Romans 14.2: The weak 'exhorted' to eat herbs?

[M. Partyka]

I ran across this in an Orthodox commentary, and it sounds a little off the mark to me:


For those weak in faith and soul, abstinence from specific types of food is most beneficial; St. Paul exhorts them to eat herbs (Romans 14:2), for they do not believe that God will preserve them.Romans 14:1-4,6 -- Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant?...He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

It looks to me like St. Paul isn't here exhorting anybody to eat (or stop eating) anything. Rather, the exhortation here is to stop judging your brother based on what he eats or doesn't eat. Given the "Jew vs. Gentile" context of Romans, I assume the original intent was to say something like, "If your Israelite brother still feels compelled to keep kosher, don't look down on him because of it -- nor should he look down on you because you don't keep kosher."

Does this sound right? I mean, maybe it is a spiritual principle that a person who is weak in faith should eat only herbs to prove that God will preserve him even on such a meager diet -- this is what Daniel and his fellow captives did to their success -- but to derive this principle from Romans 14:2 doesn't seem at all justified, especially since the overall message of Rom 14 concerning food is, "You can eat (or not eat) whatever you like so long as you (1) don't hurt your brother by what you choose to eat (or not eat) and (2) don't look down upon your brother for whatever it is he chooses to eat (or not eat)."

[Michael Stickles]

That is a quote from St. Gregory of Sinai (http://www.innerlightproductions.com/thoughts/dec0201.htm), from his sixth text on prayer ("How to Partake of Food") in volume 4 of the Philokalia. Note that he is not doing commentary on the passage, but using it in support of advice to an older man who had asked for a strict rule regarding eating:


A hesychast, however, should always eat too little, never too much. ... Thus in my opinion if you want to attain salvation and strive for the Lord's sake to lead a life of stillness, you should be satisfied with a pound of bread and three or four cups of water or wine daily, taking at appropriate times a little from whatever victuals happen to be at hand, but never eating to satiety. In this way you will avoid growing conceited, and by thanking God for everything you will show no disdain for the excellent things He has made. This is the counsel of those who are wise in such matters. For those weak in faith and soul, abstinence from specific types of food is most beneficial; St. Paul exhorts them to eat herbs (Romans 14:2), for they do not believe that God will preserve them.

-- What shall I say? You are old, yet have asked for a rule, and an extremely severe one at that. Younger people cannot keep to a strict rule by weight and measure, so how will you keep to it?

I think St. Gregory is modifying the context here to support his point. Instead of contrasting eating herbs with being free to eat all things (as Paul was in the Romans passage), I think he is contrasting abstinence from specific types of food (as in eating herbs instead of meat) with the very strict hesychastic diet, and saying that since the weak do not believe God will preserve them on such a meagre diet, they should instead merely practice abstinence from specific foods according to their strength. I haven't read his writings in detail, though, so I could easily be wrong on that.

St. Gregory's remarks are quite different from St. John Chrysostom's commentary (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210225.htm) on this same verse; St. John takes Paul's words not as exhortation to the weak eat only herbs, but as (in part) a rebuke to them:


What does he wish to correct then? There were many of the Jews which believed, who adhered of conscience to the Law, and after their believing, still kept to the observance of meats, as not having courage yet to quit the service of the Law entirely. Then that they might not be observed if they kept from swine's flesh only, they abstained in consequence from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that what they were doing might have more the appearance of a fast than of observance of the Law. Others again were farther advanced, (τελειότεροι) and kept up no one thing of the kind, who became to those, who did keep them, distressing and offensive, by reproaching them, accusing them, driving them to despondency.

... observe what great judgment he [Paul] uses and how he concerns himself with both interests with his customary wisdom. For neither does he venture to say to those who rebuke, You are doing amiss, that he may not seem to be confirming the other in their observances; nor again, You are doing right, lest he should make them the more vehement accusers: but he makes his rebuke to square with each. And in appearance he is rebuking the stronger, but he pours forth all he has to say against the other in his address to these.

