Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Clean and unclean


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 03 March 2005 - 12:16 PM

I have a search in the clean and unclean in the two testaments and after work for months, I reach to find that, origin cause a confustion on understanding the text in mark7:19, so the modern translation add in between practs (This he said, making all meats clean) but this paraphrase not present in the original greek text nor in the english translation to pesitta nor in the kj. and I find about the 2nd advent Is66: 17; rev18: 2; and rom8: 19- 21; I try to study all the text of st.paul, peter, act10, 11

and I try to study
1- the epistle of bernabachap.10,
2-Ireneos contra herses book5, chap8,no.2,
3-instructor book3, chap.4,7
instructor book2, chap,1

then I feel god not change in his thougts, the incarnated yahwah is the same yahwa but the problem in the mishna gemara talmud the human instructions were the thing which god in the incarnation refuse them and so on paul and peter, the jewish scholars saying: st. chrisostom follow origin in judging against the jews and their culture, I try to study the comment of st. chrisostom on e.g. col2: 16-19 and in rom 14, I find he is fair and neutral in his words I try to rich to the perfect truth, I will wait your opinon all of you on base of truth, thanks

#2 Irene

Irene

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 259 posts
  • Guest from Another Religious Tradition

Posted 03 March 2005 - 10:57 PM

Dear Sister Theopesta Dem,

An interesting topic, I look forward to someone knowledgeable replying to you.

I have been thinking, as a non-monastic lay person, that I should not be eating meat at all.**

Thank God for Lent.

In Christ
Irene

**Warning The following might upset some people because it mentions animal cruelty and is just some thoughts going through my mind based on things I have read and heard in our countries media etc.

1: In this modern world the animals are not treated humanely - (at the abattoirs)

2: The workers in abattoirs/meatworks either quit the job quickly because they can not stand it or become immune to the suffering of the animals.

3: Some unspeakably cruel criminals have been found to have held jobs at abattoirs.

4: Some of the happiest times I and my children have ever had were at monasteries either in fasting or non-fasting times and we didn't miss meat products at all.

5: If I refuse to buy eggs unless I know they are from hens that have been treated kindly then how can I buy meat when I have heard/read that they are treated cruelly at the end of their lives.

6: If you read literature from vegan/vegetarian societies they say that "growing" animals takes up a lot more natural resources than if you stuck to crops.

#3 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 14 July 2005 - 02:46 PM

if you please I hope to know if this reaserch is orthodox authorative or not

http://www.orthoprax...men.html#byline

#4 Byron Jack Gaist

Byron Jack Gaist

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 05:25 AM

Dear Theopesta,

Unfortunately I'm not qualified to offer a critique of the article you posted. It might be of interest that in my local parish here in Cyprus, women are discouraged from participating in Holy Communion during menstruation and some time (40 days I think, no difference between male or female children) after giving birth. Our priest is quite "liberal", but I don't think his advice is untypical of the rest of the Church here, and of course the personalised counsel of a spiritual father often probably "bends" the rules a little according to the individual case.

Incidentally why is the woman with the issue of blood assumed to be in some way menstruating? Could she not have been losing blood from elsewhere?

In Christ
Byron


#5 Antonios

Antonios

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 July 2005 - 05:41 AM

Byron,

I also have wondered what exactly this issue of blood was. The gospel doesn't say exactly. The way that I've guessed it to be (and of course, this is a wild guess) is that the lady was post-menopausal and suffered from endometrial cancer, which would cause chronic vaginal bleeding and often pain. This is one of the most common causes of cancer in females and is the most common cause of post-menopausal bleeding. The fact the she felt better right away may be due to the fact the bleeding and pain ceased the moment the Lord healed her. Is this what happened? Only God knows. Whatever the case, it was her faith that made her well.

