The Protestant opinion as regards fasting is typically as follows:

<< The fast mentioned in the NT means abstinence from all food and is optional. For this reason we cannot accept the compulsory status of fasting meant to be observed on certain specific days of the year; nor can we accept that incomprehensible and amusing to a large extent phenomenon found in Orthodoxy of fasting from one thing and being allowed to eat something else. To give a more concrete example from the Orthodox Fast - they fast on olive-oil but are allowed to eat olives!>>

In short, most Protestants while they accept fasting as something noble they think it is optional, in practice hardly ever observing it themselves (choosing immediately the easy path), and that fasting is only meant to be total (strict); certainly partial fasting is rejected.

Let us first examine whether the canons on fasting are allowed or not; in other words whether setting apart specific dates reserved as fast days throughout the ecclesiastical calendar is unbiblical in itself or not.

If we now turn our attention to the OT we immediately see that God had set forth as a fast day the Day of Expiation, namely the 10th day of the 7th month (Levit. 16:26.30). Apart from this, there also used to be other days set on specific times throughout the year as fast days in the OT, as is well-known (c.f. Zech. 7:5).

But - the Protestant will argue - the old Law has ceased and thus we have no obligation to observe these fasts.

Of course, to that we totally agree! We are not to observe the same fasts as the Jews have! These have ceased now. However, we must also hasten to add here, that the point is that the compulsory nature of setting fasts on specific dates is not unbiblical, for the OT is itself Holy Writ and speaks about compulsory fasting quite clearly, as we saw above.

In the NT however - the Protestant will argue - there is no compulsory fasting but only optional. The Lord of course did not prohibit us from fasting, He did not however command us to fast either.

The Lord Himself however fasted for 40 days. The Apostles themselves are seen fasting in various instances in the NT (more details will be given below). How come therefore the Protestants treat this issue as of secondary importance?

<<We agree that fasting is totally acceptable biblically>>, they will admit; <<but it is only optional>>, they will insist. <<Neither the Apostles>>, they claim, <<nor the Fathers of the first Church canonised fast rules>>. <<The Orthodox Fast of Wednesday and Friday>>, they may conclude with this commonly brought typical example, <<was first mentioned in the Apostolic Commands, which is work of the 4th century AD>>.

The above gives us more or less the standard Protestant view on the matter. Things however are not at all as they depict them. To start with the last example above first: the Fast of Wednesday and Friday is ancient. It was first mentioned in the "Didache" (Teaching) of the Apostles, which as is well-known was written in the period 100 - 160 AD, and not in the Apostolic Commands, as most Protestants support erroneously.

In particular, we read in its 8th chapter: "υμείς νηστεύσατε τετράδα και παρασκευή", i.e. "you are to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays". Also, Clemes of Alexandria (150 - 210 AD) talks on the compulsory fast of Wednesday and Friday in his work "Stromateis" (7 Chap. 12, 5).

Apart from the above, we also have many Fathers who talk about the compulsory fast dates before Easter (Easter Fast) which were gradually canonised over the centuries and were fully (i.e. formally) established by the First Oecumenical Synod. Do you therefore see that specific fasting on certain days is not against the biblical spirit since the OT talks regarding this matter, and it started again in the NT times in 100 AD with the Wednesday and Friday fast (and not in the 4th century AD)? Of course the Apostles themselves would fast in the first Christian Church, as well as other priests and lay people, as we also read in the Bible (see below). But one could turn and ask Protestants in turn the following:

Why does the "late" canonisation of the compulsory fasts of the year established fully and finally in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD worry you, since the books of the NT had not been fully recognised by the Church until the 5th century AD?

So far so good. Protestants would still argue though that fasting means total abstinence from food. Where do the Orthodox - they would ask - base their being allowed to eat e.g. legumes but not eggs; to eat olives but not olive-oil? Isn't there olive-oil in olives?!

The answer to the above question is that in the Holy Bible we meet two types of fast: the change of one's diet (partial fast) and total abstinence from food and sometimes drink as well (strict fast). Partial fast, namely abstinence from certain types of food, was suggested by God Himself to the first Adam; in other words, He commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of a specific tree. This shows us that partial fast has its place in the life of a Christian, it is the first command whose violation (by Adam and Eve) brought the forefatherly sin, then Christ, and then our salvation.

