Menstruation and Orthodox Church

[Annoula]

I am having a discussion in an Islamic forum regarding the concept of purity and impurity in Islam. I see that they regard menstruation as an impurity as they do will all bodily discharges. Do we have any information regarding this issue in the Orthodox Church?

thank u

[Kolya]

I am having a discussion in an Islamic forum regarding the concept of purity and impurity in Islam. I see that they regard menstruation as an impurity as they do will all bodily discharges. Do we have any information regarding this issue in the Orthodox Church?

thank u

Hi Annoula,
It is not a matter of an "Impurity" as such. But menstruating woman should not partake of the sacraments of the Eucharist as, would any man who is bleeding from a minor wound. We believe that the 'Holy Power' of the Eucharist can drain away from any bleeding. Only a Orthodox person who is bleeding to death may receive the Sacrement of the Eucharist.
It is for the same reason that in some churches (Like the Russian Church) have small pieces of unblessed bread and unblessed wine to wash the mouth after partaking the Eucharist so that none of it may accidentally be lost by coughing or spitting, etc.
To come back to your question, the woman is not considered impure as such as far as I understand. I may be wrong however.
Someone else may have more information of this.
go well
Kolya

[vanshan]

I am having a discussion in an Islamic forum regarding the concept of purity and impurity in Islam. I see that they regard menstruation as an impurity as they do will all bodily discharges. Do we have any information regarding this issue in the Orthodox Church?

thank u

Here's a good article about this topic:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx

It is my understanding that for Christians, it is not a matter of clean or unclean, but it is important to not commune during menstruation for the same reason you shouldn't commune if you have a wound that is leaking. In fact, I've heard we should take care not to do anything too active the day of the Divine Liturgy to make sure we don't injure ourselves, causing a loss of blood, as we have just mystically taken the blood of Christ which fills our bodies. I believe there is a canon stating that if we bleed soon after communing we are to not commune for a period of time. Of course, the canons are strict and not meant to be legalistically held, but rather used as directives, so we should seek to understand this directive and follow it.

Basil

[xristos.anesti]

The only time when a woman is pure is when she is cooking a dinner for her man.

Cooking is a purifying activity.

Compare Exodus 41, 12-17.






^_^

[vanshan]

The only time when a woman is pure is when she is cooking a dinner for her man.

Cooking is a purifying activity.

Compare Exodus 41, 12-17.






^_^

^_^ We should add the qualifier that she is pure when cooking something good for her man. My wife is an average cook, but some impure things sometimes come from our kitchen.

Basil

[prodromos]

I have noted on a few occasions that new born babies will break out in a rash if they come into contact with a woman who is menstruating, so apparently there is more going on with a woman's body during that time than mere loss of blood. I'm not drawing any conclusions from this information, just offering it up for the discussion as it may be of relevance to the topic.

John

[Annoula]

hi Kolya!

i have the impression that even people who r dying cannot receive the Holy Communion if they r bleeding. but i am not sure. i am sure though that they r not to receive It if they don't have contact with the environment.

i am not sure what u mean about the unblessed bread and the unblessed wine...
in Greece after the Holy Communion u take the "anti-doro" = instead of a present. which of course is a practical way to clear the mouth. but this is taken by all the people not just the ones who have received the Holy Communion.

hey John,
i haven't heard of that, but i know that women who live or work together - are together for a prolonged time - tend to have their periods at the same time. so there is certainly something going on...

vanshan i'll check the site. thanx!

xristos.anesti i don't have access to exodus can u tell me what it says??

then i suppose if a woman is considered pure when she cooks something really goooooooooood for her husband..... i guess that a man is pure when he gives his wife pleeeeeeeeeeeenty of money to go shooooooooooping!!!
ahahahahaaaa

naughty boys.....!!

[prodromos]

The only time when a woman is pure is when she is cooking a dinner for her man.^_^ We should add the qualifier that she is pure when cooking something good for her man. My wife is an average cook, but some impure things sometimes come from our kitchen.