Antonios


#6 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 07:27 AM

thanks for your response
I know that the eastern and oriental orthodox have the same canons in this matter

1- the blood is symbol of life

2- the hebrew name of Adam mean "RED" this name derived from a root mean "to show blood"

3- after God bearth the life in the dust Adam became a living soul i.e the blood circuate in his body
so, the blood = life from god and to god only

4- as consequences of the trensgression god punish the women and the man both.
this punishment not ended in the redeemtion the punishment ended in the eternal life where the complete salvation.

but the male and the female take the baptism and take the remission from the original sin but not take infallibility.

so the man still work with hands to eat from his sweat

the women still complete all the steps of conception and birth with suffering and sorrow before there rejoice

so, the blood issue still a reminder of the role which the women made for interence the sin to world and reminder with the death which christ carry it.

the men in their struggle to live remember the life in paradise.

this may thoughts I think all the orthodox churches not allow for women to take communion in this stage on the basis of apostolic canons to take chance to retreat to correct the woman nature inside herself

but I feel this seaarch {http://www.orthoprax...men.html#byline} not compatible with the orthodox learnings


#7 Marie+Duquette

Marie+Duquette

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 15 July 2005 - 12:21 PM

Byron and Antonios,

Concerning the issue of blood of the hemorraging woman. It is not only post-menopausal women who suffer hemorraging. It can be caused by other reasons, like fibroid tumors, etc. To me that would be more the reason the woman was seeking healing. Imagine being seen as "unclean" for all those years; and besides that, "loosing the source of life" ... a bleeding woman usually doesn't conceive, ie, not be able to bring forth life and this caused by a loss of the life blood.

This I have not found in any of the Fathers, but just use common sense in the Gospel scene mentioned above. And, Jesus Christ surely had a lot of "common sense" in dealing with the many issues presented in the Gospel. His compassion and mercy, after all were/are Divine, being showered upon our sickly human nature.

Hope there will be more responses on this "CLEAN/UNCLEAN" issue of women.

respectfully, marie_duquette

p.s. Theopesta Dem, I do admire your en-depth study of this clean/unclean issue that is uppermost in the lives of women in general. May God continue to bless your study.


#8 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 15 July 2005 - 02:58 PM

thank for your support and idea marie-duquette

I think the women not ceremonial unclean in the new testament but she should respect the tradation of the church.

all men and women and childern try to be in the most suitable state bodily and spiritually as possible when entering to the church speciall in the Sacraments.

st. Jn chrisostome gave a comment on the women with the flow of blood {HOMILY XXXI on MT 9: 18- 22}

I think that the church deal individually by special ways with special cases as in "fibroid tumors".


#9 Guest_Leandros

Guest_Leandros
  • Guests

Posted 15 July 2005 - 08:56 PM

Dear forum members,

(I think that,) Mrs Kapsalis in her article makes a very important mistake, that drive her in wrong paths.

She is trying to figure out, why the Old testaments orders, regarding canons that put women in a “special” status according to their womanhood natural functionality, were “infiltrated” in the Christian Church.

She wonders, that “It is shocking and perplexing to read that partaking of the divine Mysteries, while experiencing this natural God given function could be equated with physical immorality, which according to Eph. 5:5 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10 deprives one of ever seeing the Kingdom of God.”

She associates the “exclusions” in question (due to the canons) with the statue of the individual person that practices them. She takes as a fact that the person that follows the canons is “punished” for his/hers way of being. So, in this context, it should be unfair to imply such “sanctions” against women, as long they are innocent of the unsubstantial “accusations” of being women!

The main theme in her analysis can be found in the following quotations: “Thus, according to this Old Testament Law of Moses, women who bring forth children are considered sinful, until after they have been cleansed from their blood flow”… “The priest will offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, as a woman having an issue of blood greater than her regular cycle is considered to be ill and thus sinful, in need of atonement. Thus, we note, in the Old Testament, there is a strong connection between physical uncleanness, sickness and sin”….”If their spiritual children have cleansed themselves on the inside, repenting and confessing their sins, and if they truly thirst for Christ, then Spiritual Fathers should show mercy and compassion by allowing them "with faith, love and the fear of God, to draw near" to our Saviour's divine mystery.”

The main problem with the analysis and the conclusions of Mrs Kapsalis is that her article does not inquire the specific cases of real women that have experienced the canons of Church (both of Old Testament and of the Church), but she first defines canons as “sanctions” against guilty/sinful people and then she proclaims that women are innocent of the accusation “of being women in their nature”, so they do not deserve to be punished by canons/sanctions.

