vegetarian lifestyle will gain benefit from doing so. There are indeed certain compassionate arguments to be made about abstaining from meat (which have been eloquently made already here). However I am equally opposed to those who would try to depict the consumption of meat as somehow sinful or a spiritually inferior or deficient practice. While a strong argument could be made for the benefits of voluntary abstinence from meat, there is no good argument to mandate the general abstinence from meat on spiritual grounds - it just isn't there (or at least I have not yet seen it).

Also I agree with the observation that we are too disconnected from the production of the food that we consume. But that is not limited to slaughterhouses (let's use the more common word - or is that a new world/old world thing?) Look at how the animals destined for slaughter are raised and fed. They are tormented from day one. And then lets look at how it is that our fruits and vegetables are produced. This too is an unnatural process filled with chemical (fertilizers, pesticides, weedkillers, etc) baths, radiation exposure and forced growing cycles. Is this not a form of violence against the earth as well? We would all do well to get closer to the sources of our food.

An aside here. I once had parishioners who lived "off the land" very simply, raising most of their own food. When I would go to visit the barnyard animals were in abundance and as I was shown around I would see the flock of geese - one named "Thanksgiving dinner" another named "Christmas dinner" and the goats named "Stew" and "Roast" and so on. These people (a very pious and compassionate family) were very aware of where the food they ate came from and were nevertheless "carnivores".

Fr David Moser

[Eric Waltemate D.C., L.Ac]

A question for those more learned than I:

From what I was told, Fasting in the Earliest days of the Church meant eating nothing at all, or The Black Fast. This practice was co-opted and modified by Mohammad and can still be seen in the period of fasting called Ramadan.

The monks who could afford to do this after decades of training were the Spiritual Warriors who were looked up to and venerated. Those who could not needed some sort of discipline so the rules about not eating meat, dairy, oil, wine, etc... were imposed.

Now during the Iconoclast period the secular clergy (married priests of the cities) were Iconoclasts and the Iconodules were the monastics (a generalization of course.) The Iconodules were victorious and people wanted to copy what they did so the rules about abstaining from various foods were introduced.

This was not across the board for everyone or for every region. In the West, St. Benedict's Rule was for abstention from 4 legged animals except for the sick or weak. In Northern Europe, the rule did not forbid dairy or fish as a protein source was needed. In the Mediterranean, where there is an abundance of invertebrate protein, these creatures were allowed. I've even heard that when the Russian missionaries came to Alaska, meat was not forbidden to the Aleutians as there really was/is no other food available.

So am I correct in assuming that these are very general guidelines that are fast and fluid? I also assume that since there are many different opinions about this that this is a man made rule about when and what one is allowed to eat. Is this correct?

[Andreas Moran]

Just to clarify - I do not see abstention from meat as fasting in the sense we use that word in the Church. Secondly, I know I cannot say that those lay people who eat meat are somehow deficient in their spiritual lives. But, of course, having a view on any issue such as this does carry with it a conviction which one would like more people to share. Is there an argument generally to mandate abstinence from meat? It depends how you receive the arguments for abstention. I put the question: what good does eating meat do for us as Orthodox Christians? If the answer is 'none', why do it knowing what it involves?

[Paul Cowan]

I put the question: what good does eating meat do for us as Orthodox Christians? If the answer is 'none', why do it knowing what it involves?


To go to the other extreme, since Soy beans can now sustain life in virtually every form from soy milk to soy burgers to automotive fuel, why eat other vegetables knowing their life span as Fr. David pointed out? We can just stick to one type of bean for the planet and devote all our growing space to it. It is more rugged and more able to be produced in almost every climate and supplies our dietetic needs.

We have a small vegetable garden in the back yard. We eat what ripens. I also know how many chemicals I have to put on just on this 10X20 piece of ground to keep the bugs off. They usually win anyway. If it were not against our subdivision rules, I would also be shooting and eating the neighborhood squirrels.

