Oikonomia and Menstruation (essay)

Glory to you O Lord, glory to you.

“Menstruating Women may only Partake of Holy Communion

According to Oikonomia”.

Discuss. Consider Arguments For and Against.

“Tradition represents the critical spirit of the Church.”[1]

Vladimir Lossky, when speaking of the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church, states that the Canons of the Church are not set in stone but are there for the guidance of those who require them in the time they are composed. He describes ‘traditionalists’ as wishing “to preserve at any price, sometimes attributing a mystical meaning to the stupid mistakes of copyists”[2]. This essay will examine the role of Canon law in its capacity to treat the issue of the reception of the Holy Eucharist by menstruating women. By examining the development of the canonical tradition in relation to this topic I aim to show how the Orthodox Church has managed this issue historically and the relevance the ancient Canons have in modern times. The Orthodox Church today is vastly different to that community known to the Early Church Fathers and the Canons they formulated, the Church ministers to a wider variety of peoples and cultures than that imagined by any “Byzantine”. “Throughout Judeo-Christian history the taboo [of menstruation] has been a main cause for excluding women from positions of authority.”[3] Taboo in society has served to formulate laws in religion of setting apart, the foods one should eat, the clothes one should wear, and the state one should be in to practice religion according to ideas of ritual purity. “In the Jewish cultus blood was the preeminent symbol of God-given life; so its presence was an awe-ful occasion.”[4] The menstruant removes herself from the sanctity of the Eucharist, and in some cases the sanctity of the church building, as an acknowledgement of a dichotomy between holy and profane. Systems of power and danger arise through fear of mixing the good with the bad, the holy with the unholy. Durkheim notes that an association with blood as being godlike and life-giving causes men to fear the periodic loss of blood from women:

‘All blood is terrible and all sorts of taboos are instituted to prevent contact with it.’ Since a woman bleeds periodically, a ‘more or less conscious anxiety, a certain religious fear, cannot fail to be present in all the relations which her companions have with her’, reducing male contacts with her to a minimum.[5]

Saint Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians says "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6), how then is the Church to maintain within itself a Canon Law which frequently references the Levitical laws, whilst also celebrating the liberties granted by the New Testament? Such a living legal system requires itself to be in touch with modern society whilst maintaining a connection with the ancient Christian and earlier Jewish religious societies. Canon Law thus serves as a means to provide such a common connection between people of the old with the new covenant. Erickson warns against an overly static way of looking at the Canons:

[...] many people profess a great veneration for the sacred canons, as though the Pedalion fell from heaven on Pