Fasting before communion

[Oana Vlad]

Hello everybody. I am a student and I live in an Eastern Orthodox country. Some time ago I didn`t question myself about praxis, even if I couldn`t always understand or accept it. But as I began to get in touch with Orthodox from other countries, I noticed that things are sometimes different. Some of those elements seem sometimes a little bit too demanding and strict. So I guess I`ll be more specific.
1. One is required to fast at least 3 days before communion. (apart from the regular days of fasting - Wednesday and Friday). For exemple, if I want to communicate on Sunday, I`ll have to fast from Wednesday till Sunday morning (no meat, eggs, milk etc). Confession is a must - if the priest doesn`t know the person, he will always ask if he/she had confessed before. I`ve heard that the Russians are as strict concening this matter. But as a result of this, people don`t communicate too often. A person who communicates every Sunday is rather a rare case. People associate communion mostly with feast days. In my opinion, these rules are too strict and instead of encouraging people to come and communicate, they make them look upon the Eucharist with an excessive fear. How comes that in other countries Orthodox people may communicate every Sunday? Not to mention the fact that some priests believe one should communicate only once at 40 days, not more often.

2. Women are not allowed to enter the church or kiss the icons during their mestrual period (not to mention they can`t communicate). Of course nobody can control that, but it creates a tensionate frame of mind which induces in them the idea that they might be doing something wrong and be punished for that. Only today a friend of mine asked me if she could go to confession in such conditions. She`s having a lot of troubles. Could I have told her "Don`t go, wait till next week?" when she`s been waining so eagerly to confess? After all, Jesus didn`t chase away that "impure" sick woman who touched Him And why call impure a natural process? Are we still living in the Ancient Testament, burdened with restrictions of all kinds? or have we not received the Good News?

Looking forward for your answers,

Oana

[Richard McBride]

Blessed of God, Oana:

It is wonderful that you have found Orthodoxy, which survives from the great oppressions of its inception to this day, as the Church -- the very ekklesia of Apostles, left by God to inform the Gentiles. Perhaps, just as wonderful, is the fact that you have become part of this gathering, the Way of God, at a young age. It is true that you lack experience in the lessons of the Church, but with an active mind, turned toward God in great humility, He will fill you with Truths of which you cannot now conceive.

Also, it is good to read your thoughts on Monochos. I feel certain that many members will want to welcome you.

You mention:
“Some time ago I didn`t question myself about praxis, even if I couldn`t always understand or accept it.”
Yes! Was that not a beautiful time in your life?

“... But as I began to get in touch with Orthodox from other countries, I noticed that things are sometimes different.”
But questioning too, is part of life. It is the learning process. In playing a new game it is always most difficult at the start -- sometimes it is an excruciating experience. But in life, this is also a time when you do not yet know, in which you are most vulnerable to false notions, bad advice and misleading ideas from your own mind. You must be doubly careful during this time, as confusion often sets in and even that awful sin of disconsolation may take hold of you. If it does, DO NOT HESITATE! Go to your priest and discuss with him, even as you speak to us, about these things. Remember that a learning curve is just that: It has its ups and downs.

I remember Father Anthony (May his memory be eternal!) telling me that the Greek Liturgy was the same as our Antiochian Liturgy. I was very surprised at him saying that, for to my inexperienced mind, the differences were far greater than any similarities. Even now, I am not sure how correct he may have been. But that is no longer the point. Where ever you are partaking of the most blessed Divine Liturgy, you must do it according to that Priest, who instsructs and celebrates according to his Bishop, who in turn is God’s direct representative for the favour you are seeking. Doing what the Priest tells you is for your instruction in order that you may come to God without condemnation. It is then between you and God. The Theosis in your partaking of the Divine Mysteries is truly a thing between you and God; but it was the Priest who arranged for this union.

This means that no one else is involved. Do not look across the aisle to see what someone else may be doing. You cannot be part of their Theosis, nor can they become part of yours. Therefore, in your questioning of the Way of God, do not let such questions lead you astray. Most specifically, this means do not worry about issues which seem out of place to you; how could many things not go unanswered in your short experience of Orthodoxy?

Seek as you are doing, and question. But as in almost any activity, if the enemy sees that you have wavered and become doubtful, he will very likely leap into your argument and encourage it toward unhealthy notions. This is his old, old way of capturing souls for his pit. Today, we call this way, Modernism.

Oana, unless you are somehow blessed with fantastic faith and thus, “know all things”, you must question and seek. But in this natural process, you must also have concern that you do not be led astray by Modernist notions. The Way of Orthodoxy is directly opposed to the culture in which you very likely live (are we not all citizens today of Modernism?). But have faith, pray earnestly for discernment, read the advice of the Fathers (such as in the Philokalia), and each good decision you make will strengthen your understanding of the True Way. Soon, much sooner than you think, it will form a strong foundation, and you will look back, wondering how you could ever have wanted to question the purpose of your Priest. That sort of questioning will not help, but hurt you.

richard, still a sinful servant after so many years

[Trinitarian God]

Keep up the unbroken apostolic chain,

I am Greek Orthodox as well, And I know exactly what you mean, I communicate nearly every Sunday and its nice it Amplifies the holy spirit in you, I cant answer why some people do not do it often, maybe they are not in touch with a spiritual leader (Father) to lead them, and to fast before you communicate is good mate, Tame you flesh from the sinful society we live in then fill it with the holy spirit.
My Wife and everyone else I know you is a woman goes to Church but does not Kiss or take communicate, as they feel impure themselves which was past down from the first sin, that’s why we fast to clean and tame our bodies before we communicate!

Hope I was helpful

In Christ

for you information maybe you now about this website already, it is used by millions of Orthodox

http://www.goarch.org/
http://www.oca.org/

[Olga]

Regarding the prohibition of women who are menstruating to receive Holy Communion or to venerate icons, I remember coming across something written by St John Chrysostom on the subject. In essence, he said "Let the woman decide" if she wishes to attend church, to participate in the Mysteries, or to venerate icons. It is understandable that a menstruating woman might be considered "unclean" and therefore "unworthy" to receive Communion, and this is most likely derived from the Jewish prohibitions and laws on the matter. But are we Jews? The Law was but a shadow, and it has passed away through its fulfilment by and through Jesus Christ.

I would also be interested in hearing of any proper theological or doctrinal reasons which would prevent a menstruating woman from venerating icons. I suspect this is little more than a folk custom, not something prescribed by Holy Tradition. Of course, I am happy to be corrected on this.

[Father David Moser]

Regarding the prohibition of women who are menstruating to receive Holy Communion or to venerate icons, I remember coming across something written by St John Chrysostom on the subject. In essence, he said "Let the woman decide" if she wishes to attend church, to participate in the Mysteries, or to venerate icons.


While it might be up to the woman to decide whether or not to approach the chalice, it is the priest who has the responsibility to "administer" the sacrament and so the decision about whether or not to receive the mysteries would be the joint decision of a woman and the priest (best arrived at during the confession)




reasons which would prevent a menstruating woman from venerating icons. I suspect this is little more than a folk custom,

I agree with your suspicions.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

I think that when we discuss a woman's menstrual cycle in relation to being "clean" and "unclean," we need to remember that some of the texts or homilies given about this in our tradition are from a different era. It is my understanding that, until relatively recently, a woman having her period would be literally unclean. In other words, it would have been obvious that a woman was having her period and she no more would have wished to leave the home to attend church than people would wish for her to do so. Today, we cannot tell if women are having their period. It is now relatively clean, at least in that sense. Whether these advances make any difference regarding women communing or venerating icons, I do not know; but we should at least give them consideration, in my opinion.

