Baptism at 40 days

[chaldobyzantine]

Whoa Nan S! Nobody said you’re forbidden to enter church or have communion, you’re just simply excused if you need the time after giving birth and taking care of an infant. Plus Churching is more of a welcoming, blessing, and recognition of your wonderful gift of bringing another child into the world and thanksgiving to God that you are healthy and well.

Nobody does (or ever has done) what you have mentioned in your post as treating a mother like a sinner.

-God Bless.

 

[babochka]

Whoa Nan S! Nobody said you’re forbidden to enter church or have communion, you’re just simply excused if you need the time after giving birth and taking care of an infant. Plus Churching is more of a welcoming, blessing, and recognition of your wonderful gift of bringing another child into the world and thanksgiving to God that you are healthy and well.

Nobody does (or ever has done) what you have mentioned in your post as treating a mother like a sinner.

-God Bless.

It is traditional, and still practiced in some traditions, for a woman to refrain from receiving Holy Communion during the 40 days following childbirth, as well as during menstruation. Like it or not, this was the teaching of many of the fathers of the church. I suspect it might have been practiced in the west at some point as well, although I have no reference for this.

To the OP, this is not universal practice in Orthodoxy today, although some jurisdiction still expect and enforce them. I’ve seen a variety of explanations, but it basically comes down to the fact that it is a tradition. The time of confinement (40 days) predates Christianity, as it is a part of Jewish tradition as well.

I don’t have any real knowledge as to how often this is practiced in modern day Orthodoxy, but maybe some of our Orthodox posters will answer.

 

[Nan_S]

It is traditional, and still practiced in some traditions, for a woman to refrain from receiving Holy Communion during the 40 days following childbirth, as well as during menstruation. Like it or not, this was the teaching of many of the fathers of the church. I suspect it might have been practiced in the west at some point as well, although I have no reference for this.

To the OP, this is not universal practice in Orthodoxy today, although some jurisdiction still expect and enforce them. I’ve seen a variety of explanations, but it basically comes down to the fact that it is a tradition. The time of confinement (40 days) predates Christianity, as it is a part of Jewish tradition as well.

I don’t have any real knowledge as to how often this is practiced in modern day Orthodoxy, but maybe some of our Orthodox posters will answer.

Do you have a reference for this? Which ECFs taught that women should be barred from the Eucharist during menstruation or after childbirth? I have a fairly good collection of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and I can not find such a reference.

Origen, in his Homilies on Leviticus, talks about whether Mary’s virgin birth made her unclean under Mosaic law. He argues that because she received no seed from her husband, the birth of the Savior would not have left her unclean and in need of a sin offering to make atonement. Origin concludes that women in general bear the burdens of Mosaic law, but virgins (Mary) are immune.

And yet, do not the apostles tell us that the Law has been abolished in favor of the New Covenant?

I know the 40-day purification period after the birth of a son (80 days after a daughter) is part of Mosaic law having to do with conjugal relations. The whole ritual uncleanness thing centered around health and fertility, by connecting the blood flow with the taint of sin. If a woman was deemed unclean after childbirth, even the most lustful of husbands would have to leave her alone in the bedchamber until after her body had healed enough to resume conjugal relations. And a woman who was deemed unclean during her period would then resume having conjugal relations just as she was entering the fertile phase of her cycle.

There is a BIG difference between receiving Holy Communion and having sex with your husband.

The specifics of uncleanness connected with a woman’s blood flow are easy enough to find in Leviticus. What I have not found - anywhere - is any Early Church Father saying that a woman was to be denied Holy Communion, or to abstain from Holy Communion, because of her blood. The healing of the perpetually hemorrhaging woman in Mark 5:25-34 would suggest just the opposite. A woman should NOT be denied access to Christ in the Eucharist because of her blood. All the prescriptions of the Law would not heal the sick woman. Touching Jesus in faith was what was necessary.

So why does the Orthodox church adhere to Mosaic law and archaic concepts of uncleanness, instead of allowing women access to the Holy Eucharist???

 

[yawsep1569]

I have never heard of this before, but I think this is a helpful article to read:

orthodoxytoday.org/view/wehr-the-churching-of-women

 

[Nan_S]

I have never heard of this before, but I think this is a helpful article to read:

orthodoxytoday.org/view/wehr-the-churching-of-women

Very interesting article. Thank you. The article points out how very inconsistently Churching is enforced.

Chaldobyzantine, I’m sorry, but your answer appears to be incorrect. Brand-new mothers may included in your community, but sadly that is not the case in many other Orthodox communities. It certainly was not the case in the Orthodox community where I was inquiring; there new mothers were very definitely excluded until officially Churched. The women were bluntly told that they were expected to stay away.