... See now with what judgment he does this, and how well-timed he is with it. For after saying, "make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof," then he proceeds to the discussion of these points, that he might not seem to be speaking in defence of those who were the rebukers, and were for eating of anything. For the weaker part ever requires more forethought. Wherefore he aims his blow against the strong, immediately saying as follows, "Him that is weak in the faith." You see one blow immediately given to him. For by calling him weak (ἀ σθενοὕντα), he points out that he is not healthy (ἄ ρρωστον). Then he adds next, "receive," and point out again that he requires much attention. And this is a sign of extreme debility. "Not to doubtful disputations." See, he has laid on a third stripe. For here he makes it appear that his error is of such a nature, that even those who do not transgress in the same manner, and who nevertheless admit him to their affection, and are earnestly bent upon curing him, are at doubt. You see how in appearance he is conversing with these, but is rebuking others secretly and without giving offence. Then by placing them beside each other, one he gives encomiums, the other accusations. For he goes on to say, "One believes that he may eat all things," commending him on the score of his faith. "Another who is weak, eats herbs," disparaging this one again, on the score of his weakness.

St. Jerome does quote this verse (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LIV.html) more approvingly (i.e., approving those who eat herbs), but in a slightly different context, supporting advice he is giving to a widow on the best ways of preserving her widowhood unstained:


Then as regards your food you must avoid all heating dishes. I do not speak of flesh dishes only (although of these the chosen vessel declares his mind thus: “it is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine”) but of vegetables as well. Everything provocative or indigestible is to be refused. Be assured that nothing is so good for young Christians as the eating of herbs. Accordingly in another place he says: “another who is weak eateth herbs.” Thus the heat of the body must be tempered with cold food.

I am not sure if any of the other Fathers had different takes on this verse in the context Paul was addressing (i.e., what we eat). St. Athanasius does quote this verse allegorically (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.vii.html) in reference to spiritual food, and St. Ambrose uses it similarly (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vii.ii.vi.html) in discussing marriage versus virginity, but I think they aren't addressing Paul's main point(s) in writing it.

In Christ,
Mike

[Bill Cherry]

I ran across this in an Orthodox commentary, and it sounds a little off the mark to me:

Romans 14:1-4,6 -- Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant?...He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

It looks to me like St. Paul isn't here exhorting anybody to eat (or stop eating) anything. Rather, the exhortation here is to stop judging your brother based on what he eats or doesn't eat. Given the "Jew vs. Gentile" context of Romans, I assume the original intent was to say something like, "If your Israelite brother still feels compelled to keep kosher, don't look down on him because of it -- nor should he look down on you because you don't keep kosher."

Does this sound right? I mean, maybe it is a spiritual principle that a person who is weak in faith should eat only herbs to prove that God will preserve him even on such a meager diet -- this is what Daniel and his fellow captives did to their success -- but to derive this principle from Romans 14:2 doesn't seem at all justified, especially since the overall message of Rom 14 concerning food is, "You can eat (or not eat) whatever you like so long as you (1) don't hurt your brother by what you choose to eat (or not eat) and (2) don't look down upon your brother for whatever it is he chooses to eat (or not eat)."
I believe that the first Christians were not strict vegans. But, rather pescatarians (Fish, but not animals). The gentiles consumed meat. Often, the meat had been offered to their pagan gods or idols. This was a part of the gentile culture at the time. Just like today, there was much wrong information concerning eating meat.

What Paul was referring to here as far as 'weak' in the faith is the indirect or unintentional causing of another person to sin. If a person believes it is a sin for him to eat meat, then for him it is a sin. So, if he sees another Christian eating meat, then he passes a judgment on his brother as committing a sin for eating the meat. Therefor, Paul says, that if it were to cause his brother to sin,(because the brother is weak in his faith) he would not eat meat. It is not a statement of whether it was a religious ordinance to eat or abstain from meat. It was an exhortation to abstain from accidentally causing your brother to sin.

[Vasiliki D.]

There is a lot of sence in what you say Bill.

I have trouble understanding one thing - can you elaborate based on the following example. If I dont like meat because from my experience I find it makes me more carnal (incites passions) do you agree or disagree that I can simply cut it out of my life (to minimise the passion) or do I need to take an extra step to ensure that the passion is removed from soul (Spiritual Father)?

In other words, will simply making a dietary change be enough to make a physical change but also a spiritual change? At what point between the two do we receive God's blessing on the matter and do we receive God's blessing on the matter without the Spiritual Father thereby is it enough merely having a physical change?

[Herman Blaydoe]

I believe that the first Christians were not strict vegans. But, rather pescatarians (Fish, but not animals). The gentiles consumed meat. Often, the meat had been offered to their pagan gods or idols. This was a part of the gentile culture at the time. Just like today, there was much wrong information concerning eating meat.

