Abstaining from the Holy Eucharist or Divine Liturgy due to Menstruation

.

gracefullamb said:

Lack of seriousness about communion and feeling of entitlement. I'd think if a woman confesses to doing things that show she is not taking communion seriously and not adequately preparing herself, the priest could see it as a way to instill a little bit of humility and teaching her to take it more seriously than she has been. Granted my scenario is more of an individual case instead of the whole parish that some are describing.

Click to expand...

I wonder what bodily function it would be appropriate for a priest to tie communing to in the case of a man with an entitled attitude.

.

To "have a right to do something" is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.

Read Shmemann's "Holy Things for the Holy" - the single most valuable statement on the taking of the Eucharist I have read. For me, it creates the edge of a knife - where I am and should be both afraid to partake and afraid to NOT partake.

I think at times the abstaining for that reason, as grace pointed out, is to instil humility. Elder Joseph the Hesychast taught that, because it is the toughest virtue to attain. this really is a case by case kinda thing, depending on the person and the priest

Should some people be forbidden from eating pork to instill humility?

truthseeker32 said:

I hope you notice, Rus, that i said right NOT to receive, not right to receive. Either way, I agree with your thought.

Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed. My observation about the necessity of being afraid NOT to receive addresses that.

gracefullamb said:

Why is it always men and laymen at that, declaring women who follow their priest instead of this are westerners and uninformed? I guess I should look on the bright side, the misogyny hasn't gotten to the point of accusations of liberal Christianity, feminists, and not really Orthodox.

Here is a thought fellows, for those weighing in beyond saying what happens in your parish and family or why it most likely occurs, why don't you let her priest handle the matter instead of throwing around insults like you know better than her priest.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

rusmeister said:

To "have a right to do something" is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.

Read Shmemann's "Holy Things for the Holy" - the single most valuable statement on the taking of the Eucharist I have read. For me, it creates the edge of a knife - where I am and should be both afraid to partake and afraid to NOT partake.

Click to expand...

i think this raises an interesting point though. There have been times when people were commonly given bad advice about various pious practices. People often used to be told that they should only receive the Eucharist quite infrequently. In other cases, people had mixed in with their religious practice customs which were cultural additions and rather misguided.

It is entirely possible to have these kinds of deviation be widely accepted, or these little customs enter in where really they should not. And they can be, in some cases, a vehicle for good virtues, or done with a good heart.

But none of that means that the custom or the teaching is really quite right. That is to say, just because it has been widely done does not mean that it ought to have been widely done, or should continue to be done. We know practices can err on things like this, it is not some sort of mark against the Church that it is so.

I think the reason people object to this one is because it does not seem to be just a simple custom with little real effect, or even because it is adding something that is probably extraneous. I think it is because in addition to that, it seems like a teaching or practice that could actually have negative effects or easily lead to misconceptions.

gracefullamb said:

Why is it always men and laymen at that, declaring women who follow their priest instead of this are westerners and uninformed? I guess I should look on the bright side, the misogyny hasn't gotten to the point of accusations of liberal Christianity, feminists, and not really Orthodox.

Here is a thought fellows, for those weighing in beyond saying what happens in your parish and family or why it most likely occurs, why don't you let her priest handle the matter instead of throwing around insults like you know better than her priest.

Click to expand...

I think you are very right in pointing out that priests can, should and do grant ekonomia. But ekonomia is a concession, itself an admission of failure to achieve an ideal, and this is the story of our lives as Orthodox Christians, the crux of which is, or should be, to strive to be holy and yet to constantly face the fact that we fail, and have to repent and get up again.

