Veganism

[Justin Farr]

Greetings in Christ!

Before coming to Orthodoxy, I was a vegan for about half a year. This means eating no meat, dairy, or consuming (eating, purchasing leather shoes, etc.) any other animal byproducts. However, due to my own weakness I fell away. I lost weight (I am overweight.... heh) and I felt really amazing! There are many benefits to veganism. This is a pretty good site for any interested. http://goveg.com/

Anyways, I have recently been thinking heavily about becoming vegan once more. I know that monasteries hold to a lax vegetarian rule (I say lax because they consume fish). However, is it alright for an Orthodox Christian to be vegan? If so, under what terms? Would it be sort of like an eternal fast for Christ and in remembrance of His creation of animals? Or for other reasons? Or is veganism contrary to Orthodox practices?

As a vegan, how would one fast? Nuts, berries, and such? Liquid only?

I used to argue that before the Fall both animals and humans were vegetarian. Is this the belief within Orthodoxy according to Scripture?

I know this is a loaded topic full of questions, and largely a topic one should ask their SF. However, I am really looking forward to input on this.

Thanks!


INXC,
Justin

[Herman Blaydoe]

Greetings in Christ!

Before coming to Orthodoxy, I was a vegan for about half a year. This means eating no meat, dairy, or consuming (eating, purchasing leather shoes, etc.) any other animal byproducts. However, due to my own weakness I fell away. I lost weight (I am overweight.... heh) and I felt really amazing! There are many benefits to veganism. This is a pretty good site for any interested. http://goveg.com/

Anyways, I have recently been thinking heavily about becoming vegan once more. I know that monasteries hold to a lax vegetarian rule (I say lax because they consume fish). However, is it alright for an Orthodox Christian to be vegan? If so, under what terms? Would it be sort of like an eternal fast for Christ and in remembrance of His creation of animals? Or for other reasons? Or is veganism contrary to Orthodox practices?

As a vegan, how would one fast? Nuts, berries, and such? Liquid only?

I used to argue that before the Fall both animals and humans were vegetarian. Is this the belief within Orthodoxy according to Scripture?

I know this is a loaded topic full of questions, and largely a topic one should ask their SF. However, I am really looking forward to input on this.

Thanks!


INXC,
Justin

You are in luck. We are all going to be pretty much vegan in a few weeks, once Great Lent starts. Nothing wrong with going vegan, from an Orthodox standpoint, but beyond simply stating the rule of fasting as prescribed by the Church, there is not much we would add about being "vegan." We can tell you how to be an Orthodox Christian. You would do better to go to a vegan website to learn about being a vegan. You can do both, I'm pretty sure.

[Justin Farr]

I know how to "go vegan". :) Done it before. It's pretty cool that Orthodox are pretty much vegan during Lent! Hehe! :D

I am just wondering if it is compatible with Orthodoxy, etc. :)

[Nina]

Justin, you mentioned that you would like to follow the monastic path, if I am not mistaken. Monastics do not eat meat.

:) About vegan-ism being compatible with Orthodoxy there are some great posts from the priests we have here on other threads. Maybe you can search using the word vegan. Also whatever we say, your spiritual father will decide. When you will become a monk, God willing, you will be under his obedience.

[Paul Cowan]

I know how to "go vegan". :) Done it before. It's pretty cool that Orthodox are pretty much vegan during Lent! Hehe! :D

I am just wondering if it is compatible with Orthodoxy, etc. :)

Yes it is compatable. I promise you monastics are not lax. about anything. Eating fish once a year does mean they are lax. It is a celebration of life.

[Effie Ganatsios]

off subject a little :

There was a very, very old man yesterday on TV. He looked good though. He said that he never eats meat and that all his friends always said that he would become sick because he wasn't eating properly. Today, he said, most of his friends are either dead or sick, and he is still healthy....................

just an amusing anecdote.

Effie

[Herman Blaydoe]

I do not believe there are any conflicts between practicing a vegan lifestyle and Orthodoxy, other than the need to not judge others who are not practicing veganism and the ability to forgive those who might judge you for not eating meat.

As to how do you fast as a vegan, the answer is simply smaller portions, and placing more emphasis on other spiritual practices such as spiritual reading, praying, charity, and attendance at services as opportunity and circumstance allows. Great Lent is not just about not eating certain things, it is about asceticism, discipline, and obedience.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Remember that for us, fasting is liturgical- ie tied into the daily or seasonal liturgical pattern. So I would strongly suggest that however we fast we have it coincide with the liturgical calendar.

In practical terms this means that strict fast days would be marked by more austere types & preparations of food while on non-fasting days this would be less austere or even festal at times.

This takes conscious planning though so as to come up over time with a specific pattern of how the fast is applied in our circumstance.

When we fast liturgically this also begins to affect how we shop for food, which tends to become much more conscious and much less impulsive.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Justin Farr]

Thank you all for the replies thus far.

I also wanted to add that I don't believe there is anything wrong with consuming dairy and such, just the way most current Americans get it because of how poorly and how disgusting God's creation is treated. It is the same for meat, I do not have a problem eating meat other than how the animals are treated. Now, I still would never eat any sort of meat for personal reasons, but I would happily consume dairy from a traditional family farm if they didn't slaughter the cow. :)

[Nina]

Thank you all for the replies thus far.

I also wanted to add that I don't believe there is anything wrong with consuming dairy and such, just the way most current Americans get it because of how poorly and how disgusting God's creation is treated. It is the same for meat, I do not have a problem eating meat other than how the animals are treated. Now, I still would never eat any sort of meat for personal reasons, but I would happily consume dairy from a traditional family farm if they didn't slaughter the cow. :)

Do you know that there will be cloned meat, dairy sold and not indicated that it is so? I do not like to eat clones. Why do we have to eat clones? I feel like it is disrespectful towards God and like saying, "You do not provide enough meat/dairy for the world." There is so much meat and milk and dairy being produced because God's energies never abandon the creation although we abuse it, and He loves all and provides for for us always. I am so sad about people having to eat cloned meat/dairy since I read the news about it.

[Constantine]

Thank you all for the replies thus far.

I also wanted to add that I don't believe there is anything wrong with consuming dairy and such, just the way most current Americans get it because of how poorly and how disgusting God's creation is treated. It is the same for meat, I do not have a problem eating meat other than how the animals are treated. Now, I still would never eat any sort of meat for personal reasons, but I would happily consume dairy from a traditional family farm if they didn't slaughter the cow. :)

Dear Justin,

My wife and I transitioned to a vegan diet last year. Prior to that she had been vegetarian for about 20 years and I for about 16. I don't want to get too off-track, but a good book to read is The China Study by T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell; it sounds like Mad Cowboy by Howard F. Lyman would be right up your alley as well.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours in Christ,
Constantine

[Misha]

The China Study is a great and very inspiring book.
i think that vegans and vegetarians follow an ascetic path and there is nothing incompatible with the ortodox faith ,except if behind the vegan diet a re-incarnation philosophy is hidden.

[Margaret S.]

I am pretty much vegan. I don't want factory farming and slaughterhouse methods on my conscience. I eat fish. I eat a little organic cheese occasionally but that's all unless I'm in someone else's house and then I will eat poultry although recently I have found it makes me queasy afterwards. I cannot eat red meat at all without being sick as I have gone without it for so long. In the fast I make everything much, much simpler. I know it is probably hard for meat eaters and even some lacto-ovo vegetarians to believe but there is such a thing as vegan gourmet food. Mostly the fast consists of plain boiled or grilled veggies for me and wholemeal pasta (which I honestly don't enjoy) and without herbs or spices or garlic. If someone is used to eating meat and mayonnaise and putting butter on their bread then the average vegan meal is hard for them but for me it is normal (and I like it) so I make sure I do something that is different for me. Part of the point of Lent is to do what we do not normally do. I don't eat fish, for example, even on the days I can because it feels hypocritical because fish is a treat for me normally. I do drink wine on these days though because something like the Annunciation deserves a celebration (on the new calendar it's my birthday). Indeed not only my birthday but my saint's day and the anniversary of my baptism are during a fast yet are still worthy of celebration so on all of them I am permitted wine and oil.

I do not think there is anything wrong with an Orthodox being vegan. Vegan food can be yummy and God-honouring. I have had many vegan dinner parties for Christian friends with all the blessings that come from people getting together to eat and enjoy the goodness that God has given. Aubergines, bread, garlic, spices, peaches, almonds, wine, are all His gifts as surely as roast lamb, butter and Stilton after all. It is wrong for the vegan to despise the meat-eater and it is wrong for the meat-eater to want to stuff beef wellington down the throat of the vegan but apart from that it is sanctified commonsense to decide what is best for you to eat.

