www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Altar Girls in UGCC

Women in Holy Places

Another Frankish practice that seemed to offend Byzantine sensibilities was the fact that the Romans allowed women to enter the altar (as they nowadays, after Vatican II, also do) and perhaps to commune there.[13] An interesting remark by John of Claudiopolis (12th century) may be a reference to the topic of our study: “And this [enter the sanctuary] even women whenever they wish”[14] (emphasis is mine—S.S.). In the same century, Theodore Balsamon (of Antioch) in his answer to Marcus of Alexandria (Question 35) says that “deaconesses enjoyed a rank in the Bema (or Sanctuary), but that the complications due to menstruation dispossessed them of their rank and removed their service from the Bema.”[15] Likewise, in the fourteenth century, Matthew Blastares writes that deaconesses were “forbidden by the Fathers to enter the Bema or to perform any such services due to the unfortunate event of menstruation.”[16] Thus, the chief objection for women entering the sanctuary in the East may have been related to menstruation. This same issue, evidently, was instrumental in the cessation of the practice of ordaining deaconesses.

The same considerations, apparently, continue to be relevant in the Russian Church in our time, as Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky), for example, allowed young girls to serve in the altar as acolytes, but not older ones.[17] Likewise, women after menopause are sometimes allowed to enter the altar for various reasons, but not women who are of childbearing age. Thus, the issue of menstruation is likely to play its role in the inevitable discourse on female ordinations in the future. However, we were able to find only one strictly canonical injunction against women entering the church while menstruating—Canon II of Saint Dionysios, Archbishop of Alexandria from 248 to 265.

Canonical Evidence

Clearly, Dionysios appeals to women themselves and their own sense of piety, while issuing an opinion, rather than a prohibition proper. Moreover, even though the question was concerning women “entering the temple of God,” Dionysios leaves this question without a definite answer, and instead speaks of approaching the Holy Table and touching the Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps in his day entering the temple of God was understood as being for the purpose of partaking of Holy Communion, but there is little if any evidence of this. Most often (six days out of seven, since the Eucharist was likely to have been offered only on Sunday, the Day of the Lord, as has been shown by many scholars, including Fr. Robert Taft, one went to church to pray. And Dionysios finds “no objection to one’s praying “no matter how he may be” or to one’s remembering the Lord “at any time and in any state whatever,” and “petitioning to receive help,” presumably, also in the church. In fact, the interpretation of the Canon also states that “none of them [menstruating women] is forbidden to pray, whatever be her predicament (whether she be at home or in the promos [narthex?] of the church).”[19] Thus, the Canon specifically addresses menstruating women partaking of Holy Communion, not entering the church or lighting icon lamps in their homes or monastic cells.

Canons of the Church

Among other canons that Sister Vassa mentions after rhetorically asking whether communion should be withheld from the hearing-impaired, are Canons 6 and 7 of Timotheus and Canon 18 of Hippolytus. Of them, Canon 18 of the Church of Alexandria is “Of women in childbed, and of midwives again”—not a topic we wish to address specifically at the present time. Since Sister Vassa does not actually cite these texts, we find it necessary to cite them here as a matter of convenience:[20]

In the first instance, the issue seems to be quite simple: if a menstruating woman enters the baptismal font, the water will necessarily be mixed with menstrual fluids, and the woman as well as all those who follow her into the font would be baptized in a mixture of water and blood. Methinks, the advice to “defer until she has been purified” is still a very good one even in our day. The purification which is meant here is most likely natural, not ritual, since we are not aware of any specific Christian rituals for monthly purifications. In other words, a woman is expected to simply wait until the flow of blood stops and she is able to wash herself before entering the baptismal font.

Canon 7, on the other hand, does not immediately imply practical reasons for not approaching the Mysteries (Holy Communion), such as menstrual blood dripping in the sanctuary during divine services, but in the absence of any anthropological or soteriological assertions, we may assume that the unavailability of modern Western feminine hygiene products in ancient times may have been one of the reasons for canons such as this. In the previous work we have already discussed some examples of women not using any menstrual protection whatsoever even as late as the beginning of the twentieth century. Quite obviously, while this may still be the case in some parts of the world, this is no longer the case in the West, and some modifications of the rules concerning menstruating women entering temples may be in order.

Finally, the seventeenth Canon of John the Faster (John the IV, Patriarch of Constantinople from 582 to 595) mandates that a woman who partook of Holy Communion while menstruating must remain without Communion for forty days.[21] Compared to canonical penances for other offences that excommunicate the perpetrator for many years, even decades, forty days is obviously a symbolic gesture, perhaps showing that John did not view this as a serious offence. In any case, we can clearly observe definite canonical support for the rule of menstruating women abstaining from partaking of the Holy Communion, although some of the origins of these rules may not be relevant to our current circumstances.

The very fact that such rules are contained in several canonical texts, however, warrants a more careful consideration of its origins, than simply treating them as matters of public health, although this may have been the primary reason. Clearly, not all canons that can be located are of equal importance to the Church in the twenty-first century, or should even continue to be observed. But the canons regarding menstruating women and Communion have consistently been observed and referenced as applicable in the Russian Church from the twelfth century, to the 1913 edition of the Desk Reference, and to our time, as is also attested to by Sister Vassa. Moreover, Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) writes that literally following Mosaic Law in abstaining from sexual relations between a husband and wife, one of whom is not a Christian, during menstruation, may be one of the things which sanctifies the non-Christian partner and the couple’s children (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 3:21). This sanctifying aspect of purity rules is a thread in the fabric of Orthodox Christian piety, pulling on which may help unravel the cloth.

http://frsergei.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/more-to-the-point-should-nuns-light-their-icon-lamps/

I would love to hear Sister Vassa Larin present on this-- she has the most deliciously dry sense of humor.

I had thought there was a prohibition against anyone who is bleeding, male or female, being in the Holy Place.

Per your request here is the article by Sister Vassa (Larin): http://www.pravmir.com/article_660.html http://www.pravmir.com/article_660.html

This is common? What is it, a dispensation from the celibacy vow, so the deacon remarries and continues to serve as a deacon?

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.

Mother Vassa's conclusion is one of the best summations of the phenomenon I have ever seen, and I reproduce it here as fully representing my own thoughts on the subject:

[quote=Diak]
Article 462 of the Particular Law for the UGCC in the USA states:






Thanks for posting this. I was not sure regarding UGCC Particular Law.

Dn. Robert

I do not believe any such dispensation exists for Eastern deacons, nor do I think one should. Quite simply, the canons are what they are, and a deacon who wishes to remarry should simply leave the diaconate in order to do so.

That Latin Church for some time has allowed deacons to remarry and continue serving as deacons, provided his previous wife is not alive. At first, this required a special dispensation, now it is routine.

In 1997, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, at the behest of Pope John Paul II, set forth three conditions under which a dispensation from the impediment of holy orders for a widowed permanent deacon to remarry would be considered: "1) the great and proven usefulness of the ministry of deacon to the diocese to which he belongs; 2) the fact that he has children of such a tender age as to be in need of motherly care; 3) the fact that he has parents or parents-in-law who are elderly and in need of care" (from New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pgs. 358-9).

We have a permanent deacon in my Latin parish (who was ordained in CN before moving here). He has spoken many times about the fact he could never remarry if his wife dies (their children are grown).