Eastern Fasting Rules - what to eat?

[malphono]

I find it quite disheartening!

The word “disheartening” doesn’t even being to describe it for me. As you have undoubtedly noticed over time, from the perspective of this Oriental, it goes waaay beyond disheartening.

 

[ciero]

The word “disheartening” doesn’t even being to describe it for me. As you have undoubtedly noticed over time, from the perspective of this Oriental, it goes waaay beyond disheartening.

I just couldn’t think of a stronger word!

 

[malphono]

I just couldn’t think of a stronger word!

One that comes to mind is revolting. I can think of several others, some of which are not appropriate to the forum.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

First off; the Orthodox do not allow fish on weekends, fish is allowed only on Anunciation and Palm Sunday.

Well I am Orthodox, and sorry I got my wires crossed because we are on the Nativity Fast right now and we are having fish on weekends. I forgot which fast I was talking about, so yes amend what I said to make everything much stricter for the Great and Holy Lent.

 

[dvdjs]

I really thought that Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) fasting norms would match the Greek and Russian Orthodox rules. I am quite surprised that the basic rules are no meat two days a week, with fish, when the Orthodox have no meat for the whole 50 days or so, with fish only being allowed on weekends. They are almost totally different. Is this manner of fasting considered a “Latinization?”

Are there really “Greek and Russian Orthodox rules”? I see the monastic guidelines being applied very economically at the direction of the parish priest. You shouldn’t compare an ideal against a minimum prescription. Do any of us know who, among ECs, is doing the minimum and who is doing more? Do any of us know who, among EOs, is doing the full fast and who is doing less? It is this talk that is disheartening and revolting as it call to mind Matt16:6 etc.

Now, it very well may be that having and articulating a legal minimum reflects a Western mentality. Is it a “Latinization”? Consider the fact that some of those who say yes are also indicating that Rome says no, and that they don’t understand why Eastern bishops don’t just hop to what Rome is saying. If micromanagement of ECCs from Rome is not Latinization then nothing is.

 

[ciero]

Are there really “Greek and Russian Orthodox rules”? I see the monastic guidelines being applied very economically at the direction of the parish priest. You shouldn’t compare an ideal against a minimum prescription. Do any of us know who, among ECs, is doing the minimum and who is doing more? Do any of us know who, among EOs, is doing the full fast and who is doing less? It is this talk that is disheartening and revolting as it call to mind Matt16:6 etc.

Now, it very well may be that having and articulating a legal minimum reflects a Western mentality. Is it a “Latinization”? Consider the fact that some of those who say yes are also indicating that Rome says no, and that they don’t understand why Eastern bishops don’t just hop to what Rome is saying. If micromanagement of ECCs from Rome is not Latinization then nothing is.

From what the Eastern Catholic bishops have been doing I certainly don’t mind Rome micromanaging them. They have shown time and time again that they need to be micromanaged by someone!

 

[dvdjs]

From what the Eastern Catholic bishops have been doing I certainly don’t mind Rome micromanaging them. They have shown time and time again that they need to be micromanaged by someone!

I do. Apart from matters of rank heresy, I would rather our bishops act on their own - even if they make mistakes - than be micromanaged by Rome, or anyone else. That uniate model - not just the idea of a missionary apostolate, bu the idea of submission to Rome - needs to be extinguished; sui juris churches need to act as sui juris churches if there is to be any hope whatsoever for reconciliation between the Catholic and EO churches.

 

[ciero]

I do. Apart from matters of rank heresy, I would rather our bishops act on their own - even if they make mistakes - than be micromanaged by Rome, or anyone else. That uniate model - not just the idea of a missionary apostolate, bu the idea of submission to Rome - needs to be extinguished; sui juris churches need to act as sui juris churches if there is to be any hope whatsoever for reconciliation between the Catholic and EO churches.

I agree with you that our bishops should act on their own, but time and time again they have shown they’re not up to the job.

I’m very thankful Rome does step in when needed, because if we left it to our own bishops we would all be RC in no time.

I hope and pray that someday we have bishops who don’t need to be micromanaged but for now .

 

[dvdjs]

I agree with you that our bishops should act on their own, but time and time again they have shown they’re not up to the job.

I’m very thankful Rome does step in when needed, because if we left it to our own bishops we would all be RC in no time.

Your post is so oblique that there is not much to comment on - to agree or diagree; but I am skeptical of such vague criticism.

But I do have to ask: You do realize the role that Rome plays in picking the Bishops?

 

[5Loaves]

I really thought that Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) fasting norms would match the Greek and Russian Orthodox rules. I am quite surprised that the basic rules are no meat two days a week, with fish, when the Orthodox have no meat for the whole 50 days or so, with fish only being allowed on weekends. They are almost totally different. Is this manner of fasting considered a “Latinization?”

