Orthodox Women – Receiving Communion VI

In this 6th post considering the issue of Orthodox women receiving communion I would like to reflect on the teaching of Scripture and the Fathers about ritual purity. Sometimes other words are used, such as physical preparedness, to exclude women, and men in some situations, from receiving communion at certain times. This is different from spiritual preparedness. A ritual purity is always external, while spiritual purity is interior. Let me state again, these posts are not proposing that anyone take any action, and we should all make use of the advice of our spiritual father and be obedient to the practice of the Church as it is expressed. But we should all be becoming those who turn often to the Fathers and reflect on their teaching, not as a law, and by taking statements out of context, but as those who are becoming familiar with the wide corpus of the Patristic tradition and especially in regard to those questions which are most pressing at any time. This is what is required of us as Orthodox Christians, and this familiarity with the Fathers, together with a humble spirit, it what the Church needs to be able to form disciples in the 21st century. It can never be wrong to study the Fathers, and we must do so now in regard to questions of ritual purity.

In several passages from Justin Martin, writing about 165 AD, in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, we find some sense of how the Law of ritual purity is to be considered in the Church. There are several passages produced here but this is a serious topic that demands attentive study..

By reason, therefore, of this water of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure….

Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this water, and be circumcised with the true circumcision. For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,–namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts…

For when Abraham himself was in un-circumcision, he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells. … And, furthermore, the inability of the female sex to receive fleshly circumcision, proves that this circumcision has been given for a sign, and not for a work of righteousness. For God has given likewise to women the ability to observe all things which are righteous and virtuous; but we see that the bodily form of the male has been made different from the bodily form of the female; yet we know that neither of them is righteous or unrighteous merely for this cause, but is considered righteous by reason of piety and righteousness….

Be not offended at, or reproach us with, the bodily uncircumcision with which God has created us; and think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbaths, since God directs the government of the universe on this day equally as on all others; and the priests, as on other days, so on this, are ordered to offer sacrifices; and there are so many righteous men who have performed none of these legal ceremonies, and yet are witnessed to by God Himself…

As, then, circumcision began with Abraham, and the Sabbath and sacrifices and offerings and feasts with Moses, and it has been proved they were enjoined on account of the hardness of your people’s heart, so it was necessary, in accordance with the Father’s will, that they should have an end in Him who was born of a virgin, of the family of Abraham and tribe of Judah, and of David; in Christ the Son of God, who was proclaimed as about to come to all the world, to be the everlasting law and the everlasting covenant, even as the forementioned prophecies show. And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it…

If we are only looking for proof-texts that tell us how to act in all circumstances according to a new Patristic Law then we are doing no more than Protestants searching the Scriptures for a text that proves their opinion. The Patristic tradition, a commentary on the Scriptures written in the experience of life in the Church of Christ, demands more effort from us. There is much more in this Dialogue with Trypho which bears upon the subject of this series of posts if we read carefully, and if we do not expect simply some commandment to be followed in all times and places.

What do we find in these five excerpted passages? In the first passage we see that Justin Martyr understands that it is baptism alone which provides a true purity, and that none of the ritual washings of the Jews have any effect. If the heart and soul is pure, free from sinful thoughts and desires, then the body is already pure and requires no other purification. In the second passage he says that Christians would also follow the ritual purification rites of the Jews if they had any value, but they do not exist because of righteousness but because of the hardness of heart in those who did not know Christ and did not participate in the true circumcision which baptism represents.

Then, in the third passage, he shows that the ritual act of circumcision was given as a sign, and not as the substance of righteousness, since Abraham was made righteous by faith without circumcision. He also notes that females are not able to be circumcised in the same way because of their anatomy, yet they are made entirely righteous in every way by God together with men, by the piety of their heart not the condition of their body. He extends this thought in the fourth excerpt where he clearly expresses the view that those whom God himself witnesses as righteous have performed none of these Jewish legal obligations, since the Law of ritual purity has no force for those who are in Christ.

