www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology When does the fast end and the feast begin?

I understood that after Vespers the next day begins. Thus, when fasting on January 5, one may go out to eat after the Vespers & Divine Liturgy for the Vigil of Theophany. Another person has said that the fast goes up to Midnight, but he is open to my view if there is proper authority.

Does anyone know?

Can you help me identify the proper textual authority?

Midnight does not sound right. It would be interesting to know if there is a time to switch from fasting food to festival foods.

I think the time to switch from fasting foods to festal foods is after the Divine Liturgy on the day of the feast.

While the liturgical day begins with Vespers, many say that the fasts go from midnight to midnight. In the case of Theophany, the feast is inaugurated with the celebration of the Vesperal/Vigil Liturgy on Theophany Eve, but has its fullness in the celebration of the Eucharist at the Liturgy on the day of Theophany itself. While the one-day Theophany fast can be said to end at midnight, it ends as soon as the Eucharistic fast (at least according to the traditional discipline) for the Divine Liturgy on the day of the feast begins! Thus it would be inappropriate to break the fast either after Vespers or at midnight.

Dave

In this case, we had Vespers followed by the Divine Liturgy on the evening of the 5th -- isn't that the Divine Liturgy of the Feast? (There was another Divine Lurgy the next morning, but I would think that the repeat Liturgy would be for pastoral reasons, to accomodate those who could not attend the evening Liturgy with blessing of the waters.)

So, after the evening Liturgy, my own logic would be that it's OK to go out and eat.

Does anyone have an authoritative text on this matter?

That is how we observe the fast before a feast in our little UGCC mission parish. Theophany eve was observed as strict fast. After the vigil Liturgy we had a light fasting meal and then after the liturgy on Theophany day we began the Feast with feasting.
Christ is Baptized in the Jordan!

According to the �received tradition� Christmas and Theophany Eves are days of strict fast (no meat or dairy) when they fall on a weekday. These days were sanctified with Vespers and Divine Liturgy in the morning or early afternoon (10 AM in the Ruthenian Typicon and I think 1 PM in the Russian Typicon). After taking Eucharist at the Divine Liturgy people broke the fast with a Holy Supper. This supper consisted of foods but neither meat nor dairy was consumed. [The strict fast was continued because the Divine Liturgy on the feast was yet to come.]

Compline was then prayed in the evening. In some places Matins was attached to Compline but in others it was celebrated in the morning prior to the Divine Liturgy. After the Divine Liturgy on the feast itself (at which one again took Eucharist) the feasting began!

The historical development of this custom is still unclear. Some argue that there were two Divine Liturgies for the Feast, but there is nothing to explain this double Divine Liturgy custom (why would there ever be two Eucharistic Liturgies on a feast when the clear custom is one Divine Liturgy per day?). It is more likely that the Divine Liturgy belonging to the Eve (the Basil Divine Liturgy) was always celebrated in the morning and that the Vespers had been advanced in the day, with the meal being the fasting meal after taking Eucharist at the Divine Liturgy.

The problem created by moving the Vespers and Divine Liturgy from early in the day to the evening (thereby making it like the Roman Catholic �First Mass of Christmas (or Epiphany)�) is that the fasting and meal customs no longer make sense. Those taking Eucharist on the Eve of Christmas (or Theophany) would have simply fasted from everything (except water) from the time they woke until they took Eucharist. Then they would have their �Holy Supper�. With the Vespers and Divine Liturgy of St. Basil delayed until the evening, in many families the �Holy Supper� comes before Eucharist.

In places were the Vespers and Divine Liturgy are delayed from early in the day on the Eve until after dark each must make his own decisions regarding fasting (especially now that fasting is only recommended and not required). One could continue to fast from the time they wake until the time they take Eucharist (and have a Holy Supper after the Divine Liturgy). Or one could take one or two small �strict fast meals� earlier in the day and a heavier �strict fast meal� after the Vespers and Divine Liturgy. If one is participating in the Divine Liturgy on the morning of the feast, one should continue the strict fast until after receiving Eucharist at that Liturgy. If one is not returning to Church in the morning for that Divine Liturgy one must use their own judgment. If the Vigil Liturgy is your Divine Liturgy for the feast it seems rather silly to continue a Eucharistic Fast after taking Eucharist.