Aaron

[Fr. Joseph]

It is the tradition of the Church that noone (unless they are dying) should partake of Holy Communion when they are bleeding. This goes for men and women. We believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, thus we carefully wipe our mouths after receiving so as not to have any part of the Blessed Sacrament lost; (this is also why we do not kiss icons or anybody after Communion, let alone spit or smoke cigarettes right after the Sacrament). We believe the Sacrament enters our bodies and our blood stream (read the prayers of thanksgiving after Communion) and this is why we are not to take Communion when we are bleeding. It is sacred.

Think about it. Many do not know that Orthodox Churches have special drains systems built under our Churches. The drain from the sink in the Holy Altar does not empty out into the city sewer system, but rather into a special septic system underneath the Church. Why, so that every drop of water used in the Altar (washing of hands, holy utensils, etc)--which might contain even a small particle of a Sacrament (Holy Communion, Unction, etc) and every drop of water from the used Baptismal font which is blessed will not be spilled into some place not sacred. We should have the same preparation for the ultimate temple, the human body, and make sure that no amount of Holy Communion, or any Holy Sacrament for that matter, ends up in a place that is not sacred.

We can always make innovations and change what our Holy Fathers and Mothers, Sisters and Brothers have kept for us intact for 2000 years--the Church canons, fasts, rules--etc. None of these later served as an obstacle to them to obtain sanctity and salvation. In fact, they believe that these were the means the Apostolic Church handed down to us from Christ. Strange that we would think so much differently than them, that we would we are somehow wiser now than they, more understanding and compassionate, more liberated! We can change the rules and whatever we like, but let us not expect the same results!

Pastors and fellow Clergy, when are we going to start bringing the people up to the Church so that they can be sanctified, rather than drag the Church down to the people where both are lost? The more we water down the faith, the more it becomes less desirable. We will wake up one morning only to find ourselves in the spiritual bankrupcy of the rest of Christianity, and the people either fallen away, or far far above us holding on to what we foolishly let go of. The Faith works, sanctifies and produces Saints, let us not play with it, but humbly follow it.

Yours in Christ,

Fr. Joseph

[Peter Farrington]

Father Joseph

How is taking account of modern advances in medicine and hygiene 'watering down' the faith?

Is it not true that God has become part of His creation and that therefore all of creation is sanctified? We should certainly be deeply respectful of the elements of the eucharist, they are the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour. But God is surely rather dishonoured by an almost magical fear of contamination than by someone receiving in faith and for their salvation.

To merely copy what the faithful in other generations and other cultural contexts have done is not to actually apply the Gospel to our own times and culture, which is where it is needed. There is a vast amount that needs to be shared with the needy people of our world, with respect, early concepts of uncleanness are one of the last things required.

Peter

[Fr. Joseph]

Dear Friend,

There is an old story about a missionary who traveled by jeep to Africa. When he was driving over a bumpy road a spark plug cable came lose and the vehicle stalled. Luckily there was a village near by and the "wise men" of the village came to help the missionary. They brought him back to village on foot while they went to work on the vehicle. After examining the vehicle carefully they found the problem. For some unknown reason someone had put a huge burdensome chunk of metal, rubber and plastic under the hood and under the chasis that was keeping the wheels from rolling freely. The wise men remarked "Don't they know that these were only going to slow down the cart". So they hacked away at it for days until the engine and tranny were all loose and gone, then they proudly pushed the much lighter vehicle back to the village.

Today we have no idea of the depth, wisdom and holiness of the Holy Fathers. We are shallow, proud and too often like the "wisemen" hacking away at what we do not understand. Let us first become Saints, and then try to interpret the Holy Fathers. It is interesting that none of those recently reposed Holy Elders who we are sure were sanctified and were filled with the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit (and are in the process of being canonized) in Russian, Romania, Serbia and Greece, in all their holiness, enlightenment and sanctity--none of them dared talk of modern advances and new interpretations of rules of the Holy Orthodox Faith. They were surely "up to date", and yet only confirmed the importance of not changing the rules of the Faith. Some of them were called by God to confess thousands of the faithful and their advice was "archaic" when it came to matters we have discussed. They held the line.

Finally Peter, respectfully, you are not Eastern Orthodox, but Non-chalcedonian, so we are not talking about the same Orthodox Faith. Your contact with our Faith is through books and theologians and observation, but not inner participation. I respect your right to believe what you will, and you are certainly free to do what you will with the Non-chalcedonian faith, but please do not try to interpret a Faith that you are presently outside of and have been for sometime. As an Eastern Orthodox Priest I am directly accountable before Christ for real people, their eternal salvation and guiding them towards eternal life. I cannot afford to risk my salvation and that of the faithful entrusted to me by experimenting with any part of the Faith that my predecessors--far wiser than I-- dared not experiment with. The age old Faith with all its "archaic" rules has amazingly sactified millions of people of all walks of life for 2000 years joining them to the ranks of the Angels and Saints.

St. Paul lived 2000 years ago, and he did not know about "modern advances" and "technology" and all the wisdom we supposed have acquired today, but his words are still valid about anyone changing the Faith that was handed down. There are those who would like to change Holy Communion and use juice instead of wine (didn't Jesus know about Alcoholism?) or use some other means than a common spoon (didn't the Apostles understand commutable diseases), or gluten free bread (for those allergic to gluten). There are those who want to remove the "burden" of fasting, the "archaic" form of Confession that is so uncomfortable to many etc. Where do we draw the line? I believe we don't. It was already drawn for us by those far holier and wiser than we, and we Eastern Orthodox Christians are called to faithfully preserve it.

Fr. Joseph

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father Joseph

Thank you for your comments.

Of course you are aware that I must consider myself Orthodox and your own comments at least disconnected from the Orthodox Tradition which has been preserved undoubtedly only in my own Orthodox communion.

But I do appreciate you taking the time to share your point of view. It is certainly the case that you are best placed to describe the Byzantine view, even if I am not bound to consider it always Orthodox.

Peter

[Kris]

How is taking account of modern advances in medicine and hygiene 'watering down' the faith?


Hi,

My only answer to this would be that not all of these rules have a direct relation to medicine or hygiene. There is literally unclean, and there is spiritually unclean.

We should not forget about the latter when considering these things.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kris

I agree and understand, but I am not convinced that a woman during her period is spiritually unclean.

It does seem to me that the historic Orthodox view matches closely that of other Middle Eastern cultures concerning menstruation. This seems to me to be relevant.

I think I personally tend to the view that regular communion is necessary for our spiritual growth and that human infirmity of all sorts is caught up in the invitation of our Lord, 'Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden..'

I have seen some comments that menstruation precludes reception of communion because it is a mark of the fall, but then so surely is illness of any sort, but that does not preclude reception.

I am sure I will be painted a liberal modernist :-) but in fact I am generally very conservative, and certainly the Orthodox communion I belong to is extremely conservative, as are the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox. So I am not a modernist, I don't believe in any of the things Father Joseph mentioned. I just also do not believe that every canon is culturally neutral and an absolute law..... but I have already said that.

To be clear, in the narrow context of this thread..I always fast before receiving communion from well before midnight and refrain from eating or drinking anything before I receive the true Body and Blood of our Lord. But equally I would never judge anyone else at all on this matter.

If a sister felt she should not receive then she should not receive bcause it would be receiving without faith. But if she felt that she should then I would not personally object at all.

Indeed I am in company with the great saint and Pope Gregory of Rome who says, instructing the English Church when it was Orthodox:

But that woman, thou wilt say, was compelled by infirmity; but these are held of their accustomed sicknesses. Yet consider, dearest brother, how all that we suffer in this mortal flesh is of infirmity of nature, ordained after guilt by the fitting judgment of God. For to hunger and to thirst, to be hot, to be cold, to be weary, is of infirmity of nature. And to seek food against hunger, and drink against thirst, and cool air against heat, and clothing against cold, and rest against weariness, what is it but to search out certain healing appliances against sicknesses? For in females also the menstruous flow of their blood is a sickness. If therefore she presumed well who in her state of feebleness touched the Lord's garment, why should not what is granted to one person in infirmity be granted to all women who through defect of their nature are in infirmity?