In a sense, those not under obedience can believe pretty much whatever they want. But I don't see much evidence to support this. Yes, early Christians ate fish, but our Lord, as a practicing Jew, no doubt took part in the Passover, which did involve eating lamb, and the first Christians were also observant Jews who did the same. There is no overt prohibition of eating meat in Holy Scripture or in any extant literature of the time.


What Paul was referring to here as far as 'weak' in the faith is the indirect or unintentional causing of another person to sin. If a person believes it is a sin for him to eat meat, then for him it is a sin. So, if he sees another Christian eating meat, then he passes a judgment on his brother as committing a sin for eating the meat. Therefor, Paul says, that if it were to cause his brother to sin, (because the brother is weak in his faith) he would not eat meat. It is not a statement of whether it was a religious ordinance to eat or abstain from meat. It was an exhortation to abstain from accidentally causing your brother to sin.

Agreed, but he is talking about eating meat, not fish. The converse of this would be if there are situations where eating meat can be a problem, then there are situations where it isn't a problem.

Nothing wrong with abstaining from meat as a voluntary asceticism or even as a dietary practice, just as long as one does not try to force it on others. What if your abstaining from meat causes your brother to sin? What then?

Just a little thought from a bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Bill Cherry]

There is a lot of sence in what you say Bill.

I have trouble understanding one thing - can you elaborate based on the following example. If I dont like meat because from my experience I find it makes me more carnal (incites passions) do you agree or disagree that I can simply cut it out of my life (to minimise the passion) or do I need to take an extra step to ensure that the passion is removed from soul (Spiritual Father)?

In other words, will simply making a dietary change be enough to make a physical change but also a spiritual change? At what point between the two do we receive God's blessing on the matter and do we receive God's blessing on the matter without the Spiritual Father thereby is it enough merely having a physical change?

Thank you, Vasiliki, for your kind response. Before I answer, I must tell you that I am only a carpenter. (If it was a good enough occupation for Our Lord, then it is good enough for me.) ;) With that said,...

I believe that there has been a correlation shown between diets and temperaments among humans and animals. In nature, herbivores tend to be more docile than carnivores or omnivores. In my own experience, my friends have noted a change in my personal temperament since I have changed my diet. (I was a vegetarian for about 9 months before I asked my fiancee to marry me. We are now both vegans.) I do not know if this is due to the lack of growth hormones and steroids which are injected into the cattle raised in the United States, or if it is on a spiritual level.

My past studies of the metaphysical nature of man has led me to believe that there is a direct relation between the flesh of our being and the spirit of our being. An example being the nature of our actions and concupiscence resulting in sin, which the blood of Christ covers. If this is to be taken literally, then the implication is that sin covers us, also. Whether this is in accordance with the teachings of my Church or not, I have never found a need to discern.(But, perhaps I should check) This leads me to believe that the improvement in the physical will necessarily improve the spiritual.

As to what point at which we receive Gods blessing my GUESS is that it is at the point in which we desire and ask for the change to be more Christ-like. The Lord promised His Holy Spirit to anyone who should ask for it. It is a teaching in the Roman Catholic Church that the desire for baptism is just as relevant in the eyes of God as the physical baptism is for the Church. I would think that this would apply for the desire and the action upon the desire ('faith' in action) to change, also.
As far as the temporal graces received for implementing the action, this would depend on the Lords timing, I suppose.

If you are under the direction of a spiritual adviser, I would suggest that you follow the instructions he gives you.

This is my understanding of the issue. I am in the Monachos forums to learn, as well as share. I hope this is helpful. Your question has caused me to think about it. I hope for someone a little more qualified than I to answer the question, also.

Bill

[Bill Cherry]

In a sense, those not under obedience can believe pretty much whatever they want. But I don't see much evidence to support this. Yes, early Christians ate fish, but our Lord, as a practicing Jew, no doubt took part in the Passover, which did involve eating lamb, and the first Christians were also observant Jews who did the same. There is no overt prohibition of eating meat in Holy Scripture or in any extant literature of the time.



Agreed, but he is talking about eating meat, not fish. The converse of this would be if there are situations where eating meat can be a problem, then there are situations where it isn't a problem.

