Communion while a woman is on her period?

[Orthodox Andrew]

Are there any rules on that in the Church? I am really ignorant on the subject.

[ephraimanesti]

MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO CHECK WITH YOUR PRIEST. CODES CAN VARY WIDELY IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, AND ALTHOUGH I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A PROBLEM IN THIS AREA, MY EXPERIENCE IS LIMITED! BEST TO CHECK TO SEE IF ANY GUIDELINES EXIST IN YOUR PARISH.

IN CHRIST,
ephraimanesti

P.S. Last i heard, menstruation wasn't a sin, though. ;)

[MariaRegina]

A person should really talk with his/her priest. The rule varies according to economia.

If a man or a woman has any issue of blood or bodily fluids (including sex within marriage), then they should not receive Holy Communion the following day.

[repentant]

You shouldn't recieve Communion while on your period. There is a chance that the Body and Blood of Christ might come out through your blood, and be flushed down the toilet or end up in the garbage. Anytime you think you may or know you will bleed, such as having surgery, you shouldn't take it as well. Also if anyone accidentally cuts themselves, whatever you used to clean it with should be burned. It is also this reason that Orthodox people should not be embolmed as well.


But ask your Priest. They way it is now, not too many are strict about this as they should be. If a Priest tell's you something is ok, and it's really not, unless you know it's wrong, it would be on him.

[Kolya]

My wife does not take communion during that time for the reasons given above.

[Annoula]

i come from a strict background.
i was taught no communion during menses. and even no antidoron (but that was not from a priest, just from some friends, so it may not be valid).

here i heard that you should check with your priest.

i really don't know what's correct and what's bad. the thing is that what i have been taught made me feel a lesser being.

[repentant]

i come from a strict background.
i was taught no communion during menses. and even no antidoron (but that was not from a priest, just from some friends, so it may not be valid).

here i heard that you should check with your priest.

i really don't know what's correct and what's bad. the thing is that what i have been taught made me feel a lesser being.

Annoula you shouldn't feeli like a lesser being. It just helps to protect the Body and Blood.

[Annoula]

Annoula you shouldn't feeli like a lesser being. It just helps to protect the Body and Blood.


rep... that may be the case...but explain it to a cradle young girl...

it can be tricky you know...

[Anhelyna]

Sorry - here I go again - a genuine question.

I can and do understand the problem about Communion for the menstruating woman - and I understand the reason behind the suggestion that you should not receive at that time.

However that brings me to an allied question [ well the link is there in my mind].

What happens with a sick person - one who is haemorraging and indeed very ill ?

Does the principle of oeconomia apply here ?

[repentant]

Sorry - here I go again - a genuine question.

I can and do understand the problem about Communion for the menstruating woman - and I understand the reason behind the suggestion that you should not receive at that time.

However that brings me to an allied question [ well the link is there in my mind].

What happens with a sick person - one who is haemorraging and indeed very ill ?

Does the principle of oeconomia apply here ?

That would have to be up to the Priest and circumstances. But I don't think deathbed communion would be denied.

[Annoula]

That would have to be up to the Priest and circumstances. But I don't think deathbed communion would be denied.


in fact i've heard that even at the deathbed communion should not be granted.
at least that's what i know. i never asked for an official answer (from a priest, theologian etc)

[repentant]

in fact i've heard that even at the deathbed communion should not be granted.
at least that's what i know. i never asked for an official answer (from a priest, theologian etc)

Not be granted for what reason?

[Kolya]

in fact i've heard that even at the deathbed communion should not be granted.
at least that's what i know. i never asked for an official answer (from a priest, theologian etc)

No Anna, If you are on your death-bed and you are bleeding, a priest will administer holy unction and commune you.

[Annoula]

i am talking about a person who is dying and is losing blood.

i'll ask a priest for a more official opinion though.

[ByzantineDixie]

According to my priest it is true one should take care after taking commune. Any blood loss due to an accident or something should be cleaned up and the towels and bandages used to clean up the blood should be burned.

As far as menses is concerned, however, he said now that we understand the science of of it all that it is not required for a woman to stay away from communion during her period. He said the blood is actually stored up and what you eat and drink that day does not become a part of the stored blood which is expelled.

Now quite honestly it's been years since I studied all that so I cannot affirm the science of what he says...just know that in my parish the women are instructed that it is OK to commune during menses.

As you can see, this varies so AYP is default.

[Dust and Ashes]

You shouldn't recieve Communion while on your period. There is a chance that the Body and Blood of Christ might come out through your blood, and be flushed down the toilet or end up in the garbage. Anytime you think you may or know you will bleed, such as having surgery, you shouldn't take it as well. Also if anyone accidentally cuts themselves, whatever you used to clean it with should be burned. It is also this reason that Orthodox people should not be embolmed as well.

Wouldn't the restriction for a menstruating woman have to be for another reason since menstrual "blood" is not veinal but more like a bowel movement than bleeding? I can understand it being because it is a bodily discharge but I don't see how it can be related to bleeding, unless there happens to be an internal injury causing bleeding. I suppose it could be that a woman could be really bleeding during her period and wouldn't know it because of the menstrual discharge so it's better to be safe.

[rhyddid_rose]

To Life Immortal

As far as menses is concerned, however, he said now that we understand the science of of it all that it is not required for a woman to stay away from communion during her period. He said the blood is actually stored up and what you eat and drink that day does not become a part of the stored blood which is expelled.

Your priest is right. Check out Menstruation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation). The part that caught my attention was the Religion section. That is what I was told when I first entered the church. Now I dont worry about it anymore.

Another great reason to be menopausal, YAY! :angel:


Babochka the middle aged butterfly.

[Monica, child of God]

I agree that this is an "Ask Your Priest" question.

But physiologically speaking it does not make sense to abstain from communion because of menstruation. The lining of the uterus builds over a 2 week period before the first day of one's period. The mentrual flow has absolutely nothing to do with the food one consumes during the menstrual period.

And I have no idea why a woman would abstain because she is "issuing bodily fluids (including sex within marriage)." That would be like saying that a person with a head cold should abstain from communion because they have a runny nose.

M.

[Tsarina]

You shouldn't recieve Communion while on your period. There is a chance that the Body and Blood of Christ might come out through your blood, and be flushed down the toilet or end up in the garbage. Anytime you think you may or know you will bleed, such as having surgery, you shouldn't take it as well. Also if anyone accidentally cuts themselves, whatever you used to clean it with should be burned. It is also this reason that Orthodox people should not be embolmed as well.