Further, she ought not to be prohibited during these same days from receiving the mystery of holy communion. If, however, out of great reverence, she does not presume to receive, she is to be commended; but, if she should receive, she is not to be judged.

Best wishes

Peter

[Kris]

I agree and understand, but I am not convinced that a woman during her period is spiritually unclean.

It does seem to me that the historic Orthodox view matches closely that of other Middle Eastern cultures concerning menstruation. This seems to me to be relevant.


Hi,

I would disagree on the basis that the ritual uncleanness of menstruating women has its roots in the Old Testament. Not merely the words of the holy Prophet Moses, but of God Himself. God is not ignorant of His own creation, and His commands are not negated by medical advances.

Of course, there is the argument that this is a commandment that is limited only to the Old Testament. However, the fact that the Fathers of the Church chose to include it in the canons with respect to the Eucharist shows that it is applicable also to us.

The same goes for the Old Testament law which states that if a man has an emission, he is unclean until the next day. Canon law also applies this to the Eucharist.

With respect to menstruation, there is also the fact that it involves an emission of blood, as Fr. Joseph pointed out. Orthodox tradition (and I know the same is true of Copts) teaches that a person should not be admitted to the Sacrament whilst bleeding (since our blood is united with Christ's).

So even putting aside ideas of uncleanness, there is still the practical issue of blood.



I am sure I will be painted a liberal modernist :-) but in fact I am generally very conservative, and certainly the Orthodox communion I belong to is extremely conservative, as are the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox. So I am not a modernist, I don't believe in any of the things Father Joseph mentioned. I just also do not believe that every canon is culturally neutral and an absolute law..... but I have already said that.


I have not interest in imposing lables on anyone, although I do think the idea that a woman could commune whilst menstruating is a liberal one (in both the EOC and OOC).

The Coptic Bishop Youssef says the following:


The Second Canon of St. Dionysius, the thirteenth Archbishop of Alexandria, and student of Origen who lived, in the mid-third Century states:

“Concerning menstrous 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 opine, not even they 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.”

To support his opinion, Dionysus refers to the New Testament, “For even the woman who had the 12-year discharge and was eager for a cure touched not him but only his fringe.” And finally, rooting the purity law in ancient Jewish tradition, he explicitly conflates Christian altar space with Temple space, stating that anyone “who is not completely pure in both soul and body shall be prevented from approaching the holy and the holy of holies.”

It is important that the holiness of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be kept within us after the Holy Communion. A person bleeding for any reason either due to a physical illness, menstruation or a cut should not partake of the Holy Communion. In such cases we consider them as non-fasting and not unclean.


In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

Sure, but Dionysius is an Origenist, so of course he also takes a particular view.

You have not responded to the teaching of St Gregory in the West and the British Isles?

Or I could include the Apostolic Teaching which says:

For if thou think, O woman, that in the seven days of thy flux thou art void of the Holy Spirit; if thou die in those days, thou wilt depart empty and without hope. But if the Holy Spirit is always in thee, without (just) impediment dost thou keep thyself from prayer and from the Scriptures and from the Eucharist. For consider and see, that prayer also is heard through the Holy Spirit, and the Eucharist through the Holy Spirit is accepted and sanctified, and the Scriptures are the words of the Holy Spirit, and are holy. For if the Holy Spirit is in thee, why dost thou keep thyself from approaching to the works of the Holy Spirit ?

And this is from the Apostolic Constitutions, both immensely important sources of Orthodox teaching, and very clear on this issue:

Now if any persons keep to the Jewish customs and observances concerning the natural emission and nocturnal pollutions, and the lawful conjugal acts, let them tell us whether in those hours or days, when they undergo any such thing, they observe not to pray, or to touch a Bible, or to partake of the Eucharist? And if they own it to be so, it is plain they are void of the Holy Spirit, which always continues with the faithful.

The Apostolic Constitutions refer to the Old Testament references to women's uncleanness but comprehensively reject that view as being anti-Christian.

So here are three very important sources which contradict the idea that the EO or the OO have a monolithic tradition about this. They surely don't. I wonder if this isn't this more of the obvious desire to have everything black and white?

I am a little hurt that you consider my adherence to the teaching of the Didaskalia, the Apostolic Constitutions and St Gregory to be liberal. :-) You can perhaps raise the issue with the Fathers who produced this important canonical tradition when you next seek their intercessions. :-)

Best wishes

Peter

[Kris]

So here are three very important sources which contradict the idea that the EO or the OO have a monolithic tradition about this. They surely don't. I wonder if this isn't this more of the obvious desire to have everything black and white?


Hi,

It would appear you are right about this not being a black and white issue (and about me wishing it was ;-)).

I was not aware of the quotes from the Apostolic Constitution or Didaskalia (although I believe the former has more to do with Judaising and the keeping of ritual purification rituals than anything else).

I don't think I'm convinced menstruating women should receive the Eucharist (since it seems inappropriate that anyone bleeding should partake of the Sacrament), but you've given me much food for thought. So thank you.

In XC,
Kris

[Peter Farrington]

I hope you know that I do not intend to cause you disquiet, and if I thought you a weaker brother I would be silent.

But I do hope that you will think...

It need not change your mind about this issue but if you are more happy with things being shades of grey as well as black and white then my job here is done. :-)

On this issue I find that the quotes I provided, and others I didn't, are very negative about any sense of following Old Testament practice and uncleanness theory in this area. I do think the Fathers who wrote these works would consider any reference to the OT here to be Judaising. In fact the other passages say just that.

Since the other more often quoted reference was an Origenist I do tend to think his position is less authoritative. Origenists tended to have a less charitable view towards humanity. St Gregory, whom I respect a lot, is also authoritative for the Western and British Orthodox position.

Personally I do not think that Coptic Orthodox culture can be entirely isolated from its Muslim and Middle Eastern context. This is the same with all other cultures. My own view is undoubtedly conditioned in part by my own view of menstruation as a passionless and blameless condition, as the Fathers I have quoted very clearly also teach. So I am confident that I am not merely speaking as a 21st century Englishman who is not even Byzantine. :-) If there were no patristic witnesses to my view I would be much more hesitant in holding or expressing it.

Best wishes...keep thinking.

Peter

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Kris

I have been thinking about your post. I understand your position, and of course it is strongly present in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

But I have some questions in my mind about the theology we bring to bear on the issue, and I am trying to think things through. You will see there are lots of question marks that are questions not statements.

It seems to me that:

i. When we receive Christ in the Body and Blood He is truly united to us physically and spiritually.

ii. He does not leave us after some period of time? Hours or Days or Weeks? The mysteries are food for our salvation but the Holy Spirit lives always within us or we would perish.

iii. It is a natural function of our humanity to express all manner of fluids and wastes, not only in menstruation, but I mean through all other normal bodily functions, yet I can find no canon that says we should not go to the lavatory for several days? Yet Christ is united to all of us surely? He is not carried around only in the blood?

iv. If we must not allow any possible element of Christ to be lost from our body, since He has united Himself to us in the eucharist, then surely we should not spit or go to the lavatory at all, because Christ does not 'wear off' like some magical spell, He unites Himself to us, physically and spiritually.

v. So I guess, like the Didascalia and the Constitutions, I am not happy with the idea that the mere expression of any human fluids or wastes somehow 'loses' Christ. But as I said in my last post, I am not happy because these other important sources show me that they are not happy either. If there were no such statements I would be silent, or more silent. :-)

vi. If Christ is 'lost' in some sense through menstruation during the period of communion then how is He not lost if menstruation or a man cutting himself shaving occurs the next day, or the day after, or on any occasion?

vii. I cannot help noticing, though this proves nothing, but it does seem to speak to the historic cultural view of menstruation, that Pliny expresses the cultural view of his time by saying:

Contact with the monthly flux of women turns new wine sour, makes crops wither, kills grafts, dries seeds in gardens, causes the fruit of trees to fall off, dims the bright surface of mirrors, dulls the edge of steel and the gleam of ivory, kills bees, rusts iron and bronze, and causes a horrible smell to fill the air. Dogs who taste the blood become mad, and their bite becomes poisonous as in rabies. The Dead Sea, thick with salt, cannot be drawn asunder except by a thread soaked in the poisonous fluid of the menstruous blood. A thread from an infected dress is sufficient. Linen, touched by the woman while boiling and washing it in water, turns black. So magical is the power of women during their monthly periods that they say that hailstorms and whirlwinds are driven away if menstrual fluid is exposed to the flashes of lightning.