Nothing wrong with abstaining from meat as a voluntary asceticism or even as a dietary practice, just as long as one does not try to force it on others. What if your abstaining from meat causes your brother to sin? What then?

Just a little thought from a bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Hello, Herman. You present a valid argument.

Romans 14:13-23 says,


13 Let us each stop passing judgement, therefore, on one another and decide instead that none (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8523) of us will (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12332) place obstacles in any brother's way, or anything that can bring him down. 14 I am sure, and quite convinced in the Lord (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) Jesus, that no food is unclean in itself; it is only if someone classifies any kind of food as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 And indeed, if through any kind of food you are causing offence to a brother, then you are no longer being guided by love. You are not to let the food that you eat cause (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2693) the ruin of anyone for whom Christ (http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) died. 16 A privilege (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9647) of yours must not be allowed to give rise to harmful talk; 17 for it is not eating and drinking that make the kingdom of God, but the saving justice, the peace and the joy brought by the Holy Spirit. 18 It is the person (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9193) who serves Christ (http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus) in these things that will (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12332) be approved by God (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5217) and respected by everyone. 19 So then, let us be always seeking the ways which lead to peace and the ways in which we can support one another. 20 Do not wreck God's work for the sake of food. Certainly all foods are clean; but all the same, any kind can be evil (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4469) for someone to whom it is an offence to eat it. 21 It is best to abstain from eating any meat, or drinking any wine, or from any other activity which might cause (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2693) a brother to fall away, or to be scandalised, or to weaken. 22 Within yourself, before God, hold on to what you already believe. Blessed is the person (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9193) whose principles do not condemn his practice. 23 But anyone who eats with qualms of conscience (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3278) is condemned, because this eating does not spring from faith (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) -- and every action which does not spring from faith (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=4554) is sin.I pasted this from the New Jerusalem Bible, which is approved by the Church. There may be links in the text itself.

(http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=52&bible_chapter=13)

[Vasiliki D.]

I enjoy your posts Bill, the following are merely discussions/out lout thoughts that do not bear a direct response to your reply but I think trying to taper into the essence so we can then compliment with Patristic quotes?


I believe that there has been a correlation shown between diets and temperaments among humans and animals. In nature, herbivores tend to be more docile than carnivores or omnivores.

1) You will be pleasantly surprised to know that there is a very good book, within Orthodox circles, "Wounded By Love" by the Elder Porfyrios. The Elder discusses in the book discusses the distinction between the herbivore and the carnivore which would support your thinking for sure! If you were to buy this book and read it you will never regret it. It is a gem filled with wisdom beyond just this!

2) The emphasis of the Eastern Orthodox church is on HEALING more than legalism. So, the purpose of fasting should be discussed in the light of healing and not in legalism – we must always remind ourselves that fasting is a tool for healing of the physical (yes) but primarily the spiritual self!

3) Creation, even in its fallen state, is good it is not evil. A better way to approach the logic of “veganism” as an Orthodox Christian (IMHO) is to consider the reduction of various foods as an “allergy” to certain things that God has made NOT that the Creation is bad … the distinction/reason is important. We must never say in our ascetic endeavours that anything God has made is bad for us … what we should say is that because of our own “insanities” we have taken “a picture” that HAD a good purpose and that we have misused it over time to our hurt and to the hurt of those around us and to the hurt of the Creation that God made.

Example: If I have been gluttonous over the course of my life and I develop Diabetes Type II then I should not eat food that is high in fat and also has simple carbohydrates. Is that because a fatty food or a carbohydrate rich food is bad? No. It is because it is no longer good for me since I have become "allergic" to the food because of my own "insanity" (ie. It was insane for me to over indulge in the first instance). I hope this example can clarify the third point.

[Father David Moser]

I pasted this from the New Jerusalem Bible, which is approved by the Church. There may be links in the text itself.

Just to clarify, I must point out the the New Jerusalem Bible has been approved by the Roman Catholic Church - there is no similar endorsement (to the best of my knowledge) by the Orthodox Church.

Fr David Moser

[Paul Cowan]

It is my understanding when Adam and Eve sinned, they were clothed in death. God performed the first animal scarifice and clothed them not only in animal skins, but in flesh that was corruptible. skins of death.

When we consume flesh, we consume death. So during Lent we do not consume death in preparation for the Lord's death. If we can fast from consuming death weekly and seasonally, perhaps we can also fast from sin in our lives.