The Churching prayer at the beginning of the article does indeed infer that childbirth casts a sin-taint upon a new mother, something which she needs to be purified from before approaching Holy Communion: "Wash away her bodily uncleanness, and the stains of her soul, in the fulfilling of the forty days. Make her worthy of the communion of thy holy Body and of thy Blood." Recall that the Jewish post-partum purification ritual included the sacrificing of two animals, not one. One was a holocaust offering. The other was a sin offering. In giving birth the mother had not sinned, and yet she was deemed to be tainted by sin anyway through birthing and her blood.

So it seems the Canons of Hippolytus are the source of the teaching that if either new mothers or midwives came to church before the allotted time, they were to be seated “with the catechumens who have not yet been judged worthy to be accepted.” And it is based on this that various Orthodox communities exclude women until they are officially Churched post-partum.

A little more digging shows that the Canons of Hippolytus were written in the mid 300s. Hippolytus himself died about 100 years earlier. That could explain why they’re not included in my books of Early Church Father writing. The true authorship is anonymous.

Orthodoxy is united by the beauty and reverence of Divine Worship. This devout reverence is what drew me to Orthodoxy in the first place. But ultimately, the inconsistency in the underlying doctrines and disciplines is what led me turn away from Orthodoxy and embrace the Catholic church. It is a sad mark of the Orthodox churches that there is no widespread agreement on such important matters as who is allowed to approach Holy Communion and when. The Churching of Women is not the only such important issue treated inconsistently within Orthodoxy.

I might not have noticed the inconsistency in doctrines and disciplines had I lived in an eastern European country where all of Orthodoxy is united under one national church and patriarch. But here in America we have all varieties of Orthodoxy side-by-side, and the differences are all too obvious.

 

[babochka]

Orthodoxy is united by the beauty and reverence of Divine Worship. This devout reverence is what drew me to Orthodoxy in the first place. But ultimately, the inconsistency in the underlying doctrines and disciplines is what led me turn away from Orthodoxy and embrace the Catholic church. It is a sad mark of the Orthodox churches that there is no widespread agreement on such important matters as who is allowed to approach Holy Communion and when. The Churching of Women is not the only such important issue treated inconsistently within Orthodoxy.

.

It is this which has kept me Catholic, in spite of the many problems we know exist within the church. While there may be widespread dissent in the Church, the actual teachings are clear and unambiguous.

 

[Mickey]

It is traditional, and still practiced in some traditions, for a woman to refrain from receiving Holy Communion during the 40 days following childbirth, as well as during menstruation.

Yes. This is the practice in our family. Many Orthodox continue to abide by this tradition. My wife finds it to be spiritually nourishing in an ascetical kind of way. Also, if I have an injury that may be bleeding, I will not receive communion.

 

[Mickey]

It is a sad mark of the Orthodox churches that there is no widespread agreement on such important matters as who is allowed to approach Holy Communion and when.

It seems that you are very angry. There is nothing sad about it. Each Orthodox Christian is obedient to his/her spiritual father/mother. I was drawn to Holy Orthodoxy for many reasons.

There is no reason to begin stating reasons why you may have been drawn away from the Holy Orthodox Church. Everybody has a story.

 

[Mickey]

But here in America we have all varieties of Orthodoxy side-by-side, and the differences are all too obvious.

Interesting that you say this. When I was Latin Catholic…and then Eastern Catholic…I saw many variations on tradition between the Latins, Ruthenians, Ukranians, Melkites, etc.

 

[Nan_S]

It seems that you are very angry. There is nothing sad about it. Each Orthodox Christian is obedient to his/her spiritual father/mother. I was drawn to Holy Orthodoxy for many reasons.

There is no reason to begin stating reasons why you may have been drawn away from the Holy Orthodox Church. Everybody has a story.

I’m not angry. Just extremely disappointed.

I notice you commented on my post but did not offer an answer to the basic question.

Why should a new mother who is able to leave her house be required to wait until a 40-day purification period is completed before being restored to full communion with the church? What sin does she need to be purified of?

One person said that “many ECFs” taught this tradition. Who are these many? Thus far we have only seen the writings of pseudo-Hippolytus, an anonymous author writing a century after the real Hippolytus, who wanted to impose Mosaic law and Jewish traditions upon Christian women. If there are other ECFs who can explain imposing a 40-day ban on receiving the Eucharist, who are they and what did they write?