The second type of fast is the fast observed by the second Adam, Christ, Who abstained from all food (and possibly from drink as well now and then during the 40 days). Our Church has used both types of fasting since the beginning.

Therefore, since the Church has had, from as far back as the ancient epoch of the Apostles, set certain days of the year to be observed as fast days (some of the first and some of the second type), why should I deny to observe these fast days since

a) the observance of such days is biblical as we saw above,

b) the partial fast in particular is the first type of fast set by God Himself upon Adam, and

c) the Church, which had the power as the pillar and bulwark of the Truth (1 Tim. 3:15) to differentiate between the divinely inspired and the not divinely inspired/historically incorrect books of the NT, commands me to observe these fasts?

Why should I disobey?

Finally, let me ask them myself in turn: how do you expect to ascend spiritually if you cannot learn to control your own belly? Even just the obedience in the canons brings humility, not to mention exercise in your spiritual struggle (c.f. Chapter 2).

And I will finish this topic with one question: how can anyone expect to be able to pray for those in hunger - in the Third World countries for example - when in the state of a bloated glutton? Only the hungry can truly appreciate the hungry! If you do not learn a little bit of what it means to be hungry, how can you truly shed a tear for those in need?

This is why we cannot keep immense riches and try to appreciate the need of the poor as well; it is the same thing in many ways.

Fasting does not only mean abstinence from food and drink, but, as St. Basil the Great says, it is firstly "abstinence from our passions", which may include much more than just food and drink; certainly at least that. But fasting without spiritual fasting, without trying to cut the thorns of the passions within us is of little use (it shows we are pious and obedient to the Church but our benefit is low because our moral progress is low). If we do however combine our Fast with our spiritual struggle then we will be able to reach first the stage of the "ear" and after that that of the "full corn in the ear" (c.f. Chapter 2).

We see therefore that Fasting for seven days per year on one extreme or on the other extreme totally abstaining from food for 40 days - yes, some Protestants do that - while commendable, does not suffice. And it does not suffice because the purpose of Fasting is to help us ascend spiritually. For this reason it cannot become a form of extreme fasting but must be followed throughout the year. After all, it is only through "prayer and fasting" that our (and thus any) generation can be saved, as we read in the NT (c.f. Mark 9:29). This shows us clearly that the two (prayer and ascesis) go together and that in the same way we do not pray for 7 or 40 days a year but everyday - that we must glorify God and praise His name everyday just a quick glimpse through the Psalms suffices to show how important it is - similarly our fasting must be quite regular. Twice a week normally for the fleshly fasting (but more during the fast seasons or when we feel we can fast more strictly for Christ), so that our spiritual fasting can become as frequent as our prayer and this way we can ascend the spiritual ladder, each as much as they can.

The justification for the previous paragraph comes from the fact that man is a psychosomatic unity (c.f. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2). For this reason, we must not separate our spiritual stuggle from our fleshly struggle.

We finish this topic by listing some of the verses we meet in the Holy Writ regarding fasting (important words are highlighted in yellow):

Ezra 9:5 - And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle rent, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the Lord my God,

Nehemiah 1:4 - When I heard these words I sat down and wept, and mourned for days; and I continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven.

Nehemiah 9:1 - Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the people of Israel were assembled with fasting and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads.

Esther 4:3 - And in every province, wherever the king's command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.

Psalms 35:13 - But I, when they were sick--I wore sackcloth, I afflicted myself with fasting. I prayed with head bowed on my bosom.

Psalms 69:10 - When I humbled my soul with fasting, it became my reproach.

Psalms 109:24 - My knees are weak through fasting; my body has become gaunt.

Isaiah 58:4 - Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to hit with wicked fist. Fasting like yours this day will not make your voice to be heard on high.

[As we said above, spiritual and fleshly struggle need to be combined together].

Daniel 6:18 - Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

Daniel 9:3 - Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking Him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

Joel 2:12 - "Yet even now," says the Lord, "return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;

Matthew 6:16 - "And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

[The hypocrites do not combine fleshly fasting with spiritual fasting.]

