Roman Catholic teachings denounced by Orthodox groups?

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Not a really good example, because in Mark 7:14-23 he then proceeds to suspend the Torah dietary laws when he declares all foods clean.

That was not in the original text. In context, it was not allowing consumption of non-kosher food but eating with un-washed hands.

 

[The Liturgist]

That was not in the original text. In context, it was not allowing consumption of non-kosher food but eating with un-washed hands.

Yes it absolutely was. The only portion of critically disputed text in that pericope is an instance of “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear,” in Mark 7:16. There is however no textual criticism that would contradict καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα, which being translated is “purifying all food.”

It is indeed most likely for this reason that the Orthodox generally consume anything, even blood sausages being consumed in Russia and other Eastern European Orthodox lands, for example.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes it absolutely was. The only portion of critically disputed text in that pericope is an instance of “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear,” in Mark 7:16. There is however no textual criticism that would contradict καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα, which being translated is “purifying all food.”

It is indeed most likely for this reason that the Orthodox generally consume anything, even blood sausages being consumed in Russia and other Eastern European Orthodox lands, for example.

New International Version
Mark 7:19 [19] For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Compare...

King James Bible
Mark 7:19 [19], Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?

Original Greek
Mark 7:19 [19] ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.

There is no (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) in the original Greek. It is in parenthesis because it was added in by the translators in some translations. It is also not in the KJV neither is it written in any of the Aramaic translations or the Young's Literal Translation because it is not written in the original Greek!

An interpretation that Jesus is not making a declaration that all foods are now clean is not supportive of chapter context or subject matter. That interpretation would also contradict the Levitical laws of God of clean and unclean foods given by God in the old testament which may or may not be eaten (Leviticus 11) and would be a direct conflict to Jesus audience who were all Jews who all knew these laws. The context and subject matter here was to eating and drinking with unwashed pots, cups and hands while following man-made traditions that lead us to break the commandments of God. The latter which is what really defiles a man.

"(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) in reference to Jesus is not in the original Greek.

Mark 7:19 for καθαρίζον for clean or purify (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean is not in the original Greek it was added by the translators) The Greek word meanings in context of scripture and chapter determine subject matter to determine correct interpretation of these scriptures. They do not fit your interpretation that Jesus is saying all unclean foods are now clean as that is not the context and subject matter of both the scripture *Mark 7:19 and of the chapter context and subject matter shown in Mark 7:2-23.

Using a single Greek word καθαρίζον which means "purify; cleanse make clean" is in context to the word ἐκπορεύομαι which means to go out of the body or purge and after of course πάντα βρώματα (all food). The chapter context of course is to the contamination caused by the washing of cups and pots and hands making someone κοινόω unclean or defiled not "unclean foods" *Mark 7:2-5.

The point of the scripture being to the chapter context and subject matter, it is not the "washing of pots and cups and not washing of the hands that makes a man unclean a man (defiled)" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles (makes unclean) a man.

The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging defilement out of the body" and it is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile (makes unclean) the man, not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:2-23 through unwashed pots, cups and hands. The chapter subject matter is not to eating unclean foods as they were all Jews who followed the food laws of Leviticus 11 but the subject matter was to eating food with unwashed hands, pots and cups *Mark 7:2-5.

To make clean, to cleanse; a. from physical stains and dirt. You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleansing all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean" from unwashed cups and pots and hands. That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled or unclean passes out of the man.

.................

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
NT 2511: καθαρίζω (Hellenistic for καθαίρω, which classic writings use); Attic future (cf. Buttmann, 37 (32); Winers Grammar, § 13, 1 c.; WH's Appendix, p. 163) καθαριῶ (Hebrews 9:14); 1 aorist ἐκαθάρισα (see below); present passive καθαρίζομαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκαθαρίσθην; perfect passive participle κεκαθαρισμενος (Hebrews 10:2 T Tr WH; on the forms ἐκαθερισθη, T WH in Matthew 8:3; Mark 1:42 (ἐκαθερισεν, Tr in Acts 10:15; Acts 11:9) and κεκαθερισμενος Lachmann in Hebrews 10:2, cf. (Tdf. Proleg., p. 82; WH's Appendix, p. 150); Sturz, De dial. Maced. etc., p. 118; Delitzsch on Hebrews 10:2; Krüger, Part ii. § 2, 2, 6, p. 4; (Buttmann, 29 (25f); Winer's Grammar, 43)); (καθαρός; the Sept. mostly for טִהַר;
1. to make clean, to cleanse; a. from physical stains and dirt: e. g. utensils, Matthew 23:25 (figuratively, Matthew 23:26); Luke 11:39; food, Mark 7:19; τινα, a leper, to cleanse by curing, Matthew 8:2; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 4:27; Luke 5:12; Luke 7:22; Luke 17:14, 17 (Leviticus 14:8); to remove by cleansing: ἡ λέπρα ἐκαθαρίσθη, Matthew 8:3 (καθαριεῖς τό αἷμα τό ἀναίτιον ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, Deuteronomy 19:13; ἐκαθαριζε τήν περί ταῦτα συνήθειαν, the custom of marrying heathen women, Josephus, Antiquities 11, 5, 4; καθαιρεῖν αἷμα, Homer, Iliad 16, 667; cf. ἐκκαθαίρω).