 

[yawsep1569]

One person said that “many ECFs” taught this tradition. Who are these many? Thus far we have only seen the writings of pseudo-Hippolytus, an anonymous author writing a century after the real Hippolytus, who wanted to impose Mosaic law and Jewish traditions upon Christian women. If there are other ECFs who can explain imposing a 40-day ban on receiving the Eucharist, who are they and what did they write?

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.” It sounds like he is encouraging women to avoid receiving the Eucharist during the 40 days, right?

 

[Mickey]

I’m not angry. Just extremely disappointed.

There is no need to be disappointed. It is a beautiful tradition. But of course, you have free will to have your opinion.

Why should a new mother who is able to leave her house be required to wait until a 40-day purification period is completed before being restored to full communion with the church?

I answered it. It is a tradtion of our Church. And we are obedient to our spiritual father. I understand that some Eastern Catholic Churches hold to the tradition also. It is very spiritually nourishing and ascetical for my wife.

What sin does she need to be purified of?

I once heard a holy priest explain it this way. “A woman giving birth is in contact with the holy process of creating life. That makes a sinful human ritually unclean.”

Also, It is in remembrance of the Most Holy Theotokos and St Joseph bringing the infant Jesus to the temple when He was 40 days old, in accordance with Jewish observance.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not angry. Just extremely disappointed.

I notice you commented on my post but did not offer an answer to the basic question.

Why should a new mother who is able to leave her house be required to wait until a 40-day purification period is completed before being restored to full communion with the church? What sin does she need to be purified of?

One person said that “many ECFs” taught this tradition. Who are these many? Thus far we have only seen the writings of pseudo-Hippolytus, an anonymous author writing a century after the real Hippolytus, who wanted to impose Mosaic law and Jewish traditions upon Christian women. If there are other ECFs who can explain imposing a 40-day ban on receiving the Eucharist, who are they and what did they write?

The belief in the Eucharist is so profound in the early Church that they will not let someone who has active bleeding to receive the Eucharist because they believe that your blood contains the blood of Christ as well, and spilling that will be sacrilege. Some jurisdictions have already accepted the modern understanding of the menstural cycle that the monthly period is not active bleeding, thus they have not barred women from receiving during their cycle. Others have kept the age old teaching because it is the age old teaching. If it was good and produced saints in the past, why can’t it be good today? Part of it is that we shouldn’t be so prideful that we think we know any better. There are a lot of atheists today because of that pride, because of our scientific knowledge they feel they do not need God anymore. So Mickey is right, it is a form of asceticism today, a humility in submitting to the wisdom of the Fathers in the past.

 

[babochka]

One person said that “many ECFs” taught this tradition. Who are these many? Thus far we have only seen the writings of pseudo-Hippolytus, an anonymous author writing a century after the real Hippolytus, who wanted to impose Mosaic law and Jewish traditions upon Christian women. If there are other ECFs who can explain imposing a 40-day ban on receiving the Eucharist, who are they and what did they write?

Here you go. From St. John the Faster

**17. **As for women occupying a separate seat, let them not touch holy things for as many as seven days, the second Canon of St. Dionysius, but in particular the seventh Canon of Timothy bids. This is also what the old Law ordered, but neither did it permit them to have any sexual intercourse with men; for it happens on this account that the seeds sown become weak and evanescent. Hence it was that divine Moses ordered the father of a defective to be stoned to death, on the ground that on account of his intemperance he failed to await the purification of his wife. But as for a woman who has been so scornful of the same uncleanness during this period and has touched the divine Mysteries, they bid her to remain communionless for forty days.
Interpretation.
The present Canon decrees that those women shall not participate in the divine Mysteries who are having their usual trouble of courses and menstruation, or what are commonly called “monthlies,” for at least seven days, just as c. II of Dionysius also decrees, and c. VII of Timothy commands. This same prohibition is found in the old Law, which does not permit such women to have sexual intercourse with their husbands so long as they are having their monthlies, because even the children that are sown and conceived in women who are in such a condition become in consequence weak and defective for the most part. It was for this reason, too, that the Law commanded that the father of a defective child be stoned to death, since on account of his wanton lust he did not have the fortitude to wait for his wife to be purified from monthlies, but slept with her while she was having them, and thus the child sown in her became defective. But if a woman having her monthlies scornfully disregard this fact and partake of the divine Mysteries, they command that she shall not commune again for forty days. Read also c. II of Dionysius.

This is regarding menstruation, but the principle remains the same. He also prescribes a 1 year period of penance for a woman who miscarries.

Canons of Dionysius, 217 A.D.

