Ritual Impurity

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 18

St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 52 5-4 (2008) 275-92

WHAT IS "RITUAL IM/PURITY" AND WHY?

Vassa Larin

When I entered a convent of the Russian Orthodox Church


Abroad (ROCOR) in France, I was introduced to the restrictions
imposed on a nun when she has her period. Although she was
allowed to go to church and pray, she was not to go to communion;
she could not kiss the icons or touch the antidoron\ she could not
help bake prosphoras or handle them, nor could she help clean the
church; she could not even light the hmpada or icon-lamp that
hung before the icons in her own cell: this last rule was explained to
me when I noticed an unlighted hmpada in the icon-corner of
another sister. I do not remember that anyone attempted either to
question or justify these strictures; we simply presumed that men-
struation was a form of "impurity," and we had to stay away from
things holy so as not to somehow defile them.
Today there are different regulations in the Russian Orthodox
Church based on the concept of "ritual impurity," varying from
parish to parish, usually depending on the local priest. The popular
NastoVnaia Kniga of S. Bulgakov instructs a priest not to allow
menstruating women to come to church.1 In Russia, however,
women are generally allowed to come to church during menstrua-
tion, but cannot receive Holy Communion, kiss icons, relics, or
crosses, touch prosphora or the antidoron, or drink holy water.2 In
parishes outside Russia, as far as I know, women usually only
abstain from going to communion.
An article written by His Holiness Patriarch Pavle of Serbia,
1 NastoVnaia kniga sviashchenno-tserkovnosluzhitelia (Khar'kov, 1913), 1144.
2 See the questions-answers of Fr Maxim Kozlov on the website of the St Tatiana
Church in Moscow: www.st-tatiana. ru/index.html?did=389 (15 January 2005). Cf.
A. Klutschewsky, "Frauenrollen und Frauenrechte in der Russischen Orthodoxen
Kirche," Kanon 17 (2005): 140-209.

275
276 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

entitled "Can a Woman Always go to Church?" 3 is often cited as a


moderate opinion allowing menstruating women to participate in
all but communion and denouncing the concept of "ritual
im/purity." Yet Patriarch Pavle defends another traditional restric-
tion forbidding a woman to enter a church or participate in any
sacraments for forty days after giving birth to a child.4 This stric-
ture, also based on the concept of "ritual im/purity," is observed in
ROCOR parishes I know both in Germany and the United States.
However, one can find evidence on websites of the Moscow Patri-
archate that the usage is not upheld everywhere and is being ques-
tioned in Moscow-run parishes.5
Today, in light of "feminist" theology6 and traditionalist reac-
tions to it,7 it is tempting to approach the issue of "ritual im/purity"
in a political or social vein. Indeed, the rather degrading day-to-day
implications of the above-mentioned restrictions can be taxing for
any woman accustomed to the socio-political culture of the West.
Nonetheless, the Orthodox Church traditionally has no socio-
political agenda,8 rendering an argument from this perspective
largely irrelevant for the Church. Furthermore, the concern that
something may be "degrading" for a woman is foreign to Orthodox
spirituality, which focuses on humility: when we experience
3 First published in Russian and German in the quarterly of the ROCOR Diocese of
Berlin in Germany: "Mozhet li zhenshchina vsegda poseshchat' khram?" Vestnik
Germanskoi Eparkhii 2 (2002): 24-26 and later online: http://www.rocor.de/
Vestnik/20022.
4 This stricture officially holds according to the Trebnik or "Book of Needs" of the
Russian Orthodox Church. See English tr. as Book of Needs of the Holy Orthodox
Church, tr. G. Shann (London, 1894), 4-8.
5 See the website of MP parishes in the US: www.russianchurchusa.org/
SNCathedrallforumlD.aspin-1097\ also www.ortho-rus.ru/cgi-bin/ns.
6 See the Conclusion of the Intra-Orthodox Consultation on the Phce of the Woman in
the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women (Rhodes, Greece:
1988). See also www.womenpriests.org/traditio/unclean.
7 For example, K. Anstall, "Male and Female He Created Them": An Examination of
the Mystery of Human Gender in St Máximos the Confessor, Canadian Orthodox
Seminary Studies in Gender and Human Sexuality 2 (Dewdney, 1995), esp. 24-25.
8 Cf. G. Mantzaridis, Soziologie des Christentums (Berlin, 1981), 129rT; id., Grund-
linien christlicher Ethik (St Ottilien, 1998), 73.
What Is "Ritual Im/purity" and Why? 277

drawbacks, limitations, grief, etc., we learn to recognize our sinful-


ness and grow in our faith and dependence upon God's saving
mercy.
Hence I would like to prescind from egalitarian concerns and
draw attention to the theological and anthropological implications
of "ritual im/purity." Our church life is not ultimately about
adhering to certain rules, reading certain prayers, doing the proper
prostrations, or even about humility per se; it is about the theologi-
cal and anthropological meaning of it all. By doing these things we
profess a certain meaning, a certain tenet of our faith. So today I
shall ask: What is the meaning of abstaining from communion
during menstruation? What does this say about the female body?
What is the meaning of not setting foot in church after giving birth
to a child? What statement is being made about childbirth? Most
importantly, is the concept of "ritual im/purity" congruent with
our faith in Jesus Christ? Where did it originate and what does it
mean for us today?
Let us take a look at the biblical, canonical, and liturgical sources
in an attempt to answer these questions.9

The Old Testament


The earliest biblical evidence to ritual restrictions for women dur-
ing menstruation is found in the Old Testament, in Lev 15:19-33.
According to Leviticus, not only was the menstruating woman
"impure"; any person who touched her also became "impure" (Lev
15:24), resulting in a sort oí impurity by contact. In later chapters of
Leviticus (17-26, the "Law of Sanctity"), sexual intercourse with
one's wife at this time was strictly forbidden. Childbirth, like men-
struation, was also considered defiling and subjected the woman
who had given birth to similar restrictions (Lev 12).
The Jews were by far not the only ones in the ancient world
9 For more on the historical and contemporary canonical sources concerning "ritual
im/purity" see E. Synek, "Wer aber nicht völlig rein ist an Seele und Leib..."
Reinheitstabus im Orthodoxen Kirchenrecht," Kanon Sonderheft 1 (München-
Eglinga. d. Paar, 2006).
278 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

imposing such regulations. The pagan cults also had strictures


based on a concern for "ritual purity": menstruation was consid-
ered defiling and rendered pagan priestesses incapable of perform-
ing their cultic duties in the temples;10 priests had to avoid men-
struating women at all costs for fear of defilement;11 the birth of a
child was believed to be defiling.12 Nonetheless the Jews were a case
sui generis. Apart from their singular abhorrence for blood (Lev
15:1-18), 13 the ancient Jews held to a belief in the dangers of
female blood discharge that grew gradually, and became even
stronger in later Judaism:14 the Mishna, Tosefa, and Talmud are
even more concise than the Bible on this topic.15

The Protoevangelium of James and the New Testament


At the very dawn of the New Testament the All-Holy Virgin Mary
herself is subjected to the demands of "ritual purity." According to
the Protoevangelium of James, a 2nd-century apocryphal text which
inspired several of the Church's Marian feasts, the All-Holy Virgin
lived in the temple from age two to twelve, when she was betrothed
to Joseph and sent to reside in his house "Lest she pollute the sanc-
tuary of the Lord" (Vili. 2). 16
When Jesus Christ began to preach, a very new message
resounded in the villages of Judea—one that challenged deep-
seated presumptions of pharisaic piety and of the ancient world in
general. He proclaimed that it is only the evil intentions that come
out of our hearts that defile us (Mk 7:15ff). Our Savior thus placed
10 E. Fehrle, Die kultische Keuschheit im Altertum in Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche
und Vorarbeiten 6 (Gießen, 1910), 95.
11 Ibid., 29.
12 Ibid., 37.
13 Cf. R. Taft, "Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When—and Why?"
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52 (1998): 47.
14 1. Be'er, "Blood Discharge: On Female Im/Purity in the Priestly Code and in Bibli-
cal Literature," in A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion from Exodus to
Deutoronomy (Sheffield 1994), 152-64.
15 J. Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden, 1973).
16 M.James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1926), 42. Cf. Taft, "Women,"
47.
What Is Ritual Im/purity and Why? 279

the categories of "purity" and "impurity" wholly in the sphere of


conscience17—in the sphere oífreewill toward virtue and sin—lib-
erating the faithful from the ancient fear of defilement through
uncontrollable phenomena of the material world. He himself has
no qualms about talking to a Samaritan woman, something the
Jews considered defiling on several levels.18 More to our topic, the
Lord does not reprimand the hemorrhaging woman for having
touched his clothes in the hope of being cured: He heals her and
then praises her faith (Mt 9:20-22). Why does Christ reveal the
woman to the crowd? St John Chrysostom answers that the Lord
"reveals her faith to all, so that others would be encouraged to imi-
tate her."19
The Apostle Paul likewise abandons a traditional Hebrew
approach to Old-Testament regulations regarding "purity" and
"impurity," allowing for them only in the interests of Christian
charity (Rom 14). It is well-known that Paul generally prefers the
word "holy" (αγως) to the word "pure" 2 0 to express a Christians
closeness to God, thus avoiding Old!Testament preconceptions
(Rom 1:7; 8:27; 1 Cor 6:1; 7:14; 2 Cor 1:1, etc).

