Abstaining from Eucharist During "that time of the month?"

[Jennifer]

Sorry boys, 'girlie' topic warning. 

I found this on orthodoxinfo.  Antiochian Innovation.  I seem to recall hearing that in the 'old' days women didn't enter churches during 'TTOTM.' 

Is this really 'orthodox?'  I've certainly never heard this from any Orthodox priest I've been aquainted with (of course according to orthodoxinfo they're all modernist ecumenist heretics  ). 

[Fr. Anastasios]

Yes, it is a traditional Orthodox practice (it even exists in the Coptic Church).  However, whether or not you are or are not going to do it is up to you and your spiritual father. The reason that is usually given for this is the Leviticus purity laws but that is not actually why it is the case (because the Mosaic law is not in force in the Church).  The reason is actually much simpler; the Eucharist unites you to Christ's body and blood; you become one with it; if you menstruate you are "losing" Christ's blood. Now before anyone starts talking about mysogeny, a priest with a cut is not supposed to celebrate liturgy, a layman with a cut is not supposed to commune, and if you get cut after communing it is a pious custom to bury or burn the bandage with the blood in it. Again, what you do in your life is between you and the priest.

Anastasios

[MsGuided]

I think I remember hearing something like that, but how does "TTOTM" differ from someone having a bleeding cut on their arm or leg?

Edit: Thanks, Anastasios

[Asteriktos]

St. Nicholas Orthodox Church (ROCOR) used to have a Q&A section on their website, where Fr. George Lardas would answer questions, and when asked about this he gave a similar explanation to the one Anastasios gave.  Also, fwiw, I think that guys are suppose to avoid communing if they have... um... stuff happen while they sleep the night before.

[Pravoslavbob]

Yes, it is a traditional Orthodox practice (it even exists in the Coptic Church). However, whether or not you are or are not going to do it is up to you and your spiritual father. The reason that is usually given for this is the Leviticus purity laws but that is not actually why it is the case (because the Mosaic law is not in force in the Church). The reason is actually much simpler; the Eucharist unites you to Christ's body and blood; you become one with it; if you menstruate you are "losing" Christ's blood. Now before anyone starts talking about mysogeny, a priest with a cut is not supposed to celebrate liturgy, a layman with a cut is not supposed to commune, and if you get cut after communing it is a pious custom to bury or burn the bandage with the blood in it. Again, what you do in your life is between you and the priest.

Anastasios,

Sorry, I don't think I agree with you on this.   First of all, I do think very much that the idea that women are not supposed to receive communion during menstruation is based on Levitical purity laws.  There were at times some strong (and I think very regrettable) judaising tendencies at work  in the history of the Church which have brought these innovations into practice.  All you have to do is to look at the prayers for a woman after childbirth to realise that this is the case.    Here's an example of one the prayers, taken from the OCA baptism booklet:

"O Lord our God, who didst come for the redemption of the human race, come also upon thy servant (name), and grant unto her, through the prayers of thine honourable priest, entrance into the temple of thy glory.  Wash away her bodily uncleanness, and the stains of her soul, in the fulfilling of the forty days.  Make her worthy of the communion of thy holy Body and Blood.
For sanctified and glorified is thine all-honourable and majestic Name....."

Are we to believe that a woman is ritually unclean after giving birth?  This  can't have any meaning for us as Christians. 

Physiologically, the idea that a woman would pass out the holy blood does not make sense, since the menstrual blood is no longer viable, it is like "dead" blood when it is emitted, and cut off from the body's main blood supply.  Theologically, this idea could be seen as being inconsistent with patristic teachings that state that the Eucharistic elements are not eliminated in the digestive tract, but rather enter mystically into our bodies. 

Paradosis's argument about nocturnal emissions comes from the same judaising mindset.  If a man has an emssion through no fault of his own, he is not supposed to go to communion?   

I really think that we have to get rid of these practices, they are confusing and inconsisent with the new covenant relationship that we have with God.  Women in particular are unfairly singled out by these customs. 