Finally, in the fifth passage, though there is much more in this work by Justin Martyr, he stresses that the law of ritual impurity has come to an end. Indeed how can the body which has been united with Christ in baptism be considered impure in any way, whether suffering from illness or disease, bearing wounds and broken bones, or the normal monthly period of a woman. In baptism, once and for all, the practices of ritual impurity which the Jews followed with their repeated washings, have ceased because they were the type and shadow of baptism and not the reality, just as the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the end of all the Jewish sacrifices, which were a type and shadow of his death.

These same ideas, that the ritual purity regulations of the Jewish people have come to and end, are found in Methodius of Olympia, writing about 300 AD, who says…

It is clear that he who has once been cleansed through the New Birth [baptism], can no longer be stained by that which is mentioned in the Law…

Baptism brings about an end to all ideas of ritual purity because it effects that interior and spiritual purification which transforms the body beyond that which was effected by a repeated and only symbolic washing. To be cleansed by the Holy Spirit means that there is no need for any other washing, since the washing of the soul cleanses the body, while the washing of the body only could never bring about the interior purification which was required.

And Clement of Alexandria, writing at the end of the 2nd century, contrasts the Orthodox teachings about ritual purity with those being taught by the heretic Tatian, and in his work Stromata he writes…

But the providence of God as revealed by the Lord does not order now, as it did in ancient times, that after sexual intercourse a man should wash. For there is no need for the Lord to make believers do this after intercourse since by one Baptism he has washed them clean for every such occasion, as also he has comprehended in one Baptism the many washings of Moses.

What do we find in this passage? It is first of all that there is no need and no place for the prescriptions of a Jewish ritual purity now, though it had its place in ancient times. Once again we see that it is Baptism which makes all the difference. If we have been washed in baptism then we are already clean, already completely pure. We have been washed for every possible occasion of what would have created ritual impurity according to the Jewish Law. All of the washings of Moses, all of those instances of ritual impurity no longer apply. Baptism covers them all and is the fulfillment of them all.

Returning to the 4th century, Teaching of the Apostles, which we have seen takes a strong stand against the prohibition of women receiving communion during their period, we find in regard to ritual impurity that it rejects the whole concept. It says…

Now if any persons keep to the Jewish customs and observances concerning the natural emission and nocturnal pollutions, and the lawful conjugal acts…You stand in need of prayer and the Eucharist, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, as having been guilty of no fault in this matter. For neither marital sexual relations, nor child-bearing, nor the menstrual period, nor nocturnal emissions, can defile the nature of a man, or separate the Holy Spirit from him. Nothing but impiety and unlawful practice can do that.

This indicates, it seems to me, that in the first place there is no ritual impurity attached to any natural bodily process at all, neither marital sexual relations, nor giving birth, nor the monthly period, nor a male emission. There is no guilt and no fault associated with these as far as natural processes are concerned. They do not defile or make impure, nor does it appear that the author would allow even for the idea that they make a person unprepared in some way. This early text is very clear indeed. It is only the interior defilement of sin and sinful practice which makes a man defiled, and this impurity is not a ritual one that can be solved by washing with water, but is a real and true spiritual impurity that is only healed by repentance. In the second place, these are Jewish customs and observances and not part of Christian spirituality at all. There is nothing in the Jewish view of these natural processes which has any value or purpose at all. If you suffer such blameless processes, far from being excluded from communion you stand in need of such participation and are not impure or unprepared at all.

Another passage from the Fathers comes from St Athanasius the Apostolic in a letter he wrote before 354 AD. He says, and it is necessary to quote quite a number of passages together..

All things made by God are beautiful and pure, for the Word of God has made nothing useless or impure…. But since the devil’s darts are varied and subtle, and he contrives to trouble those who are of simpler mind, and tries to hinder the ordinary exercises of the brethren, scattering secretly among them thoughts of uncleanness and defilement… I marvel also at the craft of the devil, in that, although he is corruption and mischief itself, he suggests thoughts under the show of purity; but with the result of a snare rather than a test…. For tell me, beloved and most pious friend, what sin or uncleanness there is in any natural secretion,—as though a man were minded to make a culpable matter of the cleanings of the nose or the sputa from the mouth? And we may add also the secretions of the belly, such as are a physical necessity of animal life…. For then only do we incur defilement, when we commit sin, that foulest of things. But when any bodily excretion takes place independently of will, then we experience this, like other things, by a necessity of nature…. there are certain necessary passages accorded to the animal body, to provide for the dismissal of the superfluity of what is secreted in our several parts; for example, for the superfluity of the head, the hair and the watery discharges from the head, and the purgings of the belly, and that superfluity again of the seminative channels. What sin then is there in God’s name, elder most beloved of God, if the Master who made the body willed and made these parts to have such passages?…

