D
daniel87
Guest
should I keep my bread and water fast, I’m very happy with it, on friday for a birthday (atheists) or not? as it might put it in bad light from their misunderstandings
- Status
D
daniel87
Guest
p.s. could you answer quickly please
P
puzzleannie
Guest
don’t understand the question and what your personal spiritual decisions have to do with atheists. if you choose to fast or to abstain, do so, no need to explain to anyone else. “No thank you, I don’t care to have any birthday cake”.
G
GraceDK
Guest
daniel…
no one can really guide you in this.
I think you have to scrutinize your own motives for fasting.
I once fasted every wednesday and friday on water and bread as well and that was probably good, but it does not make me any less just in the eyes of the Lord than if I did not.
I remember a lot of times my poor mother’s eyes were filled with dissapointment when I stood in front of her good food and told her I would not have any because I was fasting. I think I was afraid back then that if I ate it I would not be so heroic in my faith ( ergo it spurred me to pride) … or heaven forbid I would start to loose the strength to fast…
The Bible has a clear answer for you:
Food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (…) If you wound your brothers weak conscience you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat (or do not eat) causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat (or not eat meat) again so that I will not cause him to fall. (- St. Paul 1.Cor 8:8)
You have your own diciplinary practices that help you mortify your flesh on a daily basis which is okay and might be helpful to you, but they wont help your salvation… Jesus has won it for you. But if you have the strengh then there is nothing wrong in making the people happy by feasting with them… otherwise you might tempt them to have bad thougths - you as a Christian loose nothing by eating for you are not under the law anymore - and thereby fall.
These are my thoughts… we must always scrutinize ourselves… that we do not become slaves under any law but always act in accordance with the freedom-law of Love which is in Christ …
no one can really guide you in this.
I think you have to scrutinize your own motives for fasting.
I once fasted every wednesday and friday on water and bread as well and that was probably good, but it does not make me any less just in the eyes of the Lord than if I did not.
I remember a lot of times my poor mother’s eyes were filled with dissapointment when I stood in front of her good food and told her I would not have any because I was fasting. I think I was afraid back then that if I ate it I would not be so heroic in my faith ( ergo it spurred me to pride) … or heaven forbid I would start to loose the strength to fast…
The Bible has a clear answer for you:
Food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (…) If you wound your brothers weak conscience you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat (or do not eat) causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat (or not eat meat) again so that I will not cause him to fall. (- St. Paul 1.Cor 8:8)
You have your own diciplinary practices that help you mortify your flesh on a daily basis which is okay and might be helpful to you, but they wont help your salvation… Jesus has won it for you. But if you have the strengh then there is nothing wrong in making the people happy by feasting with them… otherwise you might tempt them to have bad thougths - you as a Christian loose nothing by eating for you are not under the law anymore - and thereby fall.
These are my thoughts… we must always scrutinize ourselves… that we do not become slaves under any law but always act in accordance with the freedom-law of Love which is in Christ …
D
daniel87
Guest
thanks
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I think that this is an issue that comes up a lot for people who do this sort of thing, and I understand completely where you are coming from with your question about causing misunderstanding with people. I also fast on bread and water on Wednesdays and Fridays, and this can cause some difficulties for my family, who are not Catholic and at least one of whom does take a lot of misunderstanding and scandal, in some ways, from many of my practices (such as bread and water fasts).
You are feeling a very real tension between two very real obligations. On the one hand is the obligation to do the best you can for Jesus, to deny yourself to the greatest extent you are able, to do the best you can to grow in Grace, overcome sin, and pray for others. And so fasting on bread and water is an important thing to do if you are able. It’s a wonderful Grace to do something like that consistently. As the previous poster said, it would not be a sin to forgo your fast, but it would be a tremendous opportunity to practice virtue - to respond to and to grow in Grace - being lost. While it might not bring you any further away from God, it certainly won’t help you to grow closer to Him either. And as they say, if you’re not moving closer to God, you’re moving away, as there is no standing still spiritually speaking.
On the other hand, you have an obligation to be a light to these persons and to present the faith in the best light possible. You have an obligation to not scandalize these people and cause them to be pushed any further away from the faith. Now its possible that an atheist may be moved by seeing a person fast, and actually become more open to the faith. This would depend on the individual, and only someone who knew him or her would be able to judge that with any effectiveness.
When in this situation, I always try to ask myself what would the saints do, as we are all called to imitate them and to reach their level of holiness, ourselves being the only real obstacle. Would a saint do in the situation? While you would find a variety of examples from different saints, I think that perhaps ones of the more common examples you would see would be saints who found a way to fulfill their obligations to their neighbor while not letting up with their own personal mortification.
