What is the purpose and origin of the prohibition on this? Is it just something to placate feminists annoyed at women not being permitted communion during menstruation?
The Apostolic Constitutions, Book VI, Sec. V, XXVII - 'Of some Jewish and Gentile observances' "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. For concerning holy persons Solomon says: "That every one may prepare himself, that so when he sleeps it may keep him, and when he arises it may talk with him." For if thou thinkest, O woman, when thou art seven days in thy separation, that thou art void of the Holy Spirit, then if thou shouldest die suddenly thou wilt depart void of the Spirit, and without assured hope in God; or else thou must imagine that the Spirit always is inseparable from thee, as not being in a place. But thou standest in need of prayer and the Eucharist, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, as having been guilty of no fault in this matter.For neither lawful mixture, nor child-bearing, nor the menstrual purgation, nor nocturnal pollution, can defile the nature of a man, or separate the Holy Spirit from him. Nothing but impiety and unlawful practice can do that. For the Holy Spirit always abides with those that are possessed of it, so long as they are worthy; and those from whom it is departed, it leaves them desolate, and exposed to the wicked spirit."
Were the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions 'just trying to placate feminists'?
It's important to remember the difference between revealed Apostolic Tradition and traditions with a small 't'. The custom of preventing people from having the Eucharist because of bodily like menstruation, bleeding or ejaculation is not an Apostolic Tradition - the author(s) of the Apostolic Constitutions condemns it as a pagan/Jewish superstition, and he is probably representative of a larger school of thought (although I have no other references presently).
I have heard it explained so many times – no communion if you are bleeding whether you are a female or male. Actually Pope Shenouda was praying the liturgy once and during the liturgy his nose was bleeding. He finished the liturgy but refused to take communion that day. It is not that we are sinful or less holy if we are bleeding it is just that we don’t want to lose any of Jesus’ Blood that will be in our body when we take communion. Same reason we don’t spit when we take communion. Forgive me if I am wrong. :)
[quote author=Theophilus 1 link=topic=13340.msg156264#msg156264 date=1338492611] I have heard it explained so many times – no communion if you are bleeding whether you are a female or male. Actually Pope Shenouda was praying the liturgy once and during the liturgy his nose was bleeding. He finished the liturgy but refused to take communion that day. It is not that we are sinful or less holy if we are bleeding it is just that we don’t want to lose any of Jesus’ Blood that will be in our body when we take communion. Same reason we don’t spit when we take communion. Forgive me if I am wrong. :)
In Christ Theophilus
That doesn't make sense. We Excrete the body and blood anyway.
[quote author=qawe link=topic=13340.msg156270#msg156270 date=1338506091] [quote author=Theophilus 1 link=topic=13340.msg156264#msg156264 date=1338492611] I have heard it explained so many times – no communion if you are bleeding whether you are a female or male. Actually Pope Shenouda was praying the liturgy once and during the liturgy his nose was bleeding. He finished the liturgy but refused to take communion that day. It is not that we are sinful or less holy if we are bleeding it is just that we don’t want to lose any of Jesus’ Blood that will be in our body when we take communion. Same reason we don’t spit when we take communion. Forgive me if I am wrong. :)
In Christ Theophilus
That doesn't make sense. We Excrete the body and blood anyway.
There are a lot of things that may not make sense .. but this is what the Church received. With submission and humility the Church teaching would make sense.
I read a good scholarly paper on this a few years back. In addition to the apostolic constitutions, there is other evidence to suggest that this rule is a corruption of Orthodox tradition. St John Chrysostom for example is a documented advocate of women being allowed to have communion during their bodily cycle. Evidence suggests that most of the prohibitions were related to the poor hygiene practices of the time. Women didn't have access to things like sanitary pads so if they went to church to receive communion they might have made quite a mess.
I think the application of this rule in the Alexandrian traditional rite can be traced to St Dionysus, where he (from memory) links the female cycle with ritual uncleanliness.
The purpose of the tradition in the Apostolic Constitutions was to warn us that we MUST NOT make this link because it is an error made in the corrupted Jewish tradition.
I can see how there might be reverential value in following this tradition but all the same there is a good case that its not really an Orthodox rule in the first place.
[quote author=LoveIsDeep link=topic=13340.msg156359#msg156359 date=1338820695] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156347#msg156347 date=1338811466] How can the canons of the Orthodox Church be unorthodox?
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
It is unorthodox for the reasons I mentioned above; I don't have anything further to add to this.
I wasn't aware that there was an additional rule re. people who have issues with bleeding. What does it mean and when did it come into effect?