Mrs Kapsalis says in her article: “There is obvious misunderstanding on the part of the canon writers on the nature of women's menses, its God given purpose, and the way it affects the spiritual and psychological state of women. This is the time when women need God most of all, as this is the time when they experience pre-menstrual syndrome, physical pain, panic attacks, crying spells, and other hormonal anomalies. This is the time when the soul needs to be doctored by the healing powers of Christ. To punish a woman in need of spiritual healing and nourishment at the time when she needs it most for daring to approach or to touch Christ by banishing her from him for an additional forty days, is not only an act devoid of any Christian compassion, but goes contrary to the very teachings of Christ, Himself”.

This is sounds like a logical argument against the specific canons, but things are quit different from what they look like in our first view.

(Luke 2:21-24)
“When the child was eight days old, it was time to circumcise him. They named him Jesus. That was the name the angel gave him before the baby began to grow inside Mary.
The time came when Mary was no longer unclean by the Law of Moses. Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Jerusalem to bring him to the Lord.
This is what is written in the law of the Lord: `Every boy who is the first child of his mother will be holy for the Lord.'
They also came to make a sacrifice as an offering to God. The law of the Lord said, `A pair of doves or two young pigeons.'“


Now, Mrs Kapsalis while having scholastically studied the canon of Old Testament, “First, there is a preference to male offspring as a mother is unclean with a male child for the first seven days, and then for thirty-three days following his circumcision, rendering her unclean for a total of forty days… On the eighth day after her affliction she is required to take two turtle doves or two young pigeons, and bring them to the priest (like a woman after delivery) to the door of the tent of meeting”, she failed to realize that Christ’s Most Holy Mother had actually practiced this very Canon.

According to Mrs Kapsalis’ line of thought the Most Holy Virgin must have been considered “sinful”, or else there was no need for her to follow this canon; there was no need to accept such a “punishment”.

She failed to realise that according to the St Luke’s Gospel there was a time, the first seven days after the birth of Christ, that the Mother of God was ‘unclean’ and on the eighth day, when “the time came when Mary was no longer ‘unclean’ by the law of Moses” she performed the proper customs of the Jewish Law.

When we take in account that the Most Holy Virgin practiced the law of “prohibition” for seven days, we realise that the canons are not ways of punishments, but they are ways of sanctification. Because the Virgin is literally the Most Holy and the phrase “Mary was no longer unclean” has a very significant and different meaning of that of Mrs Kapsalis.

There is a roman-catholic/protestant idea that sanctification is only performed by energetic consumption of “holy things”. The Christian person is believed to be justified as long he/she is consuming “prayers”, asceticism, sacraments, practice of piety, and generally as long as he/she performing “Christianity”. If a person is not in a position to be a consumer of “Christianity”, then he/she is believed to “starve” to spiritual death.

Well, this energetic “consumption” of Christianity is a false realization of faith.

Many Christians, just like Mrs Kapsalis, in their honest quest for the truth are forgetting that to “be Christian” is a relation. It is not an accomplishment. This relation is a personal relation through Christ, in Spirit, with the Father.

Now, as for the main objection of Mrs Kapsalis that the canons of exclusion “becomes an obstacle to spiritual growth, causing disdain for church practices which to the present day educated woman do not make sense”, let us see what has to say about the unintentional abstention from the Holy Eucharist the most educated St Nicolas Kavasilas in his essay “explanation of the Holy Liturgy”:

“So, what is the cause for the Sanctification? Is it to be someone in a human body and to approach towards the altar and to take the “Holy” in his heads and to put It in his mouth and then to eat It and to drink It? Not, at all. Because, many have done exactly that and they had approached to the sacraments and indeed they had taken no benefit from that, on the contrary they went away full of countless sins.

But, then what is the cause for the sanctification of the saints? And what is it that Christ is asking from us? Purification of the soul, love for God, faith, desire for the Sacrament, eagerness for receiving Holy Communion, zeal of spirit, to be “thirsty” for Communion. All these are needed to attract sanctification and all who partake to Christ are supplied with these and without them it is impossible to join in this participation.

But, all these are not physical/natural things; they are depending only on the soul. Well, someone might ask: ‘If a person has all these in his soul, but he does not turn out to the sacrament will he take just as much sanctification like those who actually physically take the Eucharist?’