But ask your Priest. They way it is now, not too many are strict about this as they should be. If a Priest tell's you something is ok, and it's really not, unless you know it's wrong, it would be on him.

That's what i thought as well, that a women shouldn't recieve Communion while on her period. The Body and Blood of Christ may come through the blood and be flushed or thrown away. I wasn't sure, but i'm glad people here are talking about it.

[Monica, child of God]

Women! Please learn about your bodies! There is no way that the Body and Blood could be lost through menstruation. If you decide to abstain for some other reason (in consultation with your priest) that is your choice but it should not be because you think that the Holy Gifts will be lost through menstrual flow.

I think every woman should take a course in Natural Family Planning whether they intend to use it to or not. You learn so much about how the female reproductive system works and it can help you to get pregnant when you are ready.

M.

[Mary of Bethany]

I agree with Monica, that the reasoning doesn't really make sense. However, both priests I've had as an Orthodox have said "don't commune during your period", so out of obedience, I don't.

Mary

[choirfiend]

It will certainly differ according to custom. I've never ever ever heard this mentioned beyond the internet, and while I dont claim to have an authoritative experience, Ihave had a greatly varied one.

I am with Monica on the "dont abstain because you think you will bleed the Body and Blood." With the reasoning applied here, one should never use a restroom, either, because you would be getting rid of Christ's Body and Blood. Once our true food and drink is consumed and digested, it is part of US en totale and is not found as a separate entity in excrement nor blood, nor saliva, or any other bodily fluid. Do not abstain from fear of bleeding Christ, but do consult with your priest.

[MariaRegina]

A priest explained that the blood is a life force, but excretions are not as they are dead matter.

[choirfiend]

So is dead blood cells that we expell. Menstrual blood is not living blood. That also comes from the old Jewish understanding that blood contained the life-energy and where all those kosher blood-letting laws come from. Those also say that blood is unclean to consume, but we do that every time we celebrate the Eucharist. Church teaching and tradition are the things to be valued; superstitious folk customs have less value. Just please dont assume that you should not partake if you are menstruating, b/c, as I said, I've NEVER heard it spoken of except on internet forums such as these.

[MariaRegina]

In one parish that I visited, the senior priest was telling the women not to partake of the Eucharist when they were on their periods, but the assistant priest was telling the women to receive Holy Communion.

When the Senior Priest heard what his Junior Priest (LOL) was doing, he said follow the lead of your confessor (and the Junior Priest was hearing all the confessions).

[Akathist]

My priest told me that this subject always comes up. Some women choose not to receive during mensus but he does not have a problem with it.

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

Interesting topic. A few weeks ago a friend of mine asked me this question because she knows that I read a lot about Orthodoxy, and while I have heard of this issue before, I have never really understood it in depth. Anyway, my friend explained to me that she knows someone who is Orthodox, and that it is common practice for this woman and her female parishioners to abstain from receiving the Eucharist during menstruation. However, the reason this woman reportedly gave was related more to the survival of Jewish laws concerning ritual purity, and not so much to do with worrying about losing the Blood of Christ through menstration... unless the two (purity laws and losing the Blood) are linked.

Like others have said in this thread already, it is my understanding that menstrual blood is not "real" blood - it is different from the blood that flows through our veins. Would that affect the reasoning behind this pious practice?

[Monica, child of God]

I feel even more strongly that retaining any ritual purity laws is wrong and uncalled for.

Reason 1) God the Word lived in a womb with the very matter we are talking about for nine months. We are talking about the very place that we call "more spacious than the heavens." The menstrual matter of the Theotokos nourished our Lord even before He nursed at her breast. There is no reason to think that a woman should not approach the chalice for this reason.

Reason 2) Christ allowed the woman with the flow of blood to "partake of His power." He did not rebuke her or claim that she was in any way wrong to seek Him for healing. Does not a woman who seeks to partake do the very same thing? Why would we think this is wrong?

M.

[Theophorus]

Interesting topic. A few weeks ago a friend of mine asked me this question because she knows that I read a lot about Orthodoxy, and while I have heard of this issue before, I have never really understood it in depth. Anyway, my friend explained to me that she knows someone who is Orthodox, and that it is common practice for this woman and her female parishioners to abstain from receiving the Eucharist during menstruation. However, the reason this woman reportedly gave was related more to the survival of Jewish laws concerning ritual purity, and not so much to do with worrying about losing the Blood of Christ through menstration... unless the two (purity laws and losing the Blood) are linked.



I agree.

See this (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx)

[Breetai]

Women! Please learn about your bodies! There is no way that the Body and Blood could be lost through menstruation. If you decide to abstain for some other reason (in consultation with your priest) that is your choice but it should not be because you think that the Holy Gifts will be lost through menstrual flow.

I think every woman should take a course in Natural Family Planning whether they intend to use it to or not. You learn so much about how the female reproductive system works and it can help you to get pregnant when you are ready.

M.Best post in this thread.

Okay, I know, I'm not a member of the EO. The thread title appeared on the front page of CF because it was recently updated and it caught my attention.

For those who think or teach that women should not receive communion during her period, where is the Biblical justification for this? The Body and Blood of our Lord is so Holy that I can't imagine any earthly condition of one's body to invalidate it.

To think that a woman's period could flush out the Body and Blood of Christ just seems silly to me. Communion is as spiritual as it is physical, is it not? The benefits of this sacrament ought to be present in all conditions of this nature.

[MariaRegina]

From a biological point of view, and yes, I was a biology major, the endometrium of the pregnant uterus is different from the lining of the uterus that is shed during the menstral flow.

The gravid endometrium of the uterus is filled with vibrant blood vessels that carry fresh flowing blood in the capillaries. These nourish the developing and growing embryonic sac containing the embryo until a placenta can be established. Once the placenta is intact, then the embryo receives its nourishment from the mother via the umbilical cord.

When a woman sheds her uterine lining during her menses or during a miscarriage, then yes, some blood is shed during those first two days, but after that, the flow changes color and is older fluid which can have a bad odor. And so, some women wear perfume or some other sweet smelling substances to mask that unpleasant odor. And these women tell me that they really don't want to approach the chalice when they smell like that. Some priests give these women permission to stay at home during that time.