Your claim is that the canons are unorthodox when in fact they were legislated by the Orthodox Church is a mystery. How can they be orthodox and unorthodox at the same time?
Read St Timothy canons, he put while in Consatinople, to get more insight on the issue.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156376#msg156376 date=1338864786] [quote author=LoveIsDeep link=topic=13340.msg156359#msg156359 date=1338820695] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156347#msg156347 date=1338811466] How can the canons of the Orthodox Church be unorthodox?
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
It is unorthodox for the reasons I mentioned above; I don't have anything further to add to this.
I wasn't aware that there was an additional rule re. people who have issues with bleeding. What does it mean and when did it come into effect?
Your claim is that the canons are unorthodox when in fact they were legislated by the Orthodox Church is a mystery. How can they be orthodox and unorthodox at the same time?
Read St Timothy canons, he put while in Consatinople, to get more insight on the issue.
Thank you for the reference.
There is no mention of anything to do with bleeding or not being allowed to have communion while bleeding in any of St Timothy's canons. The Canon which I believe you are referring is based on St Dionysius's instruction and it pertains to ritual uncleanness of women during their menstrual cycle.
If anything the teaching that bleeding precludes someone from communion doesn't do so based on these canons.
[quote author=Michael Boutros link=topic=13340.msg156372#msg156372 date=1338846552] Epchois Nai Nan posted quite the irrefutable source. Imikhail, do you know why the Apostolic tradition changed?
Its not as concrete as you would think...
This document is tied to the Roman see and is reflective of their local traditions rather than ecumenical traditions.
At the time this was written traditions were forming and weren't standard across all Churches. St Irenaeus mentions in his book Against Heresies that there were differences in local traditions (which can be traced to the Apostles themselves) but the differences were outward rather than doctrinal. Around the time this was written a significant dispute occurred re. the date for the celebration of Easter, whether it be on the passover or on Sunday as we do now. Generally speaking the more Jewish communities wanted to stick to the hebrew tradition while the gentile ones wanted to do so on the sunday to commemorate the 8th day of the week which represented eternity.
The author of the Apostolic Constitutions in this instance mentions (quite comically) that if a Christian wants to know the date on which passover falls they should ask the nearest Jew. This sufficed while the Christian community was small but would eventually need to be changed, especially as the Jews got lazy and started to intentionally miscalculate the date.
You need to read these tradition with an eye to identifying (like anything else) whether the traditions are with a big T or a little t.
Here is the text from St. Timothy's canons that I believe is being referenced here:
Question 5: If a woman lies with her husband at night, or a man with his wife, and they have intercourse, should they take communion, or not? Answer: They ought not. For the apostle proclaimed, ‘Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.’ (1 Cor 7:5)
Question 6: If a female catechumen has given her name in order to be baptized [lit. en-lightened], and on the day of baptism, occurs to her according to the custom of women. Ought she to be baptized in that day, or postponed, and how long? Answer: She ought to wait, until she is purified.
Question 7: If a woman is found to be in the period according to the custom of women, ought she to approach the mysteries on that day, or not? Answer: She ought not, until she is purified.
PG XXXIII, 1300
For an Arabic translation of this canon, cf. Archimandrite Hananiah Kassab, Majmu’at Al-Shar’ Al-kanasy, (Manshurat Al-nur, 1975), 909. However, the above translation is from the Greek text of Patrologia Graeca, which I translated myself.
Not arguing for or against here, but just sharing the sources mentioned. Is this what you guys are referring to?
[quote author=LoveIsDeep link=topic=13340.msg156418#msg156418 date=1338975570] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156376#msg156376 date=1338864786] [quote author=LoveIsDeep link=topic=13340.msg156359#msg156359 date=1338820695] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156347#msg156347 date=1338811466] How can the canons of the Orthodox Church be unorthodox?
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
It is unorthodox for the reasons I mentioned above; I don't have anything further to add to this.
I wasn't aware that there was an additional rule re. people who have issues with bleeding. What does it mean and when did it come into effect?
Your claim is that the canons are unorthodox when in fact they were legislated by the Orthodox Church is a mystery. How can they be orthodox and unorthodox at the same time?
Read St Timothy canons, he put while in Consatinople, to get more insight on the issue.
Thank you for the reference.
There is no mention of anything to do with bleeding or not being allowed to have communion while bleeding in any of St Timothy's canons.
Yes, there is a reference and the canon does exist. Let me help you out. Here is the canon:
7th canon of Pope Timothy of Alexandria: Question:If a woman finds herself in the plight peculiar to her sex, ought she to come to the Mysteries on that day, or not?
