Is It Sinful to Eat Meat? Are Marital Relations Impure?

IS IT SINFUL TO EAT MEAT?
ARE MARITAL RELATIONS IMPURE?

In his first letter to Fr. Pedro, Bp. Kirykos writes: “Regarding the Canon,
which some people refer to in order to commune without fasting beforehand, it is
correct, but it must be interpreted correctly and applied to everybody. Namely, we
must return to those early apostolic times, during which all of the Christians were
ascetics and temperate and fasters, and only they remained until the end of the Divine
Liturgy and communed. They fasted in the fine and broader sense, that is, they were
worthy to commune.”

In the above quote, Bp. Kirykos displays the notion that early
Christians supposedly abstained from meat and from marriage, and were
thus all supposedly “ascetics and temperate and fasters,” and that this is what
gave them the right to commune daily. But the truth of the matter is that the
majority of Christians were not ascetics, yet they did commune every day. In
fact, the ascetics were the ones who lived far away from cities where Liturgy
would have been available, and it was these ascetics who would commune
rarely. This can be ascertained from studying the Patrologia and the
ecclesiastical histories written by Holy Fathers.

The theories that Bp. Kirykos entertains are also followed by those
immediately surrounding him. His sister, the nun Vincentia, for instance,
actually believes that people that eat meat or married couples that engaged in
legal nuptial relations are supposedly sinning! She actually believes that meat
and marriage are sinful and should be avoided. This theory appears much
more extreme in the person of the nun Vincentia, but this notion is also found
in the teachings of Bp. Kirykos, and the spirit of this error can also be found in
the above quote, where he believes that only people who are “ascetics and
temperate and fasters” are “worthy of communion,” as if a man who eats
meat or has marital relations with his own wife is “sinful” and “unworthy.”

But is this the teaching of the Orthodox Church? Certainly not! These
teachings are actually found in Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Paulicianism,
Bogomilism, and various “New Age” movements which arise from a mixture
of Christianity with Hinduism or Buddhism, religions that consider meat and
marriage to be sinful due to their erroneous belief in reincarnation.

The Holy Apostle Paul warns us against these heresies. In the First
Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle to the Nations writes: “Now the Spirit speaketh
expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having

their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is
good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified
by the word of God and prayer.” If all of the early Christians abstained from
meat and marriage, as Bp. Kirykos dares to say, how is it that the Apostle
Paul warns his disciple, Timothy, that in the future people shall “depart from
the faith,” shall preach “doctrines of demons,” shall “speak lies in hypocrisy,” shall
“forbid marriage” and shall “command to abstain from meats?”

The heresy that the Holy Apostle Paul was prophesying about is most
likely that called Manichaeism. This heresy finds its origins in a Babylonian
man called Shuraik, son of Fatak Babak. Shuraik became a Mandaean Gnostic,
and was thus referred to as Rabban Mana (Teacher of the Light‐Spirit). For this
reason, Shuraik became commonly‐known throughout the world as Mani. His
followers became known as Manicheans in order to distinguish them from the
Mandaeans, and the religion he founded became known as Manichaeism. The
basic doctrines and principles of this religion were as follows:

The Manicheans believed that there was no omnipotent God. Instead
they believed that there were two equal powers, one good and one evil. The
good power was ruled by the “Prince of Light” while the evil power was led
by the “Prince of Darkness.” They believed that the material world was
inherently evil from its very creation, and that it was created by the Prince of
Darkness. This explains why they held meat and marriage to be evil, since
anything material was considered evil from its very foundation. They also
believed that each human consisted of a battleground between these two
opposing powers of light and darkness, where the soul endlessly battles
against the body, respectively. They divided their followers into four groups:
1) monks, 2) nuns, 3) laymen, 4) laywomen. The monks and nuns abstained
from meat and marriage and were therefore considered “elect” or “holy,”
whereas the laymen and laywomen were considered only “hearers” and
“observers” but not real “bearers of the light” due to their “sin” of eating
meat and engaging in marital relations.

The above principles of the Manichean religion are entirely opposed to
the Orthodox Faith, on account of the following reasons:

The Orthodox Church believes in one God who is eternal, uncreated,
without beginning and without end, and forever good and omnipotent. Evil
has never existed in the uncreated Godhead, and it shall never exist in the
uncreated Godhead.

The power of evil is not uncreated but it has a beginning in creation.
Yet the power of evil was not created by God. Evil exists because the prince of
the angels abused his free will, which caused him to fall and take followers
with him. He became the devil and his followers became demons. Prior to this
event there was no evil in the created world.

The material world was not created by the devil, but by God Himself.
By no means is the material world evil. God looked upon the world he
created and said “it was very good.” For this reason partaking of meat is not
evil, but God blessed Noah and all of his successors to partake of meat. For all
material things in the world exist to serve man, and man exists to serve God.

If there is any evil in the created world it derives from mankind’s
abuse of his free will, which took place in Eden, due to the enticement of the
devil. The history of mankind, both good and bad, is not a product of good or
evil forces fighting one another, but every event in the history of mankind is
part of God’s plan for mankind’s salvation. The devil has power over this
world only forasmuch as mankind is enslaved by his own egocentrism and
his desire to sin. Once mankind denies his ego and submits to the will of God,
and ceases relying on his own works but rather places his hope and trust in
God, mankind shall no longer follow or practice evil. But man is inherently
incapable of achieving this on his own because no man is perfect or sinless.

