Restricting Women from Holy Communion

2»

Comments

  • Agreeing with "The least of all"!

    May God save us all from the ἰουδαΐζω! 
  • Same here...I agree fully with Least of All. It would have taken me much longer to pull out all these Patristic quotes, hence why I did not respond.

    For a good overview of the canonical history of this "rule" in the different churches, please refer to the chapter on women absolution after giving birth in Fr. Athanasius Almaqary's book on Baptim, though unfortunately he declines to take a strong stand one way or the other in order to respect the current hierarchy and view. I don't recall all the details, but I remember seeing that almost all other apostolic churches do not observe such a rule. Contrary to a prevailing attitude in the Coptic church, the consensus of all the apostolic churches on a given issue matters a great deal, because this is exactly how our own dogmas were ratified and accepted, not by fathers caring only for what the Coptic church and sources say, but what the Catholic, universal Church teaches.

    Another good read on the subject is Fr. Alexander Schmemann's book on Baptism, the chapter on absolution of women.

    Finally, a good short reading in Arabic is available online by Dr. George Bebawi on the issue of Mosaic purification laws.

    I will refrain from offering my own synthesis of all these sources until I've read them...not sure if I have the time at all :)
  • I don't view this as an issue of fairness between both sexes. I am no church father, but in my personal opinion, each sex should embrace how they were created, and strive to live the christian life in the body they were given. Each sex has certain subtle and clear human blemishes that remind them to reach for the heavenly rather than the earthly. Although menstruation may be the clearest of all signs between both sexes, it should be viewed as a spiritual tool for women rather than a barrier or discriminatory rite.

    Like fasting from food, the restriction of a woman menstruating is viewed by the church as a mechanism by which the church brings the person practicing the rite to come closer to God by truly despising the earthly, and longing for the heavenly.

    Simply put, a woman should embrace this rite as a method to come closer to God using the body He gave them.
  • Simply put, a woman should embrace this rite as a method to come closer to God using the body He gave them.

    There is no "coming closer to God" without communion.
  • [quote author=Stavro link=topic=14492.msg165216#msg165216 date=1371859563]

    Simply put, a woman should embrace this rite as a method to come closer to God using the body He gave them.

    There is no "coming closer to God" without communion.


    Are you so sure?

    Psalms 145:18 "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth."
    Luke 9:23 "And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
    Hebrews 10:22 "let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water."
    1 John 2:5 "but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him"
  • [quote author=davidschanter link=topic=14492.msg165217#msg165217 date=1371863376]
    [quote author=Stavro link=topic=14492.msg165216#msg165216 date=1371859563]

    Simply put, a woman should embrace this rite as a method to come closer to God using the body He gave them.

    There is no "coming closer to God" without communion.


    Are you so sure?

    Psalms 145:18 "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth."
    Luke 9:23 "And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
    Hebrews 10:22 "let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water."
    1 John 2:5 "but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him"


    Logical fallacy: Stavro never said communion is all you need, he said it was essential.
  • [quote author=davidschanter link=topic=14492.msg165217#msg165217 date=1371863376]
    [quote author=Stavro link=topic=14492.msg165216#msg165216 date=1371859563]

    Simply put, a woman should embrace this rite as a method to come closer to God using the body He gave them.

    There is no "coming closer to God" without communion.


    Are you so sure?

    Psalms 145:18 "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth."
    Luke 9:23 "And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
    Hebrews 10:22 "let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water."
    1 John 2:5 "but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him"


    For your first quote, you should ask yourself what it means to call on God in truth. We know that Christ said he is the truth, and so to call on God in truth is to call on God in Christ. Then, we must ask what it means to do something in Christ. Christ says, "He who eats my body and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him" (John 6:56) So to Call on God in truth is to call on God in Christ. To call on God in Christ is to call on God in abiding with Christ, which Christ shows can be brought about only through eating his flesh and blood.

    Your second quote involves following Christ. Would it surprise you if following him necessitated the Eucharistic service which he initiated saying "Do this in remembrance of me?" (Luke 22:19)

    Regarding your quotes from John, your point defeats itself. St. John says that the way to approach God is to keep his word (not just some of it.) Thus this entails eating his body and drinking his blood. And the Love of God is perfected in the Eucharist (since the Apostle speaks about the Love of God being perfected in us). Remember Christ says that there is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends. In the Eucharist, Christ laid down his life for us, perfecting love, and we thus eat that perfected love.

    There is no salvation without the Eucharist. It is not a miracle pill, but it is as necessary as breathing.

    RO
  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14492.msg165220#msg165220 date=1371866642]
    [quote author=davidschanter link=topic=14492.msg165217#msg165217 date=1371863376]
    [quote author=Stavro link=topic=14492.msg165216#msg165216 date=1371859563]

    Simply put, a woman should embrace this rite as a method to come closer to God using the body He gave them.