“Menstruous women ought not to come to the Holy Table, or touch the Holy of Holies, nor to churches, but pray elsewhere.”

I’ve got to go start dinner now. I realize that these are only two examples, and they only refer to menstruation, but I ran out of time for searching. I can find more, if you like, even from among western fathers. Certainly, this was not the only opinion out there. Many others seemed to have taught that ritual impurity had no place in Christianity.

 

[Nan_S]

I answered it. It is a tradtion of our Church. And we are obedient to our spiritual father. I understand that some Eastern Catholic Churches hold to the tradition also. It is very spiritually nourishing and ascetical for my wife.

Once again you have avoided answering. Who is this spiritual father who declares new mothers to be unworthy to approach the Holy Eucharist? What did he write and when? What is the basis for this teaching, other than a re-imposition of the Mosaic law which was abolished by the New Covenant?

You’re just giving the same answer Tevye gives at the beginning of Fiddler on the Roof: We don’t know the reason, but we’ve always done it this way.

• “Because of our traditions, we have kept our balance for many, many years. Here in Anatevka, we have traditions for everything: how to how to eat, how to sleep, how to wear clothes. For instance, we always keep our heads covered, and always wear a little prayer-shawl. This shows our constant devotion to God. You may ask, how did this tradition start? I’ll tell you. I don’t know. But it’s a tradition. And because of our traditions, every one of us knows who he is, and what God expects him to do.”

There’s nothing wrong with beautiful ceremonies, particularly when spiritual refreshment is the end result. The welcoming back of one who has been away is profoundly powerful.

The pronounciation that someone is deemed sinful and unworthy when no sin was committed is a problem. Continuing to condemn non-sinners as being unworthy, even temporarily, because it’s traditional to do so is a problem.

I once heard a holy priest explain it this way. “A woman giving birth is in contact with the holy process of creating life. That makes a sinful human ritually unclean.”

Also, It is in remembrance of the Most Holy Theotokos and St Joseph bringing the infant Jesus to the temple when He was 40 days old, in accordance with Jewish observance.

If creating life is the reason, and life begins at conception, why is it only birth that makes a woman ritually impure? Why not her entire pregnancy?
For that matter, why doesn’t the father who did half the work in conceiving the child also have to be purified before being received back into communion?
The Holy Theotokos and St. Joseph were obeying Jewish law, because Jesus had not yet abolished the law with the New Covenant. There was no Holy Communion yet for them to participate in. There was only the mandates for temple sacrifices.

The belief in the Eucharist is so profound in the early Church that they will not let someone who has active bleeding to receive the Eucharist because they believe that your blood contains the blood of Christ as well, and spilling that will be sacrilege.

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.

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 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?

If it was good and produced saints in the past, why can’t it be good today? Part of it is that we shouldn’t be so prideful that we think we know any better. There are a lot of atheists today because of that pride, because of our scientific knowledge they feel they do not need God anymore. So Mickey is right, it is a form of asceticism today, a humility in submitting to the wisdom of the Fathers in the past.

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…

 

[Mickey]

Once again you have avoided answering.

I have answered. Perhaps you do not have the ears to hear.

Who is this spiritual father who declares new mothers to be unworthy to approach the Holy Eucharist?

Who is this Roman Catholic layperson who is criticizing someone’s spiritual father. Oh my!

The pronounciation that someone is deemed sinful and unworthy when no sin was committed is a problem.

No sin? I do not know anyone who does not sin. Proper preparation is of utmost importance when anticipating the reception of Holy Communion. Sometimes the mother has had to miss Liturgy and may not be able to get to confession for a long time or keep to her prayer rule.

The tradition, and the ascetical practice of the 40 day Churching is very spiritually nourishing. Who are **you **to say differently?!?

Continuing to condemn non-sinners as being unworthy, even temporarily, because it’s traditional to do so is a problem.

What a terrible thing to say! No one is condemning anyone.

At one time the churching of women was imperative in both the East and the West, but it has largely been discontinued in the West, mainly due to liberal and feminist influences found there. Feminists have even condemned the practice as an oppressive ritual with an oppressive message.

Which church father gave that teaching?

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

When touching Jesus cured her active bleeding, does it make sense to deny the Precious Blood to someone else actively bleeding?

For not even the woman with a twelve years’ issue would come into actual contact with Him, but only with the edge of His garment, to be cured.

Humility is in accepting what is true, even though you don’t understand it…

Humility is accepting that people other than yourself…practice long standing traditions of the Church…are obedient to their spiritual fathers…and gain great spiritual nourishment from their praxis.