For this reason, God sent his only‐begotten Son, the Word of God, who
became incarnate and was born and grew into the man known as Jesus of
Nazareth. By his virginal conception; his nativity; his baptism; his fast (which
he underwent himself but never forced upon his disciples); his miracles (the
first of which he performed at a wedding); his teaching (which was contrary
to the Pharisees); his gift of his immaculate Body and precious Blood for the
eternal life of mankind; his betrayal; his crucifixion; his death; his defeating of
death and hades; his Resurrection from the tomb (by which he also raised the
whole human nature); his ascension and heavenly enthronement; and his
sending down of the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father—our  Lord,
God and Savior, Jesus Christ, accomplished the salvation of mankind.

Among the followers of Christ are people who are married as well as
people who live monastic lives. Both of these kinds of people, however, are
sinners, each in their own way, and their actions, no matter how good they
may be, are nothing but a menstruous rag in the eyes of God, according to the
Prophet Isaiah. Whether married or unmarried, they can accomplish nothing
without the saving grace of the crucified and third‐day Risen Lord. Although
being a monastic allows one to spend more time devoted to prayer and with
less responsibilities and earthly cares, nevertheless, being married is not at all

sinful, but rather it is a blessing. Marital relations between a lawfully married
couple, in moderation and at the appointed times (i.e., not on Sundays, not on
Great Feasts, and outside of fasting periods) are not sinful but are rather an
expression of God’s love and grace which He has bestowed upon each
married man and woman, through the Mystery of Holy Matrimony.

The Orthodox Church went through great extremes to oppose the
heresy of Manichaeism, especially because this false religion’s devotion to
fasting and monasticism enticed many people to think it was a good religion.
In reality though, Manichaeism is a satanic folly. Yet over the years this folly
began to seep into the fold of the faithful. Manichaeism spread wildly
throughout the Middle East, and throughout Asia as far as southern China. It
also spread into Africa, and even St. Aurelius Augustinus, also known as
Blessed Augustine of Hippo (+28 August, 430), happened to be a Manichaean
before he became an Orthodox Christian. The heresy began to spread into
Western Europe, which is why various pockets in the Western Church began
enforcing the celibacy of all clergy. They also began reconstructing the
meaning of fasting. Instead of demanding laymen to only fast on Wednesday
and Friday during a normal week, they began enforcing a strict fast on
Saturday as well. The reason for this is because they no longer viewed fasting
as a spiritual exercise for the sake of remembering Christ’s betrayal and his
crucifixion. Instead they began viewing fasting as a method of purifying one’s
body from “evil foods.” Thus they adopted the Manichean heresy that meat,
dairy or eggs are supposedly evil. Thinking that these foods were evil, they
demanded laymen to fast on Saturday so as to be “pure” when they receive
Holy Communion on Sunday. In so doing, they cast aside the Holy Canons of
the All‐famed Apostles, for the sake of following their newly‐found “tradition
of men,” which is nothing but the heresy of Manichaeism.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, in its 55th Canon, strongly admonishes
the Church of Rome to abandon this practice. St. Photius the Great, Patriarch
of Constantinople New Rome (+6 February, 893), in his Encyclical to the
Eastern Patriarchs, in his countless writings against Papism and his work
against Manichaeism, clearly explains that the Roman Catholic Church has
fallen into Manichaeism by demanding the fast on Saturdays and by
enforcing all clergy to be celibate. Thanks to these works of St. Photius the
Great, the heretical practices of the Manicheans did not prevail in the East,
and the mainstream Orthodox Christians did not adopt this Manichaeism.

However, the Manicheans did manage to set up their own false
churches in Armenia and Bulgaria. The Manicheans in Armenia were referred
to as Paulicians. Those in Bulgaria were called Bogomils. They flourished from
the 9th century even until the 15th century, until the majority of them converted

to Islam under Ottoman Rule. Today’s Muslim Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and
various Caucasian nationalities are descendants of those who were once
Paulicians. Today’s Muslim Albanians, Bosnians and Pomaks descend from
those who were once Bogomils. Some Bogomils migrated to France where
they established the sect known as the Albigenses, Cathars or Puritans. But
several Bogomils did not convert to Islam, nor did they leave the realm of the
Ottoman Empire, but instead they converted to Orthodoxy. The sad thing is,
though, that they brought their Manichaeism with them. Thus from the 15th
century onwards, Manichaeism began to infiltrate the Church, and this is
what led to the outrageous practices of the 17th and 18th centuries, wherein
hardly any laymen would ever commune, except for once, twice or three
times per year. It is this error that the Holy Kollyvades Fathers fought.

Various Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church condemn the notions
that it is “sinful” or “impure” for one to eat meat or engage in lawful marital
relations. Some of these Holy Canons and Decisions are presented below:

The 51st Canon of the Holy Apostles reads: “If any bishop, or presbyter, or
deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or
wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all
things are exceedingly good, and that God made male and female, and blasphemously
misinterpreting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be
deposed from office and expelled from the Church. Let a layman be treated similarly.”
Thus, clergy and laymen are only permitted to abstain from these things for
reasons of mortification, and such mortification is what one should apply to
himself and not to others. By no means are they permitted to abstain from
these things out of abhorrence towards them, in other words, out of belief that
these things are disgusting, sinful or impure, or that they cause unworthiness.