Now there are many ways to do this. You might mortify yourself in some other way during the party or during the day. I myself was recently in the very same situation with a Wednesday birthday party. I chose to do my fasting on Tuesday so as to be able to participte in the party for the benefit of the other guests and the guest of honor himself. That is, perhaps, the best answer, unless your life is one of unusual circumstances. If you are able to fast on Saturday, I would do that. I wouldn’t push it to Monday, and have three days during the week. That would probably be pushing it. Fasting is meant to mortify the body, not push it to the limits of proper functioning.
Ultimately, you simply need to pray asking God to show you what you ought to do for your own spiritual journey, and listen silently for a few minutes. Whatever is best for your soul is what you ought to do in the end.
You are feeling a very real tension between two very real obligations. On the one hand is the obligation to do the best you can for Jesus, to deny yourself to the greatest extent you are able, to do the best you can to grow in Grace, overcome sin, and pray for others. And so fasting on bread and water is an important thing to do if you are able. It’s a wonderful Grace to do something like that consistently. As the previous poster said, it would not be a sin to forgo your fast, but it would be a tremendous opportunity to practice virtue - to respond to and to grow in Grace - being lost. While it might not bring you any further away from God, it certainly won’t help you to grow closer to Him either. And as they say, if you’re not moving closer to God, you’re moving away, as there is no standing still spiritually speaking.
On the other hand, you have an obligation to be a light to these persons and to present the faith in the best light possible. You have an obligation to not scandalize these people and cause them to be pushed any further away from the faith. Now its possible that an atheist may be moved by seeing a person fast, and actually become more open to the faith. This would depend on the individual, and only someone who knew him or her would be able to judge that with any effectiveness.
When in this situation, I always try to ask myself what would the saints do, as we are all called to imitate them and to reach their level of holiness, ourselves being the only real obstacle. Would a saint do in the situation? While you would find a variety of examples from different saints, I think that perhaps ones of the more common examples you would see would be saints who found a way to fulfill their obligations to their neighbor while not letting up with their own personal mortification.
Now there are many ways to do this. You might mortify yourself in some other way during the party or during the day. I myself was recently in the very same situation with a Wednesday birthday party. I chose to do my fasting on Tuesday so as to be able to participte in the party for the benefit of the other guests and the guest of honor himself. That is, perhaps, the best answer, unless your life is one of unusual circumstances. If you are able to fast on Saturday, I would do that. I wouldn’t push it to Monday, and have three days during the week. That would probably be pushing it. Fasting is meant to mortify the body, not push it to the limits of proper functioning.
Ultimately, you simply need to pray asking God to show you what you ought to do for your own spiritual journey, and listen silently for a few minutes. Whatever is best for your soul is what you ought to do in the end.
G
GraceDK
Guest
lazerlike.
I would like for you to interpret the verses from Paul that I quoted in my post above…
I realise I might have a flawed or imperfect idea of mortifications in your eyes but I do not believe we are called to these things as a pattern… as it is written: spiritual exercises are of little use, whereas the fear of the Lord is what is important… The Bible being my highest role-model I do not see therein an example among the first Christians to have all these exercises which are likely to become rules for us and enslave us to a new law. Jesus as you know were accused of eating and drinking. He lived according to the law of freedom that He proclaimed, not a law that permits sin, but a law that is summed up in love.
Holiness is granted by God… and we should not forget that the Word teaches us “No one is good except for one, namely God”.
Humility is the beginning of holiness.
The holiness in saints consisted not of wearing the hairy shirt, nor of whipping themselves or fasting and not sleeping… but in loving God and their neighbour and realising to a high form of human perfection that they were wretched and in humble need of The Lord in all things. humility and love.
I would like for you to interpret the verses from Paul that I quoted in my post above…
I realise I might have a flawed or imperfect idea of mortifications in your eyes but I do not believe we are called to these things as a pattern… as it is written: spiritual exercises are of little use, whereas the fear of the Lord is what is important… The Bible being my highest role-model I do not see therein an example among the first Christians to have all these exercises which are likely to become rules for us and enslave us to a new law. Jesus as you know were accused of eating and drinking. He lived according to the law of freedom that He proclaimed, not a law that permits sin, but a law that is summed up in love.
Holiness is granted by God… and we should not forget that the Word teaches us “No one is good except for one, namely God”.
Humility is the beginning of holiness.