The answer is: ‘Yes, but only for those who are not possible to approach for natural causes, like the souls of the dead. Also, the sanctification is the same for those who “wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground” (Hebrews 11:38) as it is not possible for them to find an altar and a priest. These persons are sanctified from Christ Himself by an invisible way with the same sanctification.

If however, a person does not approach the altar to receive the Eucharist, while he has no natural/physical obstacle in doing so, then it is absolutely impossible to receive sanctification. Not, just because he had not approached, but because he had not approached although he was capable to do so. His declination reveals that his soul is naked from the pleasure for the sacrament.”

Mrs Kapsalis, in her article, has also many references to St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, particularly from his great work “the Rudder of the Orthodox Church”. But, again, she fails to present saint Nicodemus’ complete work and she can not figure out the Orthodox Canons as they are presented in his book. St Nicodemus in the second part of his book “The Invisible War”, in the fourth chapter that it is titled “About mentally and spiritual Eucharist, that is, how Christ is communed in a mentally and spiritual fashion”, he refers to St Kavasilas’ essay by noting:

“But also, those that are not capable to take the Sacrament of Communion, in many occasions and when they please to partake Christ, as He is the Communion, either because they are in places of wilderness where there is no priest, or altar, or church, or because they are in the world but they are prohibited by their spiritual fathers, not by reason of their fault, but for the predominant wicked and perverted tradition (St Nicodemus here condemns the tradition of seldom communion that was practiced by the majority of the Church in his time), let them partake in Holy Eucharist and let them receive Christ in a mentally and spiritual way by themselves, as the inviolable Nicolas Kavasilas says in ‘the explanation of the Holy Liturgy’ – because they suffer from powers beyond their capability.”

So, it clear that the Canons of the Church are not punishments for our sins, but they are ways of sanctification both by demanding our participation in specific activities, or by demanding our abstention from specific activities. In either cases the relation through Christ, in Spirit, with the Father is neither aborted, nor postponed.

What constitute the relation are the persons, not their actions.

In the same way that the Most Holy Virgin was “unclean” and for that she was subject of the Jewish Law of abstention from the Temple, while at the same time she was THE LIVING TEMPLE of the GOD, likewise, the Christian women are subjects of this same Canon of abstention from the Eucharist, while at the same time they actually are being sanctified and being blessed and being visited in spirit by God.

The complaints of Mrs Kapsalis are “legitimate” complaints based on scholasticism of the roman-catholic theological methodology that can find Church Life only in the experience of the literal “presence” of God. But the genuine orthodox theological methodology finds Church Life also in the personal experience of the “absence” of God. This is part of the Orthodox ascetic life.

Actually, the Orthodox Canons are to be put into practice from a qualified spiritual father who takes in account the individual peculiar circumstances of each person. They are not to be realized as ways of being in justice, but as ways of being in relation.

Mrs Kapsalis, also takes the trouble to compare the canons for the women in comparison with the canons for the men. I think this is a side-issue and it is an issue for another thread. I think that the major issue on the comparative subject is the "priesthood" and not the “Ritual Uncleanness”. Of course, once you "figure out" one of the two you can understand the other one too.

May God bless us, all.


(Message edited by lpap on 15 July, 2005)


#10 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 16 July 2005 - 02:20 AM

thanks brother Leandros

for your analysis it is helpful for me

#11 Guest_nurse-aid

Guest_nurse-aid
  • Guests

Posted 16 July 2005 - 03:05 AM

i offten meditates on HIS words at the Last Supper...when HE said do THIS in my rememberance....meaning is do IT...so do not FORGET ME...

and then those like St.Mary of Egypt and ohters...who simply breath and live HIM...they was no need to have it as a rememberance...THEY NEVER FORGET...

something like that...but in case of the Theotokos...yes she was sancstified by HIM when gave birth...others not...so abstanning from Communioun for them is NOT the same as for HER not being in the temple...


#12 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 09:43 AM

can I find something about:

1- "orthodox theological methodology"
2- Nicolas Kavasilas ‘the explanation of the Holy Liturgy’

#13 Guest_Leandros

Guest_Leandros
  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2005 - 02:17 PM

Dear theopesta dem,

you can find the book from the amazon site: "A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy", by Nicolaus Cabasilas.

you can find a review in the DIAKONIA magazine publication, page 215.