I am not trying to be too sarcastic with this, (a little yes) but each side has its extremes and each side can find common ground. Society is not going to change whether OC participate in it or not. I don't watch TV any more, but I know they still produce bad things on it.

I know proper land management. I also know the law of natural selection. If the predators do not kill off the other animals, there will not be balance. If humans do not particiapte in the control of animal growth we will have deer and racoons and all types of wildlife or domestic life running our streets. As we expand into rural country, the animals have no place to go but deeper in to the shrinking woods. When they are all gone they are forced to inhabit what we have overtaken.

I don't eat steak every night. I sometimes don't eat meat when I am allowed. I understand the slaughter tactics used in big slaughter houses, they kinda resemble what the priests did at the Jewish temples every year. Blood flowed down the steps from the altar area.

Since it is not canon, it comes down to a choice to partake or not to partake. How does it make you feel? Follow your conscience and God will honor your conscience.

[Herman Blaydoe]

If the answer is 'none', why do it knowing what it involves?

This could be said about a great many things. TV, non-Orthodox music, sports in general, and on and on. Why don't all Orthodox Christians simply find the nearest cave to work out their salvation?

And the answer isn't "none". It provides sustenance. In some places (like northern Alaska) crops don't grow so well, much of their meat is eaten raw because they don't get the nutrients they need any other way. For many it is part of our culture, the family table, treasured recípés handed down the generations, and part of God's bounty.

Animal sacrifice, commanded by God, involved the killing, splitting, and roasting of animals. God commanded that lambs be KILLED to mark the doors of the Jews. Turtle doves were sacrificed when Christ was presented at the Temple. Were the people who obeyed the commandments of God evil for killing things that have breath because God told them to?

If you want to be vegan, that is well and good. You have said that you are, you have said why you are. Understood. Why do you continue to demand that others justify their decision? Some of us enjoy non-Orthodox music. Some of us enjoy sports. Some of us even find something occasionally worthwhile on television. Each one answers to his Master.

You asked the question. This is my answer, such as it is

Herman the omnivore

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Paul and Herman,

I have said that it is a matter of personal choice. I don't demand anything of anyone. I sought only to put forward (with some force, I suppose) a view with arguments in support. Indeed, one could ask the question I posed about many things (flying is topical), but not many of them involve the treatment of higher life forms we know meat production involves. Also, account must, of course, be taken of any particular situation such as that in Alaska. I had tried to avoid going to extremes and the suggestion that I was going to extremes does not, I think, really bear up, if I may say so.

Is it not a case of doing what we can according to our (informed) consciences? Just to show that I am not following a line of advocacy, as it were, I will give you ammunition to shoot at me. I'm surprised no one asked if I have leather shoes, and I confess I do have. I can see how that makes me look inconsistent at least and hypocritical at worst, and torpedoes all I have said. I regret having leather shoes but they are somewhat more necessary to me than eating meat, and Lydia does not suggest getting through a Russian winter without a fur coat (same in Canada, I suppose): local situations . . . As in so many things, we try to do what we can, knowing that our efforts cannot be complete.

You do raise a interesting point - should the practical ways in which we Orthodox Christians lead our lives be distinguishable from those of others? I'm not saying one way or the other. But it does occur to me that my lifestyle is no different - no better - than my neighbours', and perhaps worse environmentally. The monastery here at Essex is scrupulous about recycling, avoidance of waste, self-provision, and so forth.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Just some of my random thoughts on this subject.

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth of God.”

"Give us this day our daily bread"

""He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine that makes glad the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread which strengthen man's heart." (Psalm 103:14-15, LXX [the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, used by the Church]. Known as the Poem of Creation, Psalm 103 is sung at Vespers.) "

Our monks and nuns eat no meat at all of course.

We do - twice a week. The strange thing for me is that lately when I have been preparing the meat I can't help thinking that it is the flesh of something that was alive, something that had intelligence.

There are so many different aspects of this question to consider.


