The Eucharist and women's menstural cycles

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasonjessica09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jasonjessica09 said:
My wife is Coptic Orthodox and she has always restrained from receiving Jesus in the Eucharist whenever her time of the month comes. I’ve never heard this from anybody else but her but is this true for Orthodox Christain women not to go to Holy Communion when they have periods?

What makes it worse for me as a Catholic is that she won’t go to Eucharsitic Adoration with me either when this occurs. I tell her that there is never a reason to deny yourself a chance to be at least present in front of Jesus. So yeah I have tried for a very very long time to convince her that its ok to go to Adoration during her time of the month but she still has refused to do this.

So I am trying to get a gauge on this from people because I’m not really what the correct answer is.
Click to expand...
Yes, Polish in my family did that about 3-5 generations ago. The women could not attend the High Mass when the Eucharist was given. Today’s church tends to not actually have anyone leave at the point of the High Mass anymore. But still, in some cultures it may still be practiced from older members to at least abstain from the eucharist. Other events too! LIke I recall child naming in my family about 2 -3 generations ago did not allow the mother to be present because she was still considered unclean and they were Roman Catholic. It’s not really a doctrine or a belief from a the church but the church interacts with cultures that tend to bring their own values into how they practice their faith. Thus you see American Catholics attending Epiphany on the 8th of January, and you see others on the 6th, the Ethiopians celebrate it on the 19th, and another group on the 24th. You might even see arabic catholics (Maronites) attend overnight on the 5th into the 6th and the Coptic Orthodox have their views. In death, some cultures spend the night and live in the cemetery on night the night of the 31st, and in some cultures they will nail real people on cross with real nails during easter. Each culture puts their own signature to their expression. The church doesn’t necessarily teach it, it just is their practice.
 
It was pretty predictable the “Orthodox are Catholic” comment was coming. I just opted out of putting a disclaimer in my response. 😛
 
I actually think Churching is an awesome practice and some traditional parishes still do it.

This is my issue. I want reconciliation like everyone else and I admire some of the East’s theology especially where it concerns prayer and relationship with God.

What I do have issue with is the belief that it is okay for Eastern Catholics to believe theology that does not align with “Catholic” teaching ( For the purposes of this forum, can we use Catholic versus Orthodox)?

One cannot say that it is okay for an Eastern Catholic to believe that the Eucharist is digested and then is still in the blood, so that if one bleeds, one risks bleeding out Jesus. It may be okay for some Orthodox to believe that, because… well, that’s what they believe.

But this is more than just a different way of looking at the same thing.
 
Lol! I made a New Years’s resolution not to talk about Harry Potter with you in 2012! :rotfl:
 
Many of the older ladies in my parish remember churching. They never give the impression that they appreciated the tradition and glad for the most part it’s gone.
 
Mickey said:
Source please.

St Gregory the Great—Pope of Rome
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. If, however, a woman does not dare to receive, for great trepidation, she should be praised. But if she does receive she should not be judged. Pious people see sin even there, where there is none. Now one often performs innocently that which originates in a sin: when we feel hunger, this occurs innocently. Yet the fact that we experience hunger is the fault of the first man. The menstrual period is no sin; it is, in fact, a purely natural process. 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. But again, if she wants to live religiously and receive communion out of love, one should not stop her.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in this quote that demonstrates a practice was reversed, from not allow, to, allow. There may have been some controversy at the time the pope was addressing. It does not indicate a thing that was once forbidden is now permitted.

Pope John Paul II wrote to clear up controversy saying women are not to be ordained as priests. That did not mean that before that time they were. It was not a new norm, but it affirmed the old.
 
Mickey said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. 🤷
Click to expand...
In the papal quote cited the pope wrote that menstruating women can receive the Eucharist. There is nothing in the quote that this was something new, a new policy that the thing in question, which is allowed, was once forbidden.

Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae condemning artificial contraception as sinful. His letter did not change anything.

JPII wrote on women’s ordination. He did not change anything.

These letters affirmed ongoing practice or teaching.

There is no evidence in the papal quote you posted that prior to that time women were not allowed to receive.

I am sorry for not being clearer.
 
grandfather said:
In the papal quote cited the pope wrote that menstruating women can receive the Eucharist. There is nothing in the quote that this was something new, a new policy that the thing in question, which is allowed, was once forbidden.
Click to expand...
Of course. It also tells us that the practice of refraining had been around a long time, The canons I cited show that the practice of refraining was in the Church hundreds of years earlier.
 
If it’s posed as a question how can that be unfair? Let’s remember that Adoration is meant for us to contemplate the Divine Presence in the Eucharist. How can anything that is so focused on Christ be unfair? And adoration is not exclusive for Catholics either, I’ve heard a few non-Catholics who mention a devotion to the Eucharist in Adoration (before they entered fully as member into the Catholic Church.) If the OP’s wife is Orthodox her Church is still part of the Church of Christ which we all belong, and the object of affection is Jesus Christ (truly present in the Eucharist) Who transcends any division or schism within the Church - so it’s not unfair request.
 
Mickey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thus what I have been stressing all along that its not about Judaic ritual purity, but rather the fear of bleeding out the blood of Christ which at the reception of the Eucharist, comes into communion with our own blood.
 
rinnie said:
Hi Constantine, I have never heard of such a thing. Do you have any resources I can read up on this.:confused:
Click to expand...
Mickey’s quote from the Copts is one good source on this. As you can see what is to be avoided is active bleeding, such as getting cut.

I wish everything I have read in the past are put in a database that I can easily search back to give links to other people. I believe there is an old thread in the Eastern Catholic Forum that discussed this some months ago.
 
In the past, was the belief about this abstaining from the Eucharist because it wasn’t until the past couple of centuries that science showed that the bleeding a woman has during her menses is the sloughing off of the uterine lining (which has built up all month) instead of “active bleeding”?
 
ConstantineTG said:
Thus what I have been stressing all along that its not about Judaic ritual purity, but rather the fear of bleeding out the blood of Christ which at the reception of the Eucharist, comes into communion with our own blood.
Click to expand...
But now we know that the bleeding a woman has during her menses is the sloughing off of the uterine lining (which has built up all month) instead of “active bleeding”. Why do some not recognize this?
 
LightBound said:
But now we know that the bleeding a woman has during her menses is the sloughing off of the uterine lining (which has built up all month) instead of “active bleeding”. Why do some not recognize this?
Click to expand...
I apologize Constantine…you already answered this in post 15 on this thread. :o
 
jasonjessica09 said:
My wife is Coptic Orthodox and she has always restrained from receiving Jesus in the Eucharist whenever her time of the month comes. **I’ve never heard this from anybody else but her **but is this true for Orthodox Christain women not to go to Holy Communion when they have periods?

What makes it worse for me as a Catholic is that she won’t go to Eucharsitic Adoration with me either when this occurs. I tell her that there is never a reason to deny yourself a chance to be at least present in front of Jesus. So yeah I have tried for a very very long time to convince her that its ok to go to Adoration during her time of the month but she still has refused to do this.

So I am trying to get a gauge on this from people because I’m not really what the correct answer is.
Click to expand...
Your wifes belief concerning the OT is relative to the Old Covenant. If she believes this and you have harmony then let it be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top