Baptism at 40 days

[Mickey]

Though St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome did not forbid women from receiving Communion, he says, “But when a woman does not dare, because of her great reverence, to go there, she is to be praised.”

Yes.

 

[babochka]

Wow! You even denigrate one of the saints. Lord have mercy.

Saints are neither infallible nor impeccable. I’m sure more than a few Orthodox would denigrate many of the views of St. Augustine, while still recognizing his sanctity.

 

[Mickey]

Saints are neither infallible nor impeccable.

No one is infallible or impeccable.

I’m sure more than a few Orthodox would denigrate many of the views of St. Augustine, while still recognizing his sanctity.

Most of the Orthodox I know revere him as a great saint…which of course he was. I would never pretend to think that I know better than one of God’s saints.

 

[ConstantineTG]

OK, that’s one I never heard before. It sounds like an unverified anecdote rooted in superstition, rather than an authentic teaching by the Fathers. Effectively what you’re saying here that a dying man could be refused Holy Unction because he was bleeding, and his blood would touch the ground. Which church father gave that teaching? Once again I find no hint of this idea in my collection of ECF writings.

Based on your reaction here, you can simply dismiss our entire faith as merely superstition. Why do you think we need to reserve the Eucharist in a tabernacle, why do we use vessels of precious metals? Doesn’t that sound like superstition as well?

A bleeding dying man would certainly not be given Communion, but he certainly can be given Anointing. Why is that hard to accept? Don’t you agree that by receiving the Eucharist, that Jesus Christ comes into you both spiritually and physically?

Tell me, what do you do with a cup of the Precious Blood if it is becomes contaminated and undrinkable, perhaps when a sick person sneezed into it? Do you not spill it out onto the fresh earth? Would that be any more of a sacrilege than giving the Precious Blood to a dying man whose own blood is flowing out onto the ground?

I haven’t heard anyone throw out the Eucharist just because someone sneezed into it. Remember in our Churches we receive the Eucharist from a common spoon shared by all. Sneezing into the Eucharist is no big deal. And there is a difference between intentionally pouring the Eucharist into the ground, than letting it bleed out which would probably be spilled in more places. Unless you want to tell women to bury their nappies.

I knew the Jews did not let diseased people enter the temple, and that the hemhorraging woman was considered condemned because she had abnormal bleeding. When touching Jesus cured her active bleeding, does it make sense to deny the Precious Blood to someone else actively bleeding?

Did the woman touching Jesus have Jesus enter into full communion with her both spiritually and physically? Perhaps we can let menstruating women touch the Eucharist, but not consume it? Those are two different things.

Once again, which Fathers and what did they say? If a teaching was based on supersitition, misunderstanding, and unverified anecdotes, it could still produce saints. What I’m seeing here is vague unverifiable references, virtuous in application but questionable in origin.

It is not prideful at all to discern between unverified anecdotes and authentic teaching. Truth fears no challenges and will always be proven right. Humility is in accepting what is true, even though you don’t understand it…

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx

 

[Mickey]

the Mosaic law which was abolished by the New Covenant?

Christ did not abolish the Old Testament…He fulfilled it.

 

[Nan_S]

Christ did not abolish the Old Testament…He fulfilled it.

I never said Christ abolished the Old Testament. I said, like the apostles themselves said, that he abolished Mosaic law. Once again you try to make connections where they do not exist.

Enough. Your answers are vague, unsupported and condescending, and you don’t know when to stop picking a fight. I’ll have no more of your sinful self-righteous attitude.

 

[Mickey]

I said, like the apostles themselves said, that he abolished Mosaic law.

I do not think that the apostles said that Christ “abolished” the Old Covenant. He fulfilled it.

I’ll have no more of your sinful self-righteous attitude.

It is very sad to me that you must continue to hurl insults, judgment, and condemnation at people in an effort to prove that YOUR understanding…is the correct one.

The Most Holy Theotokos honored the purity ritual as we see in the Gospel of St Luke. She did not have to do this because she gave birth to the Christ child. She did this out of humility.

It is meet and right that we imitate our Lady. God will honor this.