It is reasonable to conclude that some elements of this historic and pre-Christian view of menstruation formed the cultural matrix of some areas of Christian thought, certainly different areas and different times had different views, as the material we have both presented shows clearly.

Do give some thought to the points I made as I am trying to think them through. in summary I think I am asking if Christ is within us then surely either all bleeding or bodily excreta is in some sense culpable, or none is, as the Didas... and Const.. and St Gregory say.

Best wishes

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

In the above, Kris wrote:


My only answer to this would be that not all of these rules have a direct relation to medicine or hygiene. There is literally unclean, and there is spiritually unclean.

We should not forget about the latter when considering these things.

I think you make a very good point here, though one we should think further about.

The traditions of the Church are often rooted in practical customs -- things like order, safety, etc. At times the traditions are expressly spiritual, without having immediate practical connotations. At times the practical are, indeed, outgrowths of social understandings of a given time period, etc. But the traditions are sacral because the Church finds in them, ultimately, something of value for the Christian understanding of life in Christ.

I think this was part of Fr Joseph's point, above, as also Kris's. I would only add that forcing a distinction between 'literal' and 'spiritual' can be dangerous. It begins a flawed dichotomy of body and soul, mundane and sacred; but it also opens the door to personalisation, customisation, etc.

Aspects of the tradition that relate to when one may enter the temple, when one may not, when one may receive communion, etc., must be understood as integrated into a much broader understanding of the sacred, of the human relation to the sacred. To simply reduce them to regula on physical acts is to lose something intrinsic to their place in the church.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Matthew

But you surely leave unanswered the fact that the Church does not have a single tradition on this matter and very clearly expresses the view, in very authoritative documents that menstruation does not make a woman unclean and that she can receive communion if she wishes at that time.

We cannot speak of the Tradition of the Church as monolithic if in fact the evidence points quite contrarily.

I don't see that I am forcing anything, except that contrary important parts of the Tradition cannot just be ignored because they do not fit into what present practice is. You may wish to accept without question the present EO practice, I am only raising the question that a different historic Orthodox practice exists, and is clearly also Orthodox and spiritual.

If you think that I am creating a flawed dichotomy then you also need to surely take it up with St Gregory, all those who followed his practice, and the authors of the Didaskalia and the Apostolic Constitutions, who are generally considered by most Orthodox to have been the Apostles themselves.

Do you consider these passages of these documents to create a dichotomy between the mundane and the sacred? They are resolute in rejecting the idea of female uncleanness associated with menstruation, I am only following their teaching in making my own posts.

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

Above, Peter wrote:


But you surely leave unanswered the fact that the Church does not have a single tradition on this matter and very clearly expresses the view, in very authoritative documents that menstruation does not make a woman unclean and that she can receive communion if she wishes at that time.

You seem to be attempting to make my post speak of things I was not speaking directly to. My point was that in all understandings of the 'practical' matters of Christian life, the practical must be seen as part of the whole of the life in Christ. The fact that varying traditions and customs on many matters do exist, is testimony to the fact that the practical circumstances, in and of themselves, are not the full measure of the affair.

We cannot separate the 'prakitika' of the body - of health, life-cycles, etc. - from the realm of the spiritual, if we believe that in Christ the spiritual and the earthly are united. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and as such, our approach to things bodily is connected to our approach to things divine.

This is not an answer to the question, 'Should a woman who is menstruating receive Holy Communion', at least in part because this is an question which (a) receives the responses of different traditions within Orthodox patrimony, and (b) is not really a deliberative issue for debate and rational resolution. As a pastoral matter of the canonical life in Christ, it is ultimately a question that can only be answered concretely, in a given circumstance, by a bishop to his spiritual child. But it is an attempt to say that we must always resist the temptation to separate a 'cultural/social' idea from a 'theological' one, or to divine things historical from things relevant. Whatever a given bishop may determine on this specific issue, the canon still has value in what it teaches of the life in Christ.

INXC, Matthew

[Kris]

ii. He does not leave us after some period of time? Hours or Days or Weeks? The mysteries are food for our salvation but the Holy Spirit lives always within us or we would perish.


Like you said, the union that occurs when we partake of the Holy Mysteries is both a physical and spiritual one.

The issue of bleeding after partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ is related to the physical nature of that union.

Although I would hesitate to use the expression "wear off", the fact that we are encouraged to partake of the Holy Mysteries on a regular basis - as opposed to one only, as with Baptism - suggests that a constant renewal of this union is needed.

If the physical union between our own blood and that of Christ was permanent, frequent communion seems superflous; yet the Fathers stress its importance.

So perhaps it is not wrong to say that our blood is united with that of Christ in a more direct way during the first, say, 24hours than after several days?

If that is the case, then surely any blood that leaves our body during this time should be treated with the same reverence as the Sacrament itself; and so partaking should be discouraged when a person is bleeding since that blood would have to be disposed of.



iii. It is a natural function of our humanity to express all manner of fluids and wastes, not only in menstruation, but I mean through all other normal bodily functions, yet I can find no canon that says we should not go to the lavatory for several days? Yet Christ is united to all of us surely? He is not carried around only in the blood?


No doubt, He is united to all of us. But in what way?

I think, because it is Christ's Blood we receive, there is a physical union with His blood and ours that does not occur (in the same manner) with other bodily fluids. Naturally, that is just my personal opinion (guess even).



iv. If we must not allow any possible element of Christ to be lost from our body, since He has united Himself to us in the eucharist, then surely we should not spit or go to the lavatory at all, because Christ does not 'wear off' like some magical spell, He unites Himself to us, physically and spiritually.


The reason spitting after Holy Communion is strictly prohibited is to avoid spitting out any remainder of the Holy Mysteries that might still be left in your mouth. But, as I said above, I don't believe the union that occurs between Christ's blood and our own extends to all bodily fluids (again, just a guess on my part), and so one cannot equate urinating, sweating, blowing ones nose, etc. to bleeding.

This is not to say that a person who bleeds after partaking of the Sacrament somehow loses the grace s/he received from it.

Rather, it is about respecting the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, and the reverence that must be shown towards it. If Christ's blood is united with our own, unnecessary disposal of blood would not seem to correspond to this.

If bleeding is unavoidable (so I was told), the bandage/tissue/thing used to stop the bleeding should be burned and the ashes scattered into a river or someplace similar - i.e. the same way one would dispose of a shirt, for example, if the Sacrament spilled onto it.

This is how it appears to me anyways.

In XC,
Kris

[Father David Moser]

The "emission of bodily fluids" is, as Peter suggests, a "natural" occurance and can be viewed in that sense. However, it is "natural" only to the fallen animal like state of man. Prior to the fall - well, we can't actually speak to what the nature of man was prior to the fall since we don't really know (although some of the Fathers do speak about it so we can garner some ideas). Thus, what we consider the "natural" state of man is in fact un-natural because it is fallen.