Please, where did you hear that a priest who has a cut is not supposed to celebrate liturgy?   I have never heard of this before.   Nor, for that matter, have I heard the idea about passing out the holy blood in cuts or during menstruation.  I would be interested to know the source.

Bob

[Asteriktos]

If a man has an emssion through no fault of his own, he is not supposed to go to communion?

Actually, according to pious tradition, men aren't suppose to have their equipment doing anything at all the night before, they are suppose to "fast" from all things sexual. It's probably based on the principle that that judaizer Paul of Tarsus mentioned in 1 Cor. 7:5, where you can mutually agree to refrain from sexaul relations* so as to better serve the Lord (e.g., prepare to receive Holy Communion). This is just a pious custom though, and as Anastasios said this is really between you and your priest. I only mentioned the nocturnal emissions issue because it demonstrates that the Church's customs are not just about discriminating against women. But apparently, despite the fact that you admit to not knowing about these traditions, you somehow know better than the Fathers what is pious and what is not. Good luck with all that.


*EDIT -- I fixed the post, I said "prayer" where I mean "sexual relations"

[Fr. Anastasios]

Bob,

I didn't think you would agree with me

Frankly, this is the traditional practice of the Church and I'm not comfortable with being the one to change it. If you feel comfortable doing so, more power to you, but I just can't see myself being part of a "change effort." In the same vein, I'm not willing to argue with you about these things. You and I have a different mindset and neither of us is going to convince the other. Obviously you take your faith seriously and believe in a more critical appraisal of praxis, one wereby you can make the faith relevant to modern life, have a living tradition not a "dead traditionalism" as Jaroslav Pelikan once described it, etc. Really Bob, I respect your ability to think outside the box and be so enthusiastic about appropriating the tradition for yourself and for America, etc. It's just not my realm anymore; I spent years thinking about how we could fix things in the Church but then I realized I am the one who needs fixing--and I am not saying that in some type of passive-agressive way where I'm really thinking "see Bob you should yourself be more humble." Brother, I sincerely applaud you but just have to let you know that I am a very sinful person and I can't be a part of criticizing these inherited traditions anymore. I personally could not keep together spiritual growth and lack of judgment when I was constanly judging the traditions to see which ones were "small t" and which ones were "Big-T" (when such a distinction doesn't even exist in the fathers, and when one reads St Basil's On the Holy Spirit, where he talks about tradition, all the examples cited are "small-t"!). Maybe you are more spiritually mature than I am, more adept in the traditions of Orthodoxy, and more able to see the distinctions between what's changeable and what's not. May God bless us.

Anastasios

[Pravoslavbob]

Dear Paradosis,

Why the sarcasm? Have I ever been sarcastic with you?  

Having an involuntary nocturnal emisson is not the same thing as having intentional sexual activity.

I wasn't attacking you, I was using your argument as an aside in order to further my argument.

When did I ever say that I knew better than the Fathers? Show me a patristic reference and I will be happy to concede your point.

I'm very sorry that I offended you.

Bob

[Pravoslavbob]

Maybe you are more spiritually mature than I am, more adept in the traditions of Orthodoxy, and more able to see the distinctions between what's changeable and what's not. May God bless us.

Somehow I doubt that's true!

You don't know how much I appreciate your post. I will try to reply more later on in a privalte message: it's too late for me right now.

Thanks.

In Christ,

Bob the sinner.

[jmbejdl]

Jennifer,

I don't know about the justification for the practice, I'll let the others here argue about that, but it certainly is common. My cradle Orthodox wife, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law wouldn't even set foot in a church during that time of the month. Many people in the west don't seem to stick to this practice, though, and it's probably best to discuss it with your priest.

James

[Asteriktos]

Pravoslavbob

Sorry. This is the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) time in the last couple days I made a complete idiot of myself. Idleness is indeed the root of many evils. Please let me try to explain where I was coming from--though nothing excuses my tone.

Having an involuntary nocturnal emisson is not the same thing as having intentional sexual activity. When did I ever say that I knew better than the Fathers?