My priest does not object to my veganism; he merely shudders at the idea of year-round soya milk ;-)

Regards
Maggie

[Vitalis]

I just personally think that any type of secular ideology that is brought into human's mind, at the end, distracts a person greatly from Orthodoxy. Sure, you can abstain from meat and dairy forever but only if it is done out of piety for God. If you will notice you're doing it to be "vegan", cut it off, you can't serve two masters.

[Matthew Namee]

I just personally think that any type of secular ideology that is brought into human's mind, at the end, distracts a person greatly from Orthodoxy. Sure, you can abstain from meat and dairy forever but only if it is done out of piety for God. If you will notice you're doing it to be "vegan", cut it off, you can't serve two masters.
There are plenty of other reasons to stop eating meat. I quit in large part for health reasons. There was no secular ideology involved. My reasoning was connected to my Orthodox faith, but still, it was mainly a physical concern. The reason I continue to not eat meat at this point is because, after all these years, the idea of eating a steak is nauseating. It just does not appeal to me at all.

I still eat dairy and fish, and I've found that fasting from those things now is just as challenging as fasting from meat, dairy, and fish before I quit eating meat. However, in the one year when I chose to try veganism (again, for non-ideological reasons), I did find that fasting was much "easier," since I was basically doing it year-round.

[Margaret S.]

I just personally think that any type of secular ideology that is brought into human's mind, at the end, distracts a person greatly from Orthodoxy. Sure, you can abstain from meat and dairy forever but only if it is done out of piety for God. If you will notice you're doing it to be "vegan", cut it off, you can't serve two masters.

I agree. Whatever you do you should do to the glory of God. If you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God. If you eat vegetables, eat them to the glory of God. People who eat meat to conform or out of sheer habit aren't doing it out of piety either, that's why it's good to spend some time every now and then going over everything in our lives and examining it in the light of the Word. Laziness and following the herd, whether the herd is vegan or "doing Atkins" or whatever, is just too natural for a lot of us.

Regards
Maggie

[Bill Cherry]

This is a very refreshing take on matters concerning the Vegan diet. This subject is actually how I found these forums. I find a lot of animosity from my fellow Catholics for being Vegan and a lot of animosity from my fellow Vegans for being Catholic.

I am thankful for the charitable responses I am seeing on this thread.

[Vasiliki D.]

Peter was praying on the rooftop of Simon’s house. He became very hungry, and falling into a trance, he saw a great sheet tied at the four corners coming down to him out of heaven, filled with all kinds of animals including reptiles and birds. A voice told him to rise, kill and eat. Knowing that the sheet contained many animals that the Hebrew Scriptures designate as unfit to eat—unclean meats—Peter refused. The voice from heaven said, "What God has cleansed you must not call common"

Fasting and Veganism are not the same ... a person who abstains from food in a fast is doing so at the Will of God and for Godly reasons.

My point is not to condemn vegetarianism but fasting must be done for its intended purpose and not because it marries a personal ideal ... much like, I should not fast so that I can lose weight - do you see the difference?

Also, I wanted to point out that even though we discuss these various ideas about Veganism ultimately we need to consult with our Spiritual Father and let him know what we intend to do. He will be familiar with our particular habits, feelings, sins and issues and he may even advise us to eat meat ... out of humility we then follow whatever our Spiritual Father recommends .. because though the fasts should be taken legalistically they also need to be observed through a sence of spiritual healing and that can only happen through a Spiritual F.

[Bill Cherry]

Peter was praying on the rooftop of Simon’s house. He became very hungry, and falling into a trance, he saw a great sheet tied at the four corners coming down to him out of heaven, filled with all kinds of animals including reptiles and birds. A voice told him to rise, kill and eat. Knowing that the sheet contained many animals that the Hebrew Scriptures designate as unfit to eat—unclean meats—Peter refused. The voice from heaven said, "What God has cleansed you must not call common"

Fasting and Veganism are not the same ... a person who abstains from food in a fast is doing so at the Will of God and for Godly reasons.

My point is not to condemn vegetarianism but fasting must be done for its intended purpose and not because it marries a personal ideal ... much like, I should not fast so that I can lose weight - do you see the difference?

Also, I wanted to point out that even though we discuss these various ideas about Veganism ultimately we need to consult with our Spiritual Father and let him know what we intend to do. He will be familiar with our particular habits, feelings, sins and issues and he may even advise us to eat meat ... out of humility we then follow whatever our Spiritual Father recommends .. because though the fasts should be taken legalistically they also need to be observed through a sence of spiritual healing and that can only happen through a Spiritual F.

I appreciate your view point. I respect the obedience that you show with consulting your spiritual adviser.

It is interesting how people seem to take the above scriptural quote to mean actual food. The revelation that Peter was receiving was in reference to the evangelization of the gentile people. I often wonder if the people who use this story as a permission or commandment to eat meat have actually read the entire story.Even in the Roman Church, many people seem to make this same error.

[Father David Moser]

I often wonder if the people who use this story as a permission or commandment to eat meat have actually read the entire story.Even in the Roman Church, many people seem to make this same error.

In another post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=72908&postcount=3) Bill makes the point that it is his belief that early Christians did not eat meat but did eat fish.

I'm not at all sure that his interpretation of the scripture which eliminates all the eating of meat is accurate. I would like to see some patristic confirmation that Christians historically did not eat meat for spiritual reasons. It is true that many did not eat meat for practical reasons - meat was not a common source of food as it is today and many people did eat fish exclusively, simply because that was the food available to them. Meat was sufficiently uncommon or unavailable that it became something that was only eaten as a celebration. Celebrations in the various cultures of that era were always connected with religious practice and thus meat, when it was eaten, was most often somehow connected with sacrifice (whether to idols or to God in the temple rites of the Jews). I do not think, however, that we can derive the teaching that Christians were, by conscience vegetarians (or non-meat eaters) and thus interpret scripture in that manner.

Please to not read any animosity towards those who are vegan or some other form of vegetarian by choice or conscience - there is nothing wrong or sinful to the practice and there is anecdotal evidence at least that there is a certain spiritual benefit to the practice.

Fr David Moser

[Bill Cherry]

In another post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=72908&postcount=3) Bill makes the point that it is his belief that early Christians did not eat meat but did eat fish.
Fr David Moser

Yes, sir. All of the evidence I have found to indicate this has come from sources not necessarily scriptural.

[Father David Moser]

Yes, sir. All of the evidence I have found to indicate this has come from sources not necessarily scriptural.

As I noted in my post, I am not necessarily looking for scriptural evidence, but for patristic or apostolic citations. Obviously monastic tradition is based on the consumption of fish and dairy, however, this does not necessarily imply that such a diet was the normal practice of the laity.

Fr David Moser

[Vasiliki D.]

My understanding (as taught to me) of the Scriptural passage is not to encourage people to eat meat or to not eat meat during a fast it is simply a statement to remind us that everything GOd has given us is for our good and WE should not condemnt it as "bad" or "common.

Fasting even the devils can do but they can not do it under obedience and humility and this is the point of the fast more than anything. We follow rules set aside by the Church and to some degree that requires us to take a leap of faith with God, obedience to God and humility to God through the canones of the Church and through our Spiritual father; even if we can not understand why the fast is beneficial in a physical/spiritual sence for us (although there are many fathers that discuss this in depth and would be a good side thread).

An Orthodox will not condem veganism/vegetarianism as a personal lifestyle choice but an Orthodox WILL tell you to discuss this with your spiritual father first! :-)

Also, there are many circumstances in our Church where the Elders who after many many years of abstaining from meat would fall ill and their Spiritual Guide would tell them that they need to break the ''vegan'' lifestyle to get better. Elder Porfyrios is a perfect example of this.

Which introduces a problem for the vegan ... if your elder tells you to eat meat ... will you?

[Bill Cherry]

My understanding (as taught to me) of the Scriptural passage is not to encourage people to eat meat or to not eat meat during a fast it is simply a statement to remind us that everything GOd has given us is for our good and WE should not condemnt it as "bad" or "common.

Fasting even the devils can do but they can not do it under obedience and humility and this is the point of the fast more than anything. We follow rules set aside by the Church and to some degree that requires us to take a leap of faith with God, obedience to God and humility to God through the canones of the Church and through our Spiritual father; even if we can not understand why the fast is beneficial in a physical/spiritual sence for us (although there are many fathers that discuss this in depth and would be a good side thread).