These "natural" events, such as menstruation in women and nocturnal emissions in men are "unclean" not because they themselves are "unnatural" or are somehow magically potent - but rather they are the "natural" expression of our "un-natural" state. They are visible expressions of the natural consequences of our sinfulness which we inherited from the fall. Thus when these things occur, they simply remind us in an emphatic way that we are sinful creatures who willingly separate ourselves from God on a regular basis because sin is in our "nature" and so ought to prompt in us a profound sense of repentance, sorrow and mourning for our sins, and a clear awareness of our own unworthiness before God. This repentance etc is not because of the "natural" event but rather it is because of what this "natural" event should evoke in us. The fact that we do not "see the reason" for such repentant actions any longer is only further evidence that we have lost the sense of God's holiness and our own unworthiness and we have lost the full awareness of the depth of our separation from God. Therefore the Church prescribes "ritual" actions at these times to help us somehow regain that sensitivity, to regain that awareness of the spiritual reality of our fallen condition.

We do not abstain from Holy Communion *because* we are bleeding, but rather because the mere fact that we are able to bleed is (or should be) a poignant reminder of our profound unworthiness, our fallen human sinfulness and separation from God.

Archpr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

Are you suggesting that the human body was so completely changed at the fall that most of our bodily organs were completely recreated?

If so then it seems to me that there is very little in common between the bodies of Adam and Eve before the Fall and afterwards.

If the emission of bodily fluids is due to the fall then it would seem to me, not being comprehensive because I am not a doctor, that most of the nasal physiognomy would be different to eliminate nasal secretions. Likewise tear ducts in the eyes. There would be no intestine, bowel, etc. No bladder etc. No ovaries, womb etc. Indeed it would suggest that internally there is not much in common with the pre-Fall body.

Yet we find no mention of this at all in the Scripture, and the idea that such emissions are due to the Fall is condemned by St Gregory, the Apostolic Constitutions and the Didaskalia.

Can I ask whether the EO believe that the Constitutions derive from the Apostles, as the Tradition teaches? If so then surely we must be bound by the clear statements there that bodily emissions are not to be considered as preventing anyone receiving communion.

If the bodily emissions do then it would seem that all emissions must cause a problem for the person receiving Christ in the communion. Not only bleeding, but weeping. I have not heard that Christ is united to our blood, I have always understood and been taught that He is united to our whole being, so all emissions must compromise our reception of Christ.

I do not understand when you say that we do not abstain 'because' we are bleeding, since this is the opposite to what has been said. If we abstain because we are fallen then no one should receive. As the authorities I have quoted state clearly, the liability to human infirmity is no bar to receiving Christ in the eucharist.

Do you believe that these authorities are in error? I would have difficulty with that since I believe that the EO have listed the Apostolic Constitutions among the ecumenical canons.

Peter

[Father David Moser]

Are you suggesting that the human body was so completely changed at the fall that most of our bodily organs were completely recreated?

If so then it seems to me that there is very little in common between the bodies of Adam and Eve before the Fall and afterwards.


There is a fairly strong consensus among the fathers that when God clothed Adam and Eve with "garments of skin" that this signifies a significant change in what we recognize as our bodily nature. Prior to the fall, many of the fathers speak of the body as nearer to that of the angels, but that after the fall we became "heavier" and more akin to the animals. There are a number of fairly comprehensive treatments of this in current theological writing - I would suggest "Deification in Christ" by Panayiotis Nellas.




I do not understand when you say that we do not abstain 'because' we are bleeding, since this is the opposite to what has been said. If we abstain because we are fallen then no one should receive. As the authorities I have quoted state clearly, the liability to human infirmity is no bar to receiving Christ in the eucharist.

I think you missed the point here. It is true, we are all profoundly unworthy to receive the Holy Mysteries, however, our good and gracious God in His infinite compassions grants them to us in any case. If we all always could maintain that sense of profound unworthiness, perhaps such a teaching/pastoral exercise would not be needed. What I'm saying is that it is not the fact that we are bleeding that is the issue, but rather the fact that we *can* bleed, because we are fallen. If we realized the full import of that simple fact, perhaps we would be less cavalier about our spiritual lives.

I suppose I could go on and try to clarify even more - but I think then I would just confuse things even more with apparent contradictions (which are, in fact not at all contradictory). So with the desire to keep from giving you even more confusion, I will stop here.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

A venerable Greek bishop once told me that the bodies of Adam and Eve before the Fall were somewhat like the body of Christ after His Resurrection. That's an attractive thought, but we are told, I think, that Christ did not need to eat after His Resurrection (though He did so to demonstrate that He was not a phantom) whereas eating was what Adam and Eve were told they could do. Eating, however, seems to presuppose the physiological functions of our bodies, so I really don't know what to think.

It's interesting to note that in Paradise, Adam and Eve were offered a vegan diet. If we aspire to a pre-Fall spiritual state, should we avoid meat? My wife and I do and feel better spiritually for it and don't feel deprived. Not surpisingly, fathers we know in Russia are pleased at this - Greek fathers we know can't understand it! We are told also that eating meat is not good for the environment - it takes far more land to raise animals for food than for crops. Also, if a person eats meat, are they relying on someone else to do something - killing and butchering an animal - that they would not like to do themselves? Part of the training for English special forces is to visit an abbatoir. Adam gave names to the animals. The Psalmist says, let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. I have to say that the Greek habit of celebrating Pascha by killing lambs and eating them on Easter Day seems barbaric to me. I thought we weren't supposed to eat meat anyway on the day we have Holy Communion.

[Scott Pierson]

I think this was part of Fr Joseph's point, above, as also Kris's. I would only add that forcing a distinction between 'literal' and 'spiritual' can be dangerous. It begins a flawed dichotomy of body and soul, mundane and sacred; but it also opens the door to personalisation, customisation, etc.

Would that also apply to the distincition of the letter vs the spirit of a cannon?
If you cant seperate the two how would it be possible for a priest or bishop to change canonical requirments for an individual person in regards to fasting for instance? If they did lessen the canonical fasting requirments for a person wouldnt they be guilty of violating the spirit of the canon along with the letter then?

[Peter Farrington]

Scott

I think I agree with you. If it is dangerous to make a complete breach between the letter and the spirit, so it is also dangerous to competely identify the two.

And I have always understood that the Orthodox spiritual way is indeed 'personalised' and 'customised' so that the salvation of 'this particular person' is achieved. I thought that was why we referred everything to our fathers and bishops and were obedient to their counsel?

If our spiritual life isn't customised to our own spiritual growth then why do we need a spiritual father? We can just read the rule book and do what it says? But that is the opposite of what we are taught in Orthodoxy to do.

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

Above, I wrote:


I think this was part of Fr Joseph's point, above, as also Kris's. I would only add that forcing a distinction between 'literal' and 'spiritual' can be dangerous. It begins a flawed dichotomy of body and soul, mundane and sacred; but it also opens the door to personalisation, customisation, etc.

To which Scott replied:


Would that also apply to the distincition of the letter vs the spirit of a cannon? If you cant seperate the two how would it be possible for a priest or bishop to change canonical requirments for an individual person in regards to fasting for instance? If they did lessen the canonical fasting requirments for a person wouldnt they be guilty of violating the spirit of the canon along with the letter then?

There is a real danger in seeing things as 'either this way or that', black or white. To say that we oughtn't force a dichotomy between what is practical and what is spiritual, is not to say they the two aren't distinct. It's to say that their distinction has to be seen as part of their union.

A good analogy would be a married couple. A husband and a wife are a single unit: the married couple, yet this 'couple' is in fact made up of husband and wife. To try to merge them into one 'thing' in treatment or discussion, distorts what a marriage really is, by dissolving the idea of a real communion. One must always acknowledge there there is a man and a woman in this relationship. But if you speak of 'the man' or 'the woman' in complete isolation from the fact of the marital union, you're not really speaking about them fully. It is the marriage that makes them one, but also that defines how they are two (which is different to who two unmarried individuals are two in relation to one another).