Instead, I only see belittlement and insults from your posts. How very sad.

Here is another great article on the subject:

russian-inok.org/page.php/page.php?page=english2&dir=english&month=0205

 

[Nan_S]

Here you go. From St. John the Faster
This is regarding menstruation, but the principle remains the same. He also prescribes a 1 year period of penance for a woman who miscarries.

Canons of Dionysius, 217 A.D.

I’ve got to go start dinner now. I realize that these are only two examples, and they only refer to menstruation, but I ran out of time for searching. I can find more, if you like, even from among western fathers. Certainly, this was not the only opinion out there. Many others seemed to have taught that ritual impurity had no place in Christianity.

Yes, please, if there are other Fathers who support or explain these teachings, I’d like to know more. I’d particularly like to know if you can find a reference explaining why a new mother was counted amongst the unworthy sinners for 40 days.

I note that Archbishop Dionysius of Alexandria gave no rationale nor explanation. St. John the Faster’s explanation is rooted in superstition; despite his beliefs, menstrous women can not conceive defective children during their courses because women do not ovulate during menstruation. It is irrational to use a patently untrue fear (that a menstrous woman would produce defective children) to deny her access to the Sacred Mysteries.

I find nothing in the Bible which imposes a punishment of stoning on the father of a defective child. Perhaps that is in some other part of Jewish law, but I question whether it was true. In evidence I offer the miracle of Jesus healing the man blind from birth; both his parents were still quite alive and well when the Jews questioned them about the miracle.

The Mosaic ban on conjugal relations during and immediately after menstruation was designed to maximize the chances that a woman would conceive, because a couple would resume having relations just as she was about to ovulate. Anyone who ever practiced the Rhythm method or Natural Family Planning knows this.

 

[Nan_S]

I have answered. Perhaps you do not have the ears to hear.

No, you have not answered. You have scrupulously avoided answering by sidestepping the question and acting insulted that someone wants a straight answer. My, my, you say, why should you answer some unworthy layperson? How condescending.

Giving birth is not a sin. Denying someone access to the Eucharist during 40 days of purification for an act that is not sinful is problematic. Yes, everyone sins. Yes, everyone needs perpetual redemption. But the 40-day uncleanness ban is not an everyday kind of renewal.

If your ancient traditions have some justification for imposing this 40-day denial in anything besides their antiquity, bring it forth so that I may be instructed. But if they have no other justification other than comfortable tradition, you have a duty to yourself and the women in your hearing to admit that.

Now you quote a teaching of St. Cyril which has absolutely nothing to do with why a woman should need 40 days of purification after childbirth before receiving the Eucharist. More sidestepping.

If you have nothing more to offer besides sidestepping and taking insult, then you offer a poor defense of the faith, and I will conclude my correspondence with you.

 

[Mickey]

you have not answered.

Yes I have. You do not have ears to hear or eyes to see. And now your posts are becoming rather obstinate.

acting insulted that someone wants a straight answer.

The answer was given. I do not care that you cannot accept it. Multitudes of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics disagree with you. The insult comes when you begin denigrating a person’s spiritual father.

My, my, you say, why should you answer some unworthy layperson?

We are all unworthy. But you have been given answers.

Giving birth is not a sin.

Of course not.

Denying someone access to the Eucharist during 40 days of purification for an act that is not sinful is problematic.

The decision is made between one’s spiritual father/pastor and the individual. There is no arm twisting. There is no angry denials against one’s will. Perhaps you have had a bad experience along the way somewhere…but as I have already indicated…many women (including my wife) see it as spiritually nourishing and ascetical.

But the 40-day uncleanness ban is not an everyday kind of renewal.

It is called the 40 day Churching…and you are correct…it only occurs for certain periods of time.

But if they have no other justification other than comfortable tradition

Comfortable? I would not say that it is “comfortable.” My wife (and many other women that I know) call it spiritually nourishing and ascetical. Asceticism is not usually comfortable.

Now you quote a teaching of St. Cyril which has absolutely nothing to do with why a woman should need 40 days of purification after childbirth before receiving the Eucharist.

That was in response to another question you asked about bleeding. Please stop grandstanding.

you offer a poor defense of the faith, and I will conclude my correspondence with you.

Why must you continue your angry insults. Perhaps it is better if you stop correspondence. I have no problem accepting that your spiritual father does not condone the tradition of the 40 day Churching for you.

It is sad that you cannot extend the same courtesy.

 

[Mickey]

I note that Archbishop Dionysius of Alexandria gave no rationale nor explanation. St. John the Faster’s explanation is rooted in superstition;

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