Questions for the Orthodox Christians, part 2

[Tuleohtlik]

Hi again!

I grew up in a agnostic home. When I first found my way to the Orthodox Church (i.e, when I first saw it for what is is; I am not a member of the Church yet), my relationship with God and the Church in many ways resembled that of a person fallen in love. I tried to find out as much as possible about the Church, while attending Divine Liturgy whenever I could. As time goes by, I am trying to delve deeper, thus encountering more and more stumbling-blocks. My hope is that I might be able to get some advice from some who have walked this way before me.

I understand the importance of obedience to Tradition, but at times I am worried by certain practices that seem more like Judaistic "leftovers" intermingled with local customs.This is probably a controversial issue, but it has been worrying me for some time. Apparently, in some (most?) parts of the Church, women are not allowed to partake of the Eucharist or venerate icons when menstruating. In my understanding, this stems from the purity laws of the Old Testament, which seems quite absurd, since Christians neither circumcise their sons nor abstain from certain foods; we have the New Covenant. It seems strangely inconsistent. Are there any discussions about the origins of these 'small-t' -traditions (which I assume the above is an example of) ?

My second question is about the approach to confession. Many times, I have heard people say that the Orthodox Church is less 'legalistic' in its approach to the sacrament of Confession (I would assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the more 'legalistic' counterpart here). Sins are supposedly viewed as the results of an illness, rather than instances of rule-breaking. Yet, when I browse the Internet, the 'preparation for Confession'-lists I find seem to be nothing but endless 'check-lists'. I understand that people need guidance and preparation, but what is the point of talking about a more holistic approach to Confession, if the difference isn't there?

The Orthodox Church seems to be a Church of oxymorons - in some ways, the answer seems to lie in contradictions. The obedience to Tradition could easily be turned into a blind following of rules for following's own sake, which would render an unhealthy environment, but that does not seem to be the case. Understanding how this balance is maintained is difficult - during my more pessimistic moments, I tend to focus on how the 'human' factor might have affected Tradition.

Please remember that I am not in any way looking to offend or provoke anyone, these are issues that I have been thinking about for quite some time.

/Tuleohtlik

 

[eoe]

Hi again!

Howdy

I understand the importance of obedience to Tradition, but at times I am worried by certain practices that seem more like Judaistic "leftovers" intermingled with local customs.This is probably a controversial issue, but it has been worrying me for some time. Apparently, in some (most?) parts of the Church, women are not allowed to partake of the Eucharist or venerate icons when menstruating. In my understanding, this stems from the purity laws of the Old Testament, which seems quite absurd, since Christians neither circumcise their sons nor abstain from certain foods; we have the New Covenant. It seems strangely inconsistent. Are there any discussions about the origins of these 'small-t' -traditions (which I assume the above is an example of) ?

I have not heard of a prohibition against venerating icons.

The prohibition against taking the sacraments is NOT a purity thing. It really is quite simple. You are taking Christ into yourself. If you are then bleeding in any way - any way ie. cut on your leg, surgical wound etc. you would not take comunion. If you take comunion and then bleed - where is that blood going? Trash?
This is not a matter of purity and it goes farther than menstruation - it is a matter of bleeding.

Thsi is from a Coptic source but it gives you the idea....

It is not preferable for a person to walk barefoot, or for a man to shave, directly after Communion. This is to avoid any wound occurring which may bleed. If, however, bleeding does occur unintentionally, the blood must be wiped with a piece of cloth or cotton, then burned in fire.

My second question is about the approach to confession. Many times, I have heard people say that the Orthodox Church is less 'legalistic' in its approach to the sacrament of Confession (I would assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the more 'legalistic' counterpart here). Sins are supposedly viewed as the results of an illness, rather than instances of rule-breaking. Yet, when I browse the Internet, the 'preparation for Confession'-lists I find seem to be nothing but endless 'check-lists'. I understand that people need guidance and preparation, but what is the point of talking about a more holistic approach to Confession, if the difference isn't there?

Couple of things.
We can confess privately or in the presence of a priest. Given the choice I would prefer to have a priest there because they can offer advice and they pray for you. Orthodox are expected to participate in the sacrament of confession at least once a year.
The greek word for sin actually means "to miss the mark". That can mean that ou break a rule as you put it or it can mean that we failed to do something that we should have. The lists are there because ..well.... they help you to evaluate yourself.

The Orthodox Church seems to be a Church of oxymorons

WHO YOU CALLIN MORON!>!>!?

(just kidding....)