I remember being very sick for the first three days of my cycle and not being able to attend church even when I was a Catholic. I was sick to the point of being dizzy and nauseated. Sometimes I even fainted.

[Monica, child of God]

I agree.

See this (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx)

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.

This article is offensive. This man has never had a menstrual period, has no first hand knowledge of what it is like or what a woman thinks about such situations. There is no comparable emission that men experience, so how could he know or comment?

M.

[Monica, child of God]

It is not normal to have an odor during menstruation, especially if others can smell it. If a woman experiences an unpleasant odor, she should see an OB/GYN as soon as possible.

M.

[MariaRegina]

If it is not normal to have smells during menstruation, then please tell me why the college restrooms smell so terribly especially on some days when it seems that every woman on campus must be having their periods at the same time. The stall trash bins are stuffed with unmentionables that really reek.

Researchers have discovered (before 1960) what they call the harem effect which is especially noticeable when girls live together in sororities. The dominant woman tends to control or set the monthly cycles of the other women. So the girls in a sorority or dorm tend to have their periods at the same time. And you don't want to be around spitting mad females who might be having PMS. That is one reason I was never interested in living the sorority life.

Anyway, it seems that for one week out of each month, the college restrooms are filled with a nauseating odor.

[Theophorus]

This article is offensive. This man has never had a menstrual period, has no first hand knowledge of what it is like or what a woman thinks about such situations. There is no comparable emission that men experience, so how could he know or comment?

M.

So, only women are qualified to comment I see. I suppose one could equally say you have no knowlegde or are unqualified to comment about men.

I am curious. Are marital relations the night before partaking of communion OK? All of these "conditions" for communion stem from the same reasoning.

[Monica, child of God]

If it is not normal to have smells during menstruation, then please tell me why the college restrooms smell so terribly especially on some days when it seems that every woman on campus must be having their periods at the same time. The stall trash bins are stuffed with unmentionables that really reek.

Trash, garbage, rubbish usually smells bad. Waste takes on an odor when it gets old and begins to decay. The poopy diaper of a breastfed baby does not reek until it is about 2 days old. A piece of raw chicken has a mild smell. But if it sits all day at room temperature it will begin to stink.

A woman who showers daily and takes proper care of herself during her cycle will not smell.

Researchers have discovered (before 1960) what they call the harem effect which is especially noticeable when girls live together in sororities. The dominant woman tends to control or set the monthly cycles of the other women. So the girls in a sorority or dorm tend to have their periods at the same time. And you don't want to be around spitting mad females who might be having PMS. That is one reason I was never interested in living the sorority life.

Yes it is an interesting phenomenon and I have heard/experienced it before but I don't see how it relates to this thread.

Anyway, it seems that for one week out of each month, the college restrooms are filled with a nauseating odor.

The trash should be disposed of more frequently and/or the plumbing system needs to be examined.

M.

[MariaRegina]

So, only women are qualified to comment I see. I suppose one could equally say you have no knowlegde or are unqualified to comment about men.

I am curious. Are marital relations the night before partaking of communion OK? All of these "conditions" for communion stem from the same reasoning.

I was told by one priest that any bodily emission* does disqualify someone from receiving Holy Communion.

So whether it is the nocturnal emissions of a man, the menstrual flow of a woman, or marital relations, any of these sexual emissions have the same effect. They take our mind off the spiritual and focus it on our passions. For this reason, the person is told not to receive Holy Communion by certain priests. And we are to obey our spiritual father in these matters.

EDIT: Any sexual bodily emission

[Monica, child of God]

So, only women are qualified to comment I see. I suppose one could equally say you have no knowledge or are unqualified to comment about men.

I was specifically referring to this comment from the article:

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.

This seems judgmental and presumptuous.

I am curious. Are marital relations the night before partaking of communion OK? All of these "conditions" for communion stem from the same reasoning.

I don't see the connection. Please explain.

I think it is appropriate to abstain from marital relations before communion because it requires special devotion and self examination which is aided by fasting. I don't see any correlation with menstruation.

M.

[MariaRegina]

The harem effect is supposed to happen due to phermones that females emit. However the researchers don't know how this suppposed phermone works or what it is.

Anyway, whatever this scent is that the females have, it does tend to coordinate the female cycle so that on particular days, the bathrooms of the college are rendered inoperable and the poor janitors cannot keep up with all the traffic and waste products.

We females do give off odors, whether we intend to or not. And most men will notice these odors even in perfectly normal females and it is distracting.

Some priests have told women not to approach the altar or request confession during this time. They give different reasons. Again, we must obey as harsh as it may sound.

[Monica, child of God]

I was told by one priest that any bodily emission does disqualify someone from receiving Holy Communion.

A rule only applicable to his spiritual children.

So whether it is the nocturnal emissions of a man, the menstrual flow of a woman, or marital relations, any of these sexual emissions have the same effect. They take our mind off the spiritual and focus it on our passions.

How does menstruation take a woman's mind off anything? It is involuntary action of the body which a woman has no control over. It gives no pleasure or distraction. It is nothing at all like marital relations.

Marital relations are voluntary, pleasurable and can be distracting from spiritual matters. It is nothing at all like marital relations. I really, really don't see the connection.

For this reason, the person is told not to receive Holy Communion by certain priests. And we are to obey our spiritual father in these matters.

I agree with you there. But at the same time being Orthodox does not mean that we drop our brains at the door. I know how the female reproductive system works and I am not going to pretend that I don't. I also know the difference (physiologically and otherwise) between menstruation and marital relations. I won't pretend that something illogical makes sense because someone's priest said it.

M.

[Monica, child of God]

The harem effect is supposed to happen due to phermones that females emit. However the researchers don't know how this suppposed phermone works or what it is.

Anyway, whatever this scent is that the females have, it does tend to coordinate the female cycle so that on particular days, the bathrooms of the college are rendered inoperable and the poor janitors cannot keep up with all the traffic and waste products.

We females do give off odors, whether we intend to or not. And most men will notice these odors even in perfectly normal females and it is distracting.

Some priests have told women not to approach the altar or request confession during this time. They give different reasons. Again, we must obey as harsh as it may sound.

Just so this is really clear to any lurkers. This only applies to the spiritual children of this priest. I would dare say that no one else in TAW has ever heard of such a thing.

M.