Leviticus 28:1-4
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
Thou shalt not insult the cook, for if thou dost thou shalt surely suffer her wrath and thou mayest find something unpleasant in thy next meal. And if thou dost not find that which turneth thy stomach or causeth the runs, thou mayest be sure that indeed she has hidden it well with spices and herbs of the field and verily thou shalt spend many days hence covering thy feet, and great will be thy groaning.

[Annoula]

Moses! beware of the cook!!!!!!
heheheeehehehe

[Kolya]

hi Kolya!
i am not sure what u mean about the unblessed bread and the unblessed wine...
in Greece after the Holy Communion u take the "anti-doro" = instead of a present. which of course is a practical way to clear the mouth. but this is taken by all the people not just the ones who have received the Holy Communion.


In the Russian church everyone gets the anti-doro at the end too, but there is special bread and wine for those who have communed right after they receive.

[The Prokeimenon!]

Moses! beware of the cook!!!!!!
heheheeehehehe

suggestion noted :D

Moses

[Khaleas]

I have noted on a few occasions that new born babies will break out in a rash if they come into contact with a woman who is menstruating, so apparently there is more going on with a woman's body during that time than mere loss of blood. I'm not drawing any conclusions from this information, just offering it up for the discussion as it may be of relevance to the topic.

John

That is interesting, never heard of it. What I have heard about and experienced (which is a bit on the side of the topic) is that I'm very allergic to kittens after they are just born. The fluids at birth just gives me the worst reaction (I have to use rubbergloves and not be around them much for the first week). My vet is allergic to the kittens until they are about 2 months old. Neither of us is allergic to cats otherwise.

On the other hand I know several guys who get a 'rash' if a girl mentions period. ;)

[Khaleas]

hi Kolya!

i have the impression that even people who r dying cannot receive the Holy Communion if they r bleeding. but i am not sure. i am sure though that they r not to receive It if they don't have contact with the environment.

i am not sure what u mean about the unblessed bread and the unblessed wine...
in Greece after the Holy Communion u take the "anti-doro" = instead of a present. which of course is a practical way to clear the mouth. but this is taken by all the people not just the ones who have received the Holy Communion.

hey John,
i haven't heard of that, but i know that women who live or work together - are together for a prolonged time - tend to have their periods at the same time. so there is certainly something going on...

vanshan i'll check the site. thanx!

xristos.anesti i don't have access to exodus can u tell me what it says??

then i suppose if a woman is considered pure when she cooks something really goooooooooood for her husband..... i guess that a man is pure when he gives his wife pleeeeeeeeeeeenty of money to go shooooooooooping!!!
ahahahahaaaa

naughty boys.....!!

Most definitely, I went to hotel school and we had a rather small dorm... full of cranky women. :D

[vanshan]

Leviticus 28:1-4
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
Thou shalt not insult the cook, for if thou dost thou shalt surely suffer her wrath and thou mayest find something unpleasant in thy next meal. And if thou dost not find that which turneth thy stomach or causeth the runs, thou mayest be sure that indeed she has hidden it well with spices and herbs of the field and verily thou shalt spend many days hence covering thy feet, and great will be thy groaning.

:sorry: I hope my wife doesn't read my comment. It may be Olive Garden for me tonight.

Basil

[pilgrimtim]

Patriarch Ignatios IV of Antioch has caused quite a stir by saying that any woman regardless of her time may recieve communion. There is a cannon from a Saint that says that a woman during her time should not recieve communion.
The idea that a person cannot recieve while bleeding is from Jewish law and Since that time people have tried to invent rationalisations to continue to Ex-communicate women and men who shave.
I am in accord with His Holiness Ignatios IV. There are too many people around the world trying to exclude people from communion with Christ in His Church. Nothing bad has happened from people taking communion unless they are willfully denying the presence of Christ in the Eucharist they are receiving

[Annoula]

recieve while bleeding is from Jewish law and Since that time people have tried to invent rationalisations to continue to Ex-communicate women and men who shave.


i think it is in Genesis where all the impure states are mentioned. i think the Jews were finding many things as impure, and this was passed on to Muslims.

what do u mean "Ex-communicate women and men who shave"?
i don't understand it.

thanx!