The thing of it is, we are to be prepared for communion. Part of that means stuff that we do ourselves, like praying and fasting. However, the Fathers saw something more. Whether they were influenced by outside sources or not I don't think is really relevant to the integrity of the tradition, any more than Jude quoting Apocryphal Jewish writings or Paul quoting Greek Pagans is relevant to the canonicity of certain books of the Bible. I think that Orthodoxy is bigger than that, and if there was any influence, it's been "baptized" for our good by now. The Fathers teach us to not only see those sins we voluntarily commit as sins we must as forgiveness for, but even those sins we unknowingly commit. We ask for forgiveness "of sins known and unknown" in our prayers, for example. This is because a sin will scar our souls, whether we are intellectually aware that we have committed the sin or not. Grace (the sacraments) effects an infant, even though it doesn't have a clue what is going on; likewise with sin, it effects us whether we realise it is happening or not. Some Fathers, like Athanasius, did not believe that nocturnal emissions were sins. But even if it is said that they are not sins, most Fathers still maintained that there was more to it than simply dismissing it out of hand as no big deal.

Whatever the case, the tradition as handed down to me was not to go to communion after any activity in that area whatsoever, whether intentional or not. And, I don't think it's for us to try and reform what the Church has handed down. Leastwise, not before we are very far advanced in the faith, and given some authority within the Church. I believe that if there are indeed corruptions that God wants rooted out, he will place the right people in the right places to fix the problem. Part of the reason I overreacted towards you (and others lately) is because of my own personal demons. I am constantly grappling with what exactly we should be doing here. Laymen on discussion boards I mean. What should be our self-imposed boundaries? Would our time be better served doing other things? Do such boards lead to idle curiosity, pride, etc.? Or are they valuable sources of information? The thing that set me off with your post is that you seemed to be critiquing the Fathers, when I think it should be the Fathers who are critiquing us. Or more importantly, critiquing me. But instead of doing that, I'm here making foolish posts, and I felt like you were saying that the Fathers were influenced by bad (Judaic) beliefs and therefore had to be corrected.

Show me a patristic reference and I will be happy to concede your point.

Well, I don't expect you to concede just because I can provide quotes. I'm sure you could just as easily bring up patristic quotes to the contrary (e.g., First Canonical Epistle of Athanasius; Canon 12 of Timothy of Alexandria). For the sake of trying to better explain why I think what I think, though, here are a few quotes:

"Anyone who has been polluted in sleep by reason of an emission of semen, shall be denied communion for one day; but after chanting the fiftieth Psalm and making forty-nine metanies, it is believed that he will thus be purified." - St. John the Faster, Canon 6

According to Archbishop Peter L’Huillier (in his interpretation of the above canon), "St. Barsanuphius the Great also canonizes with this same penance persons who had had a wet dream." And, the following seems pretty representative of a couple quotes I've seen in monastic literature:

"A sign that we have acquired this virtue [ie. self-restraint] perfectly is that our soul ignores those images which the defiled fantasy produces during sleep; for even if the production of such images is not a sin, nevertheless it is a sign that the soul is ill and has not been freed from passions. We should therefore regard the defiled fantasies that arise in us druing sleep as the proof of previous indolence and weakness still existing in us, since the emission which takes place while we are relaxed in sleep reveals the sickness that lies hidden in our souls." - St. John Cassian, On the Eight Vices: On the Demon of Unchastity and the Desire of the Flesh

St. Gregory the Great (Pastoral Letter to St. Augustine), St. Dionysius of Alexandria (Canon 4) and others seem to take a stance that is somewhere in between, saying that it's up to the person to examine their own conscience and decide whether they should refrain from communion or not. In other words, the situation might not be so bad that they should definately be refused communion, but on the other hand, it might be bad enough that they should decide for themselves to not commune.

[ania]

St. Nicholas Orthodox Church (ROCOR) used to have a Q&A section on their website, where Fr. George Lardas would answer questions, and when asked about this he gave a similar explanation to the one Anastasios gave. Also, fwiw, I think that guys are suppose to avoid communing if they have... um... stuff happen while they sleep the night before.