[Bill Cherry]

I enjoy your posts Bill, the following are merely discussions/out lout thoughts that do not bear a direct response to your reply but I think trying to taper into the essence so we can then compliment with Patristic quotes?
Likewise, i enjoy yours, also, Vasiliki.

I will try to validate my thoughts with words from the Holy persons in my tradition, also. If I can, I will provide references to the source.



1) You will be pleasantly surprised to know that there is a very good book, within Orthodox circles, "Wounded By Love" by the Elder Porfyrios. The Elder discusses in the book discusses the distinction between the herbivore and the carnivore which would support your thinking for sure! If you were to buy this book and read it you will never regret it. It is a gem filled with wisdom beyond just this!I will look for it. In all honesty I had never even heard of Elder Porfyrios before we started this conversation. But, the information I found shows me that he was a very holy man, indeed![/quote]

2) The emphasis of the Eastern Orthodox church is on HEALING more than legalism. So, the purpose of fasting should be discussed in the light of healing and not in legalism – we must always remind ourselves that fasting is a tool for healing of the physical (yes) but primarily the spiritual self!
Agreed. There is no legalistic ruling on fasting in the Roman Catholic Church, either. Lenten season is concerned more with penance, certain acts of which are considered fasting. So, it is not necessarily limited to eating. Since, I am already vegan, giving up meat is a moot point for me. So, I will probably take full out abstinence from food for a day; and along with my regimen of prayer, join my fiancee at the St.Vincent dePaul food kitchen and donate food and time.3) Creation, even in its fallen state, is good it is not evil. A better way to approach the logic of “veganism” as an Orthodox Christian (IMHO) is to consider the reduction of various foods as an “allergy” to certain things that God has made NOT that the Creation is bad … the distinction/reason is important. We must never say in our ascetic endeavours that anything God has made is bad for us … what we should say is that because of our own “insanities” we have taken “a picture” that HAD a good purpose and that we have misused it over time to our hurt and to the hurt of those around us and to the hurt of the Creation that God made.[/quote]


http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0807-hance_pope.html

Pope Benedict XVI, who has arguably been the most vocal Pope on environmental concerns, says that "God entrusted man with the responsibility of creation".

Denying that environmental degradation was partially a product of Christian teaching—for example the belief that God gave man dominion over the earth—instead the Pope says that the destruction of the environment is primarily due to materialism: living in a "materialistic world" where "God is denied" which has led to the environment's current state.

"In a world closed in on its materialism," the Pope has said, "It is easier for the human being to make himself the dictator of all other creatures and of nature."


Example: If I have been gluttonous over the course of my life and I develop Diabetes Type II then I should not eat food that is high in fat and also has simple carbohydrates. Is that because a fatty food or a carbohydrate rich food is bad? No. It is because it is no longer good for me since I have become "allergic" to the food because of my own "insanity" (ie. It was insane for me to over indulge in the first instance). I hope this example can clarify the third point.I would hope that the understanding that one should alter their behavior to coincide with the condition of their health is common knowledge even among unbelievers.

[Bill Cherry]

It is my understanding when Adam and Eve sinned, they were clothed in death. God performed the first animal scarifice and clothed them not only in animal skins, but in flesh that was corruptible. skins of death.

When we consume flesh, we consume death. So during Lent we do not consume death in preparation for the Lord's death. If we can fast from consuming death weekly and seasonally, perhaps we can also fast from sin in our lives.

Wow! I had never thought of that before, Paul. *thumbsup*

The thought you are attempting to convey appeals to me.
Could you please point this out to me in scripture?

[Paul Cowan]

I am patristically an idiot. I hope our resident experts can see what I am referring to and give references to the Church fathers. I seem to pay more attention to the "wow" factor of stories I hear than to their authors. I know this is a Lenten theme though.

Here is the Bible gateway quote.


Genesis 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

There is more symbolism in Orthodoxy than I think in the Catholic Church or any church for that matter, but I know little to nothing of your faith. This is probably a whole new thread and I think one that has been touched on previously. I will try to find it.


St. Seraphim of Sarov, I think it was, lived on a bitter inedible herb for 3 years that was made sweet by his prayers.

[Vasiliki D.]

What I can not seem to place in this discussion is if you are both right (we MUST be vegans or vegetarians) then we have no place in consuming the Body and Blood of Christ ... just a thought.