The early church and early Fathers


The attitude of the early Church to the Old Testament was not a
simple one and cannot be thoroughly expounded within the scope
of this paper. Neither Judaism nor Christianity had a clearly sepa-
rate, developed identity in the first centuries: they shared a
common approach to certain things. The Church clearly
acknowledged the Old Testament as divinely!inspired Scripture,
while at the same time distancing herself since the Council of the
Apostles (Acts 15) from the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law.
17 D. Wendebourg, "Die alttestamentlichen Reinheitsgesetze in der frühen Kirche,"
Zeitschriftfür Kirchengeschichte95/2 (1984): 149-70.
18 Cf. Samariter," Pauly-Wissowa II, 1, 2108.
19 In Matthaeum Homil. XXXI al. XXXII, PG 57, col 371.
20 Wendebourg, "Reinheitsgesetze," 150.
21 E. Synek, "Zur Rezeption Alttestamentlicher Reinheitsvorschriften ins Orthodoxe
Kirchenrecht," Kanon 16 (2001): 29.
280 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

While the Apostolic Fathers, the first generation of church writ-


ers after the Apostles, barely touch upon the Mosaic laws concern-
ing "ritual im/purity," these restrictions are widely discussed some-
what later, from the middle of the 2nd century. By that time it is
clear that the letter of the Mosaic Law had become foreign to Chris-
tian thought, as church writers attempt to interpret it symbolically.
Methodius of Olympus (ca 300), Justin Martyr (ca 165), and
Origen (ca 253) interpret levitical categories of "purity" and
"impurity" allegorically, that is to say, as symbols of virtue and sin;22
they also insist upon baptism and the eucharistas sufficient sources
of "purification" for Christians. 23 In his treatise On the Jewish
Foods, Methodius of Olympus writes: "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.. ,"24 In a
similar vein, Clement of Alexandria writes that spouses no longer
need to bathe after sexual intercourse as stipulated according to the
Mosaic Law "because," Clement insists, "the Lord has cleansed the
faithful through baptism for all marital relations."25

And yet Clements seemingly open attitude toward marital


sexual relations in this passage is not typical of church writers at this
time, 26 not even of Clement himself.27 It was more characteristic of
these writers to view all proscriptions of the Mosaic Law as purely
symbolic except those concerning sex and sexuality. In fact, the
early church writers had a tendency to view any manifestation of
sexuality, including menstruation, marital relations, and childbirth
as "impure" and thus incompatible with participation in the litur-
gical life of the Church.
22 See references in Wendebourg, "Reinheitsgesetze," 153-55.
23 Justin, Dialog. 13; Origen, Contr. Ceh. VIII 29.
24 V, 3. Cf. Wendebourg, "Reinheitsgesetze," 154.
25 Stromata III/XII 82, 6.
26 With the notable exception of St Irenaeus, who did not see sexuality as a result of the
fall. See Adv. Haer. 3. 22. 4. Cf. J. Behr, "Marriage and Asceticism," unpublished
paper at the 5 th International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox
Church (Moscow, Nov. 2007), 7.
27 J. Behr, Asceticism andAnthropology in Irenaeus andClement (Oxford, 2000), 171-84.
What Is "Ritual Im/purity " and Why? 281