.................

You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleaning all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean". That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled passes out of the man.

The point of the scripture being it is not the "washing of pots that defile a man" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles him. The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging out of the body". It is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile the man not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:6-23.

...............

The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament King James Version
Mark 7:19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν· καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα. | KJV NT RI
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? | KJV 1900

οὐκ Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
οὐ ou not
negative, adverb, particle
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

εἰσπορεύεται Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
εἰσπορεύομαι eisporeuomai enter; go into
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καρδίαν kardian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καρδία kardia heart
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

κοιλίαν koilian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
κοιλία koilia womb; belly; stomach
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἀφεδρῶνα aphedrōna Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
ἀφεδρών aphedrōn toilet; latrine
noun, accusative, singular, masculine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἐκπορεύεται Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
ἐκπορεύομαι ekporeuomai go out; come or go out
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καθαρίζον katharizon Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καθαρίζω katharizō purify; cleanse; make clean
verb, present, active, participle, singular, nominative, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

πάντα panta Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
πᾶς pas every; all
adjective, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

βρώματα brōmata Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
βρῶμα brōma food
noun, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

.................

Context matters.

Hope this is helpful

 

[The Liturgist]

MARK 7:19 [19] ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται;—καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα.

I think what you have not picked up here dear friend is that Jesus is not making a declaration that all foods are now clean. That interpretation would contradict the Levitical laws of God of clean and unclean foods given by God in the old testament which may or may not be eaten (Leviticus 11). Jesus kept all of God's laws and if Jesus broke these laws he would not be our perfect sinless sacrifice.

"Thus he declared" in reference to Jesus is not in the original Greek.

Mark 7:19 for καθαρίζον for clean or purify ("Thus he declared" is not in the original Greek it was added by the translators) The Greek word meanings in context of scripture and chapter determine subject matter to determine correct interpretation of these scriptures. They do not fit your interpretation that Jesus is saying all unclean foods are now clean as that is not the context and subject matter of both the scripture *Mark 7:19 and of the chapter context and subject matter shown in Mark 7:2-23.

Using a single Greek word καθαρίζον which means "purify; cleanse make clean" (declared being added by the translators) is in context to the word ἐκπορεύομαι which means to go out of the body or purge and after of course πάντα βρώματα (all food). The chapter context of course is to the contamination caused by the washing of cups and pots and hands making someone κοινόω unclean or defiled not "unclean foods" *Mark 7:2-5.

The point of the scripture being to the chapter context and subject matter, it is not the "washing of pots and cups and not washing of the hands that makes a man unclean a man (defiled)" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles (makes unclean) a man.

The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging defilement out of the body" and it is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile (makes unclean) the man, not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:2-23 through unwashed pots, cups and hands. The chapter subject matter is not to eating unclean foods as they were all Jews who followed the food laws of Leviticus 11 but the subject matter was to eating food with unwashed hands, pots and cups *Mark 7:2-5.

To make clean, to cleanse; a. from physical stains and dirt. You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleansing all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean" from unwashed cups and pots and hands. That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled or unclean passes out of the man.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
NT 2511: καθαρίζω (Hellenistic for καθαίρω, which classic writings use); Attic future (cf. Buttmann, 37 (32); Winers Grammar, § 13, 1 c.; WH's Appendix, p. 163) καθαριῶ (Hebrews 9:14); 1 aorist ἐκαθάρισα (see below); present passive καθαρίζομαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκαθαρίσθην; perfect passive participle κεκαθαρισμενος (Hebrews 10:2 T Tr WH; on the forms ἐκαθερισθη, T WH in Matthew 8:3; Mark 1:42 (ἐκαθερισεν, Tr in Acts 10:15; Acts 11:9) and κεκαθερισμενος Lachmann in Hebrews 10:2, cf. (Tdf. Proleg., p. 82; WH's Appendix, p. 150); Sturz, De dial. Maced. etc., p. 118; Delitzsch on Hebrews 10:2; Krüger, Part ii. § 2, 2, 6, p. 4; (Buttmann, 29 (25f); Winer's Grammar, 43)); (καθαρός; the Sept. mostly for טִהַר;

