Eastern Disciplines and Theology of the Body

[DL82]

As I understand it, the Eastern Catholic Churches’ disciplines include occasions (e.g. during lent and other fasting periods) when married people are supposed to abstain from the marriage bed. It is also (and please correct me if I’m wrong) not permitted for a woman to take communion during her period. I’m not sure whether men and women are also supposed to abstain from the marriage bed during a woman’s period, maybe someone can clarify?

Anyway, that brings me to my question. Aren’t these disciplines likely to encourage a view that sees married sex as sinful, or at least as imperfect and tainted, which is contrary to Catholic teaching? How do Eastern Catholics reconcile these teachings with these disciplines?

For example, saying that a woman’s natural fertility cycle, which is a gift from God for her unique vocation to motherhood, is an impediment to receiving Christ in the eucharist seems to place her in a status where her naturally-functioning body is an impediment to holiness?

Also, if a couple are trying to practice NFP, and their particular church states that the few days they can enjoy the marital embrace that month are fast days, wouldn’t that make it unnecessarily difficult for them to be faithful?

 

[bpbasilphx]

It is also (and please correct me if I’m wrong) not permitted for a woman to take communion during her period.

**This discipline (observed only by some Orthodox) is based on a totally false understanding of the physiology of menstruation.

Obviously, the capillaries of the uterus have to have sealed off BEFORE the discharge of the endometrium can occur. Otherwise, the woman would bleed to death.

Some priests have said that because of a better knowledge of the process, this need no longer be observed.

There have been some pious souls who have said, “Jesus will leak out!” And I’ve heard of at least one “traditionalist” Orthodox center that insists that women who go to communion–and then their period starts–are to bring the sanitary supplies to them to be burned.

This is just one step away from the revolting heresy of stercoarianism.

And then there’s one old priest who said, “Technically this is true. But if you don’t tell me, how would I know? It’s none of my business.”**

 

[Formosus]

The idea isn’t that married sex is sinful , it is a way of mortifying the flesh and offering a small sacrifice to God.Just because we are asked to fast doesn’t mean that eating food is sinful, much like abstaining from sex during the fast doesn’t mean married sexual activity is not sinful.

I personally do not see what is so harsh about this. Is our culture so ingrained with sex that even stopping for 40 days is too much of a burden?

 

[Aramis]

The only specific instruction I’ve heard on sexual abstinence is that it is part of the required Eucharistic fast for married clerics, and it’s encouraged for Great Lent and the Eucharistic fast. (Which results in a lot of Mid-winter babies!)

 

[DL82]

This is just one step away from the revolting heresy of stercoarianism.

Thanks for all your replies. I have always admired the Eastern Churches’ strong rythm of fasting and feasting, and the way the rythm of prayer really pervades the Churches’ life. I’m just trying to understand better how to reconcile this rythm with the rythms of married life as it ought to be lived.

What is the heresy of stercoarianism? I tried googling it and looking it up on Wiki but all I could find were references back to this page. Not heard of this one before.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
What is the heresy of stercoarianism?**

**To put it sweetly, it’s the notion that the Body and Blood of Christ received in the Eucharist are subject to the same processes of digestion and elimination as ordinary food.

“Stercus” is the exact Latin equivalent of the 4 letter English word.**

 

[Mattapoisett64]

**
What is the heresy of stercoarianism?**

**To put it sweetly, it’s the notion that the Body and Blood of Christ received in the Eucharist are subject to the same processes of digestion and elimination as ordinary food.

“Stercus” is the exact Latin equivalent of the 4 letter English word.**

OK, we would hold that the *accidents *of bread and wine **are **subject to the “same processes of digestion and elimination as ordinary food.” We would also hold that the Eucharistic Presence is no longer there when the material accidents are no longer bread and wine, as in, having been subjected to the biology of digestion. So: is the heresy that the Eucharistic Presence somehow survives the biological processes of digestion and material decomposition of the accidents in the body? Just to clarify - this was a new one on me.

 

[bpbasilphx]

So: is the heresy that the Eucharistic Presence somehow survives the biological processes of digestion and material decomposition of the accidents in the body? Just to clarify - this was a new one on me.

I repeated exactly how stercoarianism was summarized in an old (19th century) book of Church history used in Irish seminaries once upon a time. It went into no more detail than I did.