www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Women, iconostasis, menstration, and Mary

Okay, here is an issue that has puzzled me for awhile.

On the post about altar girls it is stated that a women customarily receives a "blessing for cleanliness" before going behind the iconostasis. I assume this has something to do with OT menstration purity laws. Likewise, we see St Thomas Aquinas saying that it is not prudent for a man who has had an ejaculation in the las 24 hours to partake in the Eucharist. I also have heard that this is why the tradition perpetual celebate clergy gained popularity in the West because the West practiced daily communion. (If you're a priest celebrating Mass every day, then you'd require total abstinance in order to be "clean").

Now then, what should we say about this? Does a women become less pure or clean in the NT when she has a period? Does a man or women become less pure or clean when they have sex in a recognized marriage?

Also, it would certainly be improper for our Lady to have intercourse with St Joseph because before her Son died on the cross, semen would have rendered her unclean. However, she is Pan Agia and therefore neither she or Joseph would have wanted such a thing. Mary must remain ceremonially clean and holy. BUT, what about our Lady and menstration. Was the Immaculate Mother rendered unclean and barred from the Temple every month when she had her periods? Before AD 30 menstration was ceremonially unclean and rendered a person not fit to participate in the sacramental life of Israel.

Anybody else ever thought of this? What think ye?

with all due respect and honor to St Mary,
Marshall

What do I think? I thought Christ's sacrifice set us free from the OT Laws. I personally find it a bit silly. Periods are a natural thing that G-d deigned women to undergo. How does a naturally occuring event render one unclean?(in a spiritual sense)

Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

Columcille

[This message has been edited by Columcille (edited 08-17-2001).]

Marshall,

It's been cussed & discussed a fair amount, here & elsewhere.

It's kinda funny that of the entire basketload of OT ritual purity laws, the only two to hang on this long are a male sexual response (ejaculation) and an involuntary female physiological phenomenon (menstruation). Ya know, elsewhere it's been said that the only thing which renders us unable to approach God is sin. Sex within marriage isn't sin, it's a gift. The Fathers have debated whether there is volition involved in nocturnal emission, and the primary opinins are maybe/probably not/no. So there isn't sin there - or maybe only sometimes. Would somebody please explain to me how the fact that my body does what God designed it to do, a process over which I have NO control, renders me unfit to approach Him?

Jesus touched lepers & haemmorrhaging women, entered tombs, ate with whores & tax collectors - all acts which would have rendered HIM ritually unclean. Doesn't seem to have bothered Him - or the Fathers of the Church.....

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Dear Sharon and Columcille,

I don't think I communicated efficiently. Here goes again.

Of course, the OT ceremonial laws are NOT binding on believers AFTER Jesus died on the Cross. And marital sex isn't dirty or wrong.

BUT if you lived before the death of Jesus, ejaculation, touching dead bodies, menstration, etc. rendered a person ceremonially unclean. Thus, they could not participate in the ecclesiastical life of Israel until purified (usually by ritual washing - pointing toward NT baptism).

Given this, I have two concerns:

1) Why do/did Orthodox and medieval Catholics have a hang up over married priests ejaculating within 24 hours of celebrating the Eucharist - you think it wouldn't matter. And why does the East have issues (pun intended) with female menstration?

2) Since ceremonial laws were still in effect before Jesus died on the cross, did Mary menstrate? If she did in fact menstrate, then that means that the Holy Ark of the New Covenant and Mother of God was rendered impure and ceremonially unclean every month so that she would not be able to participate in the life of the OT covenant people. This doesn't sound right.

I always thought that the reason Mary was "ever-virgin" was that it would be impious for her to have sex and thus be ceremonially unclean under the Old Covenant (that is until Jesus died and then sex would be ceremonially unclean but St Jospeh was already dead by then).

Hope that makes better sense,
Marshall

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him Forever!

This was written: "...did Mary menstrate?"

If you read the Nativity narrative in the New Testament, you come to the part where on the 40th day after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary went to the Temple to sacrifice 2 turtle doves and they encountered St. Simeon and the Prophetess Anna. This sacrifice of 2 turtle doves was the customary offering for a woman who was rendered "unclean" by child-birth and was just regaining her menstrual cycle.

Hope this helps....

mark

Marshall,

Mary was fully human. Some traditions hold that she left the Temple in early adolescence so as not to profane it by her impending menarche. She would have been much more noticeable and commented upon if she had NOT menstruated. She likely retired to a separate "women's dwelling" during her period each month, returning to her home after a jaunt to the Mikvah. Following the prescribed rituals surrounding menstruation WAS participating in the life of the OT covenant people - or at least half of that population. Hmmmm. Haven't read Leviticus lately, but I recall reading a whole bunch of ways in which contact with a woman could render a man unclean, but I don't remember any where a man could render a woman (who wasn't already unclean) unclean.

Ritual uncleanness was a bigger deal for men than women, because women had a much lesser (if any) role in Temple worship. As for why some of the Fathers are/were hung up the manstruation/uncleanness notion, I don't have a clue beyond the fact that all us wimmenfolk (save for the Mother of God) are stinking abysses of impurity & sin.

Mary was a real, normal, healthy, breathing woman of flesh and blood. Unbroken Tradition holds that, and we hold firmly to the fact of her purity as well. There can be no contradiction.