Fr. George's Matushka just yesterday told me a story about how, shortly after he became a priest, he was cutting the bread for communion (I don't remember what it is in English) during liturgy.  It hadn't been properly thawed out, and his hand slipped on the hard bread and he sliced his hand open.  He immediately left the alter, and returned 4 hours later to complete that liturgy, as it had been a very serious cut and had bled profusely.

[TonyS]

The reason is actually much simpler; the Eucharist unites you to Christ's body and blood; you become one with it; if you menstruate you are "losing" Christ's blood. Now before anyone starts talking about mysogeny, a priest with a cut is not supposed to celebrate liturgy, a layman with a cut is not supposed to commune, and if you get cut after communing it is a pious custom to bury or burn the bandage with the blood in it. Again, what you do in your life is between you and the priest.

This is what I have understood. There is also the issue of, ahem, modern hygiene. Women before the advent of certain modern products had to worry about what happened to the menses, being visible, etc. So, in times past it wasn't unreasonable for a woman to stay at home, it was more convenient.

Having said this I wonder if the issue wan't one more of decorum than anything else. Certainly the points set forth about a priest bleeding are true AFAIK. But, similarly, we are supposed to receive Communion fasting. Yet, that does not apply to babies, to the elderly, or to the sick. We fast because it is good for us. When we can't fast, we just don't (in the cases above).

I certainly get the picture about the open bleeding wound and the piety (embodied in some prayers) about becoming one with Christ. But here is the question: if someone is sick in the hospital, perhaps dying, can he not be given Communion because he is bleeding? He can be given Communion if he didn't fast.

T

[ania]

Please, where did you hear that a priest who has a cut is not supposed to celebrate liturgy? I have never heard of this before. Nor, for that matter, have I heard the idea about passing out the holy blood in cuts or during menstruation. I would be interested to know the source.

Bob

I don't know the source, but it is a tradition that is still alive and well.  My brother and other alterboys have been turned out of the alter in the middle of the service for cutting themselves.  My dad a few times did not serve (as a deacon) because of cuts that were still bleeding.  There have been several priests who didn't serve, especially after surgeries.  This is just from personal experience and eye-witness.

[ania]

I certainly get the picture about the open bleeding wound and the piety (embodied in some prayers) about becoming one with Christ. But here is the question:  if someone is sick in the hospital, perhaps dying, can he not be given Communion because he is bleeding?  He can be given Communion if he didn't fast.

I believe if you are at death's door there are exeptions, I'm not sure though, anyone else know anything about this?

[Jennifer]

So a layperson with a cut shouldn't commune either?  Even a little papercut? 

I've heard about not serving at the altar if you have a cut.  I'd never heard of that being applied to laypeople. 

[TonyS]

So a layperson with a cut shouldn't commune either? Even a little papercut?

I've heard about not serving at the altar if you have a cut. I'd never heard of that being applied to laypeople.

The issue is whether the cut is bleeding or has the potential to bleed. It is like vomiting soon after Communion, even RCs are not supposed to just throw the vomit out becuase there may be the Sacred Species still present in it. Somewhat similarly (less so admittedly) we say in one of the prayers "enter into my members, my veins."

[aurelia]

My goodness, is this what is in store for me when we get to the "sexuality and the Orthodox church" part of my studies? 


what is the  penalty if you do commune during your period, or go to church then, or if you do have relations (yah like my husband is gonna go for "I cant honey, I want to take communion tomorrow" )  Am I less worthy because my body is preparing itself for the next round of the posibility of bringing life into the world? 

I dont mean to sound flippant, it just seems very odd to me.

[Asteriktos]

Did you expect Orthodoxy to have a different slant on everything else, but leave human sexuality alone?

what is the  penalty if you do commune during your period

Talk to your priest, that's the only way you can know. All we can say on this thread is what our priests, bishops, or jurisdiction say... yours might say something totally different.

[Arystarcus]

what is the  penalty if you do commune during your period, or go to church then, or if you do have relations (yah like my husband is gonna go for "I cant honey, I want to take communion tomorrow" )

You could suddenly come down with an awful headache.  