[Monica, child of God]

I was told by one priest that any bodily emission does disqualify someone from receiving Holy Communion.

Does this include blowing your nose? Phlegm in your throat? Ear wax? Excess perspiration? Oily skin? Tears?

M.

[Theophorus]

I was specifically referring to this comment from the article:



This seems judgmental and presumptuous.



I don't see the connection. Please explain.

I think it is appropriate to abstain from marital relations before communion because it requires special devotion and self examination which is aided by fasting. I don't see any correlation with menstruation.

M.

The answer is unpopular, but here it is in a nutshell. Marital relations are seen differently in traditional orthodoxy. Relations are seen as being a result of the fall, carnal. Marriage is sanctified, yes, but during fasts, we fast "from each other" as well. Menstruation and emissions are conected to this. menstruation has a connotation of loss, the loss of a potential life. Menstruation, emissions sexual relations are associated with the fall of man.
The approach to the Chalice one is to rightly reflect and come with fear and trembling, but that perspective is not to be seperated from the physicall. The preperation is to present ourselves as temples, both spiritually and physcally. Orthodoxy has never seperated the two.

This carries over from the OT. Remember that Moses warrned the men to abstain from their wives at Mt. Sinia in preperation for the appearance of the Lord.

Economia is also taken into account, and obedience to one's priest or bishop would obviously carry more weight, as the virtues of humility and obedience come into play.

[repentant]

Ok first of all because everyone is so wrong about the cycle to begin with (well Aria kind of had it) let me say something. Any blood that comes with your cycle, is not some stored up blood from weeks ago. Blood is constantly flowing. The blood that comes out, probably just went through your heart, into the lungs to be oxygenated, then back through your heart, then through your arteries, into capillaries in your uterus, 5 min before you bled it out. Things you eat and drink have a tendency to be absorbed into your blood stream, for example alcohol, and drugs. So with that said, the Body and Blood, especially the wine/Blood, WILL be absorbed by your blood stream. It may eventually end up in your uterus, and in turn out your body.

As far as snot, earwax, etc. These things do not absorb things you eat or drink.

Also of course we may urinate or deficate after Communion, but this can't be helped. People urinate and deficate everyday, and can't help it. We would never recieve Communion if we went by this. But women only bleed a few days a month, and they should not recieve Communion. They don't bleed everyday. This is an old teaching.

[repentant]

Does this include blowing your nose? Phlegm in your throat? Ear wax? Excess perspiration? Oily skin? Tears?

M.


These are different. Phlegm and snot in your nose do not absorb anything. Neither does earwax. Oily skin has nothing to do with what you eat, neither does tears. You can sweat out fluids you consumed, but like I stated above, we all sweat everyday and can't help it.


But as far was why you said this....I believe she meant body fluids as in sexual. You should abstain from relations as well before Communion, it's part of fasting..

[MariaRegina]

These are different. Phlegm and snot in your nose do not absorb anything. Neither does earwax. Oily skin has nothing to do with what you eat, neither does tears. You can sweat out fluids you consumed, but like I stated above, we all sweat everyday and can't help it.


But as far was why you said this....I believe she meant body fluids as in sexual. You should abstain from relations as well before Communion, it's part of fasting..

Exactly and I amended my post to make that precisely clear. In fact if she had read all my posts in total, I have repeatedly stated that a man or woman should abstain if they have experienced any sexual bodily emissions the evening before.

However, Theophorus hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the possibility of an early miscarriage.

Several priests have repeatedly said the real reason for abstaining from the Eucharist during a women's menses is that she could have had an early miscarriage and not even known about it. Of course this would not apply to virgins, but how is the Church to know who is a virgin and who isn't.

A woman can conceive and then abort so that it appears she has had a regular period but in actuality did not. I had two very early miscarriages, where the pregnancy test was negative but the endometrial tissue was that of pregnancy according to the lab. So the lab confirmed the pregnancy through biopsy, not through the blood test.

In both those cases, the priest told me to wait 40 days after my miscarriage started, because I had a much longer flow consistent with a gravid women who has just giving birth. So I had to wait 40 day before receiving Holy Confession, then the priest read the prayers of miscarriage, and gave me Holy Communion at the very next Divine Liturgy.

[MariaRegina]

When I was newly chrismated in the Orthodox Church and did not understand all these Holy Canons which prevented me from receiving Holy Confession and Holy Communion, I too complained to the Priest.

He told me that if I was that strongly self willed that I could determine when I could receive Holy Communion, that I was gravely in error. We are to be obedient, even if it does sound old-fashioned.

Submit yourselves to the Lord.

[repentant]

When I was newly chrismated in the Orthodox Church and did not understand all these Holy Canons which prevented me from receiving Holy Confession and Holy Communion, I too complained to the Priest.

He told me that if I was that strongly self willed that I could determine when I could receive Holy Communion, that I was gravely in error. We are to be obedient, even if it does sound old-fashioned.

Submit yourselves to the Lord.


Exactly. Sometimes I think that people want what they want, and not what the Church or Priest does. Alot of the old canons and rules seem to have been thrown to the sidelines now days.

[Wiffey]

I was never told about this "rule" when I converted. GOARCH, from what my priest tells me, tends to view it as an outdated throwback to an old canon law and doesn't make a thing of it. :thumbsup: Yeah GOARCH!

Long after I converted, I heard about it because my M-I-L had my S-I-L discuss it with me after noticing that I took Communion every week.

Irony here...it is a BIG folk custom among some Greeks to be so stringent about feeling unclean WRT menses that some girls (like my S-I-L) are told by their mothers to not venerate or touch an icon during their period because they are dirty (the girls, not the icons). My S-I-L had this message so ingrained that she just avoids going in to a church during that time (she was told she would contaminate the church). My priest says this has more to do with village superstitions than any Orthodox teaching. So the irony is that the parishioners are carrying this far beyond what is being taught, and the women are carrying all this baggage that they have put upon themselves.

After I was told the scoop my reaction was:
1. That makes no sense medically (especially the icon kissing thing. I have never venerated an icon in such a way that could possibly befoul it with menses...)

2. But I'll talk to the priest and get the real scoop...and until I get an answer I'll abstain just in case.

Went to confession and confessed that I'd been receiving all along as I did not know the rule. Priest: (long sigh) "There is no reason why you need to refrain...(cites gospel WRT woman with the issue of blood, talks about how GOARCH would like to see this all go away), but be discreet because no matter what there are some women who are set in their ways about this and they will not change."

