The Eucharist and women's menstural cycles

[Formosus]

Nonsense.
I will ignore it since you cannot provide the context.

It is a practice which still exists (by obedience to holy spiritual fathers/mothers and Elders)…including from the Russian Orthodox Church.

I can provide you with some early canons if you wish.

You own quote from Gregory said that no one could tell a women she can’t receive due to her menstruation cycle.

If you want a better context, it was condemned as part of the “Novgorod heresy” or the judaizers who wished to impose all the Mosaic law customs on Christian. (jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9030-judaizing-heresy-zhidovstvu-yushchaya-yeres, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sect_of_Skhariya_the_Jew). I can not find anything more on the council aside from repeated references to judaic practices and mosaic law. I also found an article from a contemporary Orthodox nun where she shows how this practice is probably a hold over from paganism or judaism, and is not in line with Christian anthropology. descentoftheholyspirit.org/articles/article9.html

 

[Mickey]

You own quote from Gregory said that no one could tell a women she can’t receive due to her menstruation cycle.

No. It said to praise her if she decides to refrain…and we are obedient to our spiritual directors. The heresy term shouldn’t be thrown around so loosely.

If you want a better context, it was condemned as part of the “Novgorod heresy” or the judaizers who wished to impose all the Mosaic law customs on Christian.

We are not talking about Judaizers…are we?

I also found an article from a contemporary Orthodox nun where she shows how this practice is probably a hold over from paganism or judaism, and is not in line with Christian anthropology.

And I found the retort to her article. pravmir.com/article_663.html

Furthermore, the opinion of one nun is not proof of your implied judgement of heresy.

I find it rather offensive that you are attempting stick a label of heresy on multitudes of spiritual fathers, mothers, and elders…from Mt Athos to holy Russia.

 

[Mickey]

What they are saying is it should not be forbidden.

It is a matter of obedience to one’s spiritual director…for the Eastern Catholics also.

 

[TrueLight]

I sure hope that the reason the women were “excused” would be to give them a little break to take it easy during what could be a difficult time.

I doubt that’s the reason why.

 

[Formosus]

No. It said to praise her if she decides to refrain.…and we are obedient to our spiritual directors. The heresy term shouldn’t be thrown around so loosely.
We are not talking about Judaizers…are we?

And I found the retort to her article. pravmir.com/article_663.html

Furthermore, the opinion of one nun is not proof of your implied judgement of heresy.

I find it rather offensive that you are attempting stick a label of heresy on multitudes of spiritual fathers, mothers, and elders…from Mt Athos to holy Russia.

And to bring up your own quote, it also says

“A woman should not be forbidden to go to church. After all, she suffers this involuntarily. She cannot be blamed for that superfluous matter that nature excretes…She is also not to be forbidden to receive Holy Communion at this time.”
St Gregory the Great—Pope of Rome

So a Spiritual Father giving a penance like that, would be going against the Patristic tradition. Further, it is a judaizing practice. The ritual impurity law of the OT does not apply to Christians and attempts to impose that is a judaization. I have made no such accusations of heresy against individual elders or spiritual fathers, and its an emotional strawman to suggest that I have. What I have condemned are these judaizing practices which the Church has condemned over and over, even the Muscovite Orthodox Church at the Sobor of 1503 as I already pointed out.

 

[Mickey]

So a Spiritual Father giving a penance like that, would be going against the Patristic tradition.

You misunderstand St Gregory. Furthermore, there are at least two canons which address this earlier than St Gregory and it is also found in the Rudder.

You must not understand spiritual fathers.

Further, it is a judaizing practice.

It is an ancient tradition.

Even some of your fellow Eastern Catholics do not agree with you. So I suppose the “emotional strawman” rebuttal has failed.

 

[Bezant]

I’m saddened by the negative comments here because people rather judge based on their own tradition and current understanding rather than learn why another tradition does this differently.

This practice is borne out of a good understanding of what Communion is. When we receive the Eucharist we believe our own body and blood becomes one (or in communion with) Jesus Christ. So not only menstrual cycles, but anyone is forbidden from Communion if they have active bleeding because it is believed that in your blood is Jesus and thus you will bleed Jesus out. This has nothing to do with Judaic ritual purity.