The holiness in saints consisted not of wearing the hairy shirt, nor of whipping themselves or fasting and not sleeping… but in loving God and their neighbour and realising to a high form of human perfection that they were wretched and in humble need of The Lord in all things. humility and love.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Oh Grace, I think that Love is by far the most important thing, so much so that I capitalize it most often, and I’d be happy to explain a bit more why I said what I said.
I think that there is an unhelpful distinction between Love and law here that is being made. St. Paul never excluded law, in the sense of a set of standards to which one is bound, from the Christian life, and he certainly never contrasted such a concept with Love, because to St. Paul Love itself inherently included a set of standards by which one was bound. Remember that Jesus’ teaching was that law was not replaced by Love, but rather that law was fulfilled by Love. This was also the teaching that runs throughout St. Paul: law was an imperfect version of Love. According to St. Paul, law is simply a set of written or spoken requirements that teach us how to Love. Hence he refers to the law as a teacher (or schoolmaster, or guardian, depending on your translation) in Galatians 3:24. This is also his teaching in Romans where he explains that the law is only capable of condemning, because it is only able to point out where we have sinned. It is only able to show us where we have failed to Love (cf. Romans 7:7), and is powerless to in fact enable us to Love, as the Grace of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ does. (cf. Romans 8:3).
You said that the law is summed up in Love, but a more accurate citation of the Scriptures would be to say that Love fulfills the law (cf. Romans 13:8). If one Loves, one does not commit adultery, for that violates Love. If one Loves, one does not steal, covet, or murder, for these fall short of Love. There are standards to which we are bound, and these standards are in some ways expressed by laws such as the 10 Commandments, but the standards are not defined by law, law just expresses various aspects of the on standard that really matters, which is to Love.
So my point here is simply that to Love can be, for lack of a badly needed better term, be “broken down” into any number of actions. God did this for His people in giving them things such as the Ten Commandments. Jesus used this principle Himself in His teaching when He taught that to Love Him is to keep His commandments (and proceeded to list several of the 10 Commandments). He certainly didn’t mean that keeping His commandments is the definition of Love, but He did mean that keeping them is a part of Loving Him - not because the commandments are anything of themselves, but because they express some of those behaviors which Love can be “broken down” to.
Ultimately, Love means to give of oneself entirely for another. Christ expressed this in His giving of His life for us. So if I Love, I will give myself entirely to another, not take from them in the form of stealing, murder, or adultery. To Love is to give; to fail to Love is to take, or to keep for oneself.
And so we are called to give of our entire selves to Christ, to the greatest degree that we are able to. And mortifying the body is a part of that. I did not intend to say that if Daniel failed to fast he would be breaking a law. He is not bound by any law to fast. He is, however, by Christ’s own command, bound to be perfect, as our Father is perfect, and to Love God with all his heart, and all his mind, and all his soul. Now Christ has given him the Grace to mortify himself the way that he has been doing. This is wonderful! While it may not be a sin to forgo his fast for a day, it would be to not give of himself to the greatest degree he is able. It would be failing to Love completely not in the sense that he will be violating some law, be-it a self-imposed law or not, but in the sense that he would not be giving of himself in accord with the Grace given him by Jesus Christ.
In regards to the specific passages from St. Paul that you quoted, they are referring to the practice of eating either meats considered unclean under the ceremonial laws of the Jewish people or in regards to eating meats sacrificed to idols. He was saying that it was not wrong to do either of these things, but that one may choose not to for the sake of avoiding scandal to those who were still hung up about the ceremonial laws. The passage has nothing to do with fasting.
The practice of fasts - even mandatory ones imposed by Church canons - is one that goes back to the earliest centuries of Christianity. And in fact, the idea that fasting does not make a person any closer to God than otherwise is rejected by St. Paul, who teaches in 2 Corinthians 6:4-5 that fasting approves us to God. He told us in 2 Corinthians 11:27 that he himself fasted often.
So that’s where I am coming from. If you want to read up any more on what I am talking about when I talk about Love, see www.soladeiverbum.com/gracealone.shtml .
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
God bless!
I think that there is an unhelpful distinction between Love and law here that is being made. St. Paul never excluded law, in the sense of a set of standards to which one is bound, from the Christian life, and he certainly never contrasted such a concept with Love, because to St. Paul Love itself inherently included a set of standards by which one was bound. Remember that Jesus’ teaching was that law was not replaced by Love, but rather that law was fulfilled by Love. This was also the teaching that runs throughout St. Paul: law was an imperfect version of Love. According to St. Paul, law is simply a set of written or spoken requirements that teach us how to Love. Hence he refers to the law as a teacher (or schoolmaster, or guardian, depending on your translation) in Galatians 3:24. This is also his teaching in Romans where he explains that the law is only capable of condemning, because it is only able to point out where we have sinned. It is only able to show us where we have failed to Love (cf. Romans 7:7), and is powerless to in fact enable us to Love, as the Grace of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ does. (cf. Romans 8:3).