    There is no "coming closer to God" without communion.


    Are you so sure?

    Psalms 145:18 "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth."
    Luke 9:23 "And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
    Hebrews 10:22 "let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water."
    1 John 2:5 "but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him"


    For your first quote, you should ask yourself what it means to call on God in truth. We know that Christ said he is the truth, and so to call on God in truth is to call on God in Christ. Then, we must ask what it means to do something in Christ. Christ says, "He who eats my body and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him" (John 6:56) So to Call on God in truth is to call on God in Christ. To call on God in Christ is to call on God in abiding with Christ, which Christ shows can be brought about only through eating his flesh and blood.

    Your second quote involves following Christ. Would it surprise you if following him necessitated the Eucharistic service which he initiated saying "Do this in remembrance of me?" (Luke 22:19)

    Regarding your quotes from John, your point defeats itself. St. John says that the way to approach God is to keep his word (not just some of it.) Thus this entails eating his body and drinking his blood. And the Love of God is perfected in the Eucharist (since the Apostle speaks about the Love of God being perfected in us). Remember Christ says that there is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends. In the Eucharist, Christ laid down his life for us, perfecting love, and we thus eat that perfected love.

    There is no salvation without the Eucharist. It is not a miracle pill, but it is as necessary as breathing.

    RO


    I completely agree with you, and yes the Holy Communion allows us to remain in Him and Him in us, but is picking up your cross and following Him as simple as partaking in His body and blood?
    Also, I hate to digress from the original topic of this thread, but I believe we are defining the phrase "getting closer to God." So you both are trying to say the following from what I understand:
    "Getting closer to God" means taking Communion and nothing less, nothing more.
    That definition seems incomplete to me and somewhat juvenile.

    If I understood you incorrectly please let me know. It just sounds to me like you abide by this strict definition.
  • Hey Davidschanter,

    Well I think we both agree then. Like I said, it is not a Magic pill that you eat and it saves you, but it is necessary for salvation. It can't be done without, but it is not all that is necessary. I don't know where you got the idea that I believe taking up the cross is no more no less than the Eucharist. I don't recall saying or implying that, but I did, in fact, reject this view.

    I do abide by a strict definition, though. That one must commune to have life in him. But, along with you, I agree that there is more too it than that

    RO
  • This will probably be my last post on tasbeha.org.

    First of all, I never meant nor said that the parable of the wedding feast implied we must have an external garment that is undefiled. It is actually an internal garment that must be pure. 

    If we look at the patristic references given, there is much to say. Look at the quote by St Athanasius. Since Stavro never gave us the actual reference I can't check what exactly was St Athanasius addressing. From the context, it appears he is refuting those who claim the body is naturally sinful, or that bodily flow is a sinful act in itself, or that bodily flow is a punishment. I think I've made it clear in both my previous posts that it is not a punishment, nor does it make the person a sinner. But if you look at St Athanasius' reference, it actually corroborates what I'm saying. "But when any natural excretion occurs involuntarily, then, as we have said before, we must patiently put up with the necessity of nature.. This is what I was saying from the beginning. At the moment we have natural bodily flow involuntarily (I used the terminology "not self-inflicted but present because of the result of our sin"), we must as St Athanasius says "put up with the necessity of nature."  Some Alexandrian fathers understood this "put up with the necessity of nature" as meaning "waiting to be purified." Maybe St Dionysus and St Timothy could have spent more time defining what "purified" means but it doesn't necessarily mean that they disagree with St Athanasius' theology as everyone here seems to believe so.

    Regarding the Judas controversy, it was secondary to begin with. I can go through each and every patristic reference and show you how they don't contradict each other and that Judas was not present at the first Eucharist. But this Judas issue, as well as the menstruation issue, is symptomatic of the bigger issue.

    It is apparent that we are living in a time where it has become fashionable to question, insult and adjudicate against the clergy. Nearly 42 years Pope Shenouda "preached the word in uprightness". Nearly 42 years we called him "the fragrant mouth, the golden mouth, the 13th disciple" in our hymns. Only after his death, people are jumping on the "Pope Shenouda was heterodox" wagon because they don't agree with his decisions. Nearly 42 years with 100+ bishops on the Holy Synod and no one ever challenged the menstruation and bodily flow requirement. (Very few of his decision were exclusive and not agreed upon by the Synod).  His Holiness and the Synod had no problem removing other customs they felt were wrong that had risen over the years. And not only that Synod, but every Coptic synod from the early church had the opportunity and the means to revoke this bodily flow requirement and they didn't. Notice that neither the St Athanasius quotes or the St Cyril quotes ever says "women who are menstruating are or are not allowed to take the Eucharist". Currently I am not able to find any such decision from St Athanasius or St Cyril. But we have found such quotes from other Alexandrian fathers who have made canons to restrict the time for Eucharist. (And as others have said, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic fathers are irrelevant since this is an Alexandrian custom). And not only this requirement is now challenged, but many decision HH Pope Shenouda and the Synod declared are now easily adjudicated as heterodoxy and heresy. This includes the nonsense everyone had about the creation of the general bishop office and the elevation of a bishop to the papacy, the decision to promote GB instead of OB, standing up to bishops and priest who endorse hymns we adjudicate as Protestant which in turns means we have Protestant clergy, adjudicated that the clergy who prays next to a Jew or Muslim is automatically anathemized, the decision to put ecumenism in the forefront is an example of "selling out" the faith, and worse of all the call to abdicate from the Coptic Orthodox Church on such matters. etc. I can go on and on.