An Orthodox will not condem veganism/vegetarianism as a personal lifestyle choice but an Orthodox WILL tell you to discuss this with your spiritual father first! :-)

Also, there are many circumstances in our Church where the Elders who after many many years of abstaining from meat would fall ill and their Spiritual Guide would tell them that they need to break the ''vegan'' lifestyle to get better. Elder Porfyrios is a perfect example of this. With all due respect, sir, I must post what I have found on the following website.
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Orthodox_Elders/Greek/Fr._Porphyrios/index.shtml
Later, when he had settled into a temporary shelter in Milesi, the site of the convent he founded, he had an operation on his left eye. The doctor made a mistake, destroying the sight in that eye. After a few years the Elder became completely blind. During the operation, without Elder Porphyrios’ permission, the doctor gave him a strong dose of cortisone. The Elder was particularly sensitive to medication, and especially to cortisone. The result of this injection was continuous stomach-haemorraghing which returned every three months or so. Because of his constantly bleeding stomach he couldn’t eat regular food. He sustained himself with a few spoonfuls of milk and water each day. This resulted in him becoming so physically exhausted that he reached the point where he could not even sit up straight. He received twelve blood transfusions, all of them in his accommodation at Milesi. In the end, although he was again at Death’s door, by the grace of God he survived

From that time on, his physical health was terribly compromised. However, he continued, his ministry as a spiritual father as much as he could, all the time confessing for shorter periods and often suffering from various other health problems and in the most frightful pain. Indeed, he steadily lost his sight until in 1987 he became completely blind. He steadily decreased the words of advice he gave to people, and increased the prayers he said to God for them. He silently prayed with great love and humility for all those who sought his prayer and help from God. With spiritual joy he saw divine grace acting upon them. Thus, Elder Porphyrios became a clear example of St. Paul the Apostle words, "My strength is made perfect in weakness."
Again, with all due respect, unless I am mistaken, this evidence would suggest that Elder Porfyrios died from a cause other than Veganism.


Which introduces a problem for the vegan ... if your elder tells you to eat meat ... will you?Yes, sir. I believe I would. Again I cite from Romans 13.

1 Everyone is to obey the governing authorities, because there is no authority except from God (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) and so whatever authorities exist have been appointed by God. So much more is the authority of ones spiritual leader, of whom one has willingly submitted to.

[Vasiliki D.]

BILL - I think we are saying similar things but just not understanding each other entirely.

[Bill Cherry]

BILL - I think we are saying similar things but just not understanding each other entirely.

Right on. I did learn about Elder Porphyrias, however. He was a very holy man.

I am enjoying this forum. Should we continue as to whether or not God originally intended for man to eat animals or not?

[Paul Cowan]

Right on. I did learn about Elder Porphyrias, however. He was a very holy man.

I am enjoying this forum. Should we continue as to whether or not God originally intended for man to eat animals or not?

I say yes.

Did He not send the quail in the desert so they were filled to their nostrils? Did God not tell the prests to hold out a portion of the sacrifice for themselves? Did Christ not eat the Passover the night He was betrayed and every year of His life? I agree man did not know death before the fall and so did not eat meat then, but after, he BBQ'd every chance he got.

[Andreas Moran]

I think a lot was said about this on a thread about fasting.

[Paul Cowan]

I think a lot was said about this on a thread about fasting.

Agreed. We have multiple overlapping threads currently and in the archives. Using the search feature helps some, but if I use key words, I still get dozens of potential thread references to thumb through.

[Bill Cherry]

I say yes.

Did He not send the quail in the desert so they were filled to their nostrils? Did God not tell the prests to hold out a portion of the sacrifice for themselves? Did Christ not eat the Passover the night He was betrayed and every year of His life? I agree man did not know death before the fall and so did not eat meat then, but after, he BBQ'd every chance he got.

Hi,Paul!

Genesis Chapter 1 (New Jerusalem Bible-recognized by the Holy See of The Vatican)

28 God blessed them, saying to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5593) and all the living creatures that move on earth.' 29 God also said, 'Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12332) be your food. 30 And to all the wild animals, all the birds of heaven (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5593) and all the living creatures that creep along the ground, I give all the foliage of the plants as their food.' And so it was.In the beginning, God gave man and animals food to eat. It does not say that he gave man animals to eat. It says to be their masters.

That part we agree upon.

Genesis chapter 2


16 Then Yahweh (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6291) God (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) gave the man (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) this command, 'You are free to eat of all the trees in the garden. Still, no eating of animals.(yet)

18 Yahweh God (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) said, 'It is not right (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10046) that the man (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) should be alone. I shall make him a helper.' 19 So from the soil Yahweh (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6291) God (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) fashioned all the wild animals and all the birds of heaven. These he brought to the man (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) would give it. 20 The man (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5593) and all the wild animals. But no helper suitable for the man (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) was found for him.Verse 18 would seem to indicate that animals were intended as helpers.

Verse 19 shows that God was actually curious to see what man would call the animals. I reckon this was like giving His child a toy and watching him play with it.

Of course, this wasn't good enough. So, God gave man a woman. But, that is irrelevant here.

Anyway, none of this seems to indicate that God intended man to eat meat.

After the fall, the only reference to even merely killing an animal is in Abels sacrifice in chapter 4. (Also a subject of a different matter.)

Forward to Genesis 9, after the flood...

2 Be the terror and the dread of all the animals on land and all the birds of heaven, of everything that moves on land and all the fish of the sea; they are placed in your hands. 3 Every living thing that moves will (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12332) be yours to eat, no less than the foliage of the plants. I give you everything, 4 with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood, in it. 5 And I shall demand account of your life-blood, too. I shall demand it of every animal, and of man. Of man (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=7463) as regards his fellow-man, I shall demand account for human life.We now see that God has given meat to man.

I conclude that it was not Gods original intention that man should eat meat. There is no reason given why God permitted man to start eating meat. However, according to St.Jerome, it was because of a hardening of mans heart, akin to the decree of allowable divorce.




Eagerly awaiting a response,

Bill,

[David Jovan N.]

I remember a Bishop saying that just as many fell through transgressing a fast (not obstaining from the forbidden fruit), we strive to overcome the flesh by fasting.

Just as Adam and Eve were originally Vegens, so are we during fast periods.

Then, monks who have dedicated their lives to God, never cause harm to animals (never spill blood) and remain vegetarian.

Therefore, a vegetarian who eats a vegan diet on fasting days is essentially just following the same path as monks.

Also, if someone is a vegan, there are still rules with limiting the amount of food and the type of food (uncooked) for a very strict fast. I have also been taught that you must fast with your mind and lifestyle as well (what you think, read, watch, speak about etc).

Oh well. Just my opinion.

[Paul Cowan]

I have no resources for patristics and the Bible is only 1/2 of our faith. Tradition is the other half and I have not been on earth long enough to understand that either.

As I was reading your post, the first thought that came to mind about the flood passage plus the previous comments about people's behavior being changed due to their diet was...

Perhaps the people's hearts were hard in part to NOT consuming flesh. Perhaps (capitol P) we are seeing this even today. I do not want to lump all vegans into a single basket, but I have seen many vegans, known affectionatly as tree huggers, have a hard heart towards others. And yes, we carnivores do as well. (see the capitol P). Perhaps there is no correlation at all, Like I said it was the first thing that came to mind.

I think man was meant to eat meat. Then again, I am a Texan. There was only about 1200 years between Adam and the flood if you count the ages of the ancients. That's alot of ruffage in one's diet. It can make anyones heart hard, I suppose as well as other things.

I am trying to keep my end light hearted, since I cannot support what I am saying.

Paul

[Vasiliki D.]

I heard a wise Elder say once "Everything is permitted in the Orthodox Church" [Notice he says - everything] "however, not everything is for your benefit".

Our approach to fasting has to be in submission to the Church this will result in our benefit if our approach to fasting is outside of the reasoning of the Church this will more than likely not benefit us.

I dont know if we are or are not meant to be vegetarian because I can recall passages from the Old Testament (Deutoronomy?) where God gives them rules ... something that comes to mind (I cant recall the exact passages) is He forbids the consumption of meat that has been sacrificed ... why would he not throw in the clause at this point and say .. you can not eat meat at all if He wanted us to be vegan?

I dont know ... we must find a Patristic quote to help us!

[Herman Blaydoe]

I heard a wise Elder say once "Everything is permitted in the Orthodox Church" [Notice he says - everything] "however, not everything is for your benefit".

He is, of course, echoing the Holy Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:12


Our approach to fasting has to be in submission to the Church this will result in our benefit if our approach to fasting is outside of the reasoning of the Church this will more than likely not benefit us.

I dont know if we are or are not meant to be vegetarian because I can recall passages from the Old Testament (Deutoronomy?) where God gives them rules ... something that comes to mind (I cant recall the exact passages) is He forbids the consumption of meat that has been sacrificed ... why would he not throw in the clause at this point and say .. you can not eat meat at all if He wanted us to be vegan?