He also spoke about how menstruation isn't sinful but normal, and how when we have the chance to receive Christ in the Eucharist, we should have a very good reason to say no. He said the only valid reason for not receiving is a spiritual problem, and that the parishioner then needs to confess and start receiving ASAP.

[aside: my poor priest fights an endless battle trying to get parishioners to listen to him instead of following folk customs. Big issues: frequency of Communion (many will only get it a few times a year), confession (many parishioners have never had confession, etc.]

So I went with my priest's advice (which I agree with 100%). And I decided to tell my S-I-L (in confidence), so she would know she didn't need to be so hung up about feeling unclean...well, the poo hit the fan. She immediately called her aunt and my M-I-L. Scandal! And they started pressuring me to comply with what they had done in their village, as opposed to listening to my confessor. Talk continued, and nobody even believed that the priest said it (I made it up), and there was NO way yiayia could have been wrong (despite the fact that she lived in a microscopic mountain village that rarely saw a priest and couldn't read).

Such parish buzz! And then my priest did a BRAVE thing: he talked about it in a sermon. (My in-laws weren't there for that, though the buzz got back to them).

And even after the priest had spoken...pressure for me to conform to 19th century Peloponnese. And me listening to the priest. Which made the family think I am a totally shameless harlot (OK, they probably thought that anyways, but this confirmed it for them).;)

All I know is this (and I told my in-laws): I have an 11 year old daughter, and NOBODY (now that the priest has spoken) had better fill her brain with a lot of garbage that will make her feel dirty or ashamed of the menstrual cycle God gave her. :blush:

I have no problem whatsoever with people deciding to be citizens of 19th century Greece...just do not persecute me for not joining the parade. I will listen to my priest.:liturgy:

[repentant]

I was never told about this "rule" when I converted. GOARCH, from what my priest tells me, tends to view it as an outdated throwback to an old canon law and doesn't make a thing of it. :thumbsup: Yeah GOARCH!

This is the problem I mentioned earlier. "Old Canon Law"?

But the idea from abstaining has nothing to do with being unclean, but with what I said earlier. Yes you M I L did take it far about the icons and things, this is how real Canons get thrown out. People tend to mix tradition with Tradition. But listen to your Priest.

[Wiffey]

I think that there ARE some old canons that are (indeed) outdated. We know a lot more now about biology and the human body, we have far better hygiene etc. So I don't mind a bit of updating to acknowledge 2000 years of additional information and changing norms. Example: There is a canon that forbids Orthodox from seeing a Jewish doctor.

The above canon was crafted in a particular time and place, when doctors served as spiritual advisors and when there was a lot of friction between Jews and Christians, as they were emerging as separate and distinct religions. It no longer has any useful application except to look embarrassingly anti-Semitic if applied to our present-day context.

That's like the whole menstrual thing...I'm sure periods were a much bigger deal in the first century when they weren't as understood and Kotex & Tampax were milennia away from being invented. It would indeed have been a wee bit stinky and gruesome (with 1st century hygiene and all...). Back then women did not leave their homes and secluded themselves at those "delicate" times. Now we are matter of fact, have all manner of sanitary gear. Nobody even knows when we flow, unless we get very forgetful or feel like sharing the info. Now we just shrug, pop in a 'pon or slap on a pad and go to work. Big whoop.

As a female I am sick to death of hearing how a normal part of the lives of half the planet is somehow dirty or shameful. God gave me this uterus, I didn't find it on a sidewalk somewhere. Menstruation is a normal, biological function. Without it, there would be no fertility. Even the Theotokos had a period.

On a similar train of thought, why is it that women who have given birth stay out in the narthex for 40 days? I think that has more to do with men and their hangups than anything to do with God. Does bringing forth life leave one unclean? Methinks some review is in order...

[repentant]

How many times do I have to say it? I never said it has anything to do with being dirty. It has to do with the wine/Blood being in your blood stream. Period. We should try not to lose it if we can. I will tell you about the human body and the physiology of it. The blood that flows in your period, is not some stored blood, but was flowing in your arteries and veins before it came out..

[Wiffey]

I know that you did not say it was shameful...I was referring to the attitude I run into with my mother-in-law, etc. There are some people out there who have BIG hangups. I think sometimes people assume that the communion rule that some parishes follow has to do with being unclean, as opposed to the reason you stated. While I don't agree with the science behind bleeding out communion, at least it isn't as offensive as this weird notion that women are ritually unclean.

[repentant]

I know that you did not say it was shameful...I was referring to the attitude I run into with my mother-in-law, etc. There are some people out there who have BIG hangups. I think sometimes people assume that the communion rule that some parishes follow has to do with being unclean, as opposed to the reason you stated. While I don't agree with the science behind bleeding out communion, at least it isn't as offensive as this weird notion that women are ritually unclean.

Oh I mentioned your MIL took it too far, and mixed up things. But the science is there. Alcohol gets in your blood, there is no other way around it. How do you think they check for alcohol in your system?

[Wiffey]

My personal opinion is that Communion is mystical and sacred and probably not bound by the same earthly laws & physics as alcohol, etc. I don't think God would allow His body & blood to bleed out. (I also know that most menstrual blood is old blood that is being sloughed of of the uterine lining. Not to be overly graphic, but that is why menstrual blood does not look like fresh blood.)

I just want to be able to follow the advice of my priest on this matter, without it causing a ruckus. If a woman was raised not to commune and wants to abstain, fine. I was RC for many years and partook of the sacraments, and had never ever heard of a menstrual issue, even though RC and EO BOTH believe that Communion IS the body and blood of Christ. So it seemed sort of off the wall when my sister in law pulled me aside one day to pass along her mother's advice. But I still checked it out with my priest, who encouraged me to approach the chalice irregardless of cycle. He pointed out that God wants us to join with Him in Holy Communion, and would not engineer half the planet so as to make them biologically unfit to receive Him one week out of every month for such a big chunk of their lifespan (paraphrasing).

I recognize that there are other parishes and jurisdictions who do things differently. We should all consult our individual confessors, examine our conscience, and proceed accordingly.

[repentant]

My personal opinion is that Communion is mystical and sacred and probably not bound by the same earthly laws & physics as alcohol, etc.