The ecological aspect :

" One-Quarter Pound Hamburger: Raising animals for meat has its consequences. It leads to rain forest destruction, global heat rising, water pollution, water scarcity, desertification, misuse of energy resources and world hunger. The use of land,water, energy and human effort to produce meat is not an efficient way to use the Earth?s resources.

Since 1960, some 25% of Central America?s rain forests have been burned and cleared to create pasture for beef cattle. It has been estimated that every four ounce hamburger made from rain forest beef destroys 55 square feet of tropical rain forest. In addition, raising cattle contributes significantly to the production of three gases which cause global warming; is a leading cause of water pollution and requires a staggering 2464 gallons of water for the production of each pound of beef. It only takes 29 gallons of water
to produce a pound of tomatoes .

Eliminating the South and Central American rain forests affects migratory bird populations by destroying habitats and homes.

In a few years, the cleared land is overgrazed and abandoned. Often, vegetation does not return for years. New forests may not return for decades. Local people suffer, because land they need to grow food crops is being used to grow beef for fast foods."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Eric Waltemate wrote:



So am I correct in assuming that these are very general guidelines that are fast and fluid? I also assume that since there are many different opinions about this that this is a man made rule about when and what one is allowed to eat. Is this correct?

I wouldn't say "fast & fluid". We all share in either of two basic fasting regimes: that for the laity and then a more strict one for monastics (no meat; in many monasteries fasting on Monday the day of the Angels). Most people who try to fast within Orthodoxy are aware that they share in a way of fasting, a 'rule of fasting', that is larger than themselves.

But within these two ways there are considerable variations according to circumstances. This in fact is part & parcel of the larger fasting rule since the fast was made for man and not man for the fast.

An example- in the monastery I lived in during the 1980s we followed the fast for monastics according to the Typikon. This was something new for North America since fasting to be honest about it had fallen by the wayside even in some monasteries & among the clergy & hierarchy not to mention the laity. However taking up fasting was part of the changes occurring in the late 1980s- early 1990s.

I remember though attending a clergy conference a number of years later. This is once I had become part of a jurisdiction where fasting was much more prevalent. I was surprised then to see at this clergy conference in the middle of the Fast of Sts Peter & Paul that fish was served on a technically non-fish day.

All of the clergy from the diocese were present- even the head of our church who happened to be the ruling bishop of our diocese. I was so used to the fasting regime from my time in the monastery I asked one of the senior priests at the conference why they ate fish. To which he responded that this was the rule they followed.

In any case I could see this wasn't a case of 'slacking off'. And in time from being around the Russian people in my own parish I began to learn that the eating of fish during certain of the lighter fasts is acceptable at certain times within the Russian church (especially the Sts Peter & Paul fast and the Nativity Fast). As it turns out this practice goes back so far in Russia history, I take it that it must have had something to do with the availability of food at certain times of the year.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

It seems to me that there is a problem of textual literalism here. WE can endlessly parse a text for its historical/literal meaning, but the more important point I think is what is the spiritual point? Everyone experiences the world as lacking, as missing something, as not as it ought to be, despite the pop spirituality that says that every moment is just as it ought to be. That experience leads us to believe with certainty that there is an unfallen realm in which all nature exists in a state of pure harmony, and that this is the way that God intended things. Now, we have two alternatives, either God screwed up in the creation of things, or we -- our attitudes and behaviors -- have somehow caused a fundamental distortion in nature. The former position leads to gnosticism, which is an attempt to bring about a pure state of nature through some sort of intellectual system or idea, or political and social action, or through arriving at some type of emotionally ecstatic state in which the world ceases to exist in our minds. The latter position is that we must be repentant, and constantly on guard against our own evil thoughts. AS Christ teaches, getting hung up on the rules of fasting puts the cart before the horse.