Back to the Church's canonical regulations on life: one must of course maintain a distinction between the 'practical' and 'spiritual' realms of such guides -- but the moment they are divorced, neither any longer has its true meaning.

INXC, Matthew

(NB: I do enjoy the occasional misspelling of a church canon as a 'cannon', the latter being the large iron contraption that fires lead missiles into enemy ships. Sometimes we do use the canons as cannons!)

[Scott Pierson]

There is a real danger in seeing things as 'either this way or that', black or white. To say that we oughtn't force a dichotomy between what is practical and what is spiritual, is not to say they the two aren't distinct. It's to say that their distinction has to be seen as part of their union.

A good analogy would be a married couple. A husband and a wife are a single unit: the married couple, yet this 'couple' is in fact made up of husband and wife. To try to merge them into one 'thing' in treatment or discussion, distorts what a marriage really is, by dissolving the idea of a real communion. One must always acknowledge there there is a man and a woman in this relationship. But if you speak of 'the man' or 'the woman' in complete isolation from the fact of the marital union, you're not really speaking about them fully. It is the marriage that makes them one, but also that defines how they are two (which is different to who two unmarried individuals are two in relation to one another).

Back to the Church's canonical regulations on life: one must of course maintain a distinction between the 'practical' and 'spiritual' realms of such guides -- but the moment they are divorced, neither any longer has its true meaning.

Thank you. Very informative.

[Fr. Joseph]

Dear Friends,

God has given us Godly leaders and examples. If Monasticism is the preservation by the grace of God of the early Church of Acts (2:42) then we are safe following their example and guidance. We can pick and choose patrisitic texts out of history not completely understanding their context and use them to support our arguments and positions. But when it really comes down to it, we have to get back to reality and realize we are dying and desperately need salvation, and do not have time to turn over every rock to discover the path we are supposed to be on.

Thanks be to our merciful God He has left us with Monasticism and Monastics which have always been the safeguard of the Faith. It is interesting to see the unity in Orthodox Monasticism today in comparison to the disunity of the Orthodox faithful in the world. The Church in Her wisdom and guided by the Holy Spirit came to the conclusion it was best to call our leaders, our Bishops, out of the Monastic community for a reason. When one obediently lives the faith fervently on a daily basis, one tends to discover theology through grace and practice and is in a position to understand the Holy Fathers from a whole different perspective than us who live a very worldly life and only "dabble" with theology.

Around the world, whether it be Russia, Serbia, Greece, Romanian or any other Orthodox Country, Monasticism is firm on the basic tenets of our Faith, and being so has produced a multitude of Saints, Spiritual Elders, Staretz and Gerondas to guide us. We should ask them when it comes to questions on how to live the faith. I have no doubt in my mind that not a single traditional Monastery or Monastic today would teach it is okay to approach Holy Communion during menstruation, or while a man has an emission. (By the way, if Priest has an emission the night before Liturgy, he is called to spend much of the remaining night in deep repentance and prostrations reading special prayers from a special service written for this circumstance by the Church. They have to serve the Liturgy, and in doing so partake of Communion, simply for the sake of the people).

In light of this and the multitude of modern Saints and Elders we have today, my family, flock and I will follow their lead of the Holy Elders and Monastic Community for such matters--for the have always reflected the living life of the Church. If others want to invent their own path and experiement with the practices of the Faith, they have that right. But a warning to all of us who dare to teach others new practices than those given to us by our Fathers: if we cause even one person to stumble in the faith by encouraging a new or defunct practice, it would be better for us to tie a stone around our necks and cast ourselves into the sea. We are not playing with ideas and theology, ultimately we are playing with people's salvation.

In closing, I would like to invite everyone to take a look at OrthodoxCircle.com which clearly compliments this site.

Fr. Joseph

[Elena]

I think few women doubt that the manner in which our children are given to us is not the same state as that before the fall. The dangers of childbirth, pregnancy and monthly pain are the least most women can expect not to mention the pain of children who die within the womb or whom our bodies cannot support. I have no idea what the reproductive system was before the fall and think it would be pointless to speculate, but I am confident it was not that which we suffer today.

The question of whether or not to partake in the Eucharist during such times when our fallen state particularly apparent to us is surely one for each person to discuss with their spiritual father and depends upon what is best for their spiritual growth.

[Andreas Moran]

In Russia, women do not go into the church when menstruating. My wife took a bit of persuading to go to church at this time but she certainly doesn't take Holy Communion and doesn't like to kiss icons or the Gospel book.

She said that when she was younger, and didn't know better, she had Communion while menstruating, and suffered terrible headaches for a few days afterwards.

[Father David Moser]

My wife took a bit of persuading to go to church at this time but she certainly doesn't take Holy Communion and doesn't like to kiss icons or the Gospel book.

And this is not an uncommon attitude, especially among Russian women - whether recent immigrants or from the older migrations where the old country traditions have been preserved. I think that such a pious approach to the Holy Mysteries - even to participation in the heavenly worship - is commendable and spiritually beneficial. It is not something that can or should be legislated, but when someone has this sense of the holy, it should be encouraged and in no way discouraged.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Fr David, your blessing,

It is, of course, the rule in Russia, but as so often with such things in Russia, there is a humble acceptance of the rule and so a happy coincidence of compliance and piety.

[M.C. Steenberg]

It is, of course, the rule in Russia, but as so often with such things in Russia, there is a humble acceptance of the rule and so a happy coincidence of compliance and piety.

Sometimes! ;-)

INXC, Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Matthew,

Well . . . yes! But I would make a case for humble acceptance. May there not be a danger that if we dig too much we start to undermine the foundations, or at least, for some, raise unnecessary doubts where not previously existed? May be for some this is not a danger, but may we still not lose a little of that child-like quality Christ said we must have? It must be obvious to readers from my posts that I am not the sharpest knife in this drawer, nor am I knowledgeable enough to debate as do others. What I try to do is to know and understand enough for my own devotions (such as they are) and to be able to answer a question if anyone happens to ask, or to be able to say where the answer may be found. But, we are all different - God likes variety! We have been given what we need, enough to light up the path in front of us. We have not been told all that would satisfy our curiosity.

I'm not saying, of course, there should not be inquiry - just that for some, like me, much speculation, even if I could do it, is not very profitable.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Andreas

With respect, this forum does advertise itself as for Patristic study. Your point is well made that there are perhaps those for whom study of patristics raises difficult questions, but then perhaps they would be better off on a forum devoted to the sort of questions that less theologically literate lay folk often have.

If investigation of the patristic Tradition is to be narrowed to those issues which no-one might feel threatened by, and if only certain patristic documents may be used, then we are not engaging in Patristic Study, or rather it is a very bowdlerised version of Patristic study.

I have used the Apostolic Constitutions, the Didaskalia and St Gregory the Great as references in this thread. these are surely authoritative documents for all Orthodox Traditions and therefore offer an important contribution in any discussion.

Best wishes

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Matthew,

Well . . . yes! But I would make a case for humble acceptance. May there not be a danger that if we dig too much we start to undermine the foundations, or at least, for some, raise unnecessary doubts where not previously existed? May be for some this is not a danger, but may we still not lose a little of that child-like quality Christ said we must have? It must be obvious to readers from my posts that I am not the sharpest knife in this drawer, nor am I knowledgeable enough to debate as do others. What I try to do is to know and understand enough for my own devotions (such as they are) and to be able to answer a question if anyone happens to ask, or to be able to say where the answer may be found. But, we are all different - God likes variety! We have been given what we need, enough to light up the path in front of us. We have not been told all that would satisfy our curiosity.

I'm not saying, of course, there should not be inquiry - just that for some, like me, much speculation, even if I could do it, is not very profitable.

Thank you for your comments, Andreas. My reply above was actually just a barb on the fact that not always in Russia does one see simple acceptance!