As for sex the night before Liturgy, there was talk about it awhile back here, and at least one line of thought was that it wasn't so much a matter of impurity, but of indulgence. We fast from food (another lawful indulgence) prior to the Eucharist. Strict fast includes not just food and wine, but sexual abstinence as well.

Cheers,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

I said elsewhere I was indifferent to allowing female altar server. Marshall has changed my mind. I would prefer pre-menstral girls ("clean") rather than wet-dreaming teenage boys (unclean).

I feel particularly strong about this in relation to my concern for the fiduciary health of our church. Based on recent unfortunate incidents (limited as they were despite extensive press reports), I don't think it best that Catholic priests be made to make thorough inquiries of their teeenage male parishioners wet dreaming.

Bring on the young ladies.

K.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In one of my seminary classes, we discussed this issue. The instructor, teaching from the fathers indicated that the issue of blood was seen as a natural act but one in which the shedding of blood was actively occurring. He noted that a priest, altarboy, Bishop or Deacon who has an actively bleeding wound, ulcer,nosebleed, ect can not serve on the Altar and behind the Iconostasis as blood is not to be shed there. He said that this is not strictly a female issue of bleeding durine menses.

He noted that there was a pious tradition, adhered to by the Fathers even in the Monasteries that a nocternal emmission would prevent a priest from serving at the Altar. As a result some priests, he noted especially Russian Orthodox and Monastics, serve the All Night Vigil and will stay up until they have served the Liturgy to avoid the nocternal emmission.

His point seemed to be that although Menses and nocternal emmissions are natural activities of one's life they were symbols of the sinful nature of man---not the perfection of the God-Man and therefore are a reminder for us to Repent and realize our unworthiness to partake of the sacrament of Holy Communion when these items are active.

I can not say that I agree with him and I have had discussions with other instructors and spiritual fathers' who disagreed with him---on the other hand I have talked with some who are in agreement with him. When in doubt talk to your parish priest for guidance.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

In light of Peter's vision ("kill and eat" --"but it's unclean" -- "it's OK") seems to indicate to me that the issues of ritual impurity from the OT are out the window.

My logic is: if God created human beings with all sorts of 'functions' including the nightly and monthly ones, how can anybody say that what God has created in us can make us unclean. This point of view just does not make sense. (In fact, I thought that Jewish men had to 'do their duty' towards their wives on Friday evening, during the Sabbath -- I think it was something I read from the Lubavitchers - and they are not exactly 'slackers' in terms of Jewish law and customs.)

Blessings!

Clement of Alexandria wrote somewhere, "We should not be ashamed to see that which God was not ashamed to create."

Scripture (not sure where) says: "Omnia munda mundis" which means: "All is pure to whomever is pure."

Sadly, the Holy Fathers are in disagreement with you. Eastern Orthodoxy tends to look to the Holy Father's for traditional answers.
I know they were not tied to the Old Testament;to our modernist society, their beliefs often seem very confining and old fashioned. I guess that that is why we go to our Orthodox Catholic spiritual Fathers for spiritual direction under the auspices of the Holy Spirit rather than make that decision for ourselves and then follow that obedience.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited 08-19-2001).]

Yes, Brother Thomas, but the problem is that this perspective seems to leave the Holy Spirit with nothing to do except to 'reinforce' the old viewpoint.

We humans live in time. We see the world evolve. As Christians who are obligated to "Love God" and "Love one's neighbor" need to take the contemporary circumstances into consideration. And we need to both understand and respond to the current needs of our brethren.

To do otherwise is to abnegate our responsibility to our brothers and sisters and to tell the Holy Spirit: "We don't need You. It's all been settled."

Clearly, the Lord and Master had some other perspective in mind in sending the Holy Spirit to us to guide our contemporary decisions.

Blessings!

Dear Friends,

Thomas is in the "Rite" when it comes to this issue . . .

The FACT is that the Byzantine Church has prayers and a service performed over a woman after giving child-birth etc.

The FACT is that Priests are not allowed to celebrate the Divine Liturgy following sexual intercourse with their wives. The Priest's service book actually calls a Priest sleeping in the SAME ROOM with his wife a serious sin.

Nocturnal emissions are natural, but if someone has them, the Church prescribes a pentitential service to be performed immediately afterwards.

I am not a sexologist, I don't know Dr. Ruth ( I do follow her advice sometimes . . .), but that is where our Church is at.

It is nice to want to change things. But the rules are still there and what do you do about them?

Alex

And the level of observance of this is......?

a pentitiential service to be performed immediately afterwards? I would give top dollar for a copy of this.

Immediately? Is the penitent allowed to wipe himself first?

I could go on, but I think I'll save the rest of my remarks for future assertions of the rigorous maintance of every "canonical" requirement.

K.

Dear Kurt,

The service itself is in the Priest's Prayerbook.

I am sure people are allowed to "wipe themselves" first and to wash their hands.

I like to wash my hands before prayer, following an ancient observance.

Certainly, we don't follow all the canons with respect to everything.

I don't make up the rules. I once told a priest who celebrates Mass daily that he simply cannot deny his wife all the time.

The canons represent an ideal.

I don't mind saying that I have had to struggle with sexual sins all my life.

I am not offended with what the Church prescribes as penance for them.

For me, it represents an ideal of purity and self-discipline that is often out of my reach.

I believe that the Grace of God is what gives us the strength to do what our weak human nature cannot.

I, for one, am willing to give God a chance to change me through prayer and greater openness to His love and Grace.

I am sorry to say I am not impressed with your cynicism.

Alex