The 1st Canon of the Holy Council of Gangra reads: “If anyone disparages
marriage, or abominates or disparages a woman sleeping with her husband,
notwithstanding that she is faithful and reverent, as though she could not enter the
Kingdom, let him be anathema.” Here the Holy Council anathematizes those
who believe that a lawfully married husband and wife supposedly sin
whenever they have nuptial relations. Note that the reference “as though she
could not enter the Kingdom” can also have the interpretation “as though she
could not receive Communion.” For according to the Holy Fathers, receiving
Communion is an entry into the Kingdom. This is why when we are
approaching Communion we chant “Remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom.”
Therefore, anyone who believes that a woman who lawfully sleeps with her
own husband, or that a man who lawfully sleeps with his own wife, is
somehow “impure,” “sinful,” or “evil,” is entertaining notions that are not
Orthodox but rather Manichaean. Such a person is anathematized.

The 2nd Canon of the Holy Council of Gangra reads: “If anyone criticize
adversely a person eating meat (without blood, and such as is not meat that has been
sacrificed to idols or killed by strangulation) with reverence and faith, as though he
had no hope of partaking, let him be anathema.” Here the Holy Council
anathematizes whoever considers those who eat meat as being supposedly
sinful or impure. The reference “as though he had no hope of partaking,” can refer
to partaking of salvation in general, but can also refer to partaking of Holy
Communion. For anyone who believes that meat is a sin or a cause of
impurity if partaken during the week before receiving the Holy Mysteries,
such a person is anathematized. Certainly it is pious and welcoming for
someone to fast for reasons of temperance. But to think that it is this act of
fasting that makes them “pure” or “worthy,” or to think that if they had not
fasted they would have been “impure” and “unworthy” on account of the act
of eating meat, is the heresy of Manichaeism and is anathematized.

The 10th Canon of the Holy Council of Gangra reads: “If anyone leading a
life of virginity for the Lord regard married persons superciliously, let him be
anathema.” The interpretation of St. Nicodemus reads: “This canon too
anathematizes those who remain virgins for love of the Lord, but who maintain a
proud attitude as regards those who are united in lawful marriage.”

The 18th Canon of the Holy Council of Gangra reads: “If anyone for the
sake of supposedly ascetic exercise should fast on Sunday, let him be anathema.” This
takes the 9th Apostolic Canon even a step further. For whereas the Apostolic
Canon decrees that anyone who fasts without oil on a Sunday, or a Saturday
(except only for Holy and Great Saturday) should be deposed if a clergyman
or excommunicated if a layman, this Canon of Gangra gives a much severer
punishment, that of anathematization, to those who dare to fast on Sunday.

The 3rd Canon of St. Dionysius of Alexandria also corroborates the
Canons of Gangra in regards to nuptial relations. The Canon reads: “Persons
who are self‐sufficient and married ought to be judges of themselves. For we are told
in writing by St. Paul that: it is fitting that they should abstain from each other by
agreement for a time, in order that they may indulge in prayer, and again come
together (1 Corinthians 7:5).” Here St. Dionysius states that married couples
who are Orthodox Christians should abstain from nuptial relations in order to
devote themselves to prayer, and obviously also to devote themselves to
fasting, and that then they are to come together. But their coming together is
by no means sinful and nor does it make them impure or unworthy of the
Kingdom or of Holy Communion.

In the 12th century a local council in Constantinople under Patriarch
Luke Chrysoberges (+1169) prescribed three days of abstinence of marital
relations prior to Communion. However, this recommendation was directed
towards the clergy and laity equally. Thus it does not give a strict demand to
laity while allowing clergy to be lenient. It also speaks nothing of fasting from
food for three consecutive days, but only talks of marital relations. If the
Fathers of the Council desired the three days to refer to food as well, they
would have said so. But they remain silent, speaking only of nuptial relations.

It must however be mentioned that the Council based its decision on a
passage from the Old Testament, where the future King David and his
companions were asked if they had abstained from women in order to eat the
showbread. But this was referring to women in general, and not to their
lawful wives. It was also a fact that the showbread was forbidden to laity in
the Old Testament, for only the priests who served the Temple were
permitted to partake of it. For this reason this question was asked to David
and his companions, since they should not have been allowed to partake of
the showbread at all. But in the New Testament, Holy Communion, however,
is not permitted only to the priests but to all members of the Church who are
not excommunicated or under any penance. Thus Christ said “Drink of it all
of you, for this is my Blood of the New Testament.” Thus there is no difference
between clergy and laity in regards to permission to receive Holy
Communion, and there is no need for laymen to fulfill an extra fast that
priests are not required to fulfill.