[Dust and Ashes]

Could there be a considered difference between menstrual blood and circulatory blood with regards to recieving the Eucharist? I mean since circulatory blood is actually "life bearing" blood and menstrual blood is just the sloughed (dead) lining of the uterus.

[vanshan]

Patriarch Ignatios IV of Antioch has caused quite a stir by saying that any woman regardless of her time may recieve communion. There is a cannon from a Saint that says that a woman during her time should not recieve communion.
The idea that a person cannot recieve while bleeding is from Jewish law and Since that time people have tried to invent rationalisations to continue to Ex-communicate women and men who shave.
I am in accord with His Holiness Ignatios IV. There are too many people around the world trying to exclude people from communion with Christ in His Church. Nothing bad has happened from people taking communion unless they are willfully denying the presence of Christ in the Eucharist they are receiving

??

With all respect to the office of my Patriarch, Ignatios IV of Antioch has done several things that have been questioned as being too liberal. I would trust the teachings of earlier saints over the good Patriarch's teachings on these matters. Not all bishops are perfect, so although I honor Patriarch Ignatios, I cannot concur with anything he professes if it directly conflicts with the witness of the Church throughout the centuries.

Also the charge that not allowing women to commune during their period is some attempt to excommunicate them is ludicrous. Women are an essential and honored part of the Church. Where did you come up with such an awful theory? Sorry, if my words are harsh, but these allegations against our Church are awful. Also, I don't think you can lump it into the category with men who shave. Most laymen I have seen do shave and are never denied communion.

Basil

[Matrona]

Could there be a considered difference between menstrual blood and circulatory blood with regards to recieving the Eucharist? I mean since circulatory blood is actually "life bearing" blood and menstrual blood is just the sloughed (dead) lining of the uterus.

That's right. Menstrual fluid is NOT blood. The menstrual fluid from a woman's entire period only contains a small amount of actual blood, blood which came from the woman's body BEFORE her period began. The 'bleeding out Jesus's blood' argument simply doesn't hold water, biologically speaking.

As for ritual uncleanliness, I think it's wrong to go picking and choosing from the OT ritual purity laws, especially since nobody complains about the Orthodox priests who touch dead bodies and then go on to celebrate Divine Liturgy. And if you want to go all out on the purity laws for menstruating women, they are a bit more complicated than menstruating women simply being "unclean". According to orthodox Jews, after a woman's period, there's a ritual she completes prior to being considered ritually pure again and able to resume sexual relations with her husband.

So, since my priest is perfectly willing to leave this up to the individual woman's conscience, my conscience, along with my bishop, metropolitan, patriarch, and godmother, say it's fine for me to commune without regard to my time of the month.

[Rilian]

Could there be a considered difference between menstrual blood and circulatory blood with regards to recieving the Eucharist? I mean since circulatory blood is actually "life bearing" blood and menstrual blood is just the sloughed (dead) lining of the uterus.

This is definitely not my area of knowledge, but I don't think anything a woman consumes could make it's way in to menstrual fluid. My understanding is it is essentially "dead" if you will, and is waiting to be discharged. So the idea that one could bleed out the Eucharist through a menstrual flow is at least physiologically not a possibility. I've heard that used a reason why women shouldn't commune at that time.

In general, I would say I don't follow party lines as to "liberal" or "conservative". In my experience I tend to agree with both on different points. In this case I would personally say a woman should be allowed to commune at this time, the bleeding issue not really being a factor for me. My feeling is this is a carryover from the Jewish purity laws.

Most importantly I think the Eucharist is not something any of us will ever be worthy to receive or be in a perfect state to consume. I view the sacrament as a medicine for our soul, so I would think it should be there when our souls are in need. Sometimes this can be in physical or mental times of trial.