- in some ways, the answer seems to lie in contradictions. The obedience to Tradition could easily be turned into a blind following of rules for following's own sake, which would render an unhealthy environment, but that does not seem to be the case. Understanding how this balance is maintained is difficult - during my more pessimistic moments, I tend to focus on how the 'human' factor might have affected Tradition.

When you live the Orthodox life you will understand that these things are effectual. They work. I do not think that anyone would go through much asceticism just for the sake of doing it. They are going to want to know why they are fasting or sleeping on a hard floor or taking cold showers. you are going to want to know why these things are done.
Ultimately any spiritual excercises are going to be prescribed by your spiritual father. That is where the balance comes in. We do not go off and choose our own practices willy-nilly. We have a guide that is there to protect us from the pitfalls.

Please remember that I am not in any way looking to offend or provoke anyone, these are issues that I have been thinking about for quite some time.

/Tuleohtlik

No problem - keep em coming. Also - in order to get a quicker response - when you post one of these questions you might consider pm'ing a couple of us afterwards. I typically will check this forum less than others simply because it is less active.

 

[Orthosdoxa]

Hi again

You're asking some good questions. Hope the answers you've gotten are helpful. Keep 'em coming!

LK

 

[kamikat]

I have never heard about a prohibition of venerating icons or receiving commununion while menstruating. I'll have to ask my priest. I was raised Catholic, but haven't experienced Orthodox confession YET. Catholic confession generally focuses on the mortal sins. Venial sins do not have to be confessed formally in confession, but all mortal sins do. This can lead some to think that venial sins aren't a big deal or to think that they don't need confession if they haven't committed a mortal sin. In Orthodox confession, one may use the "check lists" as a guideline, but what is a sin for one person may not be a sin for another, such as drinking or watching TV, ect. The checklists are just a reminder about what to consider before going to confession. Many Catholics go to confession very frequently. It is more common for the Orthodox to go to confession every 3-4 months. The checklist helps you prepare. It may seem like both approaches are legalistic, but this is not so.

kamikat

 

[gzt]

The question of menstruation and "purity" regulations throughout history in the Orthodox is complex and can't be done justice in just one small post, especially not by somebody like me who doesn't know much. A short summary would be that purity regulations arise in response to theological concerns relating to who is "in" and who is "out" of the community. If you have access to a database of such things, a guy named Brakke wrote an interesting paper called something like "The Problematization of Nocturnal Emissions" which covers some related material. It basically shows how different responses in different eras to a related male problem [the paper mentions menstruation, however, it is not as illustrative of the point] were conditioned by the theological issues at play in their locale. The stated justification these days given by those who do abstain/advocate abstention are either because one is bleeding or because menstruation is a reminder and sign of our fallen nature. Most people don't abstain under those conditions these days, however. In case you're wondering, those advocating abstention on the day of a male nocturnal emission do so either on the grounds indicated for women w/ menstruation or advocate abstention if after examination it is deemed to be a result of intentional dwelling on lustful fantasies and such rather than bodily necessity [according to such authors as Cassian, this is rare]. Hope that helps.

As for confession, does a doctor ask specific questions? Does he just leave it at, "My head hurts"? I mean, I suppose all that really needs to be asked is, "Have you loved God and neighbor as you ought at all times? Have you 'run the race' and 'fought the good fight'?" The answer: "No, I guess not." But such a vague question really does leave one uncertain about all that really is going on. Specific probing questions about specific acts really do help one get to the bottom of it all. They also help prevent one from sliding down a slippery slope and letting oneself be deadened to minor sins in one area of one's life. You know, you look at the list and realize you hadn't thought about it at all before, but you might just be on the road to becoming an alcoholic. Things like that.

Though frankly I think the whole "less legalistic than the Romanists" thing is a canard. It just plays off the latent anticatholicism of American culture. I'm not even sure what legalism is supposed to mean in such criticisms anymore. It has a rather specific meaning in Scripture, but it isn't particularly relevant to whatever the hell it is they think they're saying.

 

[Tuleohtlik]

Thanks for all the replies - they were all very interesting to read, even though I felt a bit daft; the obvious reasons for the confession check-lists is something that I hadn't even thought about. The expression "Physician of our souls" did float around somewhere in my brain, but failed to connect somewhere along the line . Ah, I am not very sharp today.

 

[rusmeister]

S'OK. I have my dumb moments daily. (Does that make me an Orthodoxymoron?)

 

[Shubunkin]

These are good questions if you are genuinely seeking the truth. Sorry I cannot answer in any more depth than the ones previously since I am quite new to Orthodoxy - attending a parish here, and attending a Catechism class as an inquirer. Anyway, I wish you well, and to be able to understand and accept the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Tuleohtlik]

Rusmeister: Yes, definitely.

Charitina: Thank you!