Finally, this Council in Constantinople was only a local council that has
not been confirmed by any Ecumenical Council. This is not on the same level
as the Apostolic Canons or the Councils of Gangra, Antioch, Carthage, etc,
which received sanction by the decisions of Ecumenical Councils. Since the
Council of Constantinople under Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges was entirely
local in nature and decided this in regard to practice and not in regard to
dogma, it is therefore binding on only a local level and for a set time period
until overruled by future councils. For if we are to make such local councils of
an Ecumenical status we shall have no reference as to which Local Council to
follow. For many of them contradict one another in regards to issues of
practice. Thus two Local Councils of Russia, one in the 12th century and one in
the 16th century declared only one day of abstinence between married couples
to be necessary in order for them to receive Holy Communion. But again, this
speaks only of nuptial relations, and there is no mention at all of fasting from
any particular foods. In any case, the Patriarchal Council under St. Gregory V
of Constantinople in 1819, and the Council of the Holy Synod of the Church of
Greece in 1886 (which officially endorsed the book “On Continuous
Communion” by St. Macarius Notaras and St. Nicodemus of Athos) overrules

any previous local council. So within Greece, it is the teaching found in this
very book that is what the current practice should be for Orthodox Christians.

In the work “On Continuous Communion,” by St. Macarius Notaras of
Corinth, edited by St. Nicodemus of Athos, the Holy Fathers declare that
there is no difference between clergy and laity in regards to preparation for
Holy Communion, for as long as the laity are not under any penance and are
permitted by their spiritual father to receive Holy Communion. Thus if laity
are expected to abstain from meat for an entire week, then more so should all
the bishops and priests be expected to do this, every single week of every
year, for as long as they are receiving communion every Sunday. But if they
who are the ones standing at the Bema and calling upon the Lord to sanctify
the Holy Gifts, that is, if the bishops and priests are exempt from such a fast,
then much more exempt are the laity who stand afar off in the crowd. And as
for marital relations, unless a married priest abstains from marital relations
for every week of every year, for as long as he receives communion every
Sunday, and even on weekdays, then such a married priest may desire to
demand it upon laymen. But for as long as married priests are having
children, and are engaging in nuptial relations from time to time, and yet
communing regularly, how are they given the right to force laity to abstain
from marital relations for an entire week in order to commune on Sunday, or
to abstain from marital relations permanently if they wish to commune often?
But in truth, these issues are up to each spiritual father, and not up to any
bishop or priest to judge if he does not know the person or the couple in
question. The spiritual father knows best, for he is their confessor, so thus he
shall decide what they require in preparation for Holy Communion.

In his excellent work regarding the Mystery of Confession, St. Matthew
of Bresthena (+1950), advises that in a normal week married couples should
abstain from nuptial relations on Wednesdays and Fridays due to the fasts
prescribed on these days, and also on Saturdays and Sundays so as to devote
these days to Divine Liturgy and Holy Communion. There is nothing to be
found in any of his writings that people must fast for the entire week in order
to commune on Sunday, or that married couples must refrain from nuptial
relations for the entire week in order to commune on Sunday. On the
contrary, he urges all the faithful to commune as regularly as possible. This
would have been hypocritical of him if he expected them to all become
monastics and fast all week long in order for them to be able to commune. But
if he meant such a thing surely he would have said it. But no such theory can
be found in any of the hundreds of pages of his writings. Wherever he
mentions abstaining from meat he speaks only of Wednesdays and Fridays of
normal weeks, and during the Four Lents, namely, Nativity, Pascha, Apostles
and Dormition. As for marital relations, he advises married couples to abstain

only on all the abovementioned fast days, as well as on Saturdays and
Sundays and on all major Feastdays of the Lord, the Virgin and the Great‐
Martyrs. He speaks nothing at all of abstinence from all fasting foods (meat,
cheese, eggs, fish, oil, wine) for a week prior to communion. Nor does he
speak of marital relations to be forbidden for an entire week. For if such a
thing is not demanded upon married clergy, why should it be demanded
upon laymen? After all, St. Matthew of Bresthena was himself a Kollyvas
Father and the spiritual son of several Kollyvades Fathers.

In another article, Bp. Kirykos tried to cite the 48th Canon of Carthage
as proof that laymen are to follow his advice and fast strictly for one week
prior to Communion, while he exempts himself from this rule, despite being a
Bishop. However, by reading the text of the canon itself one understands that
Bp. Kirykos is misinterpreting this canon. The 48th Canon of Carthage reads:
“It is decreed that the holy rites of the altar shall not be performed except by fasting
men, with the exception of a single day in the year on which the Lord’s Supper is
celebrated. But if during the late afternoon any men have died, whether bishops or
other persons, and a commendation is made for them, let it be done with prayers
alone, if those making it be found to have eaten a breakfast.”

Firstly, this canon is addressed to clergy performing “the holy rites of
the altar,” and is therefore not addressed to laymen. Secondly, the fact that it
says fasting is not required for the whole day prior to the Lord’s Supper (on
Holy Thursday) due to the Liturgy being held at night, means that the term
“fasting” in this canon cannot be referring to abstinence from meat, dairy, eggs
or fish, for all such things are forbidden during Holy Week regardless. Thus
the term “fasting” here refers to a complete abstinence from all foods. Thirdly,
the reference to those clergy who are “found to have eaten a breakfast” clearly
demonstrates that the entire canon is a warning for clergymen to not eat any
breakfast in the morning before serving Divine Liturgy.