Which brings me to another point. Someone recently, maybe on another thread, was equating Christianity with the immortality of the soul. But this cannot possibly be, since people have believed in the immortality of the soul in all different cultural and religious contexts. What Christianity teaches is the glorification of the body. IT is the resurrection of the glorified body that is the key Christian teaching, and the glorification of the body is an iconic representation of the glorification of fallen, corrupt nature. This glorification is, shall we say, a process that begins now, so that our passage (diabasis) or Exodus from this world to the next is not such a radical bridge as we would have thought or believed. So Christ is our Exodus from this world to the next, as we are glorified as He was glorified. This is something that true saints can actually see happening. It is usually expressed in terms of the uncreated light of Mt. Tabor. But we don't seek the light for its sake, just as we would not recite the Jesus prayer a million times, just so that we can see the light. Just so that we don't fast in order to glorify ourselves.

[Anthony]

One small question: don't Orthodox monks (or at least some of them) eat meat once a year, at Easter?

[Paul Cowan]

decided not to post

[Anthony]

I really meant meat as in animal flesh (land animals). I actually assumed it was lamb in this case. I may well be completely wrong about the whole thing, of course.

Fish is another interesting question, as I believe it forms a fairly regular part of the diet on Mt Athos.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

One small question: don't Orthodox monks (or at least some of them) eat meat once a year, at Easter?

No, monastics do not eat meat.

Fish though is eaten very often especially on Sundays & Feast days.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

One small question: don't Orthodox monks (or at least some of them) eat meat once a year, at Easter?

No, not among monks that I know. I only knew one monastic who would eat meat and that was because of a medical condition (kidney failure) that mandated a change in diet.

Fr David Moser

[Paul Cowan]

I hope this is not out of context.


I Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me,[c] but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me,[d] but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.”[e]
27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake;[f] for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.”[g] 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?
31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

[Anthony]

Thank you for the clarification on monastics and meat eating. I don't know where I got that idea from.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I have also heard of the tradition of some monks eating meat (i.e. red-blooded) at certain times of the year - a practice I have never understood, and which certainly goes against the grain of standard monastic practice.

One exception to the usual fast from meat for the whole of a monastic's life that I have known, is at a small skete on the Holy Mountain, where the three fathers are iconographers, and thus raise a certain number of chickens to provide them with eggs for their painting. When these chickens grow very old, the fathers eat them.

INXC, Matthew

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Hello I'm new on ths forum. I wanted to ask if there are any Orthodox monks who don't eat neither meat nor fish (nothing that was or is living)? Thanks and sorry if I asked something wrong.

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Sorry if this is an inapropriate question but I know of a Gospel (not included in the Bible) that says that Jesus was a vegetarian and helped animals. Whats the view of the Church to this Gospel? Thanks.

[Jorgo Ristevski]

I'm not sure if this is the place for this post, but I found this site (maybe you know it):

http://www.orthodoxchristendom.com/

In the site I downloaded a text that says things against eating animals. My question is what do you think of that text?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Hello I'm new on ths forum. I wanted to ask if there are any Orthodox monks who don't eat neither meat nor fish (nothing that was or is living)? Thanks and sorry if I asked something wrong.

This usually involves monastics who have attained a very high spiritual state (of course they would never think of themselves that way) or else are pursuing a very strict ascetic life with a trustworthy spiritual father.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jorgo Ristevski]

This usually involves monastics who have attained a very high spiritual state (of course they would never think of themselves that way) or else are pursuing a very strict ascetic life with a trustworthy spiritual father.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Thank you for the reply Father.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Sorry if this is an inapropriate question but I know of a Gospel (not included in the Bible) that says that Jesus was a vegetarian and helped animals. Whats the view of the Church to this Gospel? Thanks.

Of course there are the four canonical Gospels.

But as far as I know the only apocryphal Gospel which the Church accepts is the Protoevangelion (sometimes called the Gospel of St James). In this gospel are found many of the traditions about the Theotokos followed by the Church to this day.

All other Gospels, of which there are many from ancient times, either were not accepted as trustworthy & apostolic or else were firmly rejected as heretical.

