An Answer to a Question About Sexual Abstinence During Fasting Periods
Webmaster Note: This letter was
in response to a clergyman who wrote Archbishop Chrysostomos
to solicit his comments about those Orthodox who dismiss this
tradition or who demand proof from Holy Tradition that this
practice is required of the faithful.
Dear Father _________:
Evlogeite.
...Scripture establishes well the practice of fasting from the flesh
(both in the Old and New Testaments). So do the ancient texts of
the Church. If these people who question abstinence would read
the lives of the Saints and the Fathers, they would understand
that, in challenging us for adhering to the Faith, they show
their own utter lack of understanding of what they claim to
believe. How can anyone have the gall to challenge Church customs
without reading such basic discourses as those by St. John
Chrysostomos, who, in his "On Virginity," clearly
states that married couples should abstain from marital relations
when fasting? In times past, a simple, uneducated village Priest
would have been as familiar with this advice from one of the
Great Hierarchs of the Church as he would have been with St.
Paul’s statements on the subject in his First Epistle to the
Church in Corinth or the similar words of the Prophet Joel. And
one would be hard-pressed to argue that the witness of St. John
Chrysostomos is somehow not ancient.
Since they have also rejected our
argument about the inspired and sacred nature of the Holy Canons,
many modernists also ignore the canonical witness of Orthodoxy
(when they are not using it in a legalistic way to justify their
deviation from Holy Tradition). Hence, while it may be of little
use in confronting those who war with Orthodoxy in the name of
the Faith, you should note the canonical data in support of the
ancient practice of fasting from the flesh: the commentary and
notes on the sixty-ninth Apostolic Canon, which contain very
enlightening and informative statements about fasting in general;
the thirteenth Canon of St. Timothy, which, addressing fasting
from the flesh on Saturday and Sunday, dates to the fourth
century; regarding the clergy in particular, the commentary and
notes to the thirteenth canon of the Sixth Œcumenical Synod; and
any of the major canonical commentaries (such as those of
Balsamon) that anyone daring to criticize the Church should at
least have read thoroughly and carefully.
I might just say, from the
standpoint of Church practice, to show how silly the contention
over this matter truly is, that it stands to reason that the
prohibition of marriages on Wednesday and Friday and during fasts
is not unrelated to the issue of abstinence from the flesh by
married couples. This point is so self-evident as to be
embarrassing. As for those who cannot practice abstinence for
short periods, this is often a sign of sexual maladjustment.
Hence, one must admittedly consider this entire matter from the
standpoint of pastoral considerations, too. Most modernists, in
trying to remove the ascetic dimensions of the Faith,
conveniently ignore the fact that we traditionalists are not
legalists, but that our traditionalism stems from the
pastorally-wise application of Church rules and regulations. This
point is lost on those who wish, not to understand, but to
abolish what has been handed down to us.
I ask for your prayers and remain,
with brotherly and paternal affection,
The Least Among Monks,
Archbishop Chrysostomos
|