Answer:She ought not to do so, until she has been purified
This canon is accepted by all the Traditional Churches so is the 2nd canon of Pope Dionysius.
There is no local tradition with regard to these canons. By definition a canon supersedes any local tradition (with a t).
If anything the teaching that bleeding precludes someone from communion doesn't do so based on these canons.
It speaks about the plight of a women's sex not whether or not she happens to be bleeding. If the rule was because of bleeding then there should be canons related to both sexes and it would be broader than the question of whether or not a woman is experiencing her time of month.
[quote author=LoveIsDeep link=topic=13340.msg156441#msg156441 date=1339028001] It speaks about the plight of a women's sex not whether or not she happens to be bleeding. If the rule was because of bleeding then there should be canons related to both sexes and it would be broader than the question of whether or not a woman is experiencing her time of month.
It seems to me you are not getting the meaning of the words. What does it mean to you "the plight of a women's sex"?
There are canons concerning men. The question to Pope Timothy was specific to the woman.
Comments
"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. For concerning holy persons Solomon says: "That every one may prepare himself, that so when he sleeps it may keep him, and when he arises it may talk with him." For if thou thinkest, O woman, when thou art seven days in thy separation, that thou art void of the Holy Spirit, then if thou shouldest die suddenly thou wilt depart void of the Spirit, and without assured hope in God; or else thou must imagine that the Spirit always is inseparable from thee, as not being in a place. But thou standest in need of prayer and the Eucharist, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, as having been guilty of no fault in this matter. For neither lawful mixture, nor child-bearing, nor the menstrual purgation, nor nocturnal pollution, can defile the nature of a man, or separate the Holy Spirit from him. Nothing but impiety and unlawful practice can do that. For the Holy Spirit always abides with those that are possessed of it, so long as they are worthy; and those from whom it is departed, it leaves them desolate, and exposed to the wicked spirit."
(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07156.htm)
Were the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions 'just trying to placate feminists'?
It's important to remember the difference between revealed Apostolic Tradition and traditions with a small 't'. The custom of preventing people from having the Eucharist because of bodily like menstruation, bleeding or ejaculation is not an Apostolic Tradition - the author(s) of the Apostolic Constitutions condemns it as a pagan/Jewish superstition, and he is probably representative of a larger school of thought (although I have no other references presently).
Christ is risen and ascended
It can be read here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07156.htm
XC is risen
:)
It is not that we are sinful or less holy if we are bleeding it is just that we don’t want to lose any of Jesus’ Blood that will be in our body when we take communion. Same reason we don’t spit when we take communion.
Forgive me if I am wrong. :)
In Christ
Theophilus
I have heard it explained so many times – no communion if you are bleeding whether you are a female or male. Actually Pope Shenouda was praying the liturgy once and during the liturgy his nose was bleeding. He finished the liturgy but refused to take communion that day.
It is not that we are sinful or less holy if we are bleeding it is just that we don’t want to lose any of Jesus’ Blood that will be in our body when we take communion. Same reason we don’t spit when we take communion.
Forgive me if I am wrong. :)
In Christ
Theophilus
That doesn't make sense. We Excrete the body and blood anyway.
[quote author=Theophilus 1 link=topic=13340.msg156264#msg156264 date=1338492611]
I have heard it explained so many times – no communion if you are bleeding whether you are a female or male. Actually Pope Shenouda was praying the liturgy once and during the liturgy his nose was bleeding. He finished the liturgy but refused to take communion that day.
It is not that we are sinful or less holy if we are bleeding it is just that we don’t want to lose any of Jesus’ Blood that will be in our body when we take communion. Same reason we don’t spit when we take communion.
Forgive me if I am wrong. :)
In Christ
Theophilus
That doesn't make sense. We Excrete the body and blood anyway.
There are a lot of things that may not make sense .. but this is what the Church received. With submission and humility the Church teaching would make sense.
I think the application of this rule in the Alexandrian traditional rite can be traced to St Dionysus, where he (from memory) links the female cycle with ritual uncleanliness.
The purpose of the tradition in the Apostolic Constitutions was to warn us that we MUST NOT make this link because it is an error made in the corrupted Jewish tradition.
I can see how there might be reverential value in following this tradition but all the same there is a good case that its not really an Orthodox rule in the first place.
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
How can the canons of the Orthodox Church be unorthodox?
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
It is unorthodox for the reasons I mentioned above; I don't have anything further to add to this.