It is well‐known by all who lived at Koropi that Fr. Pedro never ate
breakfast prior to serving Divine Liturgy. Heavens forbid! Neither do any
Orthodox Christians dare to do such a thing. But not because food is “sinful”
or “impure,” but because we desire the Holy Communion to be the first food
to be consumed on that day, so that by abstaining from all foods and even
from water, we may prove to the Lord that our greatest desire is to receive
His immaculate Body and precious Blood. For if we were to eat breakfast first,
it would mean that our first desire was to fill our bellies with anything we
could, rather than our desire being directed towards the Lord.

But St. John Chrysostom, in one of his homilies, advises us that it is
also holy and beneficial to abstain from food for a time after receiving Holy

Communion as well. Thus he writes: “You fast before Communion in order to be
worthy of Communion. But as soon as you receive Communion, instead of increasing
prudence and temperance, you let it all go, whereas you should be more temperate
after Communion. For before you received Communion you fasted in order to be
worthy to receive the Bridegroom, while after this you should be more prudent and
temperate in order not to seem unworthy of what you have received. What, then?
Should we fast after Communion as well? I don’t say this, and I don’t force you. It
would be good, but I don’t force you to do this. But I exhort you not to feast to excess
(St. John Chrysostom, Homily 27 on I Corinthians, 7).”

Therefore as a system during the Christian Roman Empire, people
communed every day and therefore did not eat breakfast. Their only
breakfast would be Holy Communion itself. Inside Church, right after
receiving Holy Communion, the faithful would “wash it down” with a cup of
wine mixed with hot water and a piece of bread. These foods are not
communion itself, but are blessed wine and blessed bread consumed for the
purpose of “washing down” the Holy Gifts, so that they do not remain in the
mouth or on the lips. Following this there are other gifts offered in Church
(such as artoklasia or other blessed breads or cakes, and sometimes even fruit
such as grapes on certain occasions), but these are blessed in Church and are
the only form of “breakfast” in the Christianized Roman Empire.

Because Holy Communion followed by “Church food” were the only
known breakfast among Orthodox Christians of old, there are therefore no
Orthodox prayers set to be read before and after breakfast. The only meal
prayers known are before and after lunch, and before and after dinner. This is
because the first meal would be lunch (the largest meal of the day) at some
time in the afternoon, followed by a light dinner immediately after Vespers
and before Compline. Lunch would be the larger meal and dinner the smaller
meal, so as to prepare for Holy Communion on the following day. If it was a
fasting day, the lunch meal would be Lenten as would the dinner meal. If it
was a non‐fasting day the lunch meal would be non‐Lenten while the dinner
meal would be either Lenten or non‐Lenten depending on the greatness of the
feast of that day. After dinner they would read Compline, including the canon
and prayers of preparation for Holy Communion, and then they would
commune the next day as well, and so on and so forth.

This routine has also been imbedded in some Orthodox cultures. For
instance, in Russia, lunch continues to be the largest meal of the day, while
dinner is only a light snack. But this has become an empty custom, for after
years of Westernization from the time of Czar Peter the “Great” onwards,
followed by the rise of Communism, the practice of frequent communion has
ceased amongst most Russians, and what has remained is an empty habit of

eating hardly no breakfast, a large lunch, and a small dinner. Rather than
Holy Communion being their first meal and only breakfast of the day, they
have replaced it with a glass of vodka. May God enlighten that land and
restore it to the glorious past of Holy Russia.

What about the earliest Christians of the apostolic times? Did they fast
prior to communion? According to Bp. Kirykos: “…We must return to those
early apostolic times, during which all of the Christians were ascetics and temperate
and fasters, and only they remained until the end of the Divine Liturgy and
communed. They fasted in the fine and broader sense, that is, they were worthy to
commune.” But is this true? If this was so, why did the Holy Apostles only
direct Wednesday and Friday to be fast days, while warning anyone who
fasts on a Saturday or Sunday with threats of deposition?

The truth of the matter is that during apostolic times, the Christians
would receive Holy Communion on a Saturday night. For, according to the
Bible, days are counted from sunset to sunset, and therefore Saturday night
after sunset was already Sunday. The Christians would thus attend Vespers
shortly before sunset, would serve the Divine Liturgy from sunset onwards,
and after communion they would sit and eat whatever food they would bring
from home to share with the parish, while they listened to their bishop’s
sermon. Sometimes the sermons would last until midnight, and sometimes
even until sunrise. Proof of this is found in the Book of Acts: “And upon the
first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached
unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered
together… When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten,
and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed (Acts 20:7‐11).” At the
beginning, the term “first day of the week” refers to the eve of the first day of
the Week (i.e., Saturday night). This is when St. Paul voiced a sermon until
midnight. This sermon refers to the preliminary part of the Divine Liturgy,
where psalms are chanted, the Epistles and Gospels are read, and special
petitions are made for the faithful. After this sermon, St. Paul “broke bread”
(i.e., served the Divine Liturgy), at which the faithful had “eaten” (i.e.,
received Holy Communion), then he talked a while longer until daybreak.