Of course modern science has proven that menstruation is not active bleeding. Some Churches stick to this practice as it has already been part of their traditions for well over 1000 years.

+1

 

[Formosus]

You misunderstand St Gregory. Furthermore, there are at least two canons which address this earlier than St Gregory and it is also found in the Rudder.

You must not understand spiritual fathers.

It is an ancient tradition.

Even some of your fellow Eastern Catholics do not agree with you. So I suppose the “emotional strawman” rebuttal has failed.

The “emotional strawman” was you saying that I was accusing elders and spiritual fathers of heresy. Perhaps you can provide more quotations that show why I do not understand Gregory, when he clearly says “She is also not to be forbidden to receive Holy Communion at this time.”

And yes, Judaizing is an ancient problem. See the ebionites.

 

[rinnie]

As I mentioned, from what I had learned, this has nothing to do with ritual purity of the Jews but rather avoiding the blood of Christ which now runs in your own veins after receiving the Eucharist from bleeding out.

Hi Constantine, I have never heard of such a thing. Do you have any resources I can read up on this.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hi Constantine, I have never heard of such a thing. Do you have any resources I can read up on this.

Rinnie, from my own (limited) understanding, the idea that Christ’s blood is somehow mixed with yours after communion is itself heretical. Please note: A person donating blood in this state (right after communion) would not be in any way, donating Christ’s blood. Any bleeding happening is strictly your own, none of that blood is Christ’s. I’ll see if I can get a reference and post it here.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Obviously a bunch of men have answered this thread. They don’t realize that when a woman’s has her cycle, sometimes she doesn’t feel that clean. To the men out there, why don’t you try changing a bloody pad or tampon several times a day for about a week and see how you feel. During their cycles, women are often crampy, bloated, irritated, headachy, and not feeling their best.

If a woman feels like she can’t go because she has her cycle, she should be respected. Remember in the days of the Old Testament, the products we have today didn’t exist and therefore one of the reasons why they weren’t allowed inside the temple was because of hygienic reasons. They would probably bleed in the temple. Even in those days, they knew blood could spread some type of disease. Sometimes today the products aren’t perfect. Depending on the day, a woman may have to change quite frequently. It is kind of difficult to concentrate on your Lord when you are afraid of the pad you are wearing may fail because your flow is so heavy or the washroom is locked or far away.

If Orthodox women or women in general don’t feel like going to adoration or receive the Eucharist, respect their decision and keep the door open for whenever they do want to go.

I highly suggest that men, do not bring a priest into this, because this is a woman’s territory! If you must, ask a nun to speak with her or provide the woman with some literature. After that let it go. Until the guys get a period, they won’t understand this.

If a woman is in the state of grace there should be no obstacle in receiving communion. Saying one is allowed to receive communion should not be misconstrued as urging women to do so, of course communion is always a matter of free will and one should be forced to receive. I can understand where the symptoms that goes with menstruation would impede ones ability to go to adoration. But there shouldn’t be a perceived obstacle that one is impure or unworthy because of menstruation that would influence one not to go to communion or adoration.

 

[Mickey]

The “emotional strawman” was you saying that I was accusing elders and spiritual fathers of heresy.

If you are saying that those who honour this ancient tradition by obedience to their spiritual fathers/mothers…are honoring a heresy…then you are calling all of them heretics.

Perhaps you can provide more quotations that show why I do not understand Gregory, when he clearly says “She is also not to be forbidden to receive Holy Communion at this time.”

He also said:

*If, however, a woman does not dare to receive, for great trepidation, she should be praised. *(and, of course, she would confer with her spiritual father/mother)

and

But if she does receive she should not be judged.* (could this mean that most did not receive?)*

and

*But the fact that nature is thus disturbed, that it appears stained even against human will – this is the result of a sin…So if a pious woman reflects upon these things and wishes not to approach communion, she is to be praised. *(of course, after conferring with her spiritual father/mother)

And yes, Judaizing is an ancient problem. See the ebionites.