What do we find as the consistent thread in these sentences from Athanasius’ letter? It is that there is no uncleanness or impurity in any of the natural emissions of the body which take place according to the manner in which God has made us. He also indicates that feelings of being unclean due to natural bodily processes are a temptation of the enemy. As he says very clearly and consistent with the other patristic passages presented here, we only become unclean when we sin. We are only defiled when we sin, and there is no sin at all in the natural processes we experience as human beings without the exercise of will on our part. This certainly includes the monthly period which a woman undergoes without will and without blame, or sin, or uncleanness.

Finally in this post, to return to Gregory the Great, and I object to rejecting his testimony simply because he was a Chalcedonian. He was perhaps the greatest and most saintly bishop of Rome in the history of the Church, and his opinions have authority as reflecting the most insightful of expressions of Western Orthodoxy. If we reject the testimony of anyone and everyone who is not Egyptian then we begin to undermine any sense of the universal Church which we confess in the creed. Gregory says, in response to the questions of Augustine the missionary bishop to the English in the late 6th century…

Yet still a woman, while suffering from her accustomed sickness, ought not to be prohibited from entering the church, since the superfluity of nature cannot be imputed to her for guilt, and it is not just that she should be deprived of entrance into the church on account of what she suffers unwillingly. For we know that the woman who suffered from an issue of blood, coming humbly behind the Lord, touched the hem of his garment, and immediately her infirmity departed from her. If then one who had an issue of blood could laudably touch the Lord’s garment, why should it be unlawful for one who suffers from a menstruum of blood to enter in the Lord’s Church?

The important aspect in this quotation is that Gregory insists that the natural process cannot be considered sin and that the woman experiences this monthly period without choice. Therefore, he says, it is unjust, it is unreasonable, it is unfair, that she be prohibited from entering the Church. And he continues…

For in females also the menstruous flow of their blood is a sickness. If therefore she presumed well who in her state of feebleness touched the Lord’s garment, why should not what is granted to one person in infirmity be granted to all women who through defect of their nature are in infirmity? Further, she ought not to be prohibited during these same days from receiving the mystery of holy communion. If, however, out of great reverence, she does not presume to receive, she is to be commended; but, if she should receive, she is not to be judged.

What we find here is a rejection of any language of impurity, since this is a natural process and may even be considered a sickness. And if it was commendable for the woman with an issue of blood to touch the Lord, then it is to be granted to all women experiencing this blameless flow, which is not defiling, to touch the Lord. Yet we must be clear, and will consider this in another post. There is no sense that a woman, or a man in some other condition, must receive communion. There is indeed an inward preparation and preparedness that is required. But this is an interior process of the heart and is not based on any state of ritual bodily purity. To show that this the attitude of Gregory we may read one further passage…

Whence also Paul the Apostle says, All things are pure to the pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure. And immediately, to declare the cause of this defilement, he subjoins, For their mind and conscience is defiled. If, then, food is not impure to one whose mind is not impure, why should what with a pure mind a woman suffers from nature be reckoned to her for impurity?

What is the cause of defilement and of impurity? It is when the mind and the conscience are defiled and impure. And in the case of an Orthodox woman who is pure of mind and prepared to receive communion with humility and repentance? Gregory insists that there is nothing in her monthly period which could be considered defiling or the cause of impurity at all. And if there is nothing in this blameless monthly flow which is impure then it seems to me that there is no basis for any sense of bodily unpreparedness.

In future posts I will be looking at what the Scriptures and the Fathers in their commentary say about ritual impurity. I will also be considering the influences and development of the prohibition on women receiving communion, and what exactly those who oppose such communion think might happen to one who is suffering from such a flow of blood. Finally, in yet another post, I will propose my own understanding of the Scripture and the Fathers on this issue, and what might be required as the intersection of culture and the Tradition moves.