That's just my feeling.

[rafaeldaher]

In the magazine Orthodox Tradition Vol. IV, No. 1 this question was analyzed:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion

According to the Canons, though a woman is not in any manner more sinful in her cycle than a man is in the case of involuntary bodily emissions, she, like the man, must avoid Holy Communion at this time. These bodily functions are not sins, but they represent and emphasize the consequences of our fallen states. In approaching Holy Communion, we are lifting our fallen selves in the greatest humility to commune with what we are in Christ: literal participants in the Divine. We thus approach Christ as clean vesselsto the greatest possible extent for us in our fallen state, that He might come into us and transform us. Being holy, He comes only to those who strive to holiness. He cannot enter into that which is evil without destroying it. The Eucharist, hence, is the fire that cleanses, for those well prepared, and the fire that burns, for those not prepared. As St. John Chrysostomos writes, "This is a great and wonderful thing, so that if you approach it with pureness, you approach for salvation; but if you do so with an evil conscience, it is for punishment and vengeance."
In a homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew, St. John Chrysostomos does praise the great faith of the woman who had suffered hemorrhages (an "issue of blood") for some twelve years. He points out that Christ freed her both of her illness and of her guilt, which she had developed because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue was unclean. We would ask readers to review this homily both in English and Greek. We do not think that there is a shred of evidence that St. John Chrysostomos is suggesting that women commune during their periods. We find no evidence that St. John Chrysostomos somehow stand against the advice given by spiritual Fathers and Mothers across the centuries, only now to be uncovered as incorrect and un-Patristic advice!

We must in general be careful about those who suddenly proclaim the awesome Mysteries to be a "privilege" easy to exercise. We favor frequent Communion because this is the consistent and dominant Patristic teaching. But we also insist on proper fasting and preparation on the days before Communion and the utmost cleanliness of mind and body, which things are equally consistent and dominant in the teachings of the Fathers. I would wonder what woman would actually want to commune during her period, or what man would wish to do the same after a bodily emission. Where is the fear of God? Where is the sobriety? More importantly, where is the humility?

In an article to be published this year in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Bishop [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos writes some words about preparation for Holy Communion that seem apropos of our discussion here. Let us cite these: "The Eucharist ... is fully understood only as we recognize its function as a weapon in the war against the world and our fallen natures. The Eucharist is the 'medicine of immortality,' as the Patristic texts so frequently call it, by which we cure ourselves of the fallen nature of sin and the instrument of spiritual restoration by which Christ, to quote St. Hesychios, 'will enlighten our mind ever more and cause it to shine like a star.' If Baptism introduces us to the struggle for the death of the flesh and union with God, it is the Eucharist which sustains us in this struggle. It is a direct participation in perfect manhood through the partaking of Christ, the Perfect God and Perfect Man. As St. John Chrysostomos tells us, we become 'His flesh and His bones.' And this oneness with Christ serves the function of moving us continually away from the world and mortal flesh to the 'life in Christ,' as Nicholas Kabasilas describes the sacramental life, and union with God begins here on earth. Knowing this to be the function of the Eucharist, contemporary misunderstandings of fasting and preparation for communion fade away. We come to understand, along with the great Abba Philemon (who, though a priest, dared only serve very infrequently at the Altar), that we should participate in the mystery of Christ only in a 'pure and chaste condition,' approaching the mystery 'free from the flesh' and 'free from all hesitation and doubt,' that we might wholly participate in 'the enlightenment that proceeds from it.' The whole of the spiritual life is one of attaining illumination and perfection, and the divine gift of the Eucharist comes to fulfill efforts toward purity in our daily lives and in our own human will. The Eucharist is a food for those who move toward the holy: 'Holy things for the holy,' as the Divine Liturgy says. It is death for those who fail to recognize its function. Fasting, abstinence from Holy Communion by women in their periods, abstinence by men polluted by nocturnal emissionscontemporary objections to these fade when we begin to grasp the true function of the Eucharist and its divine aid in our human efforts toward perfection and our daily spiritual struggle with the world and its evil. The ascent toward perfection is centered in the Eucharist and we appropriately approach it as something which functions in concord with our highest human goals, aims, and efforts."