Deuteronomy and Leviticus lay out what are considered by the Jews to be dietary laws. Certain kinds of foods are called "clean" or "unclean", and the Jews, called to be a holy people, are not to partake of "unclean" things, including food. "Sacrificed" food is not on the list. However the Holy Apostle Paul does talk quite a bit about how food sacrificed to idols should be avoided if it might cause the "weaker" brethren to sin. He never says it is forbidden.


I dont know ... we must find a Patristic quote to help us!

The Holy Apostle Paul seems like a good place to start. Oh, say like: "1 Corinthians 10:25-26 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.”

[Bill Cherry]

Here is a section from the Bible that should shed some light on whether one is obligated to eat or abstain from meat. I interpret it to mean something along the lines of ,"do what you think is right. Just try not to let it get in the way of your or anothers walk with Christ."


13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;
17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

This is from The New American Standard Bible which also bears the imprimater and Nihil Obstat. Which, I guess means nothing to you guys.But, to a Roman Catholic, it makes it 'official'.

Love in Christ,

Bill

[Vasiliki D.]

It sounds like everyone is (more or less) in unanimous agreement - though we articulate it differently. Someone privately messaged me with a very good response and I am hoping that he will post it publically, as I dont want to take the credit for it. His point was (and if he posts you will see it expressed more beautifully) that Christ:

a) Matthew 11:18 and Matthew 11:19
b) Then, before starting his three year ministry, Christ fasted for 40 days in the desert!!

These contrasting images of what Christ did with his life speak volumes and really dont require much analysis ... if there is any example we can use to shed light on whether we are or are not obligated to eat or not - look no further than our very own Lord's example ... let's hope my friend posts his response so it can wrap up this beautifully!

[M.C. Steenberg]

The Church does not officially pronounce on this matter. It pronounces on theological, pastoral issues. Related to this discussion are pronouncements that declare all creation 'clean'; that allow for absention for various reasons of piety, ascesis and devotion; that provide for differing ways; that forbid abstension for reasons of denying the goodness of creation; that forbid consumption on grounds of self-aggrandising piety.

There is no pronouncement that speaks for or against vegetarianism, or veganism, on its own grounds.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Theophrastus]

I think the first few chapters of Genesis (as Bill quoted above) are pretty clear: God allowed humans to eat animals only after humans had saved the animals from the deluge. The animals, thus, "owed" us -- big time.

Now that we may eat animals, that doesn't mean that we must, nor does it necessarily mean that we should not.

[Paul Cowan]

I may be going out on a limb here, but...just because the Bible does not say something does not mean that somehting did not take place. Cain was afraid of men killing him. He took several wives. The people God created were full of evil from their youth up. It does not say this, but I am sure they were eating meat before the flood. They were a most sinful people. So much so that God destroyed them. Perhaps it was a sin before God they were eating meat. Perhaps he allowed them to after the flood so they would not sin in this area anymore?

Or not. Just a thought.

Paul

[Jonathan Michael]

After the fall, the only reference to even merely killing an animal is in Abels sacrifice in chapter 4. (Also a subject of a different matter.)

Not quite. The very first instance of an animal being killed was the animals that gave their skins to clothe Adam and Eve, directly after the Fall. It was God Himself Who gave them the skins, so we can assume that it was He Who sacrificed those animals to cover the "shame" of Adam and Eve. That indeed might be the reason why we see their second eldest son offering specifically animal sacrifices "back" to God in chapter 4, which you've already mentioned. But as you say, that's a different subject to the actual eating of animals.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Not quite. The very first instance of an animal being killed was the animals that gave their skins to clothe Adam and Eve, directly after the Fall. It was God Himself Who gave them the skins, so we can assume that it was He Who sacrificed those animals to cover the "shame" of Adam and Eve. That indeed might be the reason why we see their second eldest son offering specifically animal sacrifices "back" to God in chapter 4, which you've already mentioned. But as you say, that's a different subject to the actual eating of animals.

I would say according to those Fathers such as St Gregory of Nyssa the skins that Adam & Eve wore were their own thickened skin.

Any physical thickening however would only have been a natural result of spiritual thickening which occurred at the Fall.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jonathan Michael]

Wow, very interesting. Thank you, Father.

[Father David Moser]

Not quite. The very first instance of an animal being killed was the animals that gave their skins to clothe Adam and Eve, directly after the Fall. It was God Himself Who gave them the skins, so we can assume that it was He Who sacrificed those animals to cover the "shame" of Adam and Eve.

Except for the fact that "garments of skin" according to the Fathers does not refer to actual skins taken from animals which had been killed and put on us as clothing, but rather to an actual change in the nature of the bodies of our first parents whereas while they were initially created much closer to the angels (a little lower than the angels...), due to the fall we are now much closer to the beasts of the earth. I know we have had this discussion on monachos more than once. I would suggest searching for the phrase "garments of skin" to read more on the topic.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

This is what I was taught; that the bodies of Adam and Eve were like the bodies we shall have after the end of the age and like Christ had after the Resurrection: real but much more spiritual. The garments of skin were as Fr David desribes them: fleshly and corruptible. Eating animals was a necessary concession after the Flood.

[Bill Cherry]

I would say according to those Fathers such as St Gregory of Nyssa the skins that Adam & Eve wore were their own thickened skin.

Any physical thickening however would only have been a natural result of spiritual thickening which occurred at the Fall.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Paul Cowan pointed out to me in the thread,'Romans14:2,...'that Genesis 3:21 states that God made them coats.

I also agree with you, Fr Raphael,...

[Bill Cherry]

If I may, I would like to post a link my fiancee sent to me. You may find it interesting. It is from an animal rights page, But the article is cool! Mostly quotes.

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/06_fasting.html

[Vasiliki D.]

If I may, I would like to post a link my fiancee sent to me. You may find it interesting. It is from an animal rights page, But the article is cool! Mostly quotes.

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/06_fasting.html

It is unfortunate that the use of early Church fathers is being misused and out of context ... fasting and Veganism are not the same thing ... it would be nice if we all ended up not eating meat but it is not a sin if you do ... provided you eat the meat only on the nominated days ...

Think, if the church is Vegan then there would be no need to appoint "fasting" days because everyone would not be eating meat and dairy anyway ...

The term "Vegan" describes a moral position on eating ... the term "fasting" describes a spiritual position on eating ... the two are mutually exclusive regardless of their appearance seemingly the same on the surface ...

However, there is nothing stopping anyone from having a moral position on a matter but they must do so in the understanding that it is a mutually exclusive decision or a decision ON TOP of "fasting", in this case ...

[Ken McRae]

Genesis Chapter 1 (New Jerusalem Bible-recognized by the Holy See of The Vatican)


28 God blessed them, saying to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that move on earth.' 29 God also said, 'Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will be your food ...

In the beginning, God gave man and animals food to eat. It does not say that he gave man animals to eat. It says to be their masters.

Matt 19:3-8

"3": The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

"4": And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

"5": And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

"6": Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

"7": They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

"8": He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Observe: That concerning the matter of divorce, our Lord very emphatically says that "from the beginning it was not so." And that Moses only permitted it, out of pastoral consideration, due to the hardness of the heart; or as a way to treat that malady. And so I say, concerning the question of meat-eating, that "from the beginning it was not so." And, as a previous post observes, it was likely permitted also because of hardness of heart; or the 'natural' inability of the people of God to accept the saying (teaching) that meat-eating is 'un-natural'; or not the way of Paradise.

In addition to that, I think the empirical and scientific evidence is now conclusive, that the low-fat vegetarian diet is the key to beating cancer; and many other life-challenging health issues. I could run on quite long about this, but my main point was that, as Christ said of divorce, so I say of meat-eating, that "from the beginning it was not so." In another place, Holy Scripture says that "the life is in the blood." That is a very interesting statement, to say the least, especially when we begin to look at it from a scientific, medical and dietary point-of-view.

[Ken McRae]

Remember that for us, fasting is liturgical- ie tied into the daily or seasonal liturgical pattern. So I would strongly suggest that however we fast we have it coincide with the liturgical calendar.

I was very much edified by this observation, about harmonizing our fasting practice with the Liturgical calendar; but if I may, I think it equally important that our fasting coincide as well with Mother Nature's calendar; without, of course, doing violence to the primary focus, being the liturgical life of the Body of Christ.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken,


And so I say, concerning the question of meat-eating, that "from the beginning it was not so." And, as a previous post observes, it was likely permitted also because of hardness of heart; or the 'natural' inability of the people of God to accept the saying (teaching) that meat-eating is 'un-natural'; or not the way of Paradise.

Not according to Saint Peter!