I do not think there is any misogyny, here, however. The word is almost always abused, there is almost no such thing as misogyny, or hatred for women; any actual hatred is insanity, and is never countenanced by the Church. What I think drives such views is a wrong, over-reaction to a genuine problem I think, in my comparative experience between Russia and the US, of a relative lack of piety in regards to some aspects of American Orthodox practices. I say relative, for the intent is equal on both sides of the ocean, but nevertheless, the peculiar baggage we in the West bring into the Church does include ideas heavily influenced by wildly un-Orthodox, secular feminist thought. Thus, women NOT covering is much more widespread in the US than in Russia (and YES, I know this is NOT dogma or sin, but there IS good, and I think transcendent reason for the practice, above all, in reminding us that men are NOT women, and vice-versa, something our culture needs DESPERATELY to be reminded of. So I think that not only covering, but having men and women stand, where practical, on opposite sides of the church during services to be very salutary in that regard, asserting what we in the West all need asserted to us.
As to the OP, it's really a matter of attitude. Obedience is key, so GL is right about deferring to the guidance of your priest, but the healthy thing is certainly setting aside any sense of entitlement and the promotion of personal humility on our part.
Men don't make a big deal about uncovering, but if they did, I'd think it right to drive home the same point to them. And that also goes for any case where a man in some way lifts himself up spiritually over women.

So insisting on harsh adherence to the canons is wrong and over-reacting. But it would be equally wrong to suggest that we need take no account of them whatsoever. There is a purpose behind them, and it behooves us to seek that purpose.

If a priest lifts oekonomia from someone, should that person be circumcised according to the Law in order to instill humility?

truthseeker32 said:

I found this helpful link:

Ritual Impurity

"I shall conclude briefly, since the texts have spoken for themselves. A close look at the origins and character of the concept “ritual impurity” reveals a rather disconcerting, fundamentally non-Christian phenomenon in the guise of Orthodox piety. Regardless of whether the concept entered church practice under direct Judaic and/or pagan influences, it finds no justification in Christian anthropology and soteriology. Orthodox Christians, male and female, have been cleansed in the waters of baptism, buried and resurrected with Christ, Who became our flesh and our humanity, trampled Death by death, and liberated us from its fear. Yet we have retained a practice that reflects pagan and Old-Testament fears of the material world. This is why a belief in “ritual impurity” is not primarily a social issue, nor is it primarily about the depreciation of women. It is rather about the depreciation of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and its salvific consequences."

Click to expand...

I think there are many ways to contemplate it within an Orthodox context. This makes sense, but is certainly not an exhaustive explanation, which it seems to claim, so on that point I would disagree.

Cappadocious said:

If a priest lifts oekonomia from someone, should that person be circumcised according to the Law in order to instill humility?

Click to expand...

It might be a better aid to chastity.

ArmyMatt said:

I think at times the abstaining for that reason, as grace pointed out, is to instil humility. Elder Joseph the Hesychast taught that, because it is the toughest virtue to attain. this really is a case by case kinda thing, depending on the person and the priest

Click to expand...

You will never know what the real reason is for those women who follow this rule. You know why? Because it's female logic, and you will never get it!

I've had spiritual fathers who have advised both "directions"; and I felt it important to be obedient to both.

The practice has also been described (a Jewish woman) as relating to mourning; each menses represents a child that has not been conceived, a life lost.

In this view, consider that early miscarriage can look rather much like menses; a women may not even be aware that she has miscarried. This does, imo, shift the practice into not "cleanliness taboo", but more spiritual ground.

While under the obedience of the spiritual father who did not hold to this practice, I still felt conflicted about receiving while menstruating, yet for years did not experience the need to consider the matter (perhaps because I was still nursing a child, which can affect one's cycle ...).

While under the obedience of a spiritual father who does prefer the course of abstaining during menstruation, I have done so. But then there is this: having not had communion for months (my husband and I must swap weeks for Liturgy, and also frequently were arriving too late to Liturgy to receive ... teenagers ), I went to confession and prepared as usual. As Sun. was approaching, my oncoming menstruation would keep me from receiving. I prayed that, were it God's will for me to receive the Eucharist, the menstruation would cease. Which it did.

So in any circumstance, I am confidant that God will provide.