How far is too far? Is the motivation for being vegetarian or vegan purely moral, religious or ethical?

As an Orthodox Christian, my question to my spiritual father would be .. Do I embrace vegetarianism in the religious context (as set out by the Canons) OR do I do it because there is a moral or ethical motivation pushing me to do it.

Can one have a detrimental result over the other or will they both result in the same outcome?

What is God inspired?
What is man desired?

[Bill Cherry]

I am patristically an idiot. I hope our resident experts can see what I am referring to and give references to the Church fathers. I seem to pay more attention to the "wow" factor of stories I hear than to their authors. I know this is a Lenten theme though.

Here is the Bible gateway quote.



There is more symbolism in Orthodoxy than I think in the Catholic Church or any church for that matter, but I know little to nothing of your faith. This is probably a whole new thread and I think one that has been touched on previously. I will try to find it.


St. Seraphim of Sarov, I think it was, lived on a bitter inedible herb for 3 years that was made sweet by his prayers.
Hi,Paul!

I see the scripture. You are correct. I don't see where the animals were eaten, though. That doesn't mean that I am saying you are wrong. I, too, am ignorant of Orthodox doctrine. Particularly, 'Patrist' (as this is the first time I've even heard the term used in this context.)

[Bill Cherry]

What I can not seem to place in this discussion is if you are both right (we MUST be vegans or vegetarians) then we have no place in consuming the Body and Blood of Christ ... just a thought.
Hi, Vasiliki!

I believe that the diet from a 'laymans' level is one of preference and has no real bearing other than the possibility of one believing it is what the Lord wishes for that person. That is MY speculation. From the level of a holy obligation, then it depends on the rule of the order or the instruction given from one's superior. In the R/Catholic world, I often say that the Eucharist is the closest thing to meat I want in my body. In jest, I suggest that since He called Himself the Bread of life, then it must be vegetarian, if not vegan. Conversely it is pointed out to me that there are 'miracles' in certain parishes around the world where the transubstantiation has occurred physically and the Host is kept for veneration, and has been tested by scientist to be actual human flesh with blood type AB. Some are even approved by Rome.

But, this may be a subject of a different matter.


How far is too far? Is the motivation for being vegetarian or vegan purely moral, religious or ethical? For myself, it is all three. Although it is the opinion of many 'old-timers' that the American Catholic Church is verging on apostacy right now. And my opinion may seem heretical. I hope it isn't. My patron Saint is St. Francis of Assisi, who is the Saint of Animals and the environment.


As an Orthodox Christian, my question to my spiritual father would be .. Do I embrace vegetarianism in the religious context (as set out by the Canons) OR do I do it because there is a moral or ethical motivation pushing me to do it.

Can one have a detrimental result over the other or will they both result in the same outcome?

What is God inspired?
What is man desired?I am not qualified to answer those questions. I am just a carpenter. Although, my fiancee and I are discerning for the Secular Order of Fransiscans.

[Vasiliki D.]

Hi Bill, being a carpenter is irrelevant to this discussion because it does not mean you are incapable of discussing! Please dont say it again because u have proven you are smart and articulate! :-)

This thread is a mirror thread to the Veganism thread and the underlying current is a "push" for PRO-VEGANISM in both ...

However, this is not an Orthodox concept for the sake of Veganism although it IS orthodox to be "like" a vegan for appointed times throughout the year and perhaps we can discuss why the Church has, in its wisdom, appointed these fasts at those times ...

My last post in the Veganism thread I want to post here also so we can stop holding two discussions on the same topic in mirror threads ...


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!

[Michael Stickles]

Yes, early Christians ate fish, but our Lord, as a practicing Jew, no doubt took part in the Passover, which did involve eating lamb, and the first Christians were also observant Jews who did the same.

This comment, plus an offline discussion regarding this thread, got me thinking on what Christ would have eaten, and eventually led to Matthew 11:18-19.


"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

The contrast made here says to me that, while John was known for eating an ascetic diet (locusts and wild honey), our Lord was seen to eat whatever the people He was with ("tax collectors and sinners") were eating, and definitely did not have a reputation for ascetic restraint in public (even allowing for some slanderous exaggeration in what "they" were saying). So, at least when eating with others, His diet would have been pretty much the same as the normal diet of Jews in that time and place, without significant restrictions in quantity or food type.

In Christ,
Michael