While there may be many different understandings around related to veganism, even the mis-use of holy writ comes into play outside the Church, the Orthodox Church couldn't agree with what you say. The issue has been resolved long ago and not pre-maturely to say the least. The meats in our Pascha baskets are blessed, the Greek Orthodox love lamb! We have long history of liturgical traditions in place that would be way out of sync with what you say. If the Orthodox Church listened to you, many of our liturgical traditions would be at risk of elimination, God forbid! for the sake of Ken's acceptance and leadership presenting much different thoughts. After all I have been up until 6:00 in the morning eating meat in the Church hall with hundreds of other Orthodox Christians for many years now on Pashca. Imagine that! There is even an icon that you may see conveys a much different understanding. You may recall that Saint Peter had a vision that can be read about in Acts. The question of clean and unclean had a four cornered sheet from paradise for Saint Peter to think about. In short nothing that God has made would be considered unclean to eat, thanks be to God.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Ken McRae]

As to how do you fast as a vegan, the answer is simply smaller portions, and placing more emphasis on other spiritual practices such as spiritual reading, praying, charity, and attendance at services as opportunity and circumstance allows. Great Lent is not just about not eating certain things, it is about asceticism, discipline, and obedience.

That is a very good way to conduct a 'vegan' fast, to be sure, Herman! Some other possibilities which merit consideration, would be to abstain from your preferred fruits and vegetables, and to eat only those kinds which you normally don't care for; thus eating less (of them) would come more naturally or easily, I should think.

Another possibility would be to switch over to a raw juice fast for Lent, supplementing with soup(s) only if you really need to. The raw juice fast could be very restrictive as well, in terms of the variety; and of course, you could stick to juicing only those kinds of fruits and veggies you normally stay away from outside of Lent (or Great Lent).

[Paul Cowan]

That is a very good way to conduct a 'vegan' fast, to be sure, Herman! Some other possibilities which merit consideration, would be to abstain from your preferred fruits and vegetables, and to eat only those kinds which you normally don't care for; thus eating less (of them) would come more naturally or easily, I should think.

Another possibility would be to switch over to a raw juice fast for Lent, supplementing with soup(s) only if you really need to. The raw juice fast could be very restrictive as well, in terms of the variety; and of course, you could stick to juicing only those kinds of fruits and veggies you normally stay away from outside of Lent (or Great Lent).

If I could dare to restate what I said before.

STOP. Go seek out a priest, develop a relationship with him and do what he says.

Being vegan is a fine and noble thing. Congrats! Fasting without guidance or improvising without permission is not only spiritually harmful, but physically dangerous. I have done the liquid diet thing. You get the runs and extreme dehydration. My doctor told me to stop. I was doing this without spiritual guidance. (on my own authority)

We are nothing without God. We need discernable spiritual guidance from our spiritual fathers to walk the right path. Fasting is no different. It's NOT about the food. How I wish it were though since I am so pathetic in the following...


placing more emphasis on other spiritual practices such as spiritual reading, praying, charity, and attendance at services as opportunity and circumstance allows. Great Lent is not just about not eating certain things, it is about asceticism, discipline, and obedience.

[Father David Moser]

Fasting is no different. It's NOT about the food.

This is quite correct. The essence of fasting is self-denial. We deny ourselves in the area of what foods we eat (the belly being one of the strongest passions) and we also deny ourselves during the fast by abstaining from entertainments, diversions, sinful habits of all kinds and instead we force ourselves into spiritually profitable activities such as increased prayer, spiritual reading, almsgiving, works of mercy and compassion and so on. In other words fasting is an exercise wherein we deny ourselves in a very focused and purposeful manner.

Part of that self denial, and in fact probably the most powerful tool of that self denial is obedience. We set aside our own will, our own ideas about what and how to eat, and we follow the diet given to us by the Church. This isn't to say that we can't be creative about how we complete that diet (say by juicing) but still for a good and profitable fast, all things should be done in obedience cutting off our own will and living in obedience to the will of God given to us through the life of the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

If I could dare to restate what I said before.

STOP. Go seek out a priest, develop a relationship with him and do what he says.

Of course I quite agree with this advice. How could I not? It is obviously a good thing to develop a relationship with a spiritual father or mother you can trust, and discuss the details of your life with and from whom you can receive faithful advice where needed; and one who can objectively examine and assess our blind spots. In other words, no matter how advanced or proficient one may become, one must be accountable at all times to a spiritual father; who prays for him, and labours in spirit for Christ to be formed in his children.


Being vegan is a fine and noble thing. Congrats!

Yes, indeed! I could not agree more. It is a great undertaking and I wish you every success with it, if and when you decide to actually venture out into the lifestyle.


Fasting without guidance or improvising without permission is not only spiritually harmful, but physically dangerous.

You are quite correct here as well. However, neither do I wish you to think I previously implied there was no danger or risk involved in fasting of any kind. Of course there is, but when you don't know what you're doing. There risk is minimal for a well-seasoned faster, who knows himself and his body, follow the laws of nature, as well as the teachings of the Church, and is not ignorant of the wiles of satan.

What I previously posted was merely a couple of ideas of how a "seasoned" vegan or vegetarian might conduct a Lenten fast. It was most certainly not meant to be construed as advice to just jump into a lengthy juice fast without any prior preparation and preliminary training in how to transition into it, what to lookout for during the fast, and how to safely break the fast. Common sense should dictate here, I think.


I have done the liquid diet thing. You get the runs and extreme dehydration. My doctor told me to stop. I was doing this without spiritual guidance. (on my own authority)

There are several very good, if not great works, (currently in print,) on fasting; one of which is entitled Rational Fasting (http://books.google.ca/books?id=QthVbE-doGcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Rational+Fasting#PPP1,M1), by Professor Arnold Ehret: 01) Preface to Rational Fasting (http://www.arnoldehret.org/healthclub/rationalfasting_hirsch.html) 02) Introduction to Rational Fasting (http://www.arnoldehret.org/healthclub/miller_fasting.html) Though Ehret fasted for long periods (up to 40 days at a time) in his younger years, he was not a big believer in long fasts, generally speaking, and recommended most people to limit their strict fasts to about 5 to 7 days at most.

He also recommended persons to adopt a transition diet designed to prepare and condition the body for a long(er) fast, in order to avoid the kind of negative experiences you've described. Based upon my little knowledge of his teaching, I don't think he would recommend a strict 40 day juice fast, for most people. It is a big topic and hard to summarize in a few words, but I can envision Ehret certainly approving a week long juice fast, under the right conditions, of course.

Here are some other good books, incidentally, which I feel are worth the perusal :-

01) The Miracle of Fasting Proven Through History (http://books.google.ca/books?id=H7sUwWlMblIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Miracle+of+Fasting)

02) Fasting Can Save Your Life (http://books.google.ca/books?id=f3QEAAAACAAJ&dq=Fasting+Can+Save+Your+Life)

03) The Juice Fasting Bible (http://books.google.ca/books?id=scldAwAACAAJ&dq=Juice+Fasting)

04) The Joy of Juice Fasting (http://books.google.ca/books?id=QG1SAAAACAAJ&dq=Juice+Fasting&lr=)

05) Juice Fasting and Detoxification (http://books.google.ca/books?id=ymr7HQAACAAJ&dq=Juice+Fasting)

06) How to Keep Slim, Healthy and Young with Juice Fasting (http://books.google.ca/books?id=roQIAAAACAAJ&dq=How+to+Keep+Slim,+Healthy,+and+Young+with+Juice +Fasting+by+Dr.+Paavo+Airola&lr=)


We are nothing without God. We need discernable spiritual guidance from our spiritual fathers to walk the right path. Fasting is no different.

Did I imply otherwise? I agree, but with this one caveat that we also read everything we can about fasting, like the above books for starters, (as well as Scripture, the writings of the saints,) and not merely consult with our spiritual father alone. If he were a wonder-working grace-bearing elder, then I might be tempted to say just do whatever he says without question; or wasting time on reading anything else that might cause you to hesitate and second guess him.


It's NOT about the food. How I wish it were though since I am so pathetic in the following ...

In regard to the other spiritual exercises, you mention, I suspect they are very much impacted in some way by physical health and diet. Or is a sick and weakly body more conducive to the perfection of such exercises? I doubt it (personally). I think diet and physical health, (and not just 'fasting',) has a far greater impact on such exercises than we are initially inclined to see or admit. Proper health and nutrition can only help us spiritually: "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." (3 Jn 2) It seems to me that if a sick body was conducive to our spiritual prosperity, then the Theologian erred in saying that he wished above all things that we be in good health, which I take to include physical health.

Besides, I thought we were talking about how a seasoned vegan or vegetarian might approach fasting during Lent. That is to say, a person who is a vegan all year long, and not just during Lent. Such a person will no doubt acquire much experience and skill at fasting, very quickly, if they are truly living out the vegan life-style, in the holistic manner. And, as far as I am aware, no one adopts such a lifestyle without the goal and hope of substantially improved physical health, as well as mental, emotional and spiritual. Now, physical health is very much about the kind of food we eat. Afterall, we are what we eat, to a large degree (at least in my books).