[Pravoslavbob]

Sorry. This is the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) time in the last couple days I made a complete idiot of myself. Idleness is indeed the root of many evils. Please let me try to explain where I was coming from--though nothing excuses my tone.

No worries.

I was going to add "thanks for the PM", but on this thread, that might be misunderstood.   

[Matthew777]

Is this really 'orthodox?' I've certainly never heard this from any Orthodox priest I've been aquainted with (of course according to orthodoxinfo they're all modernist ecumenist heretics ).

We are no longer under Levitican Law.

[Fr. Anastasios]

We are no longer under Levitican Law.

I agree 100%, which is why I pointed out above that that is not the reason why that tradition is maintained, at least as I have had it explained to me.

Anastasios

[Pravoslavbob]

"Anyone who has been polluted in sleep by reason of an emission of semen, shall be denied communion for one day; but after chanting the fiftieth Psalm and making forty-nine metanies, it is believed that he will thus be purified." - St. John the Faster, Canon 6

According to Archbishop Peter L’Huillier (in his interpretation of the above canon), "St. Barsanuphius the Great also canonizes with this same penance persons who had had a wet dream."

Paradosis,

You know, the fact that St. Barsanuphius thinks this way makes me think that I should give this thing a whole lot more consideration. Maybe I need to reconsider St. John the Faster.  I've been cautious about him before, because of a couple of things.  One is that we have this thing in Orthodoxy about how canons can often be of more local than universal importance, and how they are often meant to deal with local issues at a certain time. Another thing when it comes to John the Faster is that I've heard his canons can seem kind of extreme. Please correct me if I'm wrong: didn't he also have a canon specifically about masturbation? I seem to recall the gist of it being that, if someone should masturbate, they should not go to communion for several years. My goodness. I know that masturbation is not to be encouraged, but really, how many people, particularly of the male gender, would ever get to go to communion if this canon were enforced as it should be? So if I'm wrong, I hope that you can enlighten me. But as to the other issue, it seems that you've given me something to think seriuosly about.

Bob

[Matthew777]

I agree 100%, which is why I pointed out above that that is not the reason why that tradition is maintained, at least as I have had it explained to me.

Anastasios

What is the reason then? Is menstration sinful?

[Asteriktos]

I think most Fathers could be very strict when it came to canons. If you read anything that mentions the canons or penitential literature (the Rudder, Noonan's book on Contraception, Levin's book on Sex and Society among the Slavs), you'll see things that is hard to understand. That's one reason that most priests are very insistent that their lay people NOT read the canons.  The funny thing is, St. John was actually easier than some of the earlier Fathers, thus he felt the need to defend his relaxing of the canons:

"The fact that we reduce the number of years of penitence will not seem to be out of keeping with reason to those, I presume, who can reason aright..." (Canon 1)

There's a discussion that went on earlier this week over at Monachos.net that even discussed some of the seemingly strict canons of St. Basil the Great (the discussion on St. Basil started on January 30th). I tend to agree with you, if the ancient canons were strictly applied today (or in any age I guess) very few guys (or girls) would get to communion. Thankfully they aren't, but I think they do serve as a reminder of how Holy the Eucharist and the Life in Christ is suppose to be. (btw, the canon of St. John on Masturbation says, "Anyone having committed masturbation is penanced forty days, during which he must keep himself alive by xerophagy and must do one hundred metanies every day." [Canon 8])

[Fr. Anastasios]

What is the reason then? Is menstration sinful?

Matthew,

here is yet another example of you simply not reading what I wrote above. I already explained it above.

Anatasios

[Matthew777]

What I'd like to know is why Levitican Law was so strict on this issue in the first place. Some of the ordinances in Leviticus are just plain silly.

[Fr. Anastasios]

What I'd like to know is why Levitican Law was so strict on this issue in the first place. Some of the ordinances in Leviticus are just plain silly.

They were there to show man that he could not follow the law and needed to rely on God.

They have not much to do with this issue though.

Anastasios

[Matthew777]

Could it be that some of Levitican Law was just made up by overzealous priests?