[The Prokeimenon!]

This is one of those issues that should be looked at with the mind of The Church... (Let me say right away that I don't know the correct answer.) Is the practice of not receiving during that time considered Holy Tradition or pious custom? Are there canons that teach this and, more importantly than the canons, is it something that has always been believed and practiced? I trust His Beatitude IGNATIUS IV, but understand that he may be mistaken. Who knows? :confused:

Moses

[vanshan]

So, since my priest is perfectly willing to leave this up to the individual woman's conscience, my conscience, along with my bishop, metropolitan, patriarch, and godmother, say it's fine for me to commune without regard to my time of the month.

Isn't almost everything really left up to our conscience (pertaining to pious customs)? The Orthodox Church is not legalistic in any way, which reflects the mercy Christ Himself shows. This is one of the greatest attributes of our faith, but on the other hand the Church has given prescriptions to aid us spiritually. We may not understand them, but should we dismiss them based on our modern contemporary impression of them? Yes, we say, those Church Fathers were unenlightened, but let's not suppose their motives. Can you imagine the state of the Church if all generations took license to ignore whatever canons failed to make sense to them?

Basil

[Shubunkin]

That is a good site, thanks. I bookmarked it. I also am having a hard time believing that women during their monthly cycle become "unclean" ... but at least I am past all of that at my age, anyway. Gleefully! ;)

[Rilian]

The article posted above out of Orthodox Tradition strikes me as poorly argued. It says menstruation is not a sin, but then says

Being holy, He comes only to those who strive to holiness. He cannot enter into that which is evil without destroying it.

That's a reversal for all practical purposes of what it said at first. Menstruation is a state in which a woman can never be prepared for communion. It puts a woman in a state of abject unholiness, all based on an involuntary bodily function.

The article also automatically equates communing while menstruating with laxity, effectively asserting without any kind of evidence that there's an automatic connection between this and not doing what anybody should do in order to prepare for communion - i.e. fasting and refraining from voluntary sin.

To me, that's legalism, just as to say a woman shouldn't venerate icons or touch relics while menstruating. In no way does it take in to account the spiritual disposition of the woman, it's all predicated on the idea that she is unclean.

[Shubunkin]

The article posted above out of Orthodox Tradition strikes me as poorly argued. It says menstruation is not a sin, but then says

Being holy, He comes only to those who strive to holiness. He cannot enter into that which is evil without destroying it.

That's a reversal for all practical purposes of what it said at first. Menstruation is a state in which a woman can never be prepared for communion. It puts a woman in a state of abject unholiness, all based on an involuntary bodily function.

The article also automatically equates communing while menstruating with laxity, effectively asserting without any kind of evidence that there's an automatic connection between this and not doing what anybody should do in order to prepare for communion - i.e. fasting and refraining from voluntary sin.

To me, that's legalism, just as to say a woman shouldn't venerate icons or touch relics while menstruating. In no way does it take in to account the spiritual disposition of the woman, it's all predicated on the idea that she is unclean.

You bring up some valid points here. Menstruating does not change a woman's mind or heart about anything. It does seem to bring back legalism into what should be a wonderful experience, communion. :crosseo:

[Khaleas]

Isn't almost everything really left up to our conscience (pertaining to pious customs)? The Orthodox Church is not legalistic in any way, which reflects the mercy Christ Himself shows. This is one of the greatest attributes of our faith, but on the other hand the Church has given prescriptions to aid us spiritually. We may not understand them, but should we dismiss them based on our modern contemporary impression of them? Yes, we say, those Church Fathers were unenlightened, but let's not suppose their motives. Can you imagine the state of the Church if all generations took license to ignore whatever canons failed to make sense to them?