I would wonder which gospel this account of Jesus as a vegetarian comes from. On the face of it it sounds like it could come from one of the gnostic gospels. But better to check this out first to be sure.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

I'm not sure if this is the place for this post, but I found this site (maybe you know it):

http://www.orthodoxchristendom.com/

In the site I downloaded a text that says things against eating animals. My question is what do you think of that text?

That text simply restates much that has already been advanced here as arguments for the voluntary adoption of a vegetarian lifestyle. The text on the website is simply the opinion of the author - a layman. Everything that I read on his site from any authoritative source about abstinence from eating meat was either in the context of fasting or of monastic life. The website author - Simon - has made a choice not to eat meat and takes those statements and applies them to his own life, something that is certainly ok for a person to do, however his personal choice is in no way applicable to the Church in a general fashion.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Stickles]

I would wonder which gospel this account of Jesus as a vegetarian comes from.

I've seen that associated with the Gospel of the Ebionites, since the few preserved fragments (quotes and commentary in the writings of Epiphanius) show Jesus attacking animal sacrifices and claiming he did not want to eat Passover-flesh with the disciples. It also removes locusts from John the Baptist's diet, making him vegetarian also.

The idea of Jesus being a vegetarian is more forcefully presented in the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Lost Years of Jesus, the Essene Gospel of Peace, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, the Gospel of the Peace of Jesus Christ, the Humane Gospel of Christ, and the Gospel of the Essenes. The first two were either channeled or otherwise "received" psychically; I think that the manuscripts for the others are conveniently lost, meaning the antiquity claimed for them cannot be proved or disproved (I haven't fully researched that; however, I suspect relatively recent origins for them).

In Christ,
Mike

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The idea of Jesus being a vegetarian is more forcefully presented in the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Lost Years of Jesus, the Essene Gospel of Peace, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, the Gospel of the Peace of Jesus Christ, the Humane Gospel of Christ, and the Gospel of the Essenes. The first two were either channeled or otherwise "received" psychically; I think that the manuscripts for the others are conveniently lost, meaning the antiquity claimed for them cannot be proved or disproved (I haven't fully researched that; however, I suspect relatively recent origins for them).

Oh I met the authors themselves late one night back in the 1960s. :)

[Jorgo Ristevski]

I've seen that associated with the Gospel of the Ebionites, since the few preserved fragments (quotes and commentary in the writings of Epiphanius) show Jesus attacking animal sacrifices and claiming he did not want to eat Passover-flesh with the disciples. It also removes locusts from John the Baptist's diet, making him vegetarian also.

The idea of Jesus being a vegetarian is more forcefully presented in the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Lost Years of Jesus, the Essene Gospel of Peace, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, the Gospel of the Peace of Jesus Christ, the Humane Gospel of Christ, and the Gospel of the Essenes. The first two were either channeled or otherwise "received" psychically; I think that the manuscripts for the others are conveniently lost, meaning the antiquity claimed for them cannot be proved or disproved (I haven't fully researched that; however, I suspect relatively recent origins for them).

In Christ,
Mike


Yeah I mentioned the Gospel of the Holy Twelve. There are some things if I can say "unusual" to me, but it's where it says to not eat meat.

[Eric Waltemate D.C., L.Ac]

Those who think that Our Lord didn't eat meat better realize that He was a Jew who followed the Jewish Law to perfection which meant that He at least ate lamb on Passover for about 31 years. He also ate fish after His resurrection.

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Forgive me that I am so boring with this, but what about this text:

http://www.orthodoxchristendom.com/food.html

Is this to be practised by Orthodox Christians or it is something sectary (I don't say it is but I ask if it is, so forgive me)?

[Father David Moser]

Is this to be practised by Orthodox Christians or it is something sectary (I don't say it is but I ask if it is, so forgive me)?

This is a personal opinion of a layman which he has supported by selecting certain texts from scripture and other spiritual authorities. However, this is not the general rule of the Church. An Orthodox person may choose to adopt this way of life, but it is not in any way considered mandatory or preferred for all Orthodox Christians.