Hbr 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 

[Pravoslavbob]

I think most Fathers could be very strict when it came to canons. If you read anything that mentions the canons or penitential literature (the Rudder, Noonan's book on Contraception, Levin's book on Sex and Society among the Slavs), you'll see things that is hard to understand. That's one reason that most priests are very insistent that their lay people NOT read the canons. The funny thing is, St. John was actually easier than some of the earlier Fathers, thus he felt the need to defend his relaxing of the canons:

"The fact that we reduce the number of years of penitence will not seem to be out of keeping with reason to those, I presume, who can reason aright..." (Canon 1)

There's a discussion that went on earlier this week over at Monachos.net that even discussed some of the seemingly strict canons of St. Basil the Great (the discussion on St. Basil started on January 30th). I tend to agree with you, if the ancient canons were strictly applied today (or in any age I guess) very few guys (or girls) would get to communion. Thankfully they aren't, but I think they do serve as a reminder of how Holy the Eucharist and the Life in Christ is suppose to be. (btw, the canon of St. John on Masturbation says, "Anyone having committed masturbation is penanced forty days, during which he must keep himself alive by xerophagy and must do one hundred metanies every day." [Canon 8])

Very  thought-provoking.  Thank you, Paradosis.

Bob

[GiC]

This post seem to be yet another example of ways that Jewish and Pagan influence have come into the Church as a result of poor theology and false piety, whether or not there is a good argument against Menstruating women partaking of the Eucharist I do not know, but I do know that I have never heard a viable argument that is not either more Jewish or more Pagan than Christian.

First let us consider the initial argument of uncleanness: in the light of St. Peter's statement in the Book of Acts 'but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean,' the argument should be mute, but if more is required the fact that we are made 'unclean' not by forces out of our control (as the Jew would claim), but rather by our sinfulness, should be adequate to dismiss any such notion of 'biological uncleanness.' Since the difficulties with this argument are generally apparent to all, another argument seems to have developed, one focused on the transformation of our Blood. I know not whether this argument came out of pious belief or out of a poor attempt at polemics, but I pray it came from the latter -- though I suspect it came from the former, out of pagan customs that were popular in various places before their Christianization. The extent to which I have heard this argument taken is truly absurd, I have heard people not only talk about burning band aids, but also talking against blood donations, and even against receiving blood from the heterodox (as the blood some how contains a person's sins...something even the Latins with their theology of Biologically Transferred Original Sin will not adhere to). Pushing even beyond these arguments and taking the position to its logical extreme, we should be able to partake of the 'Eucharist' by drinking the priest's blood after he communes, or by drinking the blood of any person after they commune. Beyond the very apparent Pagan tendencies of this position, there is the added problem of it simply being poor biology, after you consume something it does not go into the blood but into the GI tract, it takes time before it breaks down and enters into the blood, unless the point of this new theology is to change this great and mystical Sacrament into a petty magic trick, but I'd be more likely to adopt the formula of transubstantiation first (at least it had good Sacramental Theological implications if not Christological ones).

While it is true that there is One canon that addresses this issue three things must be understood about it. First, the canon is the Second canon of Dionysius the Alexandrian, whose collection of canons was accepted as a whole, along with the canons of many other fathers by the Second Canon of the Synod of Trullo (regarded as an extension of the Sixth Oecumenical Synod in the East, though rejected by the West, but that's another issue); thus, though accepted, it was not created by a Synod. Secondly, for those concerned with the letter of the law, the issue addressed was entering into the Church, not partaking of the Eucharist, and furthermore the wording of the Canon was such that the position was offered as an opinion. Finally, for those concerned with the spirit of the Canon, as Canons are pastoral tools, not absolute draconian laws, they must be interpreted in the context of the day and their spiritual meaning. In the cultural context of the Day, the notion of uncleanness for reasons derived from Jewish law was, unfortunately, not uncommon. In fact it was so well established that these women would have even thought of themselves as unclean. Thus, the canon correctly portrays the fact that if one considers themselves common and unclean, they should not encounter the supernatural and holy. Fortunately, we have no reason to be enslaved by such Jewish superstitions, but rather should be knowledgeable of the fact that uncleanness comes from actual sin, not biology, making an application of this canon to biological functions not only unnecessary, but contrary to our Christian beliefs.