The reasons for this are numerous. In an age before the Church's
teaching had crystallized into a defined dogmatic system, there
were many ideas, philosophies, and outright heresies floating in the
air, some of which found their way into the writings of early Chris-
tian writers. Pioneers of Christian theology such as Tertullian,
Clement, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria and others, highly-
educated men of their time, were in part under the influence of the
pre-Christian philosophical and religious systems that dominated
the classical education of their day. For example, the so-called "Stoic
axiom," or the Stoic view that sexual intercourse is justifiable solely as
a means for procreation,28 is repeated by Tertullian,29 Lactantius,30
and Clement of Alexandria.31 The Mosaic prohibition of sexual
intercourse during menstruation in Lev 18:19 thus acquired a new
rationale: it was not only "defiling"; if it could not result in procre-
ation it was sinful even within wedlock. Note in this context that
Christ only mentions sexual intercourse once in the Gospel, "... and
the two shall become one flesh" (Mt 9:5), without mentioning pro-
creation.32 Tertullian, who embraced the ultra-ascetical heresy of
Montanism in his latter years, went further than most and even con-
sidered prayer after sexual intercourse impossible.33 The famous
Origen was notoriously influenced by the contemporary eclectic
Middle Platonism, with its characteristic depreciation of all things
physical, and indeed of the material world in general. His ascetical
and ethical doctrine, while primarily biblical, is also to be found in
Stoicism, Platonism, and to a lesser degree in Aristotelianism.34 Not
28 S. Stelzenberger, Die Beziehungen derfrühchristlichen SittenUhre zur Ethik der Stoa.
Eine moral-geschichtliche Studie (München 1933), 405ff.
29 De monogamia VII 7, 9 (CCL 2, 1238, 48fï).
30 Div. InstitutionesYl 23 (CSEL 567, 4fi).
31 Paed. II/X92, lf (SC 108, 176f).
32 Cf. Behr, "Marriage and Asceticism," 7.
33 De exhortatione castitatis X 2-4 (CCL 15/2, 1029, 13ff). Cf. Wendebourg,
"Reinheitsgesetze," 159.
34 Innumerable studies have been written on Origen's relationship with the philo-
sophical currents of his time. For a summary of recent scholarship on the topic see
D. I. Rankin, From Clement to Origen. The Social and Historical Context of the
Church Fathers (Aldershot-Burlington, 2006), 113-40.
282 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

surprisingly, then, Origen views menstruation as "impure" in and of


itself.35 He is also the first Christian writer to accept the Old Testa-
ment concept in Lev 12 of childbirth as something "impure."36 It is
perhaps significant that the cited theologians came from Egypt,
where Judaic spirituality peaceably coexisted with a developing
Christian theology: the Jewish population, constantly diminishing
from the beginning of the second century in the capital city of
Alexandria, exerted an often unnoticeable yet strong influence on
local Christians, themselves largely Jewish converts.37

The Syriac Didaskalia

The situation was different in the Syrian capital of Antioch, where


a strong Jewish presence posed a tangible threat to Christian iden-
tity. The Syriac Didaskalia, a third-century witness to Christian
polemics against Judaic traditions, forbids Christians to observe
the levitical laws, including those concerning menstruation. The
author admonishes women who abstain from prayer, Scripture les-
sons, and eucharist for seven days during menstruation: "If you
think, woman, that you are stripped of the Holy Spirit during the
seven days of your menstruation, then if you die at this time, you
will depart thence empty and without hope." The Didaskalia goes
on to assure the woman of the presence within her of the Holy
Spirit, enabling her to take part in prayer, readings, and the
Eucharist:
Now think about it and recognize that prayer is heard
through the Holy Spirit; and the eucharist is received and
35 Cat in Ep. ad Cor. XXXIV124: C. Jenkins (ed), "Origen on 1 Corinthians,"fournal
of Theological Studies 9 (1908): 502, 28-30.
36 Horn, in Lev. VIII3f(GCS 29, 397, 12-15).
37 See L. W. Barnard, "The Background of Early Egyptian Christianity," Church
Quarterly Review 164 (1963): 434; also M. Grant, The Jews in the Roman World
(London, 1953), 117, 265. Cf. references in Wendebourg, "Reinheitsgesetze,"
167.
38 See M. Simon, Recherches d'histoire judéo-chrétenne (Paris, 1962), l40ff, and M.
Grant, "Jewish Christianity at Antioch in the Second Century," Judéo-Chñstianisme
(Paris, 1972), 97-108. Cf. references in Wendebourg, "Reinheitsgesetze," 167.
What Is "Ritual Im/purity " and Why? 283

consecrated through the Holy Spirit; and the Scriptures are


words of the Holy Spirit and holy. Therefore if the Holy
Spirit is within you, why do you isolate your soul and not ap-
proach the works of the Holy Spirit?39
He instructs other members of the community as follows:
... You shall not separate those who have their period, for
even the woman with the issue of blood was not reprimanded
when she touched the edge of our Saviors garment; she was
rather deemed worthy to receive forgiveness of all her sins.
It is remarkable that this text admonishes menstruating women to
receive communion, and enforces its admonishment with the
example of the woman with the flow of blood in Mt 9:20-22.