Matthew 6:18 - that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Mark 2:18 - Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus replied: "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day."

[The KJV translation is again very poor: "in that day" is actually "in those days" as the original clearly reads "εν εκείνες ταις ημέραις" and not "εν εκείνη τη ημέρα"and has the meaning of "in the days when the Lord won't be with us any more onwards", namely "after Christ ascends, onwards" and not just for a short period of time].

Luke 2:37 - and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day.

[Fasting and prayer once again seen side by side; night and day in her case too!]

Acts 13:2 - While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

[Worshipping again seems totally connected to fasting and to the descending of the Holy Spirit.]

Acts 13:3 - Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 14:23 - And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed. .

Hold on, you might tell us. What about 1 Timothy 4:3? Apostle Paul mentions there that in the "latter times", i.e. of the New Covenant, some people will come who will deviate from the faith, "forbidding [others] to marry, and commanding [them] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth". Are the Orthodox then such deceivers?

This verse is not talking about abstaining from meats due to fasting. To see this, read the verse that follows it: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (v. 4). The Orthodox Church does not forbid you to eat meat in general. She only canonises abstenance from certain types of food, including meat, during the fast seasons and fast days. Therefore this verse is not referring to the practice of the Orthodox.

On the contrary, this verse does remind us of a number of contemporary Protestant practices who command people to be vegetarians. For example, Seventh Day Adventists consider prawns to be dirty and they refuse to eat them. Others follow Moslem tendencies and consider pigs to be dirty and will not eat them, commanding their followers to abstain from pork. Do the Seventh Day Adventists and all Protestants who abstain from some meats for religious reasons know better than their Creator who told Apostle Peter "θύσον και φάγε" (Acts 1:13)? Who told Adam: "Ο εστίν ζων, υμιν εσται εις βρώσιν" (Gen. 9:23)? For this reason the Orthodox Church, based on the above, defrocks the cleric who will refrain from meat for reasons of βδελυρία (i.e. because he considers it to be filthy) and not for reasons of restraint (fasting) (51st and 53rd Apostolic Canons, 14th Canon of Ankora).

It is also noteworthy that the essence of this paragraph from the gospels also raises important questions on the canon laid down by a large number of Protestants that do not allow the consumption of alcohol. In order to find ways to reconcile how come Christ Himself suggested to "do this", the remembrance of His Crucifixion being presented with bread and actual alcoholic wine, they created a story that somehow first Christians would use grape juice and not wine. Thus they claim that where it actually reads oenos for wine, it is really talking about "grape juice".

This is not only an insult against Christ, but also an insult on one's intelligence and basic knowledge of history: since the times of ancient Greece the word oenos has been exclusively used to indicate wine fermented from grapes with alcohol. This is also evident from the Bible itself that they refer us to.

In John 2:9-10 we read that after Christ had offered the protypon of the Eucharist and changed the water into wine at Canah, "the governor of the feast called the bridegroom and saith unto him: Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." This is obviously because when people have had a few more drinks they do not understand the difference between good and bad quality in wine. This however would be non-sensical if we were to apply the meaning of grape juice for "wine" here. Otherwise why would this practice make any sense?

This provides us with a possibility, you might say. Can we be certain that the Bible uses the word oenos to mean alcoholic wine?

Yes we can! In Lk 7:34-35 we meet the word oenopotis (οινοπότης) which stems from the words oenos and potis, viz. "the one who drinks oeno". Could this oeno be referring to grape juice? No; the context makes it obvious that it means "drunkard": Enemies of Christ would accuse Him that He would drink oeno; hardly a crime if we are dealing with ... grape juice; but it makes perfect sense if it has alcohol, for then the accusation is that of being a drunkard.

Even more explicitly we meet the commandment mi methiskesthe oeno in Eph. 5:18, namely, "do not get drunk on oeno". Oeno is accusative of oenos. Perhaps the aforementioned supporters of the "grape juice theory" could explain to us how come people can get drunk ... on grape juice?

So these verses refer to situations we have indeed witnessed; but not from the side of the Orthodox but amongst certain Protestants and of course the allodox (Hindus, Moslems etc.).

So putting all excuses aside, let us ask ourselves: why all these deviations on fasting in the West?