Unfortunately the book is not available on line.


#14 Kosmas Damianides

Kosmas Damianides

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 July 2005 - 06:21 PM

Dear Leandros

I never thought of it that way before. In fact I was quite puzzled for a long time by something an Athonite Monk once told us here in Australia when he visited us at the Greek Orthodox Theological College of St Andrew.

He said someone who is not having Communion (and did not make any distinction between male or female), may in their humble, contrite and repentant state be invisibly Communing without their knowledge.

Since Holy Communion means becoming one flesh with Christ, it is now clear to me that what is more important. Humility, Repentance, Love and Honesty. And to live in constant prayer.

God's Grace Bless us All

~ Kosmas


#15 Kosmas Damianides

Kosmas Damianides

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 July 2005 - 06:30 PM

PS. ~ I think that the woman with the flow of blood, who only wished to touch Jesus' garment and not Him as such in order to be healed holds a deep Theological message which we can all benefit from.


#16 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 18 July 2005 - 09:15 PM

st.jhon chrisostom homily xxxi on mat 9: 22
{He calls her "daughter;" for her faith had made her a daughter
She detained Him not, she took no hold of Him, but touched Him only with the end of her fingers}


{(for "she came," it is said, "trembling"(1)); and He caused her to be of good courage, and together with health of body, He gave her also other provisions for her journey, in that He said, "Go in peace."}


#17 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:19 PM

Posted Imagewisdom6: 18
Doc1.doc (20.0 k)

#18 Guest_Leandros

Guest_Leandros
  • Guests

Posted 19 July 2005 - 11:03 PM

can I find something about: 1- "orthodox theological methodology"


Sister Theopest dem,

You can find a lecture of His Grace John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon, Professor of the University of Thessaloniki and of King's College, University of London about: "the Dogmas of the Faith".

A small passage follows:"...A fourth element after transcendence, freedom and a personal character of God, is that which we could call the historical character of God’s revelation. This analyzed, means first of all that God reveals Himself and is recognized by His involvement during the course of history; this does not – I repeat – mean the observation of the nature or the aesthetics of the cosmos. Hence, the place in which God can be referred to and where one could say that He can be found, is in History and not in nature. We will of course notice that, although the Hellenes had embraced Christianity during the Patristic years, it was nevertheless difficult to expel the importance of observing the cosmos, hence the Fathers – and predominantly at the height of that era with Saint Maximus the Confessor – would frequently introduce this element of observing the cosmos, but it was mainly in reference to God; it was their approach to God. In referring to the biblical roots of the Christian idea of God, we must seriously stress the following: that the observation of the cosmos does not lead us towards God, except only in one way, as is expressed in the Psalm “… the heavens tell us of the glory of God, while the creation of His hands is made known by the firmament….”. In other words, God is not to be somehow found within the cosmos; instead, the cosmos itself testifies that Someone Else - this God – exists, but beyond the cosmos, and consequently this transcendence of God with respect to the world once again, plays a definitive role and thus the observation of the cosmos in relation to God – if we observe this Psalm’s expressions – is more like a historical kind of observation, and not cosmology. “…The creation of His hands is made known by the firmament….” : to the Hebrews, the world is a creation, a project; someone made it. It is not a nature, which has certain principles, certain laws – the laws of harmony, the laws of goodness, of justice, and all those things that the ancient Hellenes had. Consequently, the world is again treated as history, and not as nature or as a world...

...One such necessity that historical needs imposed with regard to Gnosiology was, during the Patristic years, the distinction between the essence and the activity in God. This distinction, which appears somewhat hazily in Saint Athanasios and more clearly in the Cappadocian Fathers, is extensively developed by Saint Gregorios of Palamas, as we know. In this way, the Patristic principle of the “incomprehensibility” of God’s essence is preserved, and the energy or the energies of God are offered as a basis of gnosiology...."

#19 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 06:12 AM

many thanks for your help brother leandros and for graceful support and feelings of all members of forum


#20 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 06:35 AM

please are the word "Gnosiology " is a greek word that mean the knowlgement {gnwsiv}





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users