The life of faith is always, or always should be, a mixture of 'simple acceptance' and active enquiry. One of the basic testimonies of the desert fathers, from the example of their lives, is that Christian life is not built on the intellect, but neither is it counter to the intellect. It is too easy to try to pick one or the other, but there is little mandate for this in the ascetical life of the Church. But in some sense, forums like this exist to explore precisely that interplay.

INXC, Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Matthew,

Because I am sure to speak 'words without knowledge' I don't try to contribute to many parts of this site, and I know that in some ways I am out of my depth here. I wonder, though, at the idea that the intellect is a necessary part of the life of faith. Whilst the Orthodox Tradition is clearly full of the wisdom of those who have brought their intellect to bear on many things, I should take some persuading that intellectual inquiry is actually necessary for our salvation (as opposed to helpful for some). I refer again to the example of my late wife who, as I have said before, never read anything, yet was granted such a measure of grace that our spiritual father marvelled at it. She had mystical experiences of the sort I have only read about and when she died, our spiritual father assured me that her soul went straight to paradise. She attracted, he said, such grace because of her humble and even grateful acceptance of her disease and saw the day of her death as the day of her birth into the real life.

One of the things that attracted me to Orthodoxy and persuaded me (though I was a hard case!) as to its truth was the presence of grace perceived intuitively, in the heart, rather than intellectually. I was persuaded of the existence of God (about which I hadn't been sure) by the realisation of a relationship with Him. It is in this spirit that I read the writings of Father Sophrony and St Silouan, and the lives of the saints, and I just marvel at God's love bestowed so abundantly, even upon me, the most miserable of sinners.

By the way, I tried to use the Links to go to 'Discussion groups and email lists' but it doesn't work.

In Christ,

Andreas.

[Katherine]

If it's of any help to you, this was my complaint only recently when I went to visit a convent and was talking with the Abbess. My heart's cry was "Why can't I have Communion during my period, when I need it the most?" She smiled and assured me 1) the nuns there have Communion every week, except that time of the month; and 2) "well, remember the Mother of God - she had her periods too, and had to leave the Temple for that time, and she was holy! If she could do it, then we can manage too."

The Abbess then went on to say missing out on Communion during this time also keeps us humble and helps us remember our great need for Christ - and only makes us all the more eager to have Communion the following week ... or whenever we are next available to do so.

Here is a good article that may be of some help to you:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx

[Rene O.]

Can someone please clarify on this issue, since it came up during a talk this week with my wife and a local Orthodox priest and our resident Orthodox theologian.

This thread leaves the impression that the apostolic writings themselves are ignored in favor of monastic infallibility.

My very limited experience so far shows those who are receiving undue heavy influence from monks stand on one side as Orthodox Tradition, but the actual writings, included the earliest and most trusted apostolic sources are protecting the Church from becoming judaized through these false additions to our Orthodox Christian Faith? Our local monks also speak against all sex as lower evils within marriage and obviously sinful outside of marriage between one man and one woman, and promote a belief in toll houses, which rather than being universally accepted by all Orthodox, is condemned as heresy by many Orthodox.

Thanks for all your insights on what early church fathers have clearly said and what our apostles or their direct disciples have written about this subject.

humbly in Christ,

[Herman Blaydoe]

This thread leaves the impression that the apostolic writings themselves are ignored in favor of monastic infallibility.

There is no such thing as "monastic infallibility". However, the advice of certain individuals who often happen to be monastics is often revered. I don't think saying that the writings of the Apostles (by which I assume you refer to Holy Scripture, specifically the Epistles?) is being ignored is a fair assessment.

If I want to learn how to play tennis, the best source might be a professional tennis player. If I want to become a better "spiritual athlete", wouldn't a preferred source be a "professional" spiritual athlete?


My very limited experience so far shows those who are receiving undue heavy influence from monks stand on one side as Orthodox Tradition, but the actual writings, included the earliest and most trusted apostolic sources are protecting the Church from becoming judaized through these false additions to our Orthodox Christian Faith?

Wow. Charge, trial and verdict all in one sentence. I would say my experience has been rather different. I have not yet met a monastic that considered himself (or herself) to be infallible, nor did they, in any discernable way, differ from the "earliest and most trusted apostolic sources" or try to make false additions to our Orthodox Faith. I am not a monastic myself, but I do manage the Orthodox Monasteries of North America website (http://omna.malf.net). I have been to several monasteries and met or corresponded with quite a few monastics. I have been a member of the Orthodox Church since the mid 70s. I do know that back in those days, monasticism was not looked on in a favorable manner in certain circles. Mt. Athos was only beginning to come out of a rather serious slump and monasteries in the US were very few and very far between. Monastic vocations were actively discouraged and there has always been something of a dynamic tension between monastic tradition and parish life. I, for one, do not see this as a bad thing.


Our local monks also speak against all sex as lower evils within marriage and obviously sinful outside of marriage between one man and one woman, and promote a belief in toll houses, which rather than being universally accepted by all Orthodox, is condemned as heresy by many Orthodox.

I have noticed that what people say the monastics say and what has actually been said by monastics are often very different. I know that there were some very militant articles against monasticism during the campaign for the ouster of Metropolitan Spyridon (GOAA) that seriously distorted or blew totally out of proportion some things reputedly coming from certain monastics.

As to the Toll Houses, I think the best can be said is that the Church is not of one mind on the subject, but I think the charge of heresy in general is a bit strong. There are reputable and respected advocates on both sides of this particular issue.

Does that help clarify anything for you?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Plus, the influence of monastics on the Church is accomplished in a much more subtle fashion than sometimes thought.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rene O.]

There is no such thing as "monastic infallibility". However, the advice of certain individuals who often happen to be monastics is often revered. I don't think saying that the writings of the Apostles (by which I assume you refer to Holy Scripture, specifically the Epistles?) is being ignored is a fair assessment.

I was referring to the body of this threat, where the didaskali and the apostolic constitutions have been quoted very clearly promoting an Orthodox theological understanding of purity of women during their menstruation cycle and called as partakers of the Holy Spirit to obviously also partake of the Holy Eucharist.

I called a friend of mine, who is an Orthodox theologian from Syria (Antiochian), and a reliable author of several Orthodox books that help guide us through the Church Fathers, and he confirmed that it is the Church's theological position that women during menstruation cycle are called to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, but there are some false traditions that are creeping in through some monks into the Church for several hundred years now, that go against the Church's theology in this area. He has the highest regards for monasticism and monasteries, but also has keen awareness of historical reality that unfortunately, many of the heresies of the Church have come through zealous and fervent monks. He obviously recommends close friendships and fellowship with faithful monks , but also understands the importance of keeping gnostic teachings of "the evil of the body" away from Holy Orthodox practice and also wants us all to keep the Church pure from the judaizing of the Holy Orthodox theology by holy men who can be wrong theologically at times.


I have noticed that what people say the monastics say and what has actually been said by monastics are often very different. I know that there were some very militant articles against monasticism during the campaign for the ouster of Metropolitan Spyridon (GOAA) that seriously distorted or blew totally out of proportion some things reputedly coming from certain monastics.

As to the Toll Houses, I think the best can be said is that the Church is not of one mind on the subject, but I think the charge of heresy in general is a bit strong. There are reputable and respected advocates on both sides of this particular issue.

Does that help clarify anything for you?

Orthodox theologians tell me that toll houses go against the Theology of the Church and entered the church somewhere after the 11th century through holy monks, who can sometimes be a place for gnosticism to partially infiltrate the Church. There are not supposed to be any trusted early church theology promoting this belief, except in some who were gnostically influenced. I am not a theologian, but humbly receiving their understanding and verifying here to find out if others might know of other quotes that might guide all Orthodox in this regards as well.