1. to make clean, to cleanse;
a. from physical stains and dirt: e. g. utensils, Matthew 23:25 (figuratively, Matthew 23:26); Luke 11:39; food, Mark 7:19; τινα, a leper, to cleanse by curing, Matthew 8:2; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 4:27; Luke 5:12; Luke 7:22; Luke 17:14, 17 (Leviticus 14:8); to remove by cleansing: ἡ λέπρα ἐκαθαρίσθη, Matthew 8:3 (καθαριεῖς τό αἷμα τό ἀναίτιον ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, Deuteronomy 19:13; ἐκαθαριζε τήν περί ταῦτα συνήθειαν, the custom of marrying heathen women, Josephus, Antiquities 11, 5, 4; καθαιρεῖν αἷμα, Homer, Iliad 16, 667; cf. ἐκκαθαίρω).

You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleaning all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean". That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled passes out of the man.

The point of the scripture being it is not the "washing of pots that defile a man" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles him. The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging out of the body". It is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile the man not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:6-23.

...............

The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament King James Version

Mark 7:19 ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν· καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα. | KJV NT RI

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? | KJV 1900

οὐκ ouk Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
οὐ ou not
negative, adverb, particle
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

εἰσπορεύεται eisporeuetai Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
εἰσπορεύομαι eisporeuomai enter; go into
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καρδίαν kardian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καρδία kardia heart
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

κοιλίαν koilian Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
κοιλία koilia womb; belly; stomach
noun, accusative, singular, feminine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἀφεδρῶνα aphedrōna Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
ἀφεδρών aphedrōn toilet; latrine
noun, accusative, singular, masculine
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

ἐκπορεύεται ekporeuetai Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

ἐκπορεύομαι ekporeuomai go out; come or go out
verb, present, either middle or passive, indicative, third person, singular
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

καθαρίζον katharizon Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
καθαρίζω katharizō purify; cleanse; make clean
verb, present, active, participle, singular, nominative, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

πάντα panta Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
πᾶς pas every; all
adjective, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

βρώματα brōmata Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
βρῶμα brōma food
noun, accusative, plural, neuter
PLGNT
CDWGTHB

.................

Context matters.

Hope this is helpful

Context does indeed matter, in that the parenthetical remark included in most New Testament translations is indicated in the original Koine Greek syntax, and frankly, an Interlinear translation is no substitute for actual knowledge of the Greek language.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes it absolutely was. The only portion of critically disputed text in that pericope is an instance of “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear,” in Mark 7:16. There is however no textual criticism that would contradict καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα, which being translated is “purifying all food.”

It is indeed most likely for this reason that the Orthodox generally consume anything, even blood sausages being consumed in Russia and other Eastern European Orthodox lands, for example.

I disagree. Again the context was eating with unwashed hands. Purifying all food does not mean making unclean food clean (kosher). It means that the stomach has acid and will kill anything eaten. Also Orthodox will not (should not) eat blood sausage because of the prohibition regarding blood from Acts. That is very strict within Orthodoxy (although as you said some will eat it). It is in our Canons...

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Context does indeed matter, in that the parenthetical remark included in most New Testament translations is indicated in the original Koine Greek syntax, and frankly, an Interlinear translation is no substitute for actual knowledge of the Greek language.

Not really but allow me to explain why if it might be helpful. Your ignoring context and there is no (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) in the original Greek. The parenthetical remark is just that it means something inserted in that was not there. It is not in the original Greek. You were provided the reverse Interlinear as well as the original Greek in the post you were quoting from.

 

[The Liturgist]

Also Orthodox will not (should not) eat blood sausage because of the prohibition regarding blood from Acts. That is very strict within Orthodoxy (although as you said some will eat it). It is in our Canons...

I have a copy of the Pedalion and I haven’t seen any canon prohibiting it…

 

[The Liturgist]

No, your wrong. Your ignoring context and there is no "thus he declared" in the original Greek. The parenthetical remark is just that it means something inserted in that was not there. It is not in the original Greek. You were provided the reverse Interlinear of the Greek in the post you were quoting from. Go and get some Greek lessons.