You said that the law is summed up in Love, but a more accurate citation of the Scriptures would be to say that Love fulfills the law (cf. Romans 13:8). If one Loves, one does not commit adultery, for that violates Love. If one Loves, one does not steal, covet, or murder, for these fall short of Love. There are standards to which we are bound, and these standards are in some ways expressed by laws such as the 10 Commandments, but the standards are not defined by law, law just expresses various aspects of the on standard that really matters, which is to Love.
So my point here is simply that to Love can be, for lack of a badly needed better term, be “broken down” into any number of actions. God did this for His people in giving them things such as the Ten Commandments. Jesus used this principle Himself in His teaching when He taught that to Love Him is to keep His commandments (and proceeded to list several of the 10 Commandments). He certainly didn’t mean that keeping His commandments is the definition of Love, but He did mean that keeping them is a part of Loving Him - not because the commandments are anything of themselves, but because they express some of those behaviors which Love can be “broken down” to.
Ultimately, Love means to give of oneself entirely for another. Christ expressed this in His giving of His life for us. So if I Love, I will give myself entirely to another, not take from them in the form of stealing, murder, or adultery. To Love is to give; to fail to Love is to take, or to keep for oneself.
And so we are called to give of our entire selves to Christ, to the greatest degree that we are able to. And mortifying the body is a part of that. I did not intend to say that if Daniel failed to fast he would be breaking a law. He is not bound by any law to fast. He is, however, by Christ’s own command, bound to be perfect, as our Father is perfect, and to Love God with all his heart, and all his mind, and all his soul. Now Christ has given him the Grace to mortify himself the way that he has been doing. This is wonderful! While it may not be a sin to forgo his fast for a day, it would be to not give of himself to the greatest degree he is able. It would be failing to Love completely not in the sense that he will be violating some law, be-it a self-imposed law or not, but in the sense that he would not be giving of himself in accord with the Grace given him by Jesus Christ.
In regards to the specific passages from St. Paul that you quoted, they are referring to the practice of eating either meats considered unclean under the ceremonial laws of the Jewish people or in regards to eating meats sacrificed to idols. He was saying that it was not wrong to do either of these things, but that one may choose not to for the sake of avoiding scandal to those who were still hung up about the ceremonial laws. The passage has nothing to do with fasting.
The practice of fasts - even mandatory ones imposed by Church canons - is one that goes back to the earliest centuries of Christianity. And in fact, the idea that fasting does not make a person any closer to God than otherwise is rejected by St. Paul, who teaches in 2 Corinthians 6:4-5 that fasting approves us to God. He told us in 2 Corinthians 11:27 that he himself fasted often.
So that’s where I am coming from. If you want to read up any more on what I am talking about when I talk about Love, see www.soladeiverbum.com/gracealone.shtml .
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
God bless!
G
GraceDK
Guest
Hey brother… thanks for that elaboration of your thoughts. In generel I agree with your points… and I like you style of writing… I can feel your herat in it
Just a few points…
“He is not bound by any law to fast. He is, however, by Christ’s own command, bound to be perfect, as our Father is perfect…”
Could you define “perfect” for me. I am asking as one Christian to another… I know you are giving a subjective draft of points you think are important here…
“The passage has nothing to do with fasting.”
But it can have, Sir… the principles contained in this passage can be applied to every circumstance since there is talk of the right balance between law and love, and that we are not bound by any food-rules because we are set free in Christ… so we only submit ourselves under any law-behaviour in a superficial manner, that is, in order to not bring damage to the Gospel or tempt our brother.
" …the idea that fasting does not make a person any closer to God than otherwise is rejected by St. Paul, who teaches in 2 Corinthians 6:4-5 that fasting approves us to God. He told us in 2 Corinthians 11:27 that he himself fasted often".
You quote two passages. The first one does not contain the word “fasting” in my edition of Scripture. It mentions starving/suffering hunger… not fasting… so we cant ground our analysis on this quotation.