Basil

One should also remember that the situation a few hundred years back was very different than it is now and that a lot of the canons are from that time.
As and example - travellers are dispensated from fasting because of the time it took to travel over areas and they didn't have much choice in what they eat. Father said that when I have a choice to eat fasting food while I'm travelling I should, but sometimes you just don't and you shouldn't make a fuss. I was even disappointed when I visited New-Valaam because it was during a fasting period and the fasting food there was not that great... most days there wasn't a single ingredient that would bring protein to the meals.
So to compare this topic of menstruation with travelling and old canons is that nowadays the hygiene products used during menstruation are a few light years from what they were back when the canons were established. Few women come in any direct contact with blood and aren't washing rags and cloths.

[Rilian]

Perhaps it's just best to say it should be between a woman and her spiritual Father. It might be okay for some women, but not right for others. The traditions and canons should be a guide. Maybe that's how the twin traps of legalism and complete laxity can be avoided.

[Khaleas]

Perhaps it's just best to say it should be between a woman and her spiritual Father. It might be okay for some women, but not right for others. The traditions and canons should be a guide. Maybe that's how the twin traps of legalism and complete laxity can be avoided.

:amen:

[rafaeldaher]

Brothers, sorry. :doh:


I agree with the Center of Orthodox Traditionalist Studies, of Etna.

Sorry again, im very traditionalist. :crossrc:

[Marjorie]

Uh, the food you eat does not come through in the "wound" of menstruation. It's just your uterus lining, nothing digested at all. Maybe people used to think differently and then it would make sense, but now it doesn't because it's scientifically false.

And the Fathers did not all say this. Read St. Bede's history of the English Church and he produces a letter from St. Gregory the Great on this matter.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[rafaeldaher]

Sorry, but i dont think when i analyze the science on this matter.
I think only in the canons and traditions of the Church.

I dont wanna judge the members of the Antiochian Church, but i dont agree with the new resolution of the Synod on this matter.

[Marjorie]

The canons were written for specific places and times and situations. If during one time people thought that menstruation worked differently, it might make sense to have that rule. But we KNOW how menstruation works, and digested blood does not come through it. It's just the lining of the uterus being discarded. One can only say that the blood would come through in a very general sense, in that it enters everyone's body and blood stream and system, and then one would argue that NO ONE can receive the Eucharist because it would come out on the other end in the bladder.

And as I said, the tradition of the Church is not monolithic on this matter.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Matrona]

The canons were written for specific places and times and situations.

That's right. Just because "there's a canon!" doesn't mean it is dogmatic or required, not by any means. The Rudder is not holy divine writ passed down to the Apostles on Mount Sinai. Some Orthodox think the Rudder is inspired, as in, it's on the level of Holy Scripture. That is NOT the case.

What if there was a canon that anathematized belief in a heliocentric solar system? Or the germ theory? Or receiving inoculations?

[Rilian]

And as I said, the tradition of the Church is not monolithic on this matter.

No and often traditions that develop can really run counter to what the sacraments should be for, even when born of pious reasons. The whole tradition of infrequent communion that developed is a good example, and it has many parallels to this this issue.

[countrymouse33ad]

One should also remember that the situation a few hundred years back was very different than it is now and that a lot of the canons are from that time.
As and example - travellers are dispensated from fasting because of the time it took to travel over areas and they didn't have much choice in what they eat. Father said that when I have a choice to eat fasting food while I'm travelling I should, but sometimes you just don't and you shouldn't make a fuss. I was even disappointed when I visited New-Valaam because it was during a fasting period and the fasting food there was not that great... most days there wasn't a single ingredient that would bring protein to the meals.
So to compare this topic of menstruation with travelling and old canons is that nowadays the hygiene products used during menstruation are a few light years from what they were back when the canons were established. Few women come in any direct contact with blood and aren't washing rags and cloths.

From the article:
According to the Canons...

And the article went on to say that the reason is that menstruation is a result of our fallen state. I'm not aware that we ever just toss aside any canons on the basis that they were formulated from misinformation. That would fly in the face of the Church's reliability in proclaiming and preserving the truth! So, what I want to know is whether this is indeed one of the canons; please provide a link so that I can see it. I'm pretty sure that the Church canons can be read on at least a couple of websites.

[Padraig]

From the article:


And the article went on to say that the reason is that menstruation is a result of our fallen state. I'm not aware that we ever just toss aside any canons on the basis that they were formulated from misinformation.

But menstruation is not the only result of our fallen nature. If this argument is to be used by those who refuse women at the Cup while mentruating, they must refuse everyone because this condition is no more "fallen" than any other in which people are allowed to commune.

If one were to consider the Sacramental theology of the Church, and indeed the prayers in preparation of communion, and the text of the Divine Liturgy itself, one would find no reference whatsoever the menstruation, or to bleeding wounds for that matter. To think that the Body and Blood of Christ can somehow "leak out" betrays a superstitious and utterly materialist view of the Eucharist. Again in the text of the Liturgy and prayers before and after communion, the idea is that it is diffused into our members mystically. And it is for the healing of soul AND body. To deny someone the cup is a denial of Christ's ultimately healing. It proves Christ to be an ineffectual healer if we hold to such notions.

This has nothing to do with "traditional vs modernist" practice. It has everything to do with a fundamental misunderstanding, and misrepresentation, of the healing power of the Body and Blood of Christ. Who is in more need of Christ's healing than those who are afflicted with wounds, and signs of our fallen nature? Christ said the healthy have no need of a physician.

Anyway, that's a guy's point of view of it.

Kevin

[Photini]

Perhaps it's just best to say it should be between a woman and her spiritual Father. It might be okay for some women, but not right for others. The traditions and canons should be a guide. Maybe that's how the twin traps of legalism and complete laxity can be avoided.
That's the best way IMO.

[countrymouse33ad]

But menstruation is not the only result of our fallen nature. If this argument is to be used by those who refuse women at the Cup while mentruating, they must refuse everyone because this condition is no more "fallen" than any other in which people are allowed to commune.

If one were to consider the Sacramental theology of the Church, and indeed the prayers in preparation of communion, and the text of the Divine Liturgy itself, one would find no reference whatsoever the menstruation, or to bleeding wounds for that matter. To think that the Body and Blood of Christ can somehow "leak out" betrays a superstitious and utterly materialist view of the Eucharist. Again in the text of the Liturgy and prayers before and after communion, the idea is that it is diffused into our members mystically. And it is for the healing of soul AND body. To deny someone the cup is a denial of Christ's ultimately healing. It proves Christ to be an ineffectual healer if we hold to such notions.

This has nothing to do with "traditional vs modernist" practice. It has everything to do with a fundamental misunderstanding, and misrepresentation, of the healing power of the Body and Blood of Christ. Who is in more need of Christ's healing than those who are afflicted with wounds, and signs of our fallen nature? Christ said the healthy have no need of a physician.

Anyway, that's a guy's point of view of it.

Kevin

Hi Padraig! I appreciate the response, and I basically agree with you. Still, my question is, "Is this actually a canon?" It is my understanding that the reason we never do away with them is because they are not based on misinformation, that they are not somehow wrong. It is true that some of them only apply directly to the time and situation for which they were written, and any application today would be indirect; that is, they'd have to be interpreted for contemporary use. In this case I am not seeing what has changed unless the whole point was actually sanitation.

It is true that we are under the new covenant and that old things have passed away. Even so, the Law was never evil, and Christ did say that anyone who broke even the least rule and taught others to do so will be least in the kingdom of heaven. Our very worship is the antitype of old covenant worship - rather than offering animals we offer bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ. So, if this is a canonical matter, I'd tend to think that the bishops had in mind the antitypical nature of the new covenant and its practices. For my own satisfaction, and certainly never for the sake of dictating anyone else's beliefs, I'd kinda like to know.