Then explain how some Priests have become drunk or buzzed after finishing off the Communion after the Liturgy...

[Wiffey]

Clarification: I think the laws of physics apply to the attributes of bread and wine in the chalice, but do not necessarily apply to God. How is our all-powerful God able to be restrained by the laws He created? So I don't think that the presence of God (through Christ's body & blood) are subject to mundane physical laws. It's a mystery.

I think that the Communion we experience with Christ is profoundly mystical in a way that goes beyond our mere physicality. That's just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

Again, I don't see what the big issue is. I'm doing what I was taught to do. Yet some folks keep bugging me about doing what my priest instructed me to do. They are welcome to disagree with me, everyone is free to think for themselves. I just want to be able to follow my confessor's advice, unimpeded. I also don't want my child to be indoctrinated into a cultural tradition perpetuated in the guise of Orthodoxy, that our priest has publicly said is irrelevant.

It is frustrating to see the priest undermined so. If there is a theological disagreement between a priest with a masters degree in Orthodox theology and somebody's yiayia from the top of a mountain somewhere...why am I expected to disobey my priest? If yiayia is so wise and all-knowing, then by all means bring her in and give her the censer and let her do the DL, since our priest seems to be expendable. That is a big problem at my parish: nobody bothers to even listen to the priest. They are sure that they know better than he does. Within our family I've heard this voiced: "The priest doesn't really know Orthodoxy, because he was born in America. Outside of the DL, his Greek isn't even very good. So he can't know as well as someone from Greece."

As long as that sort of mentality reigns, it is no wonder that folk practices trump priestly authority.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent, but I haven't slept and my mind is wandering. I guess I just do not get why I get so much flak for not following what I have coined "Yiayiadoxy".

[repentant]

Didn't answer my question. And why do you keep bringing up your yiayia? I already agreed with you that they were etreme.

[Wiffey]

Didn't answer my question. And why do you keep bringing up your yiayia? I already agreed with you that they were etreme.

You mean why they (priests) might get a buzz from Communion wine? I did answer it in the top part of my last post. Communion is a holy mystery. God is not bound by earthly laws, etc. If the Early Fathers chose not to try to exactly define the process of how that occurs, I hardly feel adequate to undertake the task. I will not get sucked into postulating.

On this issue (menstruation & communion) we disagree. Seems pointless to go round and round about it. All it serves to do is to remind me of the unpleasant haranguing I get on the subject from my extended family.

All I can say is I'm not just randomly deciding to commune while shootin' the rapids of the red river valley...my priest told me to go ahead. I'll listen to him and not be swayed by anything I read on the internet.

[Dust and Ashes]

Ok first of all because everyone is so wrong about the cycle to begin with (well Aria kind of had it) let me say something. Any blood that comes with your cycle, is not some stored up blood from weeks ago. Blood is constantly flowing. The blood that comes out, probably just went through your heart, into the lungs to be oxygenated, then back through your heart, then through your arteries, into capillaries in your uterus, 5 min before you bled it out. Things you eat and drink have a tendency to be absorbed into your blood stream, for example alcohol, and drugs. So with that said, the Body and Blood, especially the wine/Blood, WILL be absorbed by your blood stream. It may eventually end up in your uterus, and in turn out your body.

Could someone who would know, verify this, please? I've always read in biology texts that it was just the sloughing of the uterine lining and have heard OB/GYNs say the same thing. I know some fresh blood can come out during the cycle but the majority of the blood is what was built up in the lining of the uterus.

Edited to add: I'm not arguing that the principle is not valid since it is possible to lose some of the Body and Blood while bleeding and a small amount of bleeding does take place during menstruation.

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

This thread is interesting... but:

If we are talking about ritual purity - a survival of the Jewish laws of "clean" and "unclean" - it would do well to remember that the Jews did not equate ritual impurity with sin. We in our modern times tend to equate "impure" with "dirty" - that was not the case for Jews in Jesus' time. Being ritually impure held no bearing on their state of moral purity (unless they deliberately went into the Temple in a state of ritual impurity with malicious intent) and it was not a commentary on their faithfulness to God as an individual. At any given time, 99% of the people in Judea were ritually impure... but that didn't necessarily mean they were sinful.

You will find some scholars who will say otherwise and will make the mistake of equating ritual impurity with moral sin, but in actuality a clear distinction does exist.

And anyway, for those of you (or perhaps it was only one of you?) who have stated that menstrual blood is like that which flows through our veins, I am afraid that you are mistaken. While it sometimes contains blood which flows through our veins, it is otherwise slightly different. How else would women be able to bleed for seven days and not pass out from loss of blood? Does the body just go into overdrive?

[Monica, child of God]

Could someone who would know, verify this, please? I've always read in biology texts that it was just the sloughing of the uterine lining and have heard OB/GYNs say the same thing. I know some fresh blood can come out during the cycle but the majority of the blood is what was built up in the lining of the uterus.

Edited to add: I'm not arguing that the principle is not valid since it is possible to lose some of the Body and Blood while bleeding and a small amount of bleeding does take place during menstruation.

Menstrual blood is old, dead cells that were going to be used by a womans body to nourish an embryo. When no fertilized embryo emplants the uterus contricts the blood vessels causing the lining to detach and slough off. There is no "fresh" blood going toward the lining because the body knows that it does not need it anymore.

M.

[Monica, child of God]

I support any woman who decides not to commune in obedience to her priest. The bottom line on this is "Ask your priest." Do not base your practice on something you read on the internet.

M.

[Monica, child of God]

Additionally, I see no evidence in Scripture to suggest that menstruation is an affect of the fall of man. I was taught that the ritual purity laws in the OT were about separating God's people from the pagans around them. The pagan religions had fertility gods and godesses, believed in the power of "the cycles of life" and used blood in their rituals. This was to have no place in Israel so God put these thing far from Jewish ritual.

In any case, I don't know why anyone would think that a menstrual period was because of the fall of man.

M.

[Dust and Ashes]

If sex is somehow a result of the Fall, how were people intended to procreate before the Fall? I've heard Orthodox friends say that many Fathers say humans were created as "beings of light" and at the fall, we were given the bodies we have and that is what was meant when Genesis says God killed animals and made skins to cover Adam and Eve.

[Monica, child of God]

At least one Father of the Church thought that semen contained tiny babies :)

M.