Lastly, though I know I have rambled for quite some time, I would like to address a worrisome inclination I have noticed on this board concerning sexual intercourse. Though there is in many places the custom of a Husband and Wife not engaging in sexual intercourse prior to partaking of the Eucharist, this should not be elevated to the status of dogma or law. For one who does this comes frightfully close to the position of the Eustathians, who were condemned at the Synod of Gangra. The ninth canon of the aforementioned Synod states, 'If any one shall remain virgin, or observe continence, abstaining from marriage because he abhors it, and not on account of the beauty and holiness of virginity itself, let him be anathema.' I, personally, would not want to be the one to explain the difference between desire to remain clean (as though sex in marriage is unclean or sinful) and 'abhorrence of marriage.' Moreover, if anyone would be so foolish as to object to the Eucharist being served by a priest who has engaged in such activities the night before, though I doubt anyone here would be so foolish, that too would bring them under anathema (a punishment not used for disciplinary, but rather theological, issues) by the fourth Canon of the said Synod.

[Asteriktos]

I might add that I have been told that should I throw up after partaking of the eucharist, I am to clean it up with paper towels and burn them.

[aurelia]

Did you expect Orthodoxy to have a different slant on everything else, but leave human sexuality alone?



Talk to your priest, that's the only way you can know. All we can say on this thread is what our priests, bishops, or jurisdiction say... yours might say something totally different.

of course I didnt! lol! But we havent got that far yet --so like i said, it all sounds a little odd right now! Perhaps no weirder (if i may use the word) than anything i had heard about Orthodox , or even Conservative, Judaism, or Catholisism. I speak from lack of experience!

I'm just going to throw this out there, my mother has a theory that perpaps in days of old...men were sort of *subconciously* afraid of the fact that women bled so "much" on a regular basis, and managed to live, never mind the birthing process.  Thus the uncleanliness and such laws. Of course you could go at it from a different angle in that it gave women a nice break of at least a day or three from some of the chores (consider how hard life could be), and one really does need to rest after having a baby, but that is a whole different argument that i would rather take up with HMOs and other insurance companies!  I am not trying to start any male/female debates, but i always thought it was an interesting theory.  Something to think about.

[MsGuided]

men were sort of *subconciously* afraid of the fact that women bled so "much" on a regular basis, and managed to live,

So that's where that "you can't trust something that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die" thing came from...

[Augustine]

The "law of grace" of course is superior to the ordinances of the Torah.  However, to argue that there is no lesson for us in such things, is to argue that large portions of the Bible are just a waste of space.  I admit this is something I've wrestled with - indeed there is a lot in the Old Testament which is hard for me to wrap my mind around...but I've been discovering that with patience (and even harder for me, humility) things do become clearer after awhile.

One lesson which immediately comes from the Old Testament "purity" rules regarding menstruation, is that sexual activity is for procreation.  That's a hard lesson for us to accept, and be sure that when those laws were first promulgated amongst the children of Israel, they had a hard time with this too (including some of the "main players" - the Bible is filled with many examples of men plagued by sexual sin in one form or another).  The direct consequence of the Law of Moses, is that sexual relations only occured during times where conception was possible.

Another significance, which only modern science has unveiled for us, has to do with the ongoing tragedies of our mortal condition.  Though most couples do not experience the agony of a stillbirth, the reality is that practically all women who are sexually active with their spouses on even a semi-regular basis, will "naturally" abort fertilized "eggs" - that is to say, death is occuring in them even though they intellectually may not be conscious of this.  This would give significance to the ill feelings women go through when menstruating - perhaps nature's unconcious expression of a type of mourning for what might have been.  Just as someone would argue it's tacky to "pick up babes" at a funeral...

As others far more grounded and learned than I have said, this is something you'd have to talk to your Priest about.  I'm only trying to offer some further rationale for not only the Mosaic Law in this circumstance, but also the "spirit" which survives from it in the New Testament made in Christ's Blood.