No, that’s not what the parenthetical remark means… Parenthetical remarks are used to denote additional English syntax required to complete a statement where the Greek contains that meaning, but it would be obscure if translated literally, for people who, unlike myself, were not trained in Koine Greek at seminary. It absolutely does not mean “something was inserted that was not there,” rather, it means “this text explains the meaning of the text it is attached to.”

For a (sad but true) example:

Blanchard (a cat) was beautiful, and in his prime when the coyote came (which killed him).

I do miss that cat by the way, even though that happened in 1991…

 

[LoveGodsWord]

No, that’s not what the parenthetical remark means… Parenthetical remarks are used to denote additional English syntax required to complete a statement where the Greek contains that meaning, but it would be obscure for people who, unlike myself, were not trained in Koine Greek at seminary.

I respectfully disagree. Go show me in the original Greek where it says (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) and explain why it is not in every translation. It is not in the original Greek. It is written in parenthesis because it was added in some translations and not in the original Greek.

parenthesis
/pəˈrɛnθɪsɪs/
Learn to pronounce

noun
noun: parenthesis; plural noun: parentheses

1. 
   a word or phrase inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage which is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by brackets, dashes, or commas.
   "in a challenging parenthesis, Wordsworth comments on the evil effects of contemporary developments"
   • a pair of round brackets ( ) used to mark off a parenthetical word or phrase.
     "the stage number is added in parentheses to the name or formula"
2. 
   an interlude or interval.
   "the three months of coalition government were a lamentable political parenthesis"

Sorry Lit but you are wrong here (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) is not in the original Greek it was added in parenthesis because it is not in the original Greek and many of the highest translations do not use it because it is not written in the Koine Greek and refers to context not something written in.

My argument is that the passage is complete by itself when referring to context which is why this scripture insertion is not used in the KJV and other translations and is why it is not in the original Greek.

Now go show me in the original Greek where it says (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.).

I will wait.

 

[The Liturgist]

Nonsense. Go show me in the original Greek where it says (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) and explain why it is not in every translation. It is not in the original Greek. It is written in parenthesis because it was added in some translations and not in the original Greek.

I just explained to you why it was added: to make clear the meaning of the original Greek, which I have already provided.

I don’t wish to discuss this with you any further.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I just explained to you why it was added: to make clear the meaning of the original Greek, which I have already provided.

I don’t wish to discuss this with you any further.

I am not sure if you realize but (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) was not in the original Greek you provided. My argument was never why some translations added it into the scripture. It is that the passage is complete by itself when referring to context which is why this scripture insertion is not used in the KJV and other translations as shown erlier and is why it is not in the original Greek. Now go show me in the original Greek where it says (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.). You do not have to discuss it further if you do not want to that is up to you. My posts were only provided for correction and as a help to you and the discussion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Your not reading my posts. My argument is that the passage is complete by itself when referring to context which is why this scripture insertion is not used in the KJV and other translations and is why it is not in the original Greek. Now go show me in the original Greek where it says (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.).

Please do not contact me again as I requested via PM.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I have a copy of the Pedalion and I haven’t seen any canon prohibiting it…

The Orthodox position is that the Apostolic Council is still binding and this includes the prohibition on eating blood. Two canonical sources which uphold the restriction of Acts 15 are:

Canon LXIII (63) of the Apostles:
If any bishop, or presbyter or deacon or anyone else on the sacerdotal list at all, eat meat in the blood of its soul, or that has been killed by a wild beast, or that has died a natural death, let him be deposed. For the Law has forbidden this. But if any layman do the same let him be excommunicated.

Canon LXVII (67) from the Quinesext Council:
Divine Scripture has commanded us to "abstain from blood, and strangled flesh and fornication". We therefore suitably penance those who on account of their dainty stomach eat the blood of any animal after they have rendered it eatable by some art. If therefore anyone from now on should attempt to eat the blood of any animal in any way whatsoever, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman let him be excommunicated.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
IN Mark 7:6-13 it is one single individual applying SS Against the organized nation-church started by God at Sinai that existed in Christ's day.

Not a really good example, because in Mark 7:14-23 he then proceeds to suspend the Torah dietary laws when he declares all foods clean.

not in context. In context he affirms scripture and is not even remotely in a discussion about eating rats... Rather it is about eating bread from the market place.