The second one does mention fasting … but if you look at the context this does not seem to be a fast that Paul has put himself into but rather a fast that implies a being-in-need that he has been going through on a generel basis. I therefore interpret it more like he is going through a time of poverty and starvation… and that is basically the key to my view on many of these things: If we follow the Lord we will suffer mortifications in all kinds of ways, both mentally, physically and spiritually… we do not have to go and look for them and submit ourselves to all kinds of self-made practices. In generel… I believe there are periods where fasting, according to the Bible, is necessary, like when Jonas visited Nineve or when there was a time of mourning over the death of a person. An act of contrition and sign of mourning… otherwise it can help in certain times to mortify the flesh… but this does not apply to anyone and always… I know many people who do not fast who are very holy and indeed united to the Lord.
I used to read a lot of saints. I found it extremely interesting. It made me really want to sleep on boards and make nightly vigils and exhaust my self by praying on my knees till I was acking. I was bowed down and introvert during all that time. I longed for the Lord and I could not understand why I was getting more and more depressed.
I read a lot of saints… and thought: these are role models for me… obviously suffering means sanctity… until I read about a certain canonized saint who ate the vomit of another person. This saint was, in my eyes, mentally ill… not holy. I thought… This is not my God who demands such things… how far have we not come from the Gospels and distorted His Words?
And I started thinking: would Padre Pio have been less of a saint had he enjoyed a good roast beef every night before he went to bed? Would Catherine of Siena have been less holy had she gotten a good nights sleep. I had to answer, no.
I started reading other kinds of “saints” like David du Plessis and Corrie ten Boom and I felt… refreshed… relieved… encouraged… ready to serve the Lord. These people walked in the power of God… they suffered also times of mortification and need and dark nights… but the trials came to them… they did not seek them out.
Just a few thoughts. sorry if I am lenghty
Shalom to you <><
Just a few points…“He is not bound by any law to fast. He is, however, by Christ’s own command, bound to be perfect, as our Father is perfect…”
Could you define “perfect” for me. I am asking as one Christian to another… I know you are giving a subjective draft of points you think are important here…
“The passage has nothing to do with fasting.”
But it can have, Sir… the principles contained in this passage can be applied to every circumstance since there is talk of the right balance between law and love, and that we are not bound by any food-rules because we are set free in Christ… so we only submit ourselves under any law-behaviour in a superficial manner, that is, in order to not bring damage to the Gospel or tempt our brother.
" …the idea that fasting does not make a person any closer to God than otherwise is rejected by St. Paul, who teaches in 2 Corinthians 6:4-5 that fasting approves us to God. He told us in 2 Corinthians 11:27 that he himself fasted often".
You quote two passages. The first one does not contain the word “fasting” in my edition of Scripture. It mentions starving/suffering hunger… not fasting… so we cant ground our analysis on this quotation.
The second one does mention fasting … but if you look at the context this does not seem to be a fast that Paul has put himself into but rather a fast that implies a being-in-need that he has been going through on a generel basis. I therefore interpret it more like he is going through a time of poverty and starvation… and that is basically the key to my view on many of these things: If we follow the Lord we will suffer mortifications in all kinds of ways, both mentally, physically and spiritually… we do not have to go and look for them and submit ourselves to all kinds of self-made practices. In generel… I believe there are periods where fasting, according to the Bible, is necessary, like when Jonas visited Nineve or when there was a time of mourning over the death of a person. An act of contrition and sign of mourning… otherwise it can help in certain times to mortify the flesh… but this does not apply to anyone and always… I know many people who do not fast who are very holy and indeed united to the Lord.
I used to read a lot of saints. I found it extremely interesting. It made me really want to sleep on boards and make nightly vigils and exhaust my self by praying on my knees till I was acking. I was bowed down and introvert during all that time. I longed for the Lord and I could not understand why I was getting more and more depressed.
I read a lot of saints… and thought: these are role models for me… obviously suffering means sanctity… until I read about a certain canonized saint who ate the vomit of another person. This saint was, in my eyes, mentally ill… not holy. I thought… This is not my God who demands such things… how far have we not come from the Gospels and distorted His Words?
And I started thinking: would Padre Pio have been less of a saint had he enjoyed a good roast beef every night before he went to bed? Would Catherine of Siena have been less holy had she gotten a good nights sleep. I had to answer, no.
I started reading other kinds of “saints” like David du Plessis and Corrie ten Boom and I felt… refreshed… relieved… encouraged… ready to serve the Lord. These people walked in the power of God… they suffered also times of mortification and need and dark nights… but the trials came to them… they did not seek them out.