The Council ofGangra


About a century later, toward the middle of the fourth century, we
find canonical evidence against the concept of "ritual im/purity"
among the legislation of the local Council convened ca AD 341 in
Gangra (105 km northeast ofAnkara) on the northern coast ofAsia
Minor, which condemned the extreme asceticism of the followers
of Eustathius of Sebaste (t post-377). The Eustathian monastics,
inspired by dualistic and spiritualistic teachings widespread in
Syria and Asia Minor at that time, denigrated marriage and the
married clergy. Against this, Canon 1 of the council reads: "If any-
one disparages marriage, or abominates or disparages a woman
sleeping with her husband notwithstanding that she is faithful and
reverent, as though she could not enter the kingdom, let him be

39 DidaskaliaXXVl. H. Achelis-J. Fleming (eds), Die ältesten Quellen des orientalischen


Kirchenrechts 2 (Leipzig, 1904), 139.
40 Ibid, 143.
41 On the date see: T. Tensek, L'ascetismo nel Concilio di Gangra: Eustazio di Sebaste
nell'ambiente ascetico siriaco dell'Asia Minore nelIV°secoloì Excerpta ex dissertatione
ad Doctoratum in Facultae Theologiae Pontifìciae Universitatis Gregorianae,
(Rome, 1991), 23-24.
42 J. Gribomont, "Le monachisme au IVe s. en Asie Mineure: de Gangres au
messalianisme," Studia Patristica 2 (Berlin, 1957), 400-415.
284 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

anathema. " The Eustathians refused to receive the eucharist from


married clergy out of a concern for "ritual purity," a practice like-
wise condemned by the council in its fourth canon: "If anyone dis-
criminates against a married presbyter, on the ground that he ought
not to partake of the offering when that presbyter is conducting the
liturgy, let him be anathema."
Interestingly, Eustathianism was an egalitarian movement, pro-
moting a complete leveling of the sexes.46 The female followers of
Eustathius were hence encouraged to cut their hair and dress like
men to overcome every semblance of femininity, which, like all
aspects of human sexuality, was considered "defiling." The council
condemns this practice in its 13th canon: "If for the sake of suppos-
edly ascetic exercise any woman change apparel, and instead of the
usual and customary woman's apparel, she dons men s apparel, let
her be anathema."47
In rejecting Eustathian monasticism, the Church rejected the
view of sexuality as "defiling," defending both the sanctity of mar-
riage and of the God-created phenomenon called woman.

The canons of the Egyptian Fathers


In the light of these fully Orthodox ancient canons, how can the
Church have canons in full force today that support the concept of
"ritual im/purity" unequivocally? As previously noted, church lit-
erature, including canonical texts, did not materialize in a vacuum,
but within the socio-cultural, historical reality of the ancient
world, which very much believed in and demanded "ritual
43 P. Joannou, Fonti. Discipline générale antique (IVe-IXes.), fase. IX, (Grottaferrata-
Rome, 1962), t. I, 2, 89. English trans, from The Rudder {Pedalion), trans by D.
Cummings (Chicago, 1957), 523.
44 See Tensek, L'ascetismo, 17-28.
45 Joannou, Discipline, 91; The Rudder, 524.
46 Tensek, L'ascetismo, 28.
47 Joannou, Discipline, 94; The Rudder, 527.
48 On the later development in Byzantium see P. Viscuso, "Purity and Sexual Defile-
ment in Late Byzantine Theology," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 57 (1991): 399-
408.
What Is "Ritual Im/purity " and Why? 285