What is more it is clear from Acts 10 that even at so long a point after the resurrection - Peter was not aware of any teaching telling him to eat rats.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Orthodox position is that the Apostolic Council is still binding and this includes the prohibition on eating blood. Two canonical sources which uphold the restriction of Acts 15 are:

Canon LXIII (63) of the Apostles:
If any bishop, or presbyter or deacon or anyone else on the sacerdotal list at all, eat meat in the blood of its soul, or that has been killed by a wild beast, or that has died a natural death, let him be deposed. For the Law has forbidden this. But if any layman do the same let him be excommunicated.

Canon LXVII (67) from the Quinesext Council:
Divine Scripture has commanded us to "abstain from blood, and strangled flesh and fornication". We therefore suitably penance those who on account of their dainty stomach eat the blood of any animal after they have rendered it eatable by some art. If therefore anyone from now on should attempt to eat the blood of any animal in any way whatsoever, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman let him be excommunicated.

Well those canons are evidently in abeyance, with the Slavonic Orthodox Churches granting oikonomia, probably because food in Northeastern Europe is sufficiently hard to come by. Indeed, Canon 67 of Trullo did not even occur to me, because it qualifies itself using the phrase “on account of their dainty stomach.” In other words, if Russians eat blood sausages so as not to starve, it would be permissible under Canon 67. As far as Apostolic Canon 63 is concerned, I have always assumed this refers to using the blood of the slaughtered animal as the basis for a sauce to cook it in.

But even if I am wrong, the fact that the Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Belarussian and Czech-Slovak Orthodox Churches aren’t excommunicating people over this issue suggests this is a dead-letter canon, of which there are several. For example, the Council of Trullo prohibits people from using the services of a Jewish doctor (this was not due to anti-Semitism, but rather a result of a perverse situation in the late Byzantine Empire wherein some Christian, Jewish and Muslim doctors would perform abortions for persons not of their faith). There is also the canon prohibiting anyone from viewing the theater (due to the lewd nature of theatrical performances at this time), and the canon prohibiting clergy from eating or staying in a tavern (because of prostitution and the uncouth nature of taverns in the Early Middle Ages when the Quinisext Council was held).

If these canons were still enforced with akribeia, it would have the effect of preventing Orthodox priests from staying in hotels, using probably most hospitals, and would interfere even with laity attending perfectly respectable theatrical performances (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is on record as stating there is nothing objectionable in an Orthodox Christian viewing, for example, the plays of William Shakespeare).

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well those canons are evidently in abeyance, with the Slavonic Orthodox Churches granting oikonomia, probably because food in Northeastern Europe is sufficiently hard to come by. Indeed, Canon 67 of Trullo did not even occur to me, because it qualifies itself using the phrase “on account of their dainty stomach.” In other words, if Russians eat blood sausages so as not to starve, it would be permissible under Canon 67. As far as Apostolic Canon 63 is concerned, I have always assumed this refers to using the blood of the slaughtered animal as the basis for a sauce to cook it in.

But even if I am wrong, the fact that the Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Belarussian and Czech-Slovak Orthodox Churches aren’t excommunicating people over this issue suggests this is a dead-letter canon, of which there are several. For example, the Council of Trullo prohibits people from using the services of a Jewish doctor (this was not due to anti-Semitism, but rather a result of a perverse situation in the late Byzantine Empire wherein some Christian, Jewish and Muslim doctors would perform abortions for persons not of their faith). There is also the canon prohibiting anyone from viewing the theater (due to the lewd nature of theatrical performances at this time), and the canon prohibiting clergy from eating or staying in a tavern (because of prostitution and the uncouth nature of taverns in the Early Middle Ages when the Quinisext Council was held).

If these canons were still enforced with akribeia, it would have the effect of preventing Orthodox priests from staying in hotels, using probably most hospitals, and would interfere even with laity attending perfectly respectable theatrical performances (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is on record as stating there is nothing objectionable in an Orthodox Christian viewing, for example, the plays of William Shakespeare).

Understand your points but none of them are valid regarding the prohibitions in ACTS that are Apostolic. Going to a Jewish doctor was not prohibited in ACTS so your point may be valid there.

 

[The Liturgist]

Understand your points but none of them are valid regarding the prohibitions in ACTS that are Apostolic. Going to a Jewish doctor was not prohibited in ACTS so your point may be valid there.

Has it occurred to you that Acts 15 may only prohibit the consumption of blood, as opposed to blood-based foodstuffs? Because it does specifically say blood, not sausages or other foods that use blood as an ingredient.