Just a few thoughts. sorry if I am lenghty
Shalom to you <><
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Thanks for your reply, Grace,
I believe that there is still an underlying disagreement - and I would of course (or else I’d agree with you!) say misunderstanding on your part over the nature of law. At this point the issue of freedom in Christ has been raised, which should be helpful. The term freedom is I think one that is very misunderstood in the Scriptures. We are said to be free in Christ, but free from what, or to do what? Most often people tend to casually read over the passages speaking of freedom and come away with the idea that our freedom is from obligation, requirement, or standards of behavior: that we are free to do as we please.
Yet this is contrary to the bulk of the New Testament, which is full to the brim with instructions about how we ought to live. Clearly we are not free from the obligation to live in a certain way. And so when we read these passages with focus and attention, we see that what we are being told is that we are free, not to do as we please, but to Love God. St. Paul expresses it best in saying that we were slaves to sin. Slaves must serve their master, having no ability to do otherwise. We had no freedom. Now, through Christ, we have the freedom from that slavery to Love God. The Truth does indeed set us free - free from sin, and free to Love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, minds, and souls.
And St. Paul takes it a step further by saying that now that we are no free from our slavery to sin, we must become slaves of righteousness - slaves of Christ. So we see that we certainly are called to something very lawlike indeed, that being slavery to Christ. Now what I said in my previous post remains true: law, as a set of regulations, is simply a means to express what it is to Love. However as St. Paul explains to us, that does not mean we have no set of standards by which to be bound, for we have the standard of Love. And so now, free to Love where we were previously not, we must submit ourselves as slaves to Love, heeding Love’s every requirement and command, as it were. We now have a heart of flesh, rather than hearts of stone, and so a written code is no longer necessary, as the laws are written on our hearts: through the Holy Spirit we (generally speaking) know what it is to Love apart from having to see it written down.
And so we do submit ourselves under a lawlike behavior by literally becoming slaves. Yet this time it is slaves of Christ, not of sin. Now I must point out that fasting, as we are currently discussing, is not a food-rule. It is a voluntary practice of Love. Yet I still am not ready to tie the necessary points together here. First we must examine the saints.
There are two ways to understand holiness in its relation to mortifications such as fasting. One is to understand these things as constituting holiness itself, as though they are the goal we strive for. In other words to say that to fast, to wear hair-shirts, and so forth are what holiness is: that the definition of holiness is to fast, etc. The other is to understand mortifications as a means to holiness, that is, as practices which help to bring a person to holiness, but which in and of themselves do not consitute holiness.
The first concept is that which the Pharisees of Jesus’ time often held to. A person who was fasting was by definition holy. Jesus strongly rejected this notion, comparing such persons to white washed sephulcres which were clean on the outside but rotten inside. He corrected their teachings by stressing that all of these things are a means to reaching holiness, but did not constitute holiness itself.
You clearly understand this point. You realize that Padre Pio’s fasts were not the substance of his holiness, but that his holiness was interior. I also imagine that you would agree that his fasting did bring him to holiness, as a means. And in this way I think we would both agree that fasting and mortifications are quite necessary. Jesus Himself taught that such practices were sanctifying, such as when He said that a certain demon could be expelled only by prayer and fasting.
However - and please forgive me if I am mistaken! - I sense that while you understand that Padre Pio was not holy because he fasted, you may not fully grasp the idea that Padre Pio fasted because he was holy. And in this way, I think that certainly Padre Pio would have been less holy had he not fasted. I will explain.
I believe that there is still an underlying disagreement - and I would of course (or else I’d agree with you!) say misunderstanding on your part over the nature of law. At this point the issue of freedom in Christ has been raised, which should be helpful. The term freedom is I think one that is very misunderstood in the Scriptures. We are said to be free in Christ, but free from what, or to do what? Most often people tend to casually read over the passages speaking of freedom and come away with the idea that our freedom is from obligation, requirement, or standards of behavior: that we are free to do as we please.
Yet this is contrary to the bulk of the New Testament, which is full to the brim with instructions about how we ought to live. Clearly we are not free from the obligation to live in a certain way. And so when we read these passages with focus and attention, we see that what we are being told is that we are free, not to do as we please, but to Love God. St. Paul expresses it best in saying that we were slaves to sin. Slaves must serve their master, having no ability to do otherwise. We had no freedom. Now, through Christ, we have the freedom from that slavery to Love God. The Truth does indeed set us free - free from sin, and free to Love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, minds, and souls.