[Wiffey]

At least one Father of the Church thought that semen contained tiny babies :)

M.

Exactly. Which is why we have to look at some of those old canons in the new light of 2000 years of added scientific discovery. But I'm sure someone will post that, if St. Wiggly of Spermopolis thought that semen contained tiny babies, then medical science must be wrong. :doh:

And if grandma on the tiny, isolated mountain crag saw the evil of menstruation while reading the entrails of a goat, then everyone in the parish who has a uterus should obey her edict, irregardless of what the priest & bishop have to say.

[Monica, child of God]

Exactly. Which is why we have to look at some of those old canons in the new light of 2000 years of added scientific discovery. But I'm sure someone will post that, if St. Wiggly of Spermopolis[b] thought that semen contained tiny babies, then medical science must be wrong. :doh:

And if grandma on the tiny, isolated mountain crag saw the evil of menstruation while reading the entrails of a goat, then [b]everyone in the parish who has a uterus should obey her edict, irregardless of what the priest & bishop have to say.

LOL! ^_^

[Wiffey]

And as to Jewish ritual purity...why are we rummaging around to follow some of those rules...unless you wanna go whole hog (no pun intended) and follow ALL 600+ regs.

I thought that Jesus transcended those laws. If not, then let's stop eating traif, get 2 sets of plates/cutlery and cookware to separate meat & milk, stop wearing unauthorized fibers (like any blend of wool & cotton) and basically become Orthodox Jews.

[VickiY]

A rule only applicable to his spiritual children.



How does menstruation take a woman's mind off anything? It is involuntary action of the body which a woman has no control over. It gives no pleasure or distraction. It is nothing at all like marital relations.

Marital relations are voluntary, pleasurable and can be distracting from spiritual matters. It is nothing at all like marital relations. I really, really don't see the connection.



I agree with you there. But at the same time being Orthodox does not mean that we drop our brains at the door. I know how the female reproductive system works and I am not going to pretend that I don't. I also know the difference (physiologically and otherwise) between menstruation and marital relations. I won't pretend that something illogical makes sense because someone's priest said it.

M.


MOD HAT OFF**************

First, we are to abstain from Holy Communion (we, meaning men and women) if we have any emmission of bodily fluids the night before, or the day before. This is per Canon Law, and while many priests will grant an ekonomia on the subject, you must understand that it is the correct thing to do to abstain, as per canons, unless your priest grants an ekonomia.

Second: Please do not argue this subject based on the superstitions and the justifications written online by laity. It is enough that it is prevented by canon law, and we are to be obedient to the teachings of the Church as a whole, unless we are granted ekonomia by our spiritual father, in which case, we are to follow his guidelines.

Third: This rule does not discriminate against women, as the rule about emission applies equally to men and to women. However, we as women are taught by our mothers and grandmothers to abstain, whereas these sweet ladies didn't feel up to explaining to a 12 year old begining her cycle all about nocturnal emissions, so we never heard that part.

FINALLY: This is not a relevant subject for internet debate...When questions are asked concerning what the Orthodox Churches teach, it is more instructive to people to state: THIS is what the Canons say the Church teaches. However, in view of the advances in science, many priests will issue an ekonomia to their spiritual children, so this issue should be between one's self, and one's spiritual father.

[Akathist]

I support any woman who decides not to commune in obedience to her priest. The bottom line on this is "Ask your priest." Do not base your practice on something you read on the internet.

M.

Worth repeating in my opinion.

[Monica, child of God]

MOD HAT OFF**************

First, we are to abstain from Holy Communion (we, meaning men and women) if we have any emmission of bodily fluids the night before, or the day before. This is per Canon Law, and while many priests will grant an ekonomia on the subject, you must understand that it is the correct thing to do to abstain, as per canons, unless your priest grants an ekonomia.

Second: Please do not argue this subject based on the superstitions and the justifications written online by laity. It is enough that it is prevented by canon law, and we are to be obedient to the teachings of the Church as a whole, unless we are granted ekonomia by our spiritual father, in which case, we are to follow his guidelines.

Third: This rule does not discriminate against women, as the rule about emission applies equally to men and to women. However, we as women are taught by our mothers and grandmothers to abstain, whereas these sweet ladies didn't feel up to explaining to a 12 year old begining her cycle all about nocturnal emissions, so we never heard that part.

FINALLY: This is not a relevant subject for internet debate...When questions are asked concerning what the Orthodox Churches teach, it is more instructive to people to state: THIS is what the Canons say the Church teaches. However, in view of the advances in science, many priests will issue an ekonomia to their spiritual children, so this issue should be between one's self, and one's spiritual father.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree with a lot of what you have said but I don't think that canons should be quoted on line. Many people don't know that Canons in the Orthodox Church are not laws and certainly are not dogma. I don't think we can even say "this is what the Orthodox Church teaches" and point to a canon because they are about discipline, not doctrine. We may be able to say "Church practice has been" and point to canon, but I wouldn't even do that.

M.

[Wiffey]

True. There are differences in praxis on this issue, depending on the bishop, so there is no universal opinion. To say that this is a general rule but some priests grant an economia...that is inaccurate.

My priest did not say to me that it was best to refrain, but because it offends my modern sensibility, an exception would be made for me. He said (to me, and to the whole congregation) that a period is no excuse to turn down the offer of receiving holy Communion. He said unless there is a valid spiritual excuse (like a serious unconfessed sin), we are commanded "with faith and with love draw near", every week.

So actually, with the way my priest & bishop do things, it could be said that (for our archdioscese) communing during all parts of your cycle is correct praxis, and a woman should talk to her priest and get an economia if she is going to refuse communion (in direct violation of her priest) during her menses.

Best rule:Find out what YOUR bishop & priest say about it, and OBEY.:liturgy:

[repentant]

Could someone who would know, verify this, please? I've always read in biology texts that it was just the sloughing of the uterine lining and have heard OB/GYNs say the same thing. I know some fresh blood can come out during the cycle but the majority of the blood is what was built up in the lining of the uterus.

Edited to add: I'm not arguing that the principle is not valid since it is possible to lose some of the Body and Blood while bleeding and a small amount of bleeding does take place during menstruation.