I think in a modern context, removed as we are from the strictures of the Kosher diet, that Acts 15 ought to be used primarily in reference to the bizarre and perverted practices of people who practice vampirism, drinking each others’ blood, which is a dark and disturbing subculture. I could be wrong of course, and I am in no hurry to try blood sausage (I do enjoy black pudding, however, which does I believe use some congealed blood as an ingredient), but for my part I would prefer to wait for Patriarch Kyrill or Metropolitan Onuphrius or Metropolitan Sawa to issue pastoral guidance on whether or not it can be consumed, since until they do, there is a presumption that eating blood sausage is allowed; I have never heard of anyone getting into trouble with the church for consuming it.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Has it occurred to you that Acts 15 may only prohibit the consumption of blood, as opposed to blood-based foodstuffs? Because it does specifically say blood, not sausages or other foods that use blood as an ingredient.

I think in a modern context, removed as we are from the strictures of the Kosher diet, that Acts 15 ought to be used primarily in reference to the bizarre and perverted practices of people who practice vampirism, drinking each others’ blood, which is a dark and disturbing subculture. I could be wrong of course, and I am in no hurry to try blood sausage (I do enjoy black pudding, however, which does I believe use some congealed blood as an ingredient), but for my part I would prefer to wait for Patriarch Kyrill or Metropolitan Onuphrius or Metropolitan Sawa to issue pastoral guidance on whether or not it can be consumed, since until they do, there is a presumption that eating blood sausage is allowed; I have never heard of anyone getting into trouble with the church for consuming it.

There are many laws associated with blood (Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17). Blood is the life. If there is a prohibition regarding blood consumption, then that is what it is, ingredients too. Since it is in the Canons, we do not need anyone to issue "pastoral guidance". The Canons would need to be changed in that case. I mean if you exclude that then what prohibits you from excluding the prohibition regarding sexual immorality? It is a slippery slope...

 

[The Liturgist]

There are many laws associated with blood (Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17). Blood is the life. If there is a prohibition regarding blood consumption, then that is what it is, ingredients too. Since it is in the Canons, we do not need anyone to issue "pastoral guidance". The Canons would need to be changed in that case. I mean if you exclude that then what prohibits you from excluding the prohibition regarding sexual immorality? It is a slippery slope...

Forgive me, I seem to have given the wrong impression. I am not advocating for the eating of blood products, but am rather seeking to explain how it is that they might be permitted, or alternatively, how it is that they are officially forbidden but are consumed anyway:

The canons, as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware stresses, are not to be interpreted in a legalistic manner…the word literally means “guideline” and it is up to the bishop whether a canon is enforced with exactness or whether to grant economy. For example, one priest in North America who suffers from hypoglycemia is permitted to eat a full breakfast immediately before serving the Eucharist. No clergy are penanced for staying in hotels or eating in restaurants, even though such actions violate the canon prohibiting clergy from staying at or dining in taverns. For that matter, there is a canon that in addition to prohibiting prostitutes and gladiators from being received into the church, also excludes actors and schoolteachers, in addition to the canon against using the services of a Jewish doctor. Needless to say those are no longer in force.

Ultimately, the power to interpret the canon rests with the bishops, and if you are in doubt of something, the normal pathway is to ask your priest who should know what the policy is, or if the opportunity exists, ask Vladyka in person. However, I am not aware of any Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Polish or other Orthodox Christians from Northeastern Europe where blood sausages are a thing being excommunicated, and I also have not personally heard of any pastoral encyclical in the British churches prohibiting black pudding, although it is possible such exist.

And to be clear, I am not advocating consuming blood sausages or black pudding, I am merely seeking to explain how it is they could be permitted.

Now, this all being said, I think there are good reasons for clarification to be sought on the question of the propriety of eating blood sausages and other blood products. Therefore, I suggest you consider contacting bishops or other clergy, who are from Northeastern Europe, in the autocephalous and autonomous churches from that region, for example, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the Polish Orthodox Church, the Belarussian Orthodox Church, and others, to see what their interpretation of this canon is. It would not come as a shock to me to learn that consuming blood sausages actually is canonically prohibited in the Orthodox Church, and that the main driver of its sale consists of Byzantine Rite and Roman Rite Catholics and Protestants, and persons of no religious affiliation, and that the Orthodox who do consume it do so owing to ignorance and poor catechesis.

However, it is also entirely possible that owing to historic shortages in the food supply that were exacerbated by the rise of the Soviet Union, and then WWII and the Warsaw Pact, and which continue in the Russian Federation and Ukraine and Belarus, that the bishops responsible for those jurisdictions are not enforcing the canons in question for reasons of oikonomia.