It is because in Protestantism each person is one "church" and in Roman Catholicism -- a fleshly organisation that has in practice abolished the Church's fasts because people didn't like them very much! -- the whole of the "church" is one person.

This has always been the sad truth.

CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENTATION

For the sake of argument I will return to the Bible and examine once again a relevant chapter. A very important chapter for our discussion: Luke 4:1-13. The first two verses give us a summary of what happened in the desert in a nutshell. The translation done is directly from the koine text.

"Jesus returned from the Jordan full of Spirit the Holy, and the Spirit brought Him to the desert, where for forty days He was being tried by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days and when they were done, He then got hungry".

Let us look at each of the highlighted sections separately.

Christ is God and clearly He will be full of the Holy Spirit. Apart from the fact that this section aims to show us two of the Persons of the One Divinity, and their relation to each other, it also shows the internal cleansing (the Dove wants a clean place to sit in!) that is required by each one of us - since we are to imitate Christ so that we may become "gods by grace" in the same way He is God and became man for our salvation - before our battle with the devil is successful. This is the weapon that we called, in so many words, "spiritual fasting".

The Holy Spirit led Him to the desert. God allows for us to be tried so that we grow spiritually. Christ did not shy away from the obstacle placed in front of Him by His Father, but took it up with courage. The desert also indicates the fact that in order to ascend spiritually we must desert the world, leave the world, i.e. people around us, to battle our passions and the devil. This approach is likened by God: the Holy Spirit accompanied Christ while He did this, so we, as Christians, must also follow His example.

The spirit of delusion that follows Christ in the desert is a spirit of heresy. The devil had ample time to learn the Scriptures (OT) inside out, being a spirit with thousands of years of experience, and tried to use that knowledge in a heretical way to trick Christ, in the same way the spirit of delusion tries to trick people into straying to, staying in or returning to today's heresies.

But why did the devil do such a thing in this case? After all, he must have known this is the Son of God and therefore infallible, sinless!

This is because the devil did not know this at the time. How could the devil know this? Contrary to what a lot of people believe, it is a dumb spirit. In the NT he is referred to as poneros, cunning, not clever (a word that is normally translated as evil in English, thus losing some of its meaning). After Lucifer was turned into a devil, he stays in a relative "stupidity", while he is only allowed to try and harm men to the degree allowed by God and indirectly through man through his actions (if he decides to move away from Christ, he becomes a slave to the Devil for man cannot have two masters).

The devil and his legions cannot hear our "good" thoughts. They can only make an educated guess from our "dirty" thoughts and then proceed to try to offer us something we like: if we do not like lying, they will offer fornication. If not fornication, they will offer an appetite to eat excessively, and so on.

An example from the Desert Fathers demonstrates this clearly.

Once, St. Antonios, the great ascetic hermit, saw a black deformed being approach him in the desert that hardly looked human, with a sack over his back. The being passed him by and St. Antonios stopped him and asked him who he was and where he was going. The devil, for that was the black deformed figure, replied promptly that he was heading to the nearest city. St. Antonios then asked him about the sack, and the devil did not want to tell him, so St. Antonios adjured him. The devil confessed then that this sack contained all the potions that people were asking for. "I offer them this", he said showing St. Antonios some potion, "and if they do not like it I offer them another one". "Eventually", he concluded, "they are bound to choose one". St. Antonios then sent him away.

The devil did not know that Christ was the Son of God. Having read the Scriptures, he was probably expecting Him at some point in time, but did not know when, because the devil cannot see into the future. Seeing the miracles and hearing people call Jesus as "Son of God" however, made him think that this might be the Christ mankind had been awaiting. So he decided to try Christ, to see if indeed He was the Son of God or not. As we shall see, his attempt failed and thus may also have been inconclusive. (The devil certainly did realise Christ is the Son of God after His resurrection).

Of course he was able to do this because the Father allowed His Son to be tried, while He sent His Spirit to guide Him, in the same way the Spirit was to be sent by the Father via the Son to mankind for our salvation.