And St. Paul takes it a step further by saying that now that we are no free from our slavery to sin, we must become slaves of righteousness - slaves of Christ. So we see that we certainly are called to something very lawlike indeed, that being slavery to Christ. Now what I said in my previous post remains true: law, as a set of regulations, is simply a means to express what it is to Love. However as St. Paul explains to us, that does not mean we have no set of standards by which to be bound, for we have the standard of Love. And so now, free to Love where we were previously not, we must submit ourselves as slaves to Love, heeding Love’s every requirement and command, as it were. We now have a heart of flesh, rather than hearts of stone, and so a written code is no longer necessary, as the laws are written on our hearts: through the Holy Spirit we (generally speaking) know what it is to Love apart from having to see it written down.
And so we do submit ourselves under a lawlike behavior by literally becoming slaves. Yet this time it is slaves of Christ, not of sin. Now I must point out that fasting, as we are currently discussing, is not a food-rule. It is a voluntary practice of Love. Yet I still am not ready to tie the necessary points together here. First we must examine the saints.
There are two ways to understand holiness in its relation to mortifications such as fasting. One is to understand these things as constituting holiness itself, as though they are the goal we strive for. In other words to say that to fast, to wear hair-shirts, and so forth are what holiness is: that the definition of holiness is to fast, etc. The other is to understand mortifications as a means to holiness, that is, as practices which help to bring a person to holiness, but which in and of themselves do not consitute holiness.
The first concept is that which the Pharisees of Jesus’ time often held to. A person who was fasting was by definition holy. Jesus strongly rejected this notion, comparing such persons to white washed sephulcres which were clean on the outside but rotten inside. He corrected their teachings by stressing that all of these things are a means to reaching holiness, but did not constitute holiness itself.
You clearly understand this point. You realize that Padre Pio’s fasts were not the substance of his holiness, but that his holiness was interior. I also imagine that you would agree that his fasting did bring him to holiness, as a means. And in this way I think we would both agree that fasting and mortifications are quite necessary. Jesus Himself taught that such practices were sanctifying, such as when He said that a certain demon could be expelled only by prayer and fasting.
However - and please forgive me if I am mistaken! - I sense that while you understand that Padre Pio was not holy because he fasted, you may not fully grasp the idea that Padre Pio fasted because he was holy. And in this way, I think that certainly Padre Pio would have been less holy had he not fasted. I will explain.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
To be perfect, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, consists in Love. When one Loves completely, then one is perfect. And to take this point further I will add that, as God is Love, perfection for the Christian consists in the most total union with God that is possible according to one’s own nature. And so to be perfect, as we are called, is to be in the highest degree of union with God that it is possible for us to achieve. Being creatures, to be in union with God requires that we receive God, as we must receive and cannot take for ourselves. And so to be perfect is to respond completely to each and every Grace that God gives us. This is something that is very rarely reached in this life, yet the important thing is that we are called to strive for it.
Now once a person is holy - or let us simply say has reached a high degree of holiness - through means of fasting, other mortifications, and the constant working of the Grace of God in those other ways which He also perfects souls (e.g., the Sacraments, prayer, etc.), the question here is, will that person continue to fast and to moritfy himself? I would answer that yes he would, for two reasons.
One is that union with God is, to paraphrase St. Augustine, to taste of God. A person who has reached such heights of contemplation as Padre Pio may (I stress my use of the conditional ‘may’) simply not desire a roast beef every night. Once one has tasted of God in such a radical way, one’s desires for physical comforts are often greatly diminished, and so a person may simply want - to consider food - to take that which is required according to reason for the body to function.
To experience the senses of the body makes it hard to experience the senses of the soul, and so those who have reached high degrees of holiness often forgo food as much as possible so as to be more attuned to contemplation. And so in this way, I think one might say that it would have signified that Padre Pio may indeed have been less holy had he not fasted, not because holiness consists in fasting, but because one who is holy to a certain degree will purposfully abstain from food for the sake of eating of that true food which our souls desire.
The other reason in which I think a soul who is holy will fast and mortify itself is because those who are holy wish to offer prayer and sacrifice always to God, both in adoration and in intercession for others. In the case of Padre Pio we have a person who fasted constantly for the sake of saving other souls. We know that to fast is meritorious, and so Padre Pio fasted in order to obtain Grace for those in need of it and bring them to conversion. Now a soul who has reached perfection and is in no more need of mortifications for the sake of perfecting itself will want to - by the very fact of it being perfect! - want to do all it can for others. One who is completely united to God will Love others totally and want to give of themselves completely for the sake of their souls, as did Jesus Christ on the cross. And so such souls will fast and offer mortifications for the sake of others though it does not need these things itself. And so in this sense, I think it can much more clearly than in the previous be said that if Padre Pio had not fasted, he would have been less holy, because his failures to fast would been tremendous opportunities for helping others lost. I think it is easy to agree that a person who helps people 100% of the chances he gets is holier than one who helps people 90% of the chances he gets.