The pracrice of refraining from communion during menstruation has nothing to do with the Ebionites.

 

[Mickey]

Thank you Jharek. I hope the Feast of Nativity and Theophany was blessed for you and your family.

 

[Mickey]

In regard to the issue of uncleaness…it is my understanding that in the early Church, because of the lack of sanitary practices…most women did not even attend Church during this time. There are a couple of early canons that address the issue:

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.

Canon 17 of St John the Faster supports these early canons.

Having said that, most Eastern Churches take the route of St Pope Gregory the Great’s quote and allow both options (of course…after consultation with one’s spiritual father/mother).

 

[Mickey]

Rinnie, from my own (limited) understanding, the idea that Christ’s blood is somehow mixed with yours after communion is itself heretical.

I have never heard this.

When I was Eastern Catholic, I remember being told by one of the priests that he could not partake if he cut himself before receiving and could not stop the flow of blood. I thought I had heard the same thing during my time in the Latin Catholic Church.

 

[Marybeloved]

I have never heard this.

When I was Eastern Catholic, I remember being told by one of the priests that he could not partake if he cut himself before receiving and could not stop the flow of blood. I thought I had heard the same thing during my time in the Latin Catholic Church.

The Body of Our Lord remains with the species and ends when the species dissolves. How exactly would it be in the blood when the form of bread and wine has changed into other things?

 

[Mickey]

This is from the Coptic Church:

Women should not partake of the Holy Communion when they are menstruating.

After a woman gives birth, she is not to partake of the Holy Communion until after forty
days, if she delivered a boy, and eighty days if she delivered a girl. Hence, the first time she receives Holy Communion, after child birth, is on the day of her child’s baptism after the priest prays for her the woman’s absolution.

It is not preferable for a person to walk barefoot, or for a man to shave, directly after Communion. This is to avoid any wound occurring which may bleed. If, however, bleeding does occur unintentionally, the blood must be wiped with a piece of cloth or cotton, then burned in fire.

 

[rinnie]

I understand that there are Church’s that have this teaching or discipline, I am thinking it is more of a discipline but I am not sure.

But what I am asking is where did it originate from. I mean would it not had to have come from SS or ST. That is where I am confused,

I mean I can understand that it is indeed a result of sin, but its not actual sin its original sin, and by the Cross we are free from Original sin.

Now I can see in the O.T how it could make a women unclean because of sin because Original Sin was in existance then.

But what I don’t understand a woman can indeed be in a state or Grace because would not Jesus wiping out original sin taken care of this.

I am wondering also that as we all know, although we have no new SS OR ST and nothing truly changes our understanding by the Grace of the Holy Spirit in time reveals everything.

The Holy Spirit is continuing teaching us through the Church and revealing things when God feels we are able to understand or accept them. Through the Grace of God there are many things we understand better today then hundreds of years ago.

But back to where I am confused, I understand this is quoted by early Fathers of the Church, I don’t doubt that. But remember they could only reveal what was revealed to them. I hope this makes sense the point I am trying to make.

Here something else I can’t comprehend. How could you ever become closer in this world to God then to be untied with him in the Eucharist? It is at that moment that Christ becomes one in you, that could never be acomplished any other way.

I am just trying to make sense out of this teaching.

I mean when you are in a state of sin I feel that no being able to receive the Eucharist is your punishment and not being able to be joined to Christ in that special way is what pushes us to confess our sins and become back into the Grace of God.

 

[TrueLight]

If you are saying that those who honour this ancient tradition by obedience to their spiritual fathers/mothers…are honoring a heresy…then you are calling all of them heretics.
.

This is the way I see it. It is either a Catholic belief or it is not. I may find it interesting, and of course I have no reason to call it heretical, because frankly the Orthodox are not Catholic (hence why this thread is in “non-catholic religions”.

However, if a Catholic chooses to believe this then they are going against Catholic teaching as MaryBeloved pointed out. I see no reason to give credence to this belief or any other non-Catholic belief. And I see no reason why Eastern Catholics should give it any credence either.

 

[Bezant]

• 1