It should always be noted that those with health issues (like diabetes) are exempt from fasting regulations. They should discuss these issues with their spiritual and medical advisors.

Please!
Your answer is simply anachronistic.
Of course, the first Liturgy of the Feast (the Liturgy of St. Basil) was celebrated in the evening, this is found explicitly in the written manuscripts (cf. Typicon of the Great Church, 10th century). The Fathers were not so dull as to combine a Liturgy with Vespers because they intended to put it in the morning. The customs about Holy Supper developed long after the course of the liturgical day, when ancient customs had begun to deteriorate. Fasting ends when you receive the eucharist, though abstinence from certain foods may remain, cf. the Great Fast.

Fr. David

Dear Father David,

You might indeed be correct. Given that fasting customs pushed the Divine Liturgy to the morning in the very early days of the Church this evening Divine Liturgy needs explanation backed up with evidence. Two Eucharists in a single liturgical day needs explanation!

I never suggested that the Fathers were dull! I certainly do not agree with you that our received tradition is dull. The problem I speak to is that we, as a Church, have not lived our tradition as we have received it. The more time I spend praying with our liturgical books and in Orthodox parishes that are faithful to the received Typicon the more I see our received tradition as divinely inspired and not some accident of a careless and uneducated Byzantine / Orthodox Church. We really ought not to be fiddling with our inheritance until we have an exact understanding of history. And we certainly must not make any move whatsoever without the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy. No, the way forward is to abandon all ideas of reforming the Divine Services and simply praying them as we have received them (less the latinizations!). Our task is not to reform the Divine Services, but, rather, to allow the Divine Services to form our Church.

Your example of continued abstinence from certain foods during the Great Fast while ending the fasting after taking Eucharist is excellent.

Admin

I don't think there is a consensus on the matter in "the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy". (I suppose that's the point of such a remark, which curiously discards sui juris status.)

A quick look around the web, however, reveals that, in the US, evening vesper-liturgies are served in the GOA, the AntiochianOC, ACROD, and some OCA dioceses.

djs,

I do not believe that the suri iuris status grants a Church the right to revise the Divine Services. The Liturgical Instruction clearly directs us to take into account the customs of the parallel Orthodox Churches when considering the idea of reform, and to use them as a model. To me this seems to bolster my long held argument that changes to a practice or text common to the entire Byzantine Church need to be accomplished by the entire Byzantine Church, and changes to practices unique to the Ruthenian Recension must be accomplished by all the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension.

You seem to argue that our suri iuris status means we can do whatever we want with the liturgy (that is, move it away from the official Ruthenian liturgical books). But elsewhere you have lamented the use of any music that comes from outside the Ruthenian tradition. I find this confusing. It would be more logical if you were arguing that that the changes also be mandated in Canada (in the Slovak diocese) and in Europe (in Uzhorod, Presov, and etc.) since we form one suri iuris Ruthenian Church (but even here I will disagree with your idea that we can make changes as we desire). Yet the Church in Uzhorod seems to have embraced the �received tradition�. And the Church in Slovakia, well, they seem to be going in a much different direction. I think that my logic holds. Act together as a single Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox) regarding liturgical matters that are common to the entire Church (most texts and most rubrics, most translations). Act together as the Churches of the Ruthenian Recension regarding liturgical matters that are unique to the Ruthenian Recension (some texts and some rubrics, some translations). Act individually as a local Church (the suri iuris Ruthenian Church) regarding liturgical matters that are unique to our local Church (a very few texts and a very few rubrics, liturgical chant).

You are correct that there is no consensus within the rest of Byzantine Orthodoxy on these issues. Where they occur, evening Vesper / Divine Liturgies in the Orthodox Churches are highly controversial. This experimentation seems to be limited to the United States (and possibly Canada). This seems to support my counsel that we leave the liturgical books alone until all of Byzantine Orthodoxy can act together. Why should we mandate something that is so controversial across Orthodoxy? The implications of Church unity should be important to us, even if there are many Orthodox who do not have respect for us. I simply do not understand this frenzy to revise, especially when we can see people fleeing from the parishes where it has been mandated (especially the Holy Week reforms in Passaic, the Presanctified reforms and the Divine Liturgy reforms).