Since Divine Liturgy was held on a Saturday night, and since the
Apostles forbade fasting from all foods on a Saturday (for to fast on Saturday
would be to observe the Sabbath of the Jews), it is beyond doubt that the
Christians would eat food during the Saturday prior to communing that
night. But this is not only a speculation, but the words of the Apostle Paul
himself. For in his admonition against the Corinthians, who were not sharing
their food with the poorer parishioners, he told them that this act of theirs

was causing them to become unworthy of the Holy Communion. They
needed to reconcile with their parishioners and be on equal terms with all of
them in order to become worthy again. By no means does he warn them that
if they eat any food prior to receiving Holy Communion that they will become
unworthy. On the contrary, he advises them that rather than to bring food to
Church and eat it in front of the poor, it would be better if they ate at home
prior to going to Church! This is clearly seen by reading the whole chapter:

“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together
not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the
church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there
must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest
among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the
Lordʹs supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and
one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to
drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall
I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the
Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had
given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for
you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup,
when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do
ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lordʹs death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the
Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a
man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation
to himself, not discerning the Lordʹs body. For this cause many are weak and
sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should
not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we
should not be condemned with the world.
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for
another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together
unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come (1 Corinthians
11:17‐34).”

Thus the only thing mentioned that may cause someone to commune
unworthily is if they are in discord with their brethren, and bring their own
food to the agape meal after Liturgy, and do not share their food with the
brethren with which they are in discord. Nowhere does this text mention that
fasting for a week is what makes one worthy of communion. On the contrary,
the Apostle Paul even advises for the faithful to eat at home before arriving!

But how on earth could the Apostle Paul suggest that people eat prior to
receiving Holy Communion? In actual fact, it was not the Apostle Paul who
began this practice, but it was Christ Himself. “And as they were eating, Jesus
took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat;
this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many
for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:26‐28).” The Apostles thus received the
Holy Communion during a meal in which they were already eating of other
foods. For, it is written that Christ instituted the Mystery “as they were eating.”

By no means are we advising for Orthodox Christians to ever do this
today. They are certainly not to be eating other foods at the time of Divine
Liturgy. Nor are they to eat at home prior to receiving Holy Communion. Not
because Jesus Christ or the Apostle Paul were mistaken, but because as
Orthodox Christians we must follow the Holy Fathers who called Holy
Councils and devised Holy Canons for the purpose of answering questions
and fixing problems. According to these Holy Canons, such as the 51st Canon
of the Council of Carthage which was provided earlier, we must abstain from
all foods in the morning in which we are to receive Holy Communion. It is for
this reason that the Church changed the time of Divine Liturgy from Saturday
night to Sunday morning, so as to allow people to attend Divine Liturgy on
an empty stomach, having fasted from all foods from midnight onwards, until
receiving Holy Communion on Sunday morning, it being their first meal.

Now as for marriage, let it be known that Christ was not opposed to
marriage. He not only performed his first miracle at a marriage feast, namely,
the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1‐11), but the majority of disciples he chose were
married, whether among the twelve or among the seventy. According to Holy
Tradition, only two Apostles were not married. These were St. John the
Theologian who was a virgin for his entire life, and St. Paul the Apostle who
was married in his past but not at the time of his ministry. It is not known
whether he was widowed or divorced. All that is known is that he was
married in his past, because it would have been impossible for him to be a
teacher among the Pharisees had he not been married. But we know that he
was not married at the time of his ministry because he says so in one of his
epistles. Aside from these two Apostles, every other Apostle was married,
including even St. Peter. We know that the Holy Apostle Peter was married
because of the following passage: “And when Jesus was come into Peterʹs house,
he saw his wifeʹs mother laid, and sick of a fever (Matthew 8:14).” Thus, the
majority of Apostles had wives and children. Not only the Twelve Apostles
and Seventy Apostles, but also the majority of bishops, presbyters, deacons
and laymen that all constituted the early Apostolic Church from the very day
of Pentecost onwards, were married with children. They were not at all

monastics. They did not shun marital relations. Even though St. Paul was not
married at the time of his ministry, and even though he did say that being
married makes it more difficult to dedicate one’s entire life towards serving
the Church, he nevertheless praised marriage and declared the nuptial
relations of a lawfully married couple to be pure. Therefore, he declared quite
clearly: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed is undefiled (Hebrews 13:4).”

Since the majority of Christians in the early apostolic times were
married, and since even the Apostles themselves were married, and since they
not only ate meat regularly, but even ate foods on Saturdays prior to
communing on Saturday nights (as we see was the custom at the time of St.
Paul the Apostle), in what kind of way were the Christians of the early
apostolic times “ascetics and temperate and fasters” that “fasted in the fine and
broader sense,” as Bp. Kirykos informs us, and that their supposed lack of meat
and marriage is the reason why “they were worthy to commune?”

The only phrase in Bp. Kirykos’ entire statement that is worthy of
attention is his advice that “we must return to those early apostolic times.”
Indeed, may God grant that we return to those early apostolic times when
bishops were not such liars, frauds, hypocrites, Pelagians, Pharisees,
Sabbatians, Protopapists, Manicheans, heretics! May God grant that we return
to those early apostolic times when bishops actually obeyed the Law of God
and not their own old wives’ tales! May God grant that we return to those
early apostolic times when laymen could find a true shepherd instead of so
many wolves in sheep’s clothing! May the Lord grant!