But in his inflated demonic pride, and related stupidity, the devil thought that Christ would respond like the "Superman" of our Western culture: "If you are the Son of God do this", he provokes Him; because the devil believes that the best thing is the acquisition of power and the display of one's strength, coupled with a Pharisaical hypocrisy, in other words the "Superman" of our culture, and that God wanted to keep these things for Himself and thus deny them from him! He therefore expects Christ to respond to his selfish ranting "were He" truly the "powerful" Son of God, as he would see Him.

But Christ is neither a "super hero" from Marvel Comics nor a "super star", as the blasphemous Ganzoofist Andrew Lloyd Webber wants us to believe, but first and foremost He is an example of humility and of course our Saviour.

Christ did not destroy His enemies who crucified Him, He did not ask for revenge, and He certainly did not play the guitar and laugh frivolously and dance, like many Evangelicals blasphemously think, or smoke marijuana, like the hippies used to think, or talk of politics and power, like the Jews were expecting Him to do (and most are still expecting "him" to do, namely the Antichrist, although many Jews today are learning about Christianity which is certainly a step in the right direction).

Christ is God, who is Love. And man's ascending is strongly related to acquiring Eros, human and divine being only different stages of the same process towards union with God. Something that the selfishness of the devil cannot ever know. For this reason the devil did not expect Christ to behave the way He did.

But Christ, despite being the perfect man, sinless, and certainly having no need to fast, what did He do? He fasted during those forty days. This fasting shares a similarity with His baptism by St. John the Forerunner. Christ had no need to be baptised, and yet He did this, to show to us how important this is (in this case a sacrament, for us, a mystery, as we have already discussed). Similarly, Christ fasted to show to us how important fasting is.

But where does its importance lie then? What was Christ trying to show us by His fleshly fasting? Simple: that we need it during our battle against the devil and our passions. This is what the perfect man did, and therefore we must imitate Him, if we want to try and follow Him (and not Andrew Lloyd's "super star").

So the Bible does give us a command to fast.

OK. But Christ got hungry after forty days of fasting. Why are we told this?

Firstly, to help us understand that when the Holy Spirit surrounds us, and our spiritual and fleshly fasting are helping us ascend, away from the world, we leave this world, and the normal rules of our bodily functions are not followed because we rise up.

Secondly, to remind the reader that He was perfect man apart from being perfect God, truly, and thus needed food to survive.

Thirdly, in order to show to us that fasting for Christ will not be detrimental to our bodies if done in the Spirit. One of the arguments that the devil commonly brings to us is the thought that if we fast for a day or two we will ... die.

Do not worry, dear reader. You do not die that easily! Of course, Christ was the perfect man, so He fasted for forty days. The presence of the Spirit, as we said, indicates amongst other things the internal cleansing. Fleshly fasting thus, done in the Spirit, i.e. combined with spiritual fasting, helps us cleanse ourselves; and internal cleansing, allowing us to ascend the spiritual ladder, helps us in turn fast for longer (but also to pray for longer, i.e. to come closer to God, in so many words).

However, please note that we are not supposed to start "heavy fasting" first thing tomorrow morning without any previous preparation! The devil uses this trick many times. For example, he uses this on beginner monks. "Pray or fast more than you were told", he whispers in their ear, in order to get them tired more quickly and possibly dishearten them in their battle against their passions.

The "official" fasting set by the Church is not unkind to the body. It tries man but is not meant to kill him or weaken him excessively. A recent medical study in the European Union has shown in fact that the diet of the Orthodox Church is one of the best diets for man's health (details to follow soon in a sub-section). However, "heavy fasting" is for people that have already ascended many spiritual steps and can imitate their Teacher more faithfully. I know of monks who live on bread and water, sometimes less than that. For the rest of their lives! And the strangest thing, they seem as healthy as an ox, albeit skinny of course. However, these monks must first receive the blessing of their spiritual father to be allowed to follow a strict fast for the rest of their lives. Of course, this is not for everyone!

The important thing is obedience to our spiritual father. If he tells us to fast in a mild way and we go against his decision, Christ may punish us, to show to us that we must be obedient; for else we are not humble. In that case, we are not humble but proud, trusting in our own abilities and not in God and therefore the Holy Spirit cannot come to us, and thus we get hungry much earlier than the "forty days" and may even get quite ill. Whereas the man of God that follows strict fasting only at high steps of the spiritual ladder, letting his knowledgable spiritual father steer the way, receives blessing from God and is not harmed by his excessive fasting in a miraculous manner.