My Russian Byzantine Catholic parish does follow the fasting calendar of the Russian Orthodox. We began the Nativity fast Nov 15. Every day until 12/25 is “pink”, with fish. wine & oil allowed weekends til the 19th, and on some Tu/Th fish. wine & oil, or wine & oil etc.

Perhaps one of the “benefits” we have from the fact we Russian ECs currently have no hierarch is that our pastor calls the shots pretty much and he is very orthodox. We did have a dispensation for Thanksgiving day. The liturgical calendar with its feasts and fasts is one of the wonderful parts of the Eastern life. It makes me sad when I hear so many parishes/eparchies have changed the norms. * Economia* is always a part of the praxis. I don’t see where cutting back on the monastic traditions for fasting to which we look is necessary. As we often say in the Latin Church about issues that come up “lack of catechesis”…

 

[Aramis]

Are there really “Greek and Russian Orthodox rules”? I see the monastic guidelines being applied very economically at the direction of the parish priest. You shouldn’t compare an ideal against a minimum prescription. Do any of us know who, among ECs, is doing the minimum and who is doing more? Do any of us know who, among EOs, is doing the full fast and who is doing less? It is this talk that is disheartening and revolting as it call to mind Matt16:6 etc.

It’s all too easy to spot the many Catholics and Orthodox who are not fasting… And forget that they might have been dispensed from the obligation, or had something else appointed for their fast.

But, at least in the Russian Orthodox Dioceses of Sitka & Alaska, there is indeed a prescription for a very strict fast as the baseline. And it’s widely ignored and/or dispensed.

Now, it very well may be that having and articulating a legal minimum reflects a Western mentality. Is it a “Latinization”? Consider the fact that some of those who say yes are also indicating that Rome says no, and that they don’t understand why Eastern bishops don’t just hop to what Rome is saying.

Is it a latinization? No.
Westernization? not really; Russian love of rules is a historical theme.
Russification? Not entirely; love of explicit rules is part of the west as much as Russia…

I prefer the established minimum with encouragement to go beyond, myself, and have yet to have a pastor (roman or byzantine) who didn’t encourage going above and beyond.

If micromanagement of ECCs from Rome is not Latinization then nothing is.

Agreed.

 

[ciero]

Your post is so oblique that there is not much to comment on - to agree or diagree; but I am skeptical of such vague criticism.

But I do have to ask: You do realize the role that Rome plays in picking the Bishops?

I think Rome often gets the short end of the stick when it comes to this. Do you really think “Rome” has any idea who the men they appoint as bishops are? Unfortunatly Rome releys all to much on recommendations from the churches themselves for who is being appointed. To use the current situation of the Ruthenians as an example, the bishops on the council of hierarchs will have a big say as to who the next Metropolitan will be. These men actualy know the man they choose. Rome basically makes sure the man chosen isn’t a heretic, and rubber stamps the choice of the bishops.

I’m not saying that Rome micromanaging the ECCs is a good thing, but in the current situation and with who MOST of our bishops are I think it is a necessary thing.

Can you show me any positive things our bishops have done on their own accord?

 

[dvdjs]

I think Rome often gets the short end of the stick when it comes to this. Do you really think “Rome” has any idea who the men they appoint as bishops are? Unfortunately Rome relies all to much on recommendations from the churches themselves for who is being appointed. To use the current situation of the Ruthenians as an example, the bishops on the council of hierarchs will have a big say as to who the next Metropolitan will be. These men actually know the man they choose. Rome basically makes sure the man chosen isn’t a heretic, and rubber stamps the choice of the bishops.

I certainly that Rome - like our bishops, priests, deacons, cantorr, laity and everyone who is complained about - often get the short end of the stick. I think you are mistaken, however about the idea that they might not have any idea who the men they appoint as bishops are. Maybe not 50 years ago, but certainly now they do.

I’m not saying that Rome micromanaging the ECCs is a good thing, but in the current situation and with who MOST of our bishops are I think it is a necessary thing.

First I am not sure who you mean by “our”. If you mean the Eastern Catholic Bishops of the US, I would have to say that I only know about the BCC, and a little of the Romanian Bishop. The rest, I don’t know at all. If you are talking about the men that I know, then I disagree with your contention.

Indeed, your ideas are very contradictory: if Rome doesn’t know anything about the men they are appointing as bishops, what on earth do they know about that they are appointing these bishops to lead, what do they know about what the pastoral consideration necessary for shepherding it?

Can you show me any positive things our bishops have done on their own accord?

What do bishops do of their own accord? What doesn’t ultimately rely on the cooperation of priests and laity? I could point to many areas in which we are far better off now than when I was a youth over 35 years ago; I could point to a number of things that are worse. But I don’t know on whose accord these developments were conceived or implemented. It might be that all of the good things were forced upon the bishops, priests, etc. by Rome. (But I rather doubt it - Rome is just too easy to ignore.) I really don’t have access to the inside information required to answer your question, as you phrase it.

But I would welcome a discussion of the positive things that have happened in the last 35 years.