[countrymouse33ad]

It also occurs to me that we have no grounds for criticizing another body of believers for disregarding a few canons if we do the same thing. ;)

[Rilian]

Countrymouse, in an interview Bishop Kallistos was asked about this and gave the following reply:

T.R.: Women’s menstruation was/is thought of as being unclean. I wonder if that is one of those things that is more culturally than divinely inspired.

B.K.: I too wonder about that. The rule, as we know, is ancient. It goes back before the period of the conversion of Constantine. It is already found in third-century sources and in letters which have been put into our canonical collections and which have been ratified by ecumenical councils. Although by adopting these sources, the ecumenical councils didn’t say anything directly about women’s menstruation as being something that is unclean. However, we do not regard the canons, even of ecumenical councils, as unchanging. It is only their dogmatic decrees that have eternal validity. Is there a doctrinal basis for these rules about menstruation?

Clearly to me there is a canon judging by his words, though he doesn't say which one or where. I'm not sure what to make of his open ended question at the end.

[Padraig]

Hi Padraig! I appreciate the response, and I basically agree with you. Still, my question is, "Is this actually a canon?" It is my understanding that the reason we never do away with them is because they are not based on misinformation, that they are not somehow wrong. It is true that some of them only apply directly to the time and situation for which they were written, and any application today would be indirect; that is, they'd have to be interpreted for contemporary use. In this case I am not seeing what has changed unless the whole point was actually sanitation.


I'm not sure if it's an official canon or not. Even if it is, if our bishops say that this guideline does not apply, then that's their perogative. It really should be a non-issue.

Kevin

[countrymouse33ad]

Countrymouse, in an interview Bishop Kallistos was asked about this and gave the following reply:



Clearly to me there is a canon judging by his words, though he doesn't say which one or where. I'm not sure what to make of his open ended question at the end.

Thanks Rilian; that's interesting. Not quite sure also what to make of this statement, either:


However, we do not regard the canons, even of ecumenical councils, as unchanging. It is only their dogmatic decrees that have eternal validity.


This seems to be one of the many things that, these days, is just not clear-cut. I wonder what "unchanging" means? Does Bishop Kallistos mean that we can just disregard some of them? I imagine we would not have to look far to find modern Orthodox theologians who disagree with Bishop Kallistos about this.

Anyway, back to the original topic. :sorry:

[countrymouse33ad]

I'm not sure if it's an official canon or not. Even if it is, if our bishops say that this guideline does not apply, then that's their perogative. It really should be a non-issue.

Kevin

I agree that, unless there is an obvious and clear reason why not, we should obey our bishops. Good point.

[Padraig]

Thanks Rilian; that's interesting. Not quite sure also what to make of this statement, either:



This seems to be one of the many things that, these days, is just not clear-cut. I wonder what "unchanging" means? Does Bishop Kallistos mean that we can just disregard some of them? I imagine we would not have to look far to find modern Orthodox theologians who disagree with Bishop Kallistos about this.

:sorry:

This is a question at seminaries as well. What exactly is "ecumenical and unchanging" at the ecumenical councils? It's a question that we have to answer one way or the other. There is also the notion of "moveable" canons: those canons that aren't as binding as some others. Tough questions that deserve our attention without answering just out of habit.

Kevin

[countrymouse33ad]

This is a question at seminaries as well. What exactly is "ecumenical and unchanging" at the ecumenical councils? It's a question that we have to answer one way or the other. There is also the notion of "moveable" canons: those canons that aren't as binding as some others. Tough questions that deserve our attention without answering just out of habit.

Kevin

Quite true. When I think about how freely (and frequently!) we use the term "canonical" it disturbs me that we would be willing to just sweep a few canons under the rug if we don't like them. I also don't think (and boy, am I opnionated! :o ) that we the laity have no need of explanation when our clergy decide that certain things will not apply to us today. What would have happened after the infamous Robber Council had the laity been uninformed and unthinking?