Of course, such levels of holiness are the exception in our society but God brings saints everywhere to become living examples for us. Thus, despite the spiritual degradation in Britain which is plagued by hundreds of heresies, for instance, an English Orthodox monastery in Essex, easily accesible to many, has produced a well known saint of our Church, St. Sophronius, who during his life helped many people in England follow the spiritual upward path. Those who met him also learnt about the best way to fast in their lives.

Let me finish by reminding you once again dear reader that we did not come into this world to find a snug berth. We are preparing for the journey now. Those who sit down and enjoy themselves and do not prepare end up like the cicada in Aesopus' myth. Therefore do not treat fasting as secondary, for it may become the single reason that keeps the doors of Heaven shut from you, while you stay outside together with the "foolish virgins" waiting in vain.

EXPLANATIONS OF SOME OF THE TERMS USED IN THIS CHAPTER

adjured = The devil when adjured by a holy man is forced to tell the truth (see also Mark 5:1-20).

guess = The demons cannot hear any of our thoughts. They learn what sins we like by watching our actions and because they have a great amount of experience they can tell what it is we like. For example, if they bring thoughts of gluttony in our mind and later on we eat excessively they will know that they were right in their guess.

have some drinks = Of course this does not imply that Christ urges us to be drunkards! When there is a happy event, such as a feast of the Church, as marriage also is, we are allowed to drink some wine too within limits. The governor's words, reflecting the reality of the situation where people often go beyond these limits and get drunk, have nothing to do with Christ of course. Also, it is a different story if we ourselves decide to abstain from wine for the love of Christ, increasing our general fasting this way. This however is not the same thing as being commanded to abstain from wine.

more than you were told = We presume in this example that the monk has been allowed by his spiritual father to increase his fasting but decides to do so more excessively, without spiritual discernment, and thus tire himself with the devil's attacks. It goes without saying that had his spiritual father placed a canon upon him to fast up to a certain amount and he had decided to go against it out of "piety" (selfishness) he would be in grave danger; the devil would soon start the attack: here is "Christ", here are the "angels", you have been worthy to "see God" and "have visions"; until the monk lost his soul were he not corrected from his plani (delusion). Such delusions are mentioned in the numerous Gerontika of our Church. For this reason humility, and thus obedience to our spiritual father, is always required. Athonite monks, for example, know very well these dangers: for example, one young man I knew at Athos had stayed there for two years but was not allowed to become a monk in the end. This is because on a number of occasions he would try and do more than his allowed canon. So they sent him away. In Orthodoxy a large number of people who train for the hardships and difficulties of monastic life, are sent back to the world. As the reader can see, when one falls from the ground they can hurt themselves; but if they fall off a mountain they can kill themselves. Unfortunately, monasticism outside Orthodoxy suffered and has essentialy disappeared, for there is no grace in heresy and people cannot find God when they move away from the world; so they return to the world. Even worse, there is no spiritual discernment leading to a number of very sad situations. For example the Papal Church has often shown no such spiritual discernment since, of course, it cannot show real hagiological prototypes. Thus, often monks who had fallen into plani were canonised (by the Pope of course) as "saints". The most well-known example of this is Francis of Assissi who had fallen into a very advanced stage of delusion and the demonic signs were mistaken for genuine miracles! Read here for more details.

stupidity = God did not turn Lucifer into a dumb spirit directly. The Devil's stupidity stems from his own free will. Because he was turned into a devil, due to his passions, he is in many ways also subject to them. Being subject to the passions, the various demons receive a certain form corresponding to the passions they serve. This results in them becoming in a sense "fleshy". It is because of this that they also become "dumb", due to their passions.

Ganzoof = A cunning anti-Christian system of presentation of pious Christian images and other connotations (e.g. the life of Christ, Orthodox icons etc.) through contemporary .forms of blasphemous "art". For example, Jehovah Witnesses will show Christ dressed as a modern man, in modern clothes, using "free" language and so forth. Protestants - esp. modern-day Evangelicals - are among those denominations that most easily fall prey to Ganzoofism.