[Ken McRae]

Not according to Saint Peter!


There is even an icon that you may see conveys a much different understanding. You may recall that Saint Peter had a vision that can be read about in Acts. The question of clean and unclean had a four cornered sheet from paradise for Saint Peter to think about. In short nothing that God has made would be considered unclean to eat, thanks be to God.

Matthew, you have completely misconstrued me, I'm afraid. You have obviously taken me as saying or meaning that meat-eating is immoral and necessarily sinful. I said nothing of the kind. My comments were concerning the superior diet of Paradise, the physical state of the body prior to the fall, and the causal connection or relationship between the two.

My meaning was very clear, I feel, so it is difficult for me at best to see how you could possibly misconstrue me as saying anything more than that meat-eating was never a part of man's diet in the Paradise lost; nor will it be so in the Paradise regained. That is clear Biblical teaching and I doubt very much that St. Peter would ever deny it, as you say.


Genesis 1

26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.


Genesis 2

7: The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8: And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


Isaiah 11

1: And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2: And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
3: And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5: And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6: The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7: And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8: And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9: They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.


Romans 8

19: The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20: For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21: Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22: For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


Revelation 21

1: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4: And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5: And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.


A TWO-PART QUESTION

First: is there anyone here who has carefully read the above scriptures, and still feels that meat-eating was part of Paradise lost, and therefore natural for mankind, prior to his fall from grace; and who feels that meat-eating will be continued in Paradise regained? Second: who else feels that my previous post contradicts the above scripture texts, regarding dietary abstinence from meat-eating in Paradise? Thank you in advance for all your contributions!

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken,

I have read your comments above and think that you read and see things much differently than they are put forth within the Orthodox Church. I'm convinced that biblical teachings are never really clear when we rely on our own understandings or those found outside the Orthodox Church.

Having said that, I strongly suspect not suffice it to say, you may recall that the new Adam our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did eat meat with the disciples. I think at the root of this should you see things in terms of a "fall from grace" as opposed to a return to paradise it is inevitable that a series of preset mis-understandings would result. Presets are fine I think if they are correct. It is really unavoidable that way.

Father Deacon Matthew wrote a bit on this, it is significant, it is an expression of the ancient tradition that may be of interest to you.

"The Church’s image of sin, of sinful existence, is not chiefly an image of Adam and Eve expelled from paradise, but an image of a child far from his father, longing for his true home. It is not chiefly a paradigm of fall—though it is not always opposed to such imagery—but one of exile."

It is a wonderful read in full context here: http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristicstudies/35-themes/54-the-spirit-of-exile-and-the-sin-of-man


My comments were concerning the superior diet of Paradise, the physical state of the body prior to the fall, and the causal connection or relationship between the two.


My meaning was very clear, I feel, so it is difficult for me at best to see how you could possibly misconstrue me as saying anything more than that meat-eating was never a part of man's diet in the Paradise lost; nor will it be so in the Paradise regained. That is clear Biblical teaching and I doubt very much that St. Peter would ever deny it, as you say.


Anyway you may also read:

Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” Yet none of the disciples dared ask Him, “Who are You?”—knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish. This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to His disciples after He was raised from the dead.


In more context here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=21&version=50

[Father David Moser]

I'm convinced that biblical teachings are never really clear when we rely on our own understandings or those found outside the Orthodox Church.

Just a reminder that the focus of this forum is on the patristic, liturgical and monastic expression of Orthodoxy. I think that this discussion is starting to wander more into the areas of personal opinions about scripture, dietary expertise and health aspects of various diets. Although fasting has been mentioned, this is not really about fasting but rather seems to be about the state of man in paradise and specifically as to whether or not meat was eaten in that context. Please try and focus on this topic within the confines of the focus of this forum rather than expound personal theories on what scripture may or may no mean with appeals to diet books.

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

On the patristic focus, we should remember that the fathers are fairly consistent in describing man's original diet as that of plants, fruits and seeds - not animals (thus 'vegetarian', as in the modern parlance); and they connect the eating of animals to the effects of sin. This is not to say that it is wrong: God clearly prescribes the eating of certain meets. But one must not go to the other extreme, and claim that St Peter's vision indicates that God views the eating of animals as the natural, final state of the human creature (which it doesn't, and which none of the fathers take it to mean).

There are a number of different issues being confused in this thread -- diet and fasting, fasting and uncleanness, purity and impurity, choice and obedience, etc. All this makes it hard to speak 'to the topic' in any clear way. But as to the basic question of whether there is anything intrinsically appropriate or inappropriate about a 'vegan' diet to an Orthodox Christian, the answer really depends entirely on the whys behind such a choice. As a diet, there is nothing un-Christian about it; but it can certainly be un-Christian if it is done out of a despising of God's creation (this is the case in which the vision of St Peter would apply); but conversely, demanding that such a diet is wrong or inappropriate because Christians can eat meat, also seems a misinterpretation of creation as the fathers would see it.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Ken McRae]

On the patristic focus, we should remember that the fathers are fairly consistent in describing man's original diet as that of plants, fruits and seeds - not animals (thus 'vegetarian', as in the modern parlance); and they connect the eating of animals to the effects of sin. This is not to say that it is wrong: God clearly prescribes the eating of certain meets. But one must not go to the other extreme, and claim that St Peter's vision indicates that God views the eating of animals as the natural, final state of the human creature (which it doesn't, and which none of the fathers take it to mean).

There are a number of different issues being confused in this thread -- diet and fasting, fasting and uncleanness, purity and impurity, choice and obedience, etc. All this makes it hard to speak 'to the topic' in any clear way. But as to the basic question of whether there is anything intrinsically appropriate or inappropriate about a 'vegan' diet to an Orthodox Christian, the answer really depends entirely on the whys behind such a choice. As a diet, there is nothing un-Christian about it; but it can certainly be un-Christian if it is done out of a despising of God's creation (this is the case in which the vision of St Peter would apply); but conversely, demanding that such a diet is wrong or inappropriate because Christians can eat meat, also seems a misinterpretation of creation as the fathers would see it.[/I]

Thank you Dcn Matthew! Your reply is greatly appreciated. Here is an interesting book which delves into the Patristic view of the vegetarianism of John the Baptist (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uzTcB8yMnrcC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=The+Patristic+Fathers+on+vegetarianism&source=web&ots=7pCCgEbZpW&sig=LP2wZul13mBGH3odAi1Lnf13ahU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA172,M1). ( In The Diet of John the Baptist (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uzTcB8yMnrcC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=The+Patristic+Fathers+on+vegetarianism&source=web&ots=7pCCgEbZpW&sig=LP2wZul13mBGH3odAi1Lnf13ahU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPP1,M1), J.A. Kelhoffer, pg. 172 ) It appears to me that many of the fathers adopted a vegetarian diet not merely as a means of asceticism, but also because they viewed it as the way of Paradise. That seems like a fair inference from what your reply. Or would you be inclined to disagree?

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Deacon Matthew,

Here we are all well aware of the fact that Orthodox Christians fast, monks don't eat meat etc.

Nay, Father Deacon Matthew, on the patristic connection focus, kill the fattened calf sounds rather blessed, because it is.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Irene]

Thank you for the interesting information on this thread. I know a number of Orthodox people who have given up meat except for fish, from talking to them it seems they gradually lost the taste for it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In the Moscow Patriarchate Calendar there is always printed a Paschal Table towards the back.

One of the categories for each year on the table is the amount of total weeks & days allowed for meat (which really means meat & dairy).

I was surprised to see what a short amount of time this really is and how this varies in amount of time from year to year.

Thus for the next five years:

2009: 6 weeks; 5 days
2010: 4 wks; 4 days
2011: 7 wks; 3 days
2012: 6 wks: 2 days
2013: 9 wks

It's interesting how easy it is to not notice this pattern & how much less meat is eaten compared to society as a whole.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jonathan Michael]

Bishop Kallistos (Ware) said that for Pascha, the one thing he really looks forward to is a "boiled egg and a nice bit of cheese". I've also found that after a fasting period it's not meat I crave, but dairy. I can well empathize with Irene's friends who gradually lost the taste for meat.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken,

There is an excellent Homily on St. Luke 36-44 by the Blessed Theophylact. I do not have time now to type out the entire homily. But if I may paraphrase a bit, it indicates that by eating a piece of broiled fish (Christ ate the fish not according to nature, but by economy)he has consumed with the fire of his divinity our human nature which had been swimming in the salty sea of this life. Our nature, that is after the fall and resurection of Christ is seen as "food fit for God" because of Christ and all that he has accomplished, the incarnation, the cross and resurrection... God fashioning our nature that which before was defiled into sweet food of which God can commune. "This is suggested by the honeycomb: the sweetness, now, of our nature which before was rejected. Another meaning is suggested by the broiled fish, namely active virtue which aided by the coals of asceticism of the desert and the hesycast life removes everything that is moist and fat. And the honeycomb suggests knowledge of divine vision, for the words of God are sweet."