Fr David Moser

[Jorgo Ristevski]

A question:I wanna know for sure and once and for all is it a sin to never (!) ever eat anything that was or is living (animals, fish)? Is it a sin to be a vegetarian? Please answer me. Thanks.

[Father David Moser]

A question:I wanna know for sure and once and for all is it a sin to never (!) ever eat anything that was or is living (animals, fish)? Is it a sin to be a vegetarian? Please answer me. Thanks.

No there is no sin in being a vegetarian - neither is there any sin in not being a vegetarian. As we heard from St Paul today, "neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision" and we can rephrase that to say "neither vegetarianism availeth any thing, nor non-vegetarianism" There is no sin inherent in either practice.

Fr David Moser

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Thank you Father Moser.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A question:I wanna know for sure and once and for all is it a sin to never (!) ever eat anything that was or is living (animals, fish)? Is it a sin to be a vegetarian? Please answer me. Thanks.

This you should also talk about with your spiritual father or parish priest.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Sorry. I wrote the above when no one else had yet responded.

[Victor Mihailoff]

Why are there carnivores?

I've been watching this video that was caught on camcorder, of the lions attacking the buffalo.

Buffalo are herbervores, but why aren't lions and why aren't we.

It seems the more cruel to have to kill, to take another animals life for your food.
When nature provides in herbs and vegetables without the need for anyone to be killed or suffer or fear.

It seems in the garden of Eden that that may have been the original case.
But why did God later allow meat eating?

I think it wrong to judge people and maybe even species for eating meat, it's what many do with no thought.
Maybe animals could be tamed to be vegetarians.

I think in lands maybe where there is droughts, how can they grow crops, what else can be done but to eat animals.
After the flood, I doubt vegetation could have been grown for a while, so they would have to eat animals wouldn't they?

I know it's part of most of our cultures, and seems a natural diet of some animals.
But why, is this a cause of the fall?

But why did God permit this?

I can't see it exactly right, and can't see it exactly an evil someone commits to eat meat.

Anyone have any answers on this from the Church Fathers?

Thanks.
In Love.
Paul.


Before the fall of Adam & Eve, death and procreation did not exist. People and animals did not give birth to offspring. All animals and the first couple of humans ate herbs and grasses (see Genesis:1:29,30) they also ate fruit as God allowed but for the fruit of one tree.

After the fall, procreation and death came into being and carnvores, both predators and scavingers were needed to prevent the world from becoming over populated with living animals and covered with rotting carcasses which would bring diseases to the surviving creatures. Man was a vegetarian until the Great Flood. On the Arc, grain was stored to feed vegetarian animals but man was permitted to eat meat for the first time in order to prevent the Arc from being filled with carcasses and also because man was a bigger eater than many other creatures and the grain was needed for the others and also for planting once the flood waters receded.

After the flood, Noah and his family developed a liking for meat, so God permitted them to eat it but to control his eating so as not to become too much like animals. Even today, we have Church fasts for this purpose and others.

[Andreas Moran]

Wasn't there a fall before Adam and Eve, that of Lucifer and his colleagues? Would not that fall have corrupted nature and creatures living in it? Was the Garden of Eden which the Lord 'planted' not some enclave set apart from the outside world? After all, Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden - there had to be some place into which to be driven. Unless all this is more symbolic than that.

[Victor Mihailoff]

Wasn't there a fall before Adam and Eve, that of Lucifer and his colleagues? Would not that fall have corrupted nature and creatures living in it? Was the Garden of Eden which the Lord 'planted' not some enclave set apart from the outside world? After all, Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden - there had to be some place into which to be driven. Unless all this is more symbolic that that.

Dear Andreas Moran. Christ is the way!

Yes there was that earlier fall, but man is Satan's and his minion's replacement. Some theologians say that the curruptible world will not cease and be transfigured until the number of people in heaven equals the number of angels who fell from it.

The fall of the spititual creatures called "fallen angels' is not tied to all creation as the fall of man is. Satan was known in heaven as Lucifer. He was a high ranking angel but not created to lord over physical creation as Adam was. To my knowledge, Lucifer/Satan fell before Adam existed. If I'm wrong, let there be light from someone please.

So the way that first fall ties in with the created physical world was that it gave a reason for God to create replacements whereas the fall of man was also the fall of the phycal creation which man lorded over. If Lucifer fell after Adam and Eve were created then it must have been very shortly after that and there is no reason to think that since Lucifer envied God and wanted to be greater than Him but later became jealous of seeing Adam and Eve in a higher position than he was susequently, sometime after the fall why is this fall not documented in the Book of Genesis? It seems by the number of events described in the Book of Genesis, that not much time traspired between Eve's birth from Adam's rib, and Satan's use of the serpent to "beguile" her. It seems to be the case that Satan already lived downstairs from heaven and watched with envy as man was being pampered by God and given the privilege of assigning names and therefore the very nature and character to every animal in the world as they lined up and entered the Garden obediently awaiting Adam to name them. Satan wanted to be higher than God and now this lowly physical creature was given the position of lord over the entire earth while he was excluded from any high office at all. He was relegated to a position somewhat like that of a gang leader. He was something like the first ganster while Adam was higher then a king.

Yes there was land and creation outside of the Garden of Eden. The Garden was like a nursery school and greenhouse (figuratively) in one. Upon graduation which depended on a number of lessons to be learned, not the least of which was to be obedient to their Creator, Adam and his Eve would become the reigning lord and lady of the whole world and all the physical creatures in it. I can only guess and assume that eventually, God would have sent angels to do their bidding also. Because of the fall of the first people, that never came to pass.

If Adam and his spouse obeyed God or repented of their sin immediately in the Garden of Eden and in either case remained in the Garden of Eden, they would not have reached the higher level in the next life that they earned through suffering and repenting for so many years, 930 for Adam, as they did. They would have lived in Paradise for ever according to St. Symeon the New Theologian in "The Discourses".

The terrain and life outside the Garden was worse not only because of its location outside but also because it became much worse after the fall. The grace of God that clothed Adam and Eve also made the outside world a much more habitable place than it became after the fall. God prepared it as a kingdom for the crowning glory of His creation, man.

The physical world is dying because of the fall. More earthquakes and other natural disasters are the result of the earth's curruptable state which it acquired after the fall. Global warming or if you prefer, climate change is all tied in with the fall of man in the Garden and the end of time when Revelation will come to its ultimate concluding event.

I hope that clarifies it for you. God bless. Victor

[Andreas Moran]

It must, of course, be the case that Lucifer fell and became Satan before Adam and Eve since it was Satan who deceived Eve and then Adam into disobedience.

[Victor Mihailoff]

It must, of course, be the case that Lucifer fell and became Satan before Adam and Eve since it was Satan who deceived Eve and then Adam into disobedience.

Yes. We share the same view here.

[Andreas Moran]

I was just watching a programme about a traveller passing through Paraguay. It seems there and elsewhere in South America, much deforestation takes place to clear land for growing soya which is used for making animal feed and so provide meat for the US and European markets.

[Paul Cowan]

I hope this does not turn into a economics thread, but as much as there is a need to preserve our vast forests, as long as the world's population continues to grow, it seems to me soya with all its varied uses is the best plant to crop. Exportation to the States and EU is only helping these people survive in a relative way without engaging in the poppy or cannibus trade which their countries are known for. At least they are trying to "fit in" to the global market? Let them eat beef. Well, for another 1 hour and 54 minutes at least. :)

Paul

[Nina]

Let them eat beef. Well, for another 1 hour and 54 minutes at least. :)

Paul

Guaaaahhhh. Can't eat more meat. I am happy that thank God, fasting is starting.

Have a cheesy week!

[Andreas Moran]

If God is the landlord and mankind the tenant, then I think God would be justified in forfeiting the lease for the tenant's serious and irremediable breaches of covenant. (Sorry - I've just been teaching Forfeiture!)