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.-á 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." -áIn the same vein, I'm not willing to argue with you about these things. -áYou 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. -áReally Bob, I respect your ability to think outside the box and be so enthusiastic about appropriating the tradition for yourself and for America, etc. -áIt'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." -áBrother, 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. -áI 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"!). -áMaybe 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. -áMay God bless us.

Anastasios

[Pravoslavbob]

Dear Paradosis,

Why the sarcasm? -áHave I ever been sarcastic with you? -á

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

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? -á??? -áShow 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.-á May God bless us.

Somehow I doubt that's true!

You don't know how much I appreciate your post.-á I will try to reply more later on in a privalte message:-á 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).-á 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 LGÇÖHuillier (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-á 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. -áThere is also the issue of, ahem, modern hygiene. -áWomen before the advent of certain modern products had to worry about what happened to the menses, being visible, etc. -áSo, 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. -áCertainly the points set forth about a priest bleeding are true AFAIK. -áBut, similarly, we are supposed to receive Communion fasting. -áYet, that does not apply to babies, to the elderly, or to the sick. We fast because it is good for us. -áWhen we can't fast, we just don't (in the cases above). -á

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: -áif someone is sick in the hospital, perhaps dying, can he not be given Communion because he is bleeding? -áHe 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.-á 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.-á 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.-á

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 LGÇÖHuillier (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. -áMaybe I need to reconsider St. John the Faster. -á I've been cautious about him before, because of a couple of things. -á 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. -áAnother thing when it comes to John the Faster is that I've heard his canons can seem kind of extreme. -áPlease correct me if I'm wrong: -ádidn't he also have a canon specifically about masturbation? -áI seem to recall the gist of it being that, if someone should masturbate, they should not go to communion for several years. -áMy goodness. -áI 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? -áSo if I'm wrong, I hope that you can enlighten me. -áBut 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?