purity." The earliest canon restricting women in a state of "impu-


rity" (¿ν άφέδρω) is Canon 2 of Dionysius ofAlexandria (t ca 264),
written in 262:
Concerning menstruous women, whether they ought to en-
ter the temple of God while in such a state, I think it superflu-
ous even to put the question. For, I think, not even
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. For not even the woman with a twelve
years' issue would come into actual contact with Him, but
only with the edge of His garment, to be cured. There is no
objection to ones praying no matter how he may be or to
ones remembering the Lord at any time and in any state
whatever, and petitioning to receive help; but if one is not
wholly clean (ό µη πάντη καθαρός) both in soul and in body,
he shall be prevented from coming up to the Holy of
Holies.50
Note that Dionysius, like the Syriac Didaskalia, refers to the
woman with the flow of blood in Mt 9:20!22, but comes to pre-
cisely the opposite conclusion: that a woman cannot receive
communion.
It has been suggested that Dionysius was actually forbidding
women to enter the sanctuary ("altar") and not the church proper. 51
This hypothesis not only contradicts the text of the cited canon; it
also falsely presumes that the laity once received communion in the
sanctuary. Recent liturgical scholarship has dispensed with the
notion that the laity ever received the sacrament in the sanctuary.52
So Dionysius meant precisely what he wrote, and precisely as many
49 Cf. H. Hunger, "Christliches und Nichtchristliches im byzantinischen Eherecht,"
Österreichisches Archiv fur Kirchenrecht 3 ( 1967) : 305-25.
50 C. L. Feltoe (ed), The Letters and Other Remains ofDionysius of Alexandria (Cam-
bridge, 1904), 102-3. For date and authenticity, see P. Joannou, Discipline générale
antique (IVe-IXes.) 1-2 (Grottaferratta-Rome, 1962), 2, 12. Translation adapted
from The Rudder, 718.
51 Patriarch Pavle, "Mozhet li zhenshchina," 24.
52 R. F. Taft, The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites (Rome, 2008),
205-7 (in press).
286 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

53
generations of Eastern Christians have understood him: a
menstruating woman is not to enter "the temple of God" for she is "not
wholly clean (ο µη πάντη καθαρός) both in soul and in body" One
wonders whether this suggests all other Christians are wholly "clean,"
or katharoi. Hopefully not, since the Church denounced "those who
call themselves katharoi* or "the clean ones," an ancient sect of the
54
Novatians, at the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325.

Orthodox commentators of the past and present have also


explained Dionysius' canon as somehow connected to a concern
for begetting children: the twelth!century commentator Zonaras
(post!1159) , while rejecting the concept of "ritual impurity,"
comes to the bewildering conclusion that the real reason for these
restrictions against women is "to prevent men from sleeping with
them ... by way of providing for children being begotten"^ So,
women are stigmatized as "impure," banned from church and
Holy Communion to prevent men from sleeping with themi Leaving
aside the sex!only!for!procreation premise of this argument, it
raises some other, more obvious questions: Are men somehow
more likely to sleep with a woman who has gone to church and
received the sacrament? Why, then, must the woman abstain from
communion? Some priests in Russia offer another explanation:
women are too tired m this state to listen attentively to the prayers
of the liturgy and therefore cannot prepare themselves sufficiently
for Holy Communion. 5 6 The same reasoning is proposed for
women who have given birth: they need to rest for forty days. 57 So
should communion be withheld from all tired, ill, elderly, and oth-
erwise weak people? How about the hearing!impaired? Be that as it
53 See the commentary of Theodore Balsamon (ca. 1130/40!post 1195) on this
canon: In epist. S. Dionysii Alexandrini ad Basilidem episcopum, can. 2, PG 138:
465C!468A.
54 Can. 8, Rallis!Potlis II, 133.
55 English translation in The Rudder, 719. Zonaras is repeated verbatim by Patriarch
Pavle, "Mozhet li zhenshchina," 25.
56 Klutschewsky, "Frauenrollen," 174.
57 See the questions!answers of Fr Maxim Kozlov on the website of the St Tatiana
Church in Moscow: www.st2tatiana.ru/index.htmlidid2389.
What Is "Ritual Im/purity " and Why'. 287

may, there are several other canonical texts restricting women as


"impure": Canons 6-7 of Timothy of Alexandria (AD 381), who
extends the restriction to baptism58 and Canon 18 of the so-called
Canons of Hippolytus, regarding women who have given birth and
midwives.59 Both these canons, like Canon 2 of Dionysius, are
notably of Egyptian provenance.

St Gregory the Great

Things were not much different in the West, where church practice
generally viewed menstruating women as "impure" until the turn
of the sixth/seventh century. At this time St Gregory the Great,
Pope of Rome (590-604), the Church Father to whom tradition
ascribes (wrongly) the composition of the Liturgy of the
Presanctified Gifts, expressed a different opinion on the matter. In
601, St Augustine of Canterbury, the "Apostle of England," (ca
604) wrote to Gregory and asked whether menstruating women
should be allowed to go to church and receive communion. I shall
cite Pope Gregorys response at length:

A woman should not be forbidden to go to church. After all,


she suffers this involuntarily. She cannot be blamed for that
superfluous matter that nature excretes. ... She is also not to
be forbidden to receive Holy Communion at this time. If,
however, a woman does not dare to receive, for great trepida-
tion, she should be praised. But if she does receive she should
58 CPG 244; Joannou, Discipline II, 243-244, 264.
59 W. Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien (Leipzig, 1900),
209. See English translation in P. Bradshaw (ed), The Canons ofHippolytus, English
trans, by C. Bebawi (Bramcote, 1987), 20.
60 P. Browe, Beiträge zur Sexualethik des MitteUlters, Breshuer Studien zur historischen
TheologieXXIII(Breslau, 1932). Cf. also R. Meens, "Ritual Purity and the Influence
of Gregory the Great in the Early Middle Ages," in Unity and Diversity in the
Church, ed R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 32 (Cambridge, 1996), 3 1 -
43. On the development of the concept of "ritual im/purity" in the West in connec-
tion with priestly celibacy, see H. Brodersen, Der Spender der Kommunion im
Altertum und Mittelalter. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeitshaltung, UMI
Dissertation Services (Ann Arbor, 1994), 23-25, 132.
288 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

not be judged. Pious people see sin even there, where there is
none.
Now one often performs innocently that which originates
in a sin: when we feel hunger, this occurs innocently. Yet the
fact that we experience hunger is the fault of the first man.
The menstrual period is no sin; it is, in fact, a purely natural
process. But the fact that nature is thus disturbed, that it ap-
pears stained even against human will—this is the result of a
sin. ...
So if a pious woman reflects upon these things and wishes
not to approach communion, she is to be praised. But again,
if she wants to live religiously and receive communion out of
love, one should not stop her.61
In the Early Middle Ages the policy laid down by Gregory fell into
desuetude and menstruating women were restricted from com-
munion and often instructed to stand before the entrance of the
church. These practices were still common in the West as late as the
seventeenth century.

"Ritual Im/purity" in Russia


As for the history of such practices in Russia, the concept of "ritual
im/purity" was known to the pagan Slavs long before their
Christianization. Pagan Slavs, like ancient pagans in general, held
that any manifestation of sexuality was ritually defiling. This
belief remained virtually unchanged in Old Rus' after its baptism.
61 PL 77, 1183. On authenticity see Browe, Beiträge, 10, reference 67.
62 For more on this see H. Lutterbach's book, Sexualität im Mittehlter. Eine
Kulturstudie anhand von Bußbüchern des 6. bis 12. Jahrhunderts, Beihefte zum
Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte 43 (Köln, 1999). On the debate in the West as to
whether menstruating women could take part in liturgical life, see: J. Flandrin, Un
tempspour embrasser: Auxorigines de h morale sexueüe occidentale (VIe—XIes.) (Paris,
1983), 11,73-82.
63 Ibid, 14. For more on the development of the concept of "ritual im/purity" in the
West see G. Muschiol, "Reinheit und Gefährdung? Liturgie im Mittelalter,"
Heiliger Dienst 5\ (1997): 42-54, and, most recently, T. Berger, "The Challenge of
Gender for Liturgical Tradition," Worship 82/3 (2008): 243-61, esp 245-47.
64 E. Levin, Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 (Ithaca-
What Is "Ritual Im/purity " and Why? 289

The Russian Church had particularly strict rules concerning


female "impurity." In the twelfth century "Inquiry of Kyrik,"
Bishop Nifont of Novgorod (1130-1156) explains that if a woman
happened to give birth to a child inside a church, the church had to
be sealed for three days, then re-consecrated by a special prayer.65
Even the wife of the tsar, the tsaritsa, would give birth outside her
living quarters, in the bathhouse or "myl'nja" (bania) so as not to
defile an inhabited building. After the child had been born, no one
could leave or enter the bathhouse until the priest had arrived to
read the "cleansing" prayer from the Trebnik. Only after this prayer
had been read could the father enter and see his child.66 If a
woman's period began while she was standing in church, she had to
leave immediately. Failure to do so resulted in a penance of six
months fasting, with fifty prostrations a day.67 Even when women
were not in a state of "impurity," they received communion not at
the "royal" doors with the male laity, but separately, at the northern
doors. 68

The prayers of the Trebnik

The special prayer of the Trebnik or Book of Needs of the Russian


Orthodox Church, read even today on the first day upon the birth
of a child, petitions God to "cleanse the mother of all defilement"
{ptskverny ochistî) and continues: "... and forgive your handmaid
[mothers name] and all the house in which the child has been
born, and all who have touched her, and all who find themselves
here ..." One might ask, why do we ask forgiveness for all
the house, for the mother, and for all "who have touched her"
London, 1989), 46.
65 Voprosy Kirika, in Russkaia Istoricheskaia Biblioteka VI {St Petersburg, 1908), 34,
art. 46.
66 I. Zabelin, Domashnii byt russkikh tsarei ν XVI i XVIIstoletiiakh (Moscow, 2000),
vol. II, 2!3.
67 Trebnik (Kiev, 1606), f 674v!675r. Cited by Levin, Sex and Society, 170.
68 B. Uspenskii, Tsar'i Patriarkh (Moscow, 1998), 145!46, n.3 and n.5.
69 "Molitva ν pervyi den,' pò vnegda roditi zhene otrocha," Trebnik (Moscow, 1906),
4v-5v.
290 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

{prikosnuvshimsia ei)i Well, I know that the levitical laws contained


the notion of impurity by contact. So I know why the faithful of the
Old Testament would consider it a sin to touch the "impure." And
I know that the pagans feared the flow of blood both at childbirth
and menstruation, since they believed it was inviting to the
demons. However, I cannot tell you why the faithful ask forgive-
ness for touching or being a woman who has given birth today,
because I do not know.
Another set of prayers is read forty days later, when the mother
is allowed to come to church for the rite of "churching" {votser-
kovkniè). On this occasion the priest prays for the mother as follows:
Cleanse her from every sin and every defilement (ot vsiakiia
skverny) ... that she may be counted worthy to partake
uncondemned of the holy mysteries.... Wash her from bodily
defilement {qmyi eia skvernu telesnuiu) and spiritual defile-
ment {iskvernu dushevnuiu) in the completion of forty days,
making her worthy of the communion of your precious body
and blood ...70
Today it is often said that a woman stays out of church for forty
days after giving birth because of physical fatigue. However, the
cited text speaks not of her capacity to participate in liturgical life,
but of her worthiness. The birth (not conception) of her child has,
according to these prayers, resulted in her physical and spiritual
defilement (skverna). This is similar to the reasoning of Dionysius
of Alexandria about menstruation: it makes a woman "not wholly
clean both in soul and in body."

Recent developments in other Orthodox Churches


Not surprisingly, some Orthodox Churches are already moving to
modify or remove euchological texts based on dogmatically inde-
fensible concepts of childbirth, marriage, and "im/purity." I cite
the decision of the Holy Synod ofAntioch held in Syria on May 26,
1997, under the leadership of His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV:
70 "Molitvy zhene rodil'nitse po 40-ti dnekh," ibid, 8-9.
What Is "Ritual Im/purity " and Whyl 291

It was decided to give the Patriarch authorization to modify


the texts of the small euchologion concerning marriage and
its sacredness; prayers connected with women who give birth
and enter church for the first time; and texts connected with
the funeral service.71

A theological conference convened on Crete in 2000 came to simi-


lar conclusions:
Theologians should ... write simple and appropriate expla-
nations of the churching service and adapt the language of the
rite itself to reflect the theology of the Church. This would be
helpful to men and women who need to be given the true
meaning of the service: that it exists as an act of offering and
blessing for the birth of a child, and that it should be per-
formed as soon as the mother is ready to resume normal activ-
ity outside her home. ...
We urge the Church to reassure women that they are wel-
come to receive Holy Communion at any liturgy when they
are spiritually and sacramentally prepared, regardless of what
time of month it may be. 72

An earlier study of the Orthodox Church of America also offered a


fresh Orthodox perspective on "ritual im/purity":
... ideas that women with their menstrual periods should not
receive holy communion or kiss the cross and icons, or bake
the bread for the eucharist, or even enter the nave of the
church, not to speak of the altar area, are ideas and practices
that are morally and dogmatically indefensible according to
strict Orthodox Christianity [...] Saint John Chrysostom
condemns those who propagate such an attitude as unworthy
of the Christian faith. He calls them superstitious and the
supporters of myths. 73
71 Synek, "Wer aber nicht," 152.
72 Eadem, 148.
73 Department of Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America (ed.), Women
and Men in the Church. A Study on the Community of Women andMen in the Church
(Syosset, NY, 1980), 42-43.
292 ST VLADIMIR'S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

Conclusion
I shall conclude briefly, since the texts have spoken for themselves.
A close look at the origins and character of the concept "ritual
im/purity" 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 res-
urrected 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 im/purity" 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.

You might also like