[Pravoslavbob]

One lesson which immediately comes from the Old Testament "purity" rules regarding menstruation, is that sexual activity is for procreation.

Sorry, but I don't believe that this is the Orthodox belief.  Someone else might care to go into this a bit. 

[aurelia]

I seem to have read that it isnt exactly the Orthodox belief either...but i dont remember where or when.  Maybe in that 455 questions and answers book?

[the_grip]

i have heard it said that women who gave birth in the OT were exempted from participating in sacrifices because it was more beneficial for them not to. Ritual purity in the OT was extremely hard work, and having a child excused women for a period of time in order for them to recover from the (potentially dangerous) act of childbirth. In other words, they got to take a break, tend to their child and themselves, etc. - and the community was supposed to help them out in the meantime.

i wonder how that falls in line with this area.

Yours,
the_grip

[cizinec]

Concerning the forty day wait after giving birth, there are a number of reasons for this.

Childbirth is a very difficult thing and it was typically difficult to get to church.  For us, it still is.  It's not just a "not allowed," but also a release from something one is expected to do.  It also gives the mother some breaks from the new infant as well as some very prayerful and intimate "alone" time.

It is also a special time for the mother to consider certain things, such as sin's connection to pain in childbirth, the relation of sin to death and to make prayerful considerations of how to raise the new child.  There were a lot of other reflection points, but I don't remember them.

Not being a woman I cannot really explain this.  My wife, however, followed the instructions of our priest and found it to add to the very blessed event of childbirth. 

Before you say, "yeah, but guys need that too," let me remind you that the service and the time are special blessings from the Church that guys don't get access to, just like we can't know the pains/joys of childbirth. 

If you have a good priest and actually listen to what he is telling you, you will probably discover that the Church was right all along.  If you don't listen and assume you know better than the Church before you even start, you'll discover that you were right and it doesn't add a thing.

Concerning TTOTM, beats me.  Most people in the Serbian Church from Serbia are more fearful of the Eucharist.  I don't receive unless I went to confession that week and dotted my "i"s and crossed my "t"s.  Even then, I'm not going to run up.  Most at my church won't receive for very small reasons, so that one sounds as good as any others.  I know it has been the tradition to receive every week, but in the wealthy and lazy West, I think it's a bit dangerous to say, "Gee I ought to have it every week regardless." 

I know that this view is more prevalent in the Balkans because of oppression by the Turks, but I'm Serbian Orthodox and I follow the faith according the that tradition, so I'm influenced by it in that respect for good or bad.

[Asteriktos]

...Not being a woman I cannot really explain this. My wife, however, followed the instructions of our priest and found it to add to the very blessed event of childbirth...

I hope our family can have a similar experience when my wife gives birth to our first child later this year! (Our priest gave similar instruction, when we asked about this tradition.)

[penelope]

I think it's best to be on the safe side on this.  If you're going to be mistaken, it's better to be mistaken with the tradition rather than against it.

[BrotherAidan]

Question:
Haven't some cannons of the Church overturned other previous cannons?

[WeepingProphet]

Jen:

This is what you get when you have men discuss women's issues.

I cannot believe that this is an issue.

So my two cents is that there is a great danger in furthering the enmity between the serpent and the woman in the Church (Theotokos and the women who serve with her included) This has its roots in theTertullianistic mindset that betrays women in making them think they are heirs together of the grace of life when actually they are not.

Tertullian (the founder of Tres Et Una Persona) says of women, " You are the devil's gateway.........."

Whereas the Trinitarian owes Tertullian much, they can throw out his fear of women who are after all the majority of the church.

Christ must think much of them.

Of course I do believe the love and honor due women is here on this board must be the majority... I hope. :dunno:

[Αριστοκλής]

I hope our family can have a similar experience when my wife gives birth to our first child later this year! (Our priest gave similar instruction, when we asked about this tradition.)

Hey! Congratulations! Nice "work" 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Abstaining from Eucharist During "that time of the month?"