Admin

Point of information:

Administrator, you are incorrect in stating the Slovak diocese of Canada and the various jurisdictions of Europe, together with the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, form one sui juris Ruthenian Church.

According to Ronald Roberson, CSP, editor of The Eastern Christian Churches � A Brief Survey (6th edition), there are 3 distinct Ruthenian Catholic jurisdictions: the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, sui juris; the eparchy of Mucachevo, which is immediately subject to the Holy See; and the apostolic exarchate in the Czech Republic, also subject to the Holy See.

The Eparchy of Presov and the Eparchy of Sts. Cyril and Methodius of Toronto are noted by Roberson as the jurisdictions of the Slovak Catholic Church, and are thus distinct from the
Ruthenian Catholic Church. Both eparchies are immediately subject to the Holy See.

The only sui juris Church is the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitinate of Pittsburgh.

Father Deacon John,

Thanks for the information. You are correct that Father Roberson applies the term �sui iuris� only to the Metropolitanate of Pittsburgh. But he also states that the relationship between us and the other Ruthenian eparchies �has not been clarified�. It has always been my understanding that the Ruthenian Church is �sui iuris� and that the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh was the head of this Church that included the others. So things are still a bit of a mystery.

In any case, should one consider the Ruthenian Church in America as a �sui iuris� Church (apart from the rest), we would interact with these other Churchs at the level of the Ruthenian Recension (as we would with the Ukrainian, Romanian, Slovak, and Hungarian Churches who also share the Ruthenian Recension).

All this points to the need for us to all work together rather then each plotting a separate course.

Admin

First principle: Our "rights" as a sui juris church are very broad - though not as broad as those of an autocephalous church. We can, within the very limits enforced by Rome, do what we want on these matters. Other churches have a right to respond, in whatever way they feel appropriate. But these decisions are, for better or worse, ours. Such rights should never be dismissed - and one should never sell them short - even as a means to try to win battle over strongly held liturgical preferences.

Second principle: Not all things that are within our "rights" to do are prudent. Not all things can be assumed to be good for us and for our church. I think that there are many arguments that can be made about the wisdom or lack thereof of having vesperal liturgies. But the argument that we have no "right" to to do it is a specious one; it would set us way back if that argument were to prevail.

Don't be confused. My comment is about principle - not merely outcome. I support the rights in the US constitution. But that support doesn't mean that I cannot also holsd a strong position on what is or is not a foolish exercise of those rights. What you advise may be good, but your argument about our "rights" is not. It denigrates our church by jumping onto a slippery slope of forfeiting its rights.

Thus, yes, we have every right to use whatever music we choose. Some choices, however, are arguably better than others.

That of course means not acting, because Orthodoxy has already acted not-together. Oh and look, no excommunications, no anathemas - so let's drop the red herring of the impact on church unity.

Yes, it is clear that you don't. At the same time, I don't understand your frenzy against them. These reforms are so utterly trivial in comparison to ongoing important work of restoration of vespers, matins, etc.

BTW, I don't know much about the fleeing - the comments from flee-ers here are most interesting for their nostalgic tone. You once very dissed a former poster, who has a great affection for the old ways and old country, as an "ancestor worshipper". I thought the criticism very unjust in that case, but when people have little more to say than why not have things just the way they were in the time of my (father/mother/gradfather/grandmother), those words begin to resonate.

Thank you all for responding to my query. Please continue to add any thoughts.

Also, I'd like to know what some of you actually personally do when in this situation. Do you by custom eat "festally" in the hours after a vigil-vespers prior to midnight?

In the Passaic diocese (growing up in the '60s and '70s) we had strict fast Christmas Eve, Holy Supper at the sign of the first star, Compline at 8pm and a midnight liturgy. Then we'd all come home and eat ham and potato salad and put the kolache out for Santa. This year we were very confused with vespers and liturgy at 5pm Christmas Eve. I think the old adage of "when in doubt, do what love requires" needs to be practiced more.