My main concern was that throughout this thread, I was surprised that the trusted early church fathers' writings were quoted and no one tried to explain away the obvious, but several posters continued to present the Orthodox position, without any backing or even try to explain away the Church's Trusted Fathers' writings on the subject. I was most concerned when the impression was left that Orthodox would trust a 21st century monk, because according to one father, monasteries are the trusted repositories of Orthodox faith to help us wade through the right Church Fathers to back our Orthodox theological beliefs. This obviously goes against everything Orthodox. We have no infallible monks or bishops in the Church and trust The Holy Spirit's guidance in the Holy Scriptures and our Holy Tradition above all modern interpretations, no matter how well intentioned or how holy is the man giving us the advice.

humbly in Christ,

[Father David Moser]

Orthodox theologians tell me that toll houses go against the Theology of the Church and entered the church somewhere after the 11th century through holy monks, who can sometimes be a place for gnosticism to partially infiltrate the Church. There are not supposed to be any trusted early church theology promoting this belief, except in some who were gnostically influenced. I am not a theologian, but humbly receiving their understanding and verifying here to find out if others might know of other quotes that might guide all Orthodox in this regards as well.

My main concern was that throughout this thread, I was surprised that the trusted early church fathers' writings were quoted and no one tried to explain away the obvious, but several posters continued to present the Orthodox position, without any backing or even try to explain away the Church's Trusted Fathers' writings on the subject. I was most concerned when the impression was left that Orthodox would trust a 21st century monk, ...

Tollhouses are actually a whole different topic than the one about "fasting before communion" If you are interested in these topics, may I suggest that you look at these threads: Toll houses (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1616) and Death and the afterlife (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1621) The second thread also touches on your question about the place of sex in marriage.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

it is the Church's theological position that women during menstruation cycle are called to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, but there are some false traditions that are creeping in through some monks into the Church for several hundred years now, that go against the Church's theology in this area.

There is a serious misunderstanding here. This tradition is attested to in canons from at least the 3rd century. Although open to pastoral application (see St Gregory the Great's Letter to St Augustine which Bede quotes in his History of the English People) it is likely that this tradition arose naturally from within the Church at large. On the face of it is difficult to see what this would have had to do with monasticism since this is not an ascetic issue.


He has the highest regards for monasticism and monasteries, but also has keen awareness of historical reality that unfortunately, many of the heresies of the Church have come through zealous and fervent monks. He obviously recommends close friendships and fellowship with faithful monks , but also understands the importance of keeping gnostic teachings of "the evil of the body" away from Holy Orthodox practice and also wants us all to keep the Church pure from the judaizing of the Holy Orthodox theology by holy men who can be wrong theologically at times.

I have to say there is an anti-monastic bias at work here prejudicing the fair assessment of the origins of various traditions in the Church and their actual motivation. Tracing the origin of heresy/distortion of the Faith to monastics is as pointless a task as tracing it to bishops or laity. All- monastics, bishops and laity- have been involved in heresy, etc. But this tells us nothing yet of what the actual relationship could have been between heresy and being a monk or bishop or laity. From the evidence though I would say there is no direct relationship since the essence of each of these callings is an expression of the fullness of the life of the Church.



Orthodox theologians tell me that toll houses go against the Theology of the Church and entered the church somewhere after the 11th century through holy monks, who can sometimes be a place for gnosticism to partially infiltrate the Church. There are not supposed to be any trusted early church theology promoting this belief, except in some who were gnostically influenced. I am not a theologian, but humbly receiving their understanding and verifying here to find out if others might know of other quotes that might guide all Orthodox in this regards as well.

Again, there is some sort of fundamental misunderstanding here. Toll houses from the evidence we have- and there is plenty of it in the lives of the saints- shows that this was a general tradition that came from within the Church as a whole. As to its meaning- this has been interpreted in different ways as long as we have known of this tradition.

As for Gnosticism- it's basic point is dualism and a hierarchical sense of being-I cannot see any relation between these two in the toll houses even in similarity (although the statement above implies much more than this in an actual historically causal connection). The whole point of the toll houses precisely is responsibility for what we do in this earthly body. If anything, the toll houses have been accused of being too earthly in their description.


My main concern was that throughout this thread, I was surprised that the trusted early church fathers' writings were quoted and no one tried to explain away the obvious, but several posters continued to present the Orthodox position, without any backing or even try to explain away the Church's Trusted Fathers' writings on the subject. I was most concerned when the impression was left that Orthodox would trust a 21st century monk, because according to one father, monasteries are the trusted repositories of Orthodox faith to help us wade through the right Church Fathers to back our Orthodox theological beliefs. This obviously goes against everything Orthodox. We have no infallible monks or bishops in the Church and trust The Holy Spirit's guidance in the Holy Scriptures and our Holy Tradition above all modern interpretations, no matter how well intentioned or how holy is the man giving us the advice.

Some other point is at work here rather than theology and the Fathers who are being proof read back into the situation one is actually most concerned about.

Being a few steps removed from the situation described but familiar with the actual tradition I would say that our understanding of the Church's ascetic tradition must be grounded in our own engagement with this tradition. Excess is possible and this is possible to both sides on right & left. But this has already been witnessed to clearly enough for as many centuries as monasticism has been in existence. It isn't monasticism itself then which is at variance with the tradition of the Church. Rather it is excesses to right or left but which can only be correctly assessed from within our own ascetic life.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

Archimandrite Zacharias made what I think was an oblique reference to the toll houses on the death of my first wife. Knowing the grace-filled manner of her departure, he said, 'her soul went straight up - no hindrance'. So, if they exist, maybe they're not for everyone.

[Nina]

So, if they exist, maybe they're not for everyone.

I was just reading in the book of Saint Niophon the bishop of Cyprus (who had lots of visions from Christ, Heaven, Second Judgment etc) that all the souls go through and there was this pious female who started trembling when she saw the demons but the angels showed the good deeds of her and she was not given to the authority of the evil one.

But hearing how people object about the toll-houses makes me ask: What does it matter if there are toll-houses, or not? When God Himself told that there is the fire of Gehenna prepared for the sinners, why do we mind so much about the way people will end up there? After all the toll houses are nothing in comparison to an eternal hell. But even if there are no toll houses, according to the vision of Saint Niphon he said that during the Last Judgment God will order all people, even those who were righteous, to go through the fire so their works may be tested. So even if there are no toll houses, there will be a Last Judgment where the deeds of all will be revealed, and there will be according to the vision of Saint Nephon a trying in fire.

If we object about toll-houses which may even qualify as a private affair between the departed, the angels and the demons that are fighting for his/her soul, what do we have to say about the Last Judgment which is going to reveal publicly all what we have done?

[Andreas Moran]

the Last Judgment which is going to reveal publicly all what we have done

Oh, my God!

[Michael Astley]

Hello, friends.

I wonder whether you may be able to help.

I am trying to track down a canon. I first encountered it either posted to monachos.net or linked to from monachos.net but I cannot recall where and cannot recall which thread it was. I have searched a few but with little success. It was the canon that condemns the practice of staying for the Liturgy of the Faithful but not receiving Communion.

I think that the idea is that there is no disconnect between making Eucharist and receiving Communion. If we are not properly prepared to receive Communion, then we have no place to be present at the offering of the Euchartist to God, and really ought to leave with the catechumens. If we have been made worthy to be at the Liturgy of the Faithful, through fasting and receiving of the grace of absolution, then to stay but refrain from Communion with God and the Church would be to imply schism. This makes perfect sense to me but I just can't find the canon.

Can anybody help?

Thank you.

[Michael Stickles]

Michael,

That was discussed here in the thread "Serving in the altar without communing (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4985)". The part of the discussion I think you're probably remembering started at post #7.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael Astley]

Michael,

That was discussed here in the thread "Serving in the altar without communing (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4985)". The part of the discussion I think you're probably remembering started at post #7.

In Christ,
Michael

Thank you, Michael! Much appreciated.

Pax,
Michael