So I think into this paradise the Church cries out to every human being because God loves. While there are Christians that eat meat (so long as it is not our brother as one Father mentioned) it is blessed. There are Christians that don't eat meat, the hesycast, monks etc. that are blessed as well. One of the things in common among those categories is many find themselves masters of nothing, struggling, and end up waiting on God. But the Church in Her majesty and great glory, her Saints have said "In the Church you will find joy." So the joy of Pashca and its relationship to man is not isolated to a paradise in which veganism represents or rather is viewed as the way of Paradise. God's love and paradise supercedes our often feeble attempts to love and live a virtuous life style. The holy fire of His divinity is much greater than our attempts at transformation. This I think is why our Priests often tell us to "Go to Church."

Dear Father Deacon Matthew,

I think the Priests are the authentic peacemakers and blessed, the keys to the kingdom of heaven are often expressed in words but work in the heart, for it is written, "The kingdom of heaven is within you." We can hear in the beatitudes "Blessed are the peacemakers" and then the great reward is given at a great price because of Gods' love and the servants response. I think that we can see nothing less than some very extreme responses in the Church to the glory of God.

As usual, it is possible that I'm seeing things very wrongly, as such any corrective repsonses from Orthodox sources would be appreciated.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Ken McRae]

Observe: That concerning the matter of divorce, our Lord very emphatically says that "from the beginning it was not so." And that Moses only permitted it, out of pastoral consideration, due to the hardness of the heart; or as a way to treat that malady. And so I say, concerning the question of meat-eating, that "from the beginning it was not so." And, as a previous post observes, it was likely permitted also because of hardness of heart; or the 'natural' inability of the people of God to accept the saying (teaching) that meat-eating is 'un-natural'; or not the way of Paradise.

01) St. John Chrysostom (D. 407):- "Flesh-meats and wine serve as materials for sensuality, and are a source of danger, sorrow, and disease." (Homily on Matthew xxii, 1-14)

02) St. Basil (D. 379):- "With sober living, well-being increases in the household, animals are in safety, there is no shedding of blood, nor putting animals to death. The knife of the cook is needless; for the table is spread only with the fruits that Nature gives, and with them they are content. John the Baptist had neither bed, nor table, nor inheritance, nor ox, nor grain, nor baker, nor other things regarded as the necessaries of life; and yet it was to him that the Son of God gave the eulogy that he was the greatest of the children of men."

03) St. Jerome (D. 440), in confutation of Jovinian:-

"As to his argument that in God's Second Blessing permission was given to eat flesh- a permission not given in the first Blessing - let him know that just as permission to put away a wife was, according to the words of the Saviour, not given from the beginning, but was granted to the human race by Moses because of the hardness of our hearts. So also in like manner the eating of flesh was unknown until the flood, but after the Flood, just as quails were given to the people when they murmured in the desert, so have sinews and the offensiveness of flesh been given to our teeth.

"The Apostle, writing to the Ephesians, teaches us that God had purposed that in the fullness of time he would restore all things, and would draw to their beginning, even to Christ Jesus, all things that are in heaven or that are on earth. Whence also, the Saviour Himself, in the Apocalypse of John, says, ' I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.' From the beginning of human nature, we neither fed upon flesh nor did we put away our wives, nor were our foreskins taken away from us for a sign. We kept on in this course until we arrived at the Flood.

"But after the Flood, together with the giving of the Law, which no man could fulfill, the eating of flesh was brought in; and the putting away of wives was conceded to hardness of heart; and the knife of circumcision is brought into use; as if the hand of God had created in us more than is necessary. But now that Christ has come in the end of time, and has turned back Omega to Alpha, and drawn back the end to the beginning, neither is it permitted to us to put away our wives, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh; hence the Apostolic saying: 'It is a good thing not to drink wine, and not to eat flesh.' For wine also, together with flesh, began to be used after the Flood."


Here is an interesting book which delves into the Patristic view of the vegetarianism of John the Baptist (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uzTcB8yMnrcC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=The+Patristic+Fathers+on+vegetarianism&source=web&ots=7pCCgEbZpW&sig=LP2wZul13mBGH3odAi1Lnf13ahU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA172,M1). ( In The Diet of John the Baptist (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uzTcB8yMnrcC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=The+Patristic+Fathers+on+vegetarianism&source=web&ots=7pCCgEbZpW&sig=LP2wZul13mBGH3odAi1Lnf13ahU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPP1,M1), by J.A. Kelhoffer). It appears to me that many of the fathers adopted a vegetarian diet not merely as a means of asceticism, but also because they viewed it as the way of Paradise. That seems like a fair inference from your reply. Or would you be inclined to disagree?

Silence speaks volumes, and in this case I will take it to mean that Dcn Matthew does not disagree with the fairness of such an inference.

[Mikhail R.]

Hmmm…I see a lot of posts that seem to mention veganism because of Man’s original state, health etc. I just wanted bring up other issues that may influence veganism for some. I am currently a vegetarian, and consider possibly becoming veganism in the future. Firstly, I would like to point out that, while I don’t particularly like meat, I don’t believe it is wrong to eat meat. Also, the whole philosophy that killing animals is wrong never appealed to me. (I’m not really an animal person.) What bothers me is the way in which meat is produced, which is drastically different from how it was produced when Christ and most the Fathers lived. (I think it is important to consider the context in which something was said.) It has become a profitable business that I think can be validly questioned on an ethical basis. I don’t have the knowledge to refer to patristic texts, so I raise some issues and hope that those more knowledgeable than I can examine them patristically:

1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have the impression that the Church opposes artificial insemination. I think it’s because it is deemed as an unnatural deviation from normal sexuality. I would assume that if perversion of sexuality is wrong to do to humans, it would also be wrong to do to animals. Most meat corporations don’t mate animals, since they castrate males while young. The females are artificially inseminated. This is more efficient, and increases the quantity of offspring that can be produced.

2. In olden days, livestock was raised in small quantities, so relatively little grain was allotted to their sustenance. Currently, however, companies produce billions of animals for consumption, much more than would be born naturally or on traditional farms/ranches. As a result, most of the grain we grow is fed to livestock. That grain could easily have been sold for the purpose of feeding the many starving/mal-fed people in the word. Instead, it is fed to livestock in order to produce unnecessary and excess food for those who already have enough to eat, sole to satisfy their desires. Isn’t this like us putting passions/desires above the needs of our fellowman, despite the fact that we often simultaneously decry the prevalence of people who lack proper food? Seems pretty hypocritical. This what makes veganism attractive to me. I view it as an act of compassion, empathy, and charity toward those less materially blessed. What would be the Patristic view on modern/corporate meat production (especially in relation to it to contribution to food scarcity, poverty, and indulgence at the expense of others)?

3. Also, I believe the activities of lying/misrepresentation of information by these corporations in order to profit should raise flags to the idea of supporting them financially. For example, milk is often advertised as healthy because it provides calcium to strengthen bones. They intentionally neglect to mention that the animal protein in milk causes human blood to become more acidic, which the homeostatic reflexes of the body counteract by pumping calcium into the blood. Where does the calcium come from? The bones. This process negates the benefits of the extra calcium in milk. That’s why America still has a major osteoporosis problem, despite being the number one dairy-consuming nation. Now, I’m not saying that people should or should not seek to be healthy. What I am saying is that it’s wrong to exploit a person’s desire to be healthy in order to satisfy greed for money.


Again, I’m not against meat consumption itself. God obviously allows it, and just because it was ideal in Paradise, doesn’t mean it’s ideal now. Some practices mandated by God may serve a specific purpose particular to a given context. Not everything is universally good/beneficial/expedient. Sometimes in different contexts, it is God’s will that we do different acts. To ignore time and context, applying everything as a universal mandate, can be dangerous spiritually. The Judaizers come to mind. (Yet, at the same time, some things ARE universal. I don’t want to seem like some radical relativist or anything like that. :-P I realise that not EVERYTHING is specific to a particular context.)

[Olga]

Two very small sidetracks, if I may:


Most meat corporations don’t mate animals, since they castrate males while young.


Gelding male animals (be it animals bred for food, or working animals such as oxen or horses, is an ancient and universal practice. It's part of what's (or what once was) called animal husbandry.



