Q&A Home > M > Menstruation and Eucharist

I am an Orthodox Christian and wish to offer some input on your response to a question regarding Menstruation and Holy Communion. Please see the passage below.

My own personal final thought is that it is atrocious that any church, especially ours, would -- having brought even infants into the fold of our Lord Jesus Christ's Body and Blood -- then in turn denies their women these same, eternally-life giving gifts, for literally 25% of their lives from puberty until menopause. It is absurd that we would not acknowledge that this is, at least and at best, cultural -- not biblical.

I do not mean to be argumentative here; my passion on this precedes me. I will not teach my daughter that she is "unclean" in the way God created her body to function naturally.

Passage:

"In spite of the great distance that separated Rome from Britain, St. Augustine continually turned to his spiritual father, Pope Gregory the Dialogist, for guidance in his missionary work among the Anglo-Saxons. The following exchange, written in A.D. 601, addresses the delicate question of what is sometimes called "ritual uncleanness."

Q: ...How soon after child-birth may a husband have relations with his wife? And may a woman properly enter church at the time of menstruation? And may she receive Communion at these times? And may a man enter church after relations with his wife before he has washed? Or receive the sacred mystery of Communion? These uncouth English people require guidance on all these matters.

A: A man should not approach his wife until her child is weaned. But a bad custom has arisen in the behavior of married people that women disdain to suckle their own children, and hand them over to other women to nurse, This custom seems to have arisen solely through incontinency; for when women are unwilling to be continent, they refuse to suckle their children. So those who observe this bad custom of giving their children to others to nurse must not approach their husbands until the time of their purification has elapsed. For even apart from childbirth, women are forbidden to do so during their monthly courses, and the Old Law prescribed death for any man who approached a woman during this time. But a woman should not be forbidden to enter church during these times; for the workings of nature cannot be considered culpable, and it is not just that she should be refused admittance, since her condition is beyond her control. We know that the woman who suffered an issue of blood, humbly approaching behind our Lord, touched the hem of His robe and was at once healed of her sickness. If, therefore, this woman was right to touch our Lord's robe, why may not one who suffers nature's courses be permitted to enter the church of God? And if it is objected that the woman in the Gospels was compelled by disease while these latter are bound by custom, then remember, my brother, that everything that we suffer in this mortal body through the infirmity of its nature is justly ordained by God since the Fall of man. For hunger, thirst, heat, cold and weariness originate in this infirmity of our nature; and our search for food against hunger, drink against thirst, coolness against heat, clothing against cold, and rest against weariness is only our attempt to obtain some remedy in our weakness. In this sense the menstrual flow in a woman is an illness. So, if it was a laudable presumption in the woman who, in her disease, touched our Lord's robe, why may not the same concession be granted to all women who endure the weakness of their nature?

A woman, therefore, should not be forbidden to receive the mystery of Communion at these times. If any out of a deep sense of reverence do not presume to do so, this is commendable; but if they do so, they do nothing blameworthy. Sincere people often acknowledge their faults even when there is no actual fault, because a blameless action may often spring from a fault. For instance, eating when we are hungry is not fault, but being hungry originates in Adam's sin; similarly, the monthly courses of women are no fault, because nature causes them. But the defilement of our nature is apparent even when we have no deliberate intention to do evil, and this defilement springs from sin; so may we recognize the judgment that our sin has brought on us. And so may man, who sinned willingly, bear the punishment of his sin unwillingly. Therefore, when women after due consideration do not presume to approach the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord during their courses, they are to be commended. But if they are moved by devout love of this holy Mystery to receive it as pious custom suggests, they are not to be discouraged. For while the Old Testament makes outward observances important, the New Testament does not regard these things so highly as the inward disposition, which is the sole true criterion for allotting punishment. For instance, the Law forbids the eating of many things as unclean, but in the Gospel our Lord says: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. He also said: Out of the mouth proceed evil thoughts. Here Almighty God clearly shows us that evil actions spring from the root of evil thoughts. Similarly, Saint Paul says: Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure. And later, he indicates the cause of this corruption, adding: For even their mind and conscience is defiled. If, therefore, no food is unclean to one of a pure mind, how can a woman who endures the laws of nature with a pure mind be considered impure?

The Second Canon of St. Dionysius, the thirteenth Archbishop of Alexandria, and student of Origen who lived, in the mid-third Century states:

“Concerning menstrous women, whether they ought to enter the temple of God while in such a state, I think it superfluous even to put the question. For I opine, not even they themselves, being faithful and pious, would dare when in this state either to approach the Holy Table or to touch the body and blood of Christ.”

To support his opinion, Dionysus refers to the New Testament, “For even the woman who had the 12-year discharge and was eager for a cure touched not him but only his fringe.” And finally, rooting the purity law in ancient Jewish tradition, he explicitly conflates Christian altar space with Temple space, stating that anyone “who is not completely pure in both soul and body shall be prevented from approaching the holy and the holy of holies.”

It is important that the holiness of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be kept within us after the Holy Communion. A person bleeding for any reason either due to a physical illness, menstruation or a cut should not partake of the Holy Communion.

The article that you have referred to does not reflect the teaching of the Coptic Church since it is after the schism of Chalcedon in 451 AD.