Now, as for anyone who may continue to think that if someone eats
meat that this act in and of itself makes them sinful, defiled, corrupt, or
unworthy, to them we must ask: Can the Holy Trinity ever become sinful,
defiled, corrupt or unworthy? Certainly they would not dare to ever believe
such a blasphemy that the perfect and all‐good Godhead could ever be
deemed sinful, defiled, corrupt or unworthy. But what if they were to be
informed that the Three Angels who visited Abraham, these Three Persons
who are the Typos and Image of the Holy Trinity, actually ate meat? But how
is this possible? How is it possible that the Divine Vision seen of the Patriarch
Abraham could dare to eat something as “disgusting” and “sinful” as meat?
Yet, the Three Angels who visited Abraham, these Three Persons who are the
Image and Typos of the Holy Trinity, did in fact eat meat! For it is written:

“And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in
the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo,
three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent
door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have

found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: Let a little
water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass
on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three
measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. And Abraham ran
unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young
man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which
he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and
they did eat (Genesis 18:1‐8).”

Shudder O heavens! Groan O earth! How is it possible that the Three
Persons who visited Abraham—these Three Persons who are the Image and
Typos of the Holy Trinity—could ever fall into such a “disgusting” and
“defiling” act? How could they “sin” by daring to eat meat? The answer is
that the Three Persons neither sinned, nor were they defiled. This was
actually a prophetic vision of the Divine Economy. For not only was God to
eat flesh, but “One of the Trinity” was Himself to become flesh! “And the Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).”

Yes, the Word of God received a human soul and a human body,
which grew to have every bone intact and every muscle in place. The Word of
God also received typical human organs, including a brain, heart and liver, as
well as lungs, kidneys and bowels. Were these not disgusting for the God‐
man to receive? Perhaps in the mind of a Manichaean, but for Christians this
was the Divine Economy. When becoming man, the Word of God not only
received all these human organs, but also even male genitalia. Thus on the
eighth day after his birth he was circumcised according to the Law of Moses.
Was this organ not disgusting for the God‐man, Jesus Christ, to possess?
Perhaps in the mind of a Manichaean, but for Christians this was all part of
the Divine Economy. Before Jesus Christ was born, he grew inside a virginal
womb. When he was born, he passed through the virginal female genitalia.
But the Mother of God did not lose her virginity, but remained whole and
intact despite the delivery of the child. Was this not disgusting for the God‐
man, Jesus Christ, to pass through? Perhaps in the mind of a Manichaean, but
for Christians this was the Divine Economy. Then the God‐man, Jesus Christ,
according to his humanity, hungered and thirsted. So for this reason, as a
babe, he suckled milk from his mother’s breasts. Was this not disgusting for
the God‐man, according to his humanity, to do? Perhaps in the mind of a
Manichaean, but for Christians this was all part of the Divine Economy. Then
he grew in stature, and he ate of the foods that are prescribed by the Law of
Moses. Since he was eating, it is only natural that he was also defecating and

urinating. Was this not disgusting for the God‐man Christ, according to his
humanity, to do? Perhaps in the mind of a Manichaean, but for Christians this
was all part of the natural daily process in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ,
who was made flesh for the purpose of saving the world. Certainly it was a
great concession for God to become a man, but “concession” is the very
meaning of oeconomia (Greek: οἰκονομία) in the term “Divine Economy.”

Finally, the God‐man Christ informed the world that this flesh he had
received, this Body and Blood, was the Heavenly Bread that was to be eaten
by all who believe in him, so that they may have everlasting life. Jesus Christ
commanded us to eat his human body! Is this not absolutely disgusting? Is
this not even cannibalistic? Perhaps in the mind of a Manichaean, but for
Christians this is the Divine Economy. “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily,
I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you
the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give
us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me
shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst (John 6:32‐35).”

But the Pharisees, since they were also Manicheans to a degree, could
not accept this teaching of being required to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his
blood. “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give
us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the
last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath
sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is
that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are
dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever (John 6:52‐58).”

So impossible was it for the Jews to comprehend this teaching that
even some of Jesus’ own disciples departed from him, being unable to accept
the notion of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. “Many therefore of his
disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them,
Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was
before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe
not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who
should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto
me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples
went back, and walked no more with him (John 6:60‐66).” Notice that the disbelief

in the teaching of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood is contained in a
passage that is numbered with the mark of the beast. This is most likely
prophetic, for whoever denies the flesh of Christ is not a Christian but an
antichrist. “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist (2 John 1:7).

The true disciples accepted the teaching that the Lord Jesus Christ was
truly the Word of God in the flesh, and that his flesh was offered to them for
food. They truly believed that by eating the Body and drinking the Blood of
Jesus Christ, they would have remission of sins and eternal life. These true
disciples remained with Christ because they believed, although one of them
did not truly believe, but he remained with Christ anyway. “Then said Jesus
unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to
whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure
that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered them, Have not I
chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of
Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve (John 6:67‐71).”

This same disciple, namely, Judas Iscariot, who did not truly believe
that Christ was the Word of God in the flesh, and did not truly believe in the
teaching of eating the Body and drinking the Blood of the Lord, was the very
one that betrayed the Lord. Not only this, but he conducted this betrayal on
the very night that the lord Jesus Christ offered his immaculate Body and
precious Blood for the first time, that is, on the night of the Mystical Supper.

In order to be a true Christian, and not an antichrist as was Judas
Iscariot, a true Christian must believe that the Word of God became flesh in
reality, not only in appearance. A true Christian must believe that the Word of
God received a real soul consisting of a human mind, a human sense of
feeling and a human will. A true Christian must believe that the Word of God
received a real body, consisting of a human brain, a human heart and human
bowels. A true Christian must believe that the Word of God received bones,
marrow, ligaments, muscle, tendons, nerves, arteries, blood and skin. A true
Christian must believe that this very human soul and body of Jesus Christ is
what they eat and drink every time they partake of Holy Communion.

Thus the Blessed Chrysostom, when he was explaining the words of
the Holy Apostle Paul, wrote: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
communion of the Blood of Christ?” Very persuasively spoke he, and awfully. For
what he says is this: “This which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and
of that do we partake… “For we, who are many, are one bread, one body.” “For why
speak I of communion?” says he, “we are that self‐same body.” For what is the bread?
The Body of Christ! And what do they become who partake of it? The Body of Christ:

not many bodies, but one body… I say now, if even a manʹs garment be what one
would not venture inconsiderately to touch, what shall we say of the Body of Him
Who is God over all, spotless, pure, associate with the Divine Nature, the Body
whereby we are, and live; whereby the gates of hell were broken down and the
sanctuaries  of heaven  opened? How shall we receive this with so great insolence? Let
us not, I pray you, let us not slay ourselves by our irreverence, but with all awfulness
and purity draw near to It; and when you see It set before you, say thou to yourself:
“Because of this Body am I no longer earth and ashes, no longer a prisoner, but free:
because of this I hope for heaven, and to receive the good  things therein, immortal
life, the portion of angels, converse with Christ; this Body, nailed and scourged, was
more than death could stand against; this Body the very sun saw sacrificed, and
turned aside his beams; for this both the veil was rent in that moment, and rocks were
burst asunder, and all the earth was shaken. This is even that Body, the blood‐stained,
the pierced, and that out of which gushed the saving fountains, the one of blood, the
other of water, for all the world.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on the First
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians).

Blessed Chrysostom also expressed this much more precisely in
another homily: “He hath given to those who desire Him not only to see Him, but
even to touch, and eat Him, and fix their teeth in His Flesh, and to embrace Him, and
satisfy their love…” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 46 on John, 3.) Yes, you are to
eat the very meat of the crucified and third‐day‐risen Christ. For it is not good
enough to just look upon the crucified Lord. It is not good enough to merely
touch his feet or grab his garment. It is not profitable for you to give him a
kiss on the cheek as did Judas. But rather, as you see his crucified body, you
must bite into his flesh and eat it. As you see his side pierced with a lance and
see the blood and water gush forth, you must draw near reverently and drink
of it, believing it to be the Fountain of Life. Are you disgusted by this
thought? If so, you may be a Manichaean. But if you are not disgusted, but
truly believe that when you partake of Holy Communion that you are
partaking the real meat and actual blood of the “Word made flesh,” then you
are a real Orthodox Christian as far as this dogma is concerned.

Remain in this Christian teaching and shun all forms of Manichaeism,
be it Paulicianism, Bogomilism or the new heresy of the so‐called “Genuine
Orthodox Christian” Bishop Kirykos of Mesogaea and Laureotica. Perhaps it
was right that his own Synodal President, the late Archbishop Andrew
Anestes (+21 September, 2005), denounced him and removed him from the
role of Synodal Secretary in 2001, by a unanimous vote of the entire Synod of
Bishops. Perhaps it was also right that, following Archbishop Andrew’s
repose, the Synod of Archbishop Nicholas suspended Bp. Kirykos even from
his episcopal duties in 2005 and deposed him from the office of the priesthood
in 2007, reducing him to the rank of a simple monk. Perhaps it was also right

that in 2009 the same Synod went even further and removed from him the
monastic garb, restoring him to the name he held while a layman, thereafter
referring to him as “Mr. Menas Kontogiannis.” For no true priestly office can
be held by a man who for thirty years has disrupted the Church, re‐written
history, “systematized” the old ecclesiology to suit his own misconceptions,
created many schisms, and has now fallen into countless heresies including
Manichaeism. He is Christian perhaps in the appearance of works. He is
Christian perhaps in name. But although he appears to live, he is in fact
spiritually dead. To him the Lord says: “I know thy works: that thou hast the
name; that thou livest; but thou art dead (Rev. 3:1‐2).”

In conclusion, meat and marriage are not sinful. The Image and Typos
of the Holy Trinity ate meat. For even “One of the Trinity” became meat
himself, in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. He offers us this very meat,
consisting of His immaculate Body and precious Blood. This is a Great
Mystery, and it is the Marriage Feast of the Bridegroom, Christ, and His Holy
Bride, the Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ, taught us to pray to the Father to
give us this food daily for the remission of sins: “Give us day by day our daily
bread. And forgive us our sins (Luke 11:3‐4).” He offers us this Heavenly Bread
for our spiritual and physical nourishment. He offers His immaculate Body
and his precious Blood in the appearance of bread and wine, respectively, for
us to eat continually, for the remission of our sins and for eternal life. Amen.

Is It Sinful to Eat Meat? Are Marital Relations Impure?

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Is It Sinful to Eat Meat? Are Marital Relations Impure? (20)

More from Spyridon Voykalis (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Is It Sinful to Eat Meat? Are Marital Relations Impure?