 

[Nan_S]

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx

I thank you for posting this. It does give an interesting interpretation of St. John Chrysostomos. If I understand it correctly, the interpretation of the unnamed Fathers and Mothers is that even though the mind and conscience are clean, the body still must be chastised for involuntary impurity. Therefore someone with an involuntary emission must not approach the Eucharist.

I do appreciate your reverence. Yet I have trouble accepting that involuntary functions make us unworthy to commune. St. John did not make that declaration; it was made by nameless “Fathers and Mothers” who came later. Can you expound on this? Who were these other Fathers and Mothers, and where can I read their writings?

I think a large part of my difficulty in accepting this comes from my understanding of what robs someone of the state of grace. One must be in a state of grace to approach the Eucharist. Mortal sin has three elements: gravity, knowledge, and free consent. An involuntary emission is not something we consent to doing, therefore an involuntary emission can not rob someone of grace. Such an involuntary emission would include both normal messy bodily functions and a man bleeding to death.

A bleeding dying man would certainly not be given Communion, but he certainly can be given Anointing. Why is that hard to accept? Don’t you agree that by receiving the Eucharist, that Jesus Christ comes into you both spiritually and physically?

Yes, I do agree that Jesus comes into us both spiritually and physically. Yet the Precious Blood is given by mouth, not by intravenous injection. Following that idea to its logical conclusion, the Eucharist should be refused to anyone likely to use the privy.

This conclusion you reach is hard to accept because I have seen no justification. An appeal to accept the teachings of anonymous Fathers and Mothers is not sufficiently convincing.

Certainly cleanliness is required to approach the Eucharist, in as much as achieving that physical cleanliness is voluntarily possible. But if a person were near death or otherwise unable to help himself be physically clean due to infirmity, he could still achieve the necessary state of grace and we would not refuse him the Eucharist.

Based on your reaction here, you can simply dismiss our entire faith as merely superstition. Why do you think we need to reserve the Eucharist in a tabernacle, why do we use vessels of precious metals? Doesn’t that sound like superstition as well?

You introduce two logical fallacies: Sweeping Generalization and Irrelevant Conclusion. The question was on what grounds a new mother should be deemed impure and unworthy to approach the Eucharist. The superstition was that any child conceived during a woman’s menses would be defective, and therefore a menstrous woman was unclean. This had nothing to do with using the tabernacle or vessels of precious metals, and certainly had nothing to do with dismissing the entire faith.

I have no intent to dismiss the faith. I seek to increase my understanding. Please avoid introducing diversion in lieu of supporting your position.

 

[Mickey]

This conclusion you reach is hard to accept because I have seen no justification.

Canon 2 of St Dionysius of Alexandria
"Concerning menstruous women, whether they ought to enter the temple of God while in such a state, I think it superfluous even to put the question. For, I think, not even themselves, being faithful and pious, would dare when in this state either to approach the Holy Table or to touch the body and blood of Christ.

St Timothy of Alexandria canon 7
If a woman finds herself in the plight peculiar to her sex, ought she to come to the Mysteries on that day, or not?

Answer: She ought not to do so, until she has been purified.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lectures”, ca. 350 AD
"Let us, then, with full confidence, partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. For in the figure of bread His Body is given to you, and in the figure of wine His Blood is given to you, so that by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, you might become united in body and blood with Him. For thus do we become Christ-bearers. **His Body and Blood being distributed through our members. **

“In the Holy Eucharist man becomes What he consumes.”
Pope St Leo the Great

I have no intent to dismiss the faith.

Then perhaps it would be wise to accept the fact that there are many Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics who follow a tradition… and are obedient to their spiritual fathers… in areas that you do not fully grasp.

Please avoid introducing diversion

There you go again.

 

[nishkalank]

I belong to the Syro-Malabar Rite. This is one of the three Rites in India The general rule is that on the seventh day of birth an infant should be baptized. However it is not strictly enforced on account of many personal reasons. Baptism is made usually within a month or two. In some cases …like wanting some relatives from abroad or distant places or the father working in distant polace etc it may be a bit longer time

Nishkalank K.