Are you saying I don't know? I am a nurse and I used to work at a womens center. Yes it is the uterine lining that comes out. That is why (excuse me) it is chunky, and the blood does not look fresh, because it is mixed in with the lining. The uterus begins to build up blood, but this blood does not sit there for a long period of time. It is still flowing in your body. Think of an erection..same thing. Build up of blood, but the blood is still flowing. It has to flow to be oxygenated. Other wise the blood would be useless. I think the confusing part is that it is blood that is built up in your uterus. But the same blood does not sit there the whole time.

[Theophorus]

If sex is somehow a result of the Fall, how were people intended to procreate before the Fall? I've heard Orthodox friends say that many Fathers say humans were created as "beings of light" and at the fall, we were given the bodies we have and that is what was meant when Genesis says God killed animals and made skins to cover Adam and Eve.


"God's original intention was that we give birth not through marriage and corruption; the violation of the commandment introduced marriage as a result of Adam's transgression, i.e., as a result of falling away from the commandment given to him by God." St. Athanasius

"...the commandment go forth and multiply does not necessarily mean through conjugal union. For God could increase the human race by another means, if people had preserved the commandment inviolate to the end." St. John Damascene

I have heard that we had different bodies than we have now. They were like the bodies that will be resurected at the end, is the most common explanation.

[Dust and Ashes]

Are you saying I don't know? I am a nurse and I used to work at a womens center. Yes it is the uterine lining that comes out. That is why (excuse me) it is chunky, and the blood does not look fresh, because it is mixed in with the lining. The uterus begins to build up blood, but this blood does not sit there for a long period of time. It is still flowing in your body. Think of an erection..same thing. Build up of blood, but the blood is still flowing. It has to flow to be oxygenated. Other wise the blood would be useless. I think the confusing part is that it is blood that is built up in your uterus. But the same blood does not sit there the whole time.

Sometimes it's hard to tell with you because you are often unclear and imprecise with your wording. You basically described menstruation as hemorrhaging and did it in your usual, abrasive manner so at this point I don't really care what you know or don't know.

[Dust and Ashes]

"God's original intention was that we give birth not through marriage and corruption; the violation of the commandment introduced marriage as a result of Adam's transgression, i.e., as a result of falling away from the commandment given to him by God." St. Athanasius

"...the commandment go forth and multiply does not necessarily mean through conjugal union. For God could increase the human race by another means, if people had preserved the commandment inviolate to the end." St. John Damascene

I have heard that we had different bodies than we have now. They were like the bodies that will be resurected at the end, is the most common explanation.

Wow, that's fascinating. Are there any writings that delve into this more deeply?

[VickiY]

True. There are differences in praxis on this issue, depending on the bishop, so there is no universal opinion. To say that this is a general rule but some priests grant an economia...that is inaccurate.

My priest did not say to me that it was best to refrain, but because it offends my modern sensibility, an exception would be made for me. He said (to me, and to the whole congregation) that a period is no excuse to turn down the offer of receiving holy Communion. He said unless there is a valid spiritual excuse (like a serious unconfessed sin), we are commanded "with faith and with love draw near", every week.

So actually, with the way my priest & bishop do things, it could be said that (for our archdioscese) communing during all parts of your cycle is correct praxis, and a woman should talk to her priest and get an economia if she is going to refuse communion (in direct violation of her priest) during her menses.

Best rule:Find out what YOUR bishop & priest say about it, and OBEY.:liturgy:

It IS accurate. I have heard priests say to an entire congregation before (different priests, different congregations) that no fasting is really needed during Great Lent, as only monks fast nowadays. Does that make them correct? NO!

Also, too many priests will not tell someone: THIS is what the Church states, but you are granted an ekonomia as this is a rather outdated canon, and will likely be changed if there is a new Council, and the matter comes up....they proceed to advice according to the ekonomia that they have in mind, and do not bother teaching what the Church says!

However, OBEDIENCE TO ONE'S SPIRITUAL FATHER is the rule! If he says receive while you have your period, then you may do so safely, knowing that you are under obedience, and even if he is incorrect, then it is not your mistake.

Btw....Your inlaws' foolish insistence of bizarre customs that they attribute to the Church is part of the reason that people will leave the Church, if they believe that the Church teaches this sort of silliness...

[Theophorus]

Wow, that's fascinating. Are there any writings that delve into this more deeply?

Fr. Seraphim Rose quotes a lot of patristic sources on it in his book on Genesis. I have run into it a few other places as well. I'll try to dig up some links for you.

[Dust and Ashes]

Fr. Seraphim Rose quotes a lot of patristic sources on it in his book on Genesis. I have run into it a few other places as well. I'll try to dig up some links for you.

Great, thanks.

[repentant]

Sometimes it's hard to tell with you because you are often unclear and imprecise with your wording. You basically described menstruation as hemorrhaging and did it in your usual, abrasive manner so at this point I don't really care what you know or don't know.


I think I was precise and clear. I stated that the blood you bleed out was not stored up but continuinsly flowing. Im sorry if I sound abrasive. How writing is abrasive I don't know.

[Veritas_et_Puritas]

"God's original intention was that we give birth not through marriage and corruption; the violation of the commandment introduced marriage as a result of Adam's transgression, i.e., as a result of falling away from the commandment given to him by God." St. Athanasius

"...the commandment go forth and multiply does not necessarily mean through conjugal union. For God could increase the human race by another means, if people had preserved the commandment inviolate to the end." St. John Damascene

I have heard that we had different bodies than we have now. They were like the bodies that will be resurected at the end, is the most common explanation.

But what does that make of Genesis 1:24? Does this reading lend itself to understand that only after the Fall - Genesis 4:1, for example - Adam and Eve came together in the most intimate physical union?

I have never come upon this point of view - that sexual union itself is a result of the fall - before... certainly I have heard that lust and other distortions relating to sexual union are a result of the fall, but never that sexual union itself is...

[Theophorus]

But what does that make of Genesis 1:24? Does this reading lend itself to understand that only after the Fall - Genesis 4:1, for example - Adam and Eve came together in the most intimate physical union?

I have never come upon this point of view - that sexual union itself is a result of the fall - before... certainly I have heard that lust and other distortions relating to sexual union are a result of the fall, but never that sexual union itself is...

I have not sen this addressed specifically, though your conclusion seems 1 of two possibilities. The second being the union of man and wife transcends the carnal union. Just as Christ loves the Church and we are His bride. Eph 5:25-33 comes to mind. This was a surprise to me also, especailly coming from the protestant "sacred sex" mentality.