I wasn't aware that there was an additional rule re. people who have issues with bleeding. What does it mean and when did it come into effect?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156347#msg156347 date=1338811466]
How can the canons of the Orthodox Church be unorthodox?
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
It is unorthodox for the reasons I mentioned above; I don't have anything further to add to this.
I wasn't aware that there was an additional rule re. people who have issues with bleeding. What does it mean and when did it come into effect?
Your claim is that the canons are unorthodox when in fact they were legislated by the Orthodox Church is a mystery. How can they be orthodox and unorthodox at the same time?
Read St Timothy canons, he put while in Consatinople, to get more insight on the issue.
[quote author=LoveIsDeep link=topic=13340.msg156359#msg156359 date=1338820695]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156347#msg156347 date=1338811466]
How can the canons of the Orthodox Church be unorthodox?
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
It is unorthodox for the reasons I mentioned above; I don't have anything further to add to this.
I wasn't aware that there was an additional rule re. people who have issues with bleeding. What does it mean and when did it come into effect?
Your claim is that the canons are unorthodox when in fact they were legislated by the Orthodox Church is a mystery. How can they be orthodox and unorthodox at the same time?
Read St Timothy canons, he put while in Consatinople, to get more insight on the issue.
Thank you for the reference.
There is no mention of anything to do with bleeding or not being allowed to have communion while bleeding in any of St Timothy's canons.
The Canon which I believe you are referring is based on St Dionysius's instruction and it pertains to ritual uncleanness of women during their menstrual cycle.
If anything the teaching that bleeding precludes someone from communion doesn't do so based on these canons.
Epchois Nai Nan posted quite the irrefutable source. Imikhail, do you know why the Apostolic tradition changed?
Its not as concrete as you would think...
This document is tied to the Roman see and is reflective of their local traditions rather than ecumenical traditions.
At the time this was written traditions were forming and weren't standard across all Churches. St Irenaeus mentions in his book Against Heresies that there were differences in local traditions (which can be traced to the Apostles themselves) but the differences were outward rather than doctrinal. Around the time this was written a significant dispute occurred re. the date for the celebration of Easter, whether it be on the passover or on Sunday as we do now. Generally speaking the more Jewish communities wanted to stick to the hebrew tradition while the gentile ones wanted to do so on the sunday to commemorate the 8th day of the week which represented eternity.
The author of the Apostolic Constitutions in this instance mentions (quite comically) that if a Christian wants to know the date on which passover falls they should ask the nearest Jew. This sufficed while the Christian community was small but would eventually need to be changed, especially as the Jews got lazy and started to intentionally miscalculate the date.
You need to read these tradition with an eye to identifying (like anything else) whether the traditions are with a big T or a little t.
Not arguing for or against here, but just sharing the sources mentioned. Is this what you guys are referring to?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156376#msg156376 date=1338864786]
[quote author=LoveIsDeep link=topic=13340.msg156359#msg156359 date=1338820695]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13340.msg156347#msg156347 date=1338811466]
How can the canons of the Orthodox Church be unorthodox?
Anyone who has an issue with bleeding is not allowed to take communion.
It is unorthodox for the reasons I mentioned above; I don't have anything further to add to this.
I wasn't aware that there was an additional rule re. people who have issues with bleeding. What does it mean and when did it come into effect?
Your claim is that the canons are unorthodox when in fact they were legislated by the Orthodox Church is a mystery. How can they be orthodox and unorthodox at the same time?
Read St Timothy canons, he put while in Consatinople, to get more insight on the issue.
Thank you for the reference.
There is no mention of anything to do with bleeding or not being allowed to have communion while bleeding in any of St Timothy's canons.
Yes, there is a reference and the canon does exist. Let me help you out. Here is the canon:
7th canon of Pope Timothy of Alexandria:
Question:If a woman finds herself in the plight peculiar to her sex, ought she to come to the Mysteries on that day, or not?
Answer:She ought not to do so, until she has been purified
This canon is accepted by all the Traditional Churches so is the 2nd canon of Pope Dionysius.
There is no local tradition with regard to these canons. By definition a canon supersedes any local tradition (with a t).
So what is it based on then?
It speaks about the plight of a women's sex not whether or not she happens to be bleeding. If the rule was because of bleeding then there should be canons related to both sexes and it would be broader than the question of whether or not a woman is experiencing her time of month.
It seems to me you are not getting the meaning of the words. What does it mean to you "the plight of a women's sex"?
There are canons concerning men. The question to Pope Timothy was specific to the woman.