    Sure HH Pope Shenouda and the Holy Synod makes mistakes. But his theology, including upholding the ancient Father's decisions, and the reasons for his theological declarations and decisions have never been challenged until he passed away.

    I sincerely hope everyone, including myself first and foremost, takes a good look at what is said before it becomes the reason for eternal condemnation at the final judgment. Matthew 5:22.
  • I will not go into the detail of the issue of partaking of the communion while menstruating as I think it has been debated extensively. However I have a commenton on the canons cited.

    The canons cited by Rem are canons of the whole Orthodox Church not just the Church of Alexandria. Some of these canons are part of Ecumenical Councils. Others are by Saints we specifically request their absolution like St Athanasius.

    In the liturgy the priest says, during the Servants Absolution: "they may be absolved from the mouths of ....."

    When we reject these canons, we are rejecting the absolution we receive from those who put them.

    And if we reject the absolution of the servants, how can we continue serving in the liturgy and receive the Holy Communion !!!!!!!!!

    The other observation hinted by RamezM regarding the absolution given to the woman after giving birth. There would be no need of such an absolution if it were ok for the woman to receive communion while menstruating and hence no need to wait 40/80 days after the birth of boy/girl.

    Abouna Dawood Lam'ee commented on this issue. Not that his comment is greater than what is presented here, but it may shed some light on the issue.

  • Re: Judas being present

    " likewise He also took the cup after supper saying, 'this cup is the New Covenant in My Blood which is shed for you. *But behold the hand of my betrayer is with me on the table*'." Luke 22:20-21
  • edited June 2016
    "The canons cited by Rem are canons of the whole Orthodox Church not just the Church of Alexandria. Some of these canons are part of Ecumenical Councils. Others are by Saints we specifically request their absolution like St Athanasius.

    In the liturgy the priest says, during the Servants Absolution: "they may be absolved from the mouths of ....." 

    When we reject these canons, we are rejecting the absolution we receive from those who put them. "


    The answer to that is simple. These saints were not God, and therefore were fallible. This means that not every word they uttered was actually correct. You can accept a lot of what they said while recognizing that they may have been wrong about some things. Let me try to look at some of the reasons I have heard for restricting women from Holy Communion: 

    1. She is unclean (citing Exodus)
    yes. Exodus says she is unclean. But remember the New Covenant in Christ's precious, cleansing Blood. Her bodily function made her unclean because our nature was tainted by sin. Through the Cross and through Christ we were purified. Ask yourselves this: if a woman on her period had approached Jesus Christ to receive His blessing, would He turn her away calling her unclean? Did Jesus ever turn away anyone who earnestly sought Him, whether society called them "clean" or not? Odds are, you answered "no." Then ask yourselves this: If Christ would not do it, why does the Church? Is the Church still maintaining this aspect of the old covenant undermining the cleansing power of the Crucifixion? 

    2. Bodily discharge rids your body of the Holy Communion. 
    Is the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ so powerless that the mere existence of bodily secretions can render Them completely null? What about urination and defecation? If bodily secretions/excretions could really rid us of Holy Communion then using the bathroom at all any time after Holy Communion would be banned. But the thing is, the Holy Body and Precious Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are powerful enough to not go null from the mere existence of body secretions--(which were created by God)....

  • ....
    3. To remind us of Eve's sin
    Yea. Eve sinned. So did Adam. Adm's sin was actually much more severe. Think about it. According to the Holy Bible, Eve was deceived, and Adam was not. Yet both disobeyed God. Being deceived is akin to being blinded. And Christ said to the Pharisees, "If you were blind, you would have no sin, but since you say, 'we see' then you have sin." Which is worse, to disobey because of deception and blindness or to disobey with wide open eyes, completely willingly? Also, if the "husband is the head of the wife" then is he not responsible for her deeds? Finally, God gave the command regarding that tree BEFORE He created Eve, meaning it was on Adam to share the command with her. If you look at the command she repeated to Satan, it is not the same as the command God gave Adam. Adam mis-delivered the command to her, making it easier for her to be deceived. Is it then fair to pin sin completely on women and giving man 0 responsibility for it? 
Sign In or Register to comment.