So, as the philosophers would say, I think that fasting and mortifications are a part of what makes one holy, not substantially, but accidentally.
You may have made the mistake of mortifying yourself beyond your ability at the time. St. Francis, who was extremely harsh on himself, prohibited harsh fasts and pennances from being placed on the brothers because they may not have yet been ready. He certainly would not, however, have discouraged one whose soul was advanced enough from harsh mortifications. One mistake that is often made by people trying to advance in holiness is to go beyond the Graces God has provided for them at the time and to do things by their own powers, which leads to burn out and in many cases total rejection of mortifications and prayers. This is one reason why a good spiritual director is good, consequently.
So I would say that Daniel ought to be bound by what his conscience tells him is giving of himself - responding to God’s Grace - as completely as he can.
One last point before I go. The Greek word used in St. Paul’s passages about fasting is nesteia. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines this as a fast done as “a voluntary, as a religious exercise.” It can refer to fasts which occur from lack of food, but this is not the primary definition. It is also the same word that Jesus uses when saying we must fast for some things. Take that as you will!
God bless
Now once a person is holy - or let us simply say has reached a high degree of holiness - through means of fasting, other mortifications, and the constant working of the Grace of God in those other ways which He also perfects souls (e.g., the Sacraments, prayer, etc.), the question here is, will that person continue to fast and to moritfy himself? I would answer that yes he would, for two reasons.
One is that union with God is, to paraphrase St. Augustine, to taste of God. A person who has reached such heights of contemplation as Padre Pio may (I stress my use of the conditional ‘may’) simply not desire a roast beef every night. Once one has tasted of God in such a radical way, one’s desires for physical comforts are often greatly diminished, and so a person may simply want - to consider food - to take that which is required according to reason for the body to function.
To experience the senses of the body makes it hard to experience the senses of the soul, and so those who have reached high degrees of holiness often forgo food as much as possible so as to be more attuned to contemplation. And so in this way, I think one might say that it would have signified that Padre Pio may indeed have been less holy had he not fasted, not because holiness consists in fasting, but because one who is holy to a certain degree will purposfully abstain from food for the sake of eating of that true food which our souls desire.
The other reason in which I think a soul who is holy will fast and mortify itself is because those who are holy wish to offer prayer and sacrifice always to God, both in adoration and in intercession for others. In the case of Padre Pio we have a person who fasted constantly for the sake of saving other souls. We know that to fast is meritorious, and so Padre Pio fasted in order to obtain Grace for those in need of it and bring them to conversion. Now a soul who has reached perfection and is in no more need of mortifications for the sake of perfecting itself will want to - by the very fact of it being perfect! - want to do all it can for others. One who is completely united to God will Love others totally and want to give of themselves completely for the sake of their souls, as did Jesus Christ on the cross. And so such souls will fast and offer mortifications for the sake of others though it does not need these things itself. And so in this sense, I think it can much more clearly than in the previous be said that if Padre Pio had not fasted, he would have been less holy, because his failures to fast would been tremendous opportunities for helping others lost. I think it is easy to agree that a person who helps people 100% of the chances he gets is holier than one who helps people 90% of the chances he gets.
So, as the philosophers would say, I think that fasting and mortifications are a part of what makes one holy, not substantially, but accidentally.
You may have made the mistake of mortifying yourself beyond your ability at the time. St. Francis, who was extremely harsh on himself, prohibited harsh fasts and pennances from being placed on the brothers because they may not have yet been ready. He certainly would not, however, have discouraged one whose soul was advanced enough from harsh mortifications. One mistake that is often made by people trying to advance in holiness is to go beyond the Graces God has provided for them at the time and to do things by their own powers, which leads to burn out and in many cases total rejection of mortifications and prayers. This is one reason why a good spiritual director is good, consequently.
So I would say that Daniel ought to be bound by what his conscience tells him is giving of himself - responding to God’s Grace - as completely as he can.
One last point before I go. The Greek word used in St. Paul’s passages about fasting is nesteia. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines this as a fast done as “a voluntary, as a religious exercise.” It can refer to fasts which occur from lack of food, but this is not the primary definition. It is also the same word that Jesus uses when saying we must fast for some things. Take that as you will!
God bless
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Being charitable and gracious takes precedence over fasting, especially a self-willed fast!
- Status