I have the impression that the Church opposes artificial insemination.

For humans, where either sperm or eggs (or both) are donated. I have never come across any prohibition for its use in animals. (One for our resident experts!)

There may be individual cases of economia applied where a married couple cannot conceive naturally (such as if the woman has blocked Fallopian tubes, but is otherwise healthy and able to sustain a pregnancy), so that fertilisation using the genetic material of the husband and wife, is achieved in vitro, and the embryo is then implanted.

viz:

In the prayers of the marriage celebration, the Orthodox Church expresses the hope that childbirth, while being a desired fruit of lawful marriage, is not its only purpose. Along with «a fruit of the womb to profit», the Church asks for the gift of enduring love, chastity and «the harmony of the souls and bodies». Therefore, the Church cannot regard as morally justified the ways to childbirth disagreeable with the design of the Creator of life. If a husband or a wife is sterile and the therapeutic and surgical methods of infertility treatment do not help the spouses, they should humbly accept childlessness as a special calling in life. In these cases, pastoral counsel should consider the adoption of a child by the spouses' mutual consent. Among the admissible means of medical aid may be an artificial insemination by the husband's germ cells, since it does not violate the integrity of the marital union and does not differ basically from the natural conception and takes place in the context of marital relations.

Links to the full document:

http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=90
and
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=192

[Andreas Moran]

We were given dominion but we despoil.

[Mikhail R.]

Two very small sidetracks, if I may:


Gelding male animals (be it animals bred for food, or working animals such as oxen or horses, is an ancient and universal practice. It's part of what's (or what once was) called animal husbandry.


I know about gelding. I was more concerned about the artificial insemination.


For humans, where either sperm or eggs (or both) are donated. I have never come across any prohibition for its use in animals. (One for our resident experts!)

There may be individual cases of economia applied where a married couple cannot conceive naturally (such as if the woman has blocked Fallopian tubes, but is otherwise healthy and able to sustain a pregnancy), so that fertilisation using the genetic material of the husband and wife, is achieved in vitro, and the embryo is then implanted.

viz:

In the prayers of the marriage celebration, the Orthodox Church expresses the hope that childbirth, while being a desired fruit of lawful marriage, is not its only purpose. Along with «a fruit of the womb to profit», the Church asks for the gift of enduring love, chastity and «the harmony of the souls and bodies». Therefore, the Church cannot regard as morally justified the ways to childbirth disagreeable with the design of the Creator of life. If a husband or a wife is sterile and the therapeutic and surgical methods of infertility treatment do not help the spouses, they should humbly accept childlessness as a special calling in life. In these cases, pastoral counsel should consider the adoption of a child by the spouses' mutual consent. Among the admissible means of medical aid may be an artificial insemination by the husband's germ cells, since it does not violate the integrity of the marital union and does not differ basically from the natural conception and takes place in the context of marital relations.

Links to the full document:

http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=90
and
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=192

I've heard of the economia cases too. I assumed it was allowed because it is a medical procedure to overcome an unnatural condition. (Since inability to conceive would be unnatural, a result of sin, I presume.) In the case of the meat industries, however, their is no unnatural condition being treated. On the contrary, we're creating the unnatural condition. I know, of course, that all types of raising animals could be construed as unnatural, but we were given special permission to consume meat. I wonder, though, what limit that permission allows us to alter the natural order. From the patristic perspective, at what point does it become wrong to manipulate creation simply for personal gratification?

[Mikhail R.]

We were given dominion but we despoil.

I agree.God is truly amazing to put up with us for so long. Even more amazing for loving us and saving us. It is sad how we abuse our power.

[Father David Moser]

I have never come across any prohibition for its use in animals. (One for our resident experts!)

Articificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and other such techniques are used in animals with moral implication at all. There are significant moral and spiritual issues when used with people.


There may be individual cases of economia applied where a married couple cannot conceive naturally (such as if the woman has blocked Fallopian tubes, but is otherwise healthy and able to sustain a pregnancy), so that fertilisation using the genetic material of the husband and wife, is achieved in vitro, and the embryo is then implanted.

While the technique itself might be acceptable, there are facets of that technique iwhich are not. For example, It is standard procedure to fertilize and store more than one embryo for implantation in case it is unsuccessful. The fate of those unborn children must be taken into account. It would not be acceptable for those embryos to be discarded (which would equate with abortion) since we hold that the beginning of life is at conception. Thus any use of in vitro fertilization by an Orthodox Christian would have to account for any "unused" embryos and some plan for them to be born at a future date would have to be in place - under no circumstances could they simply be "discarded" (aborted). This is complicated question which is not yet fully addressed by the Church. The Social Concept, cited in the above post, is a very useful document, however, it is for the most part a very general document which only sets out a working principle which must then be developed to fit the actual situation.

Fr David Moser

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Ken,

With respect for Father Deacon Matthew and you, I don't think the Orthodox Church agrees with what you are saying, to the best of my knowledge at this time anyway.

Context is everything, the quotes from the text that you are presenting are not oriented toward veganism, ascents from those quotes wound not be fruits of veganism. One could for instance fly a kite of veganism and say, see how high it goes, while holding a mere string. When the wind blows hard, the veganism you speak of has less substance and not much of a foundation within the lives of the orthodox monastics and others I have known. I have never had or heard a Bishop, Priest or monk (usually in the past, those that we are to listen to in the Orthodox tradition) promote veganism using quotes from the Church fathers or otherwise. It is not part of our tradition. While certainly there are many times that we fast, abstaining from meat, dairy products etc. those activities are pursued to crucify the flesh and the lust therein.

To date, we have not heard anyone choose to make suggestions about going to the zoo and freeing all the animals out of the cages so that we can play with them because in paradise Adam played with the animals before.

My point was that the retrospective paradise that you speak of goes back and much more importantly forward, to one of Fathers' beloved sayings; "The lamb crucified before the foundation of the world" That is what I was attempting to convey, the breath of the concentration in the Orthodox Church is always oriented to Christ first I think.

I will say no more.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Bill Cherry]

I have started a pro-life vegans and Vegetarians forum at

http://prolifevegansandvegetarians.freeforums.org/search.php

I don't want to steal anybody, I just thought that if this is an important issue for you that you could go here. i just opened it today. So, it's not very busy. But, if you like, then check it out.

I apologize to the moderators if I've done any wrong. if this post is deleted, it is alright. As I said, I hope I'm not breaking any rules.

[Ken McRae]

01) St. John Chrysostom (D. 407):- "Flesh-meats and wine serve as materials for sensuality, and are a source of danger, sorrow, and disease." (Homily on Matthew xxii, 1-14)

The above quote now appears problematic to me, in hindsight. I stumbled upon it, (along with the two others that followed it,) on a 'Gnostic' website. After posting them, I then decided I should read St. John's 22nd Homily on Matthew's Gospel, just to be sure it contained those alleged words. I did and it did not; at least not the version of it that I read, on the New Advent website. As far as I could see, there was'nt a single sentence in the entire homily which even remotely comes close to the above rendering; which troubled me deeply, so I e-mailed the website where I originally found it, to complain about this, but as you may have guessed by now, they have not replied back.

At the bottom of the page, on which these quotes were found, there is the following sentence: "The writer of these few extracts makes acknowledgment [of] the same to W. E. A. Axon, LL.D.; and thus I suspect the above quote is more than likely W. E. A. Axon's interpretation of St. John Chrysostom's 69th homily on St. Matthew's Gospel. At any rate, having taken the time to read that homily, I did come across the following interesting passage:-


An Extract from St. John Chrysostom's HOMILY on Matt. XXII. 1-14 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200169.htm)

If we were to go away into the wilderness, and look at the tents of Christ's soldiers, we shall see not canvas stretched, neither points of spears, nor golden garments making a royal pavilion; but like as if any one upon an earth much larger than this earth, yea infinite, had stretched out many heavens, strange and awful would be the sight he showed; even so may one see here.

For in nothing are their lodging-places in a condition inferior to the heavens; for the angels lodge with them, and the Lord of the angels. For if they came to Abraham, a man having a wife, and bringing up children, because they saw him hospitable; when they find much more abundant virtue, and a man delivered from the body, and in the flesh disregarding the flesh, much more do they tarry there, and celebrate the choral feast that becomes them. For there is moreover a table among them pure from all covetousness, and full of self-denial.

No streams of blood are among them, nor cutting up of flesh, nor heaviness of head, nor dainty cooking, neither are there unpleasing smells of meat among them, nor disagreeable smoke, neither runnings and tumults, and disturbances, and wearisome clamors; but bread and water, the latter from a pure fountain, the former from honest labor. But if any time they should be minded to feast more sumptuously, their sumptuousness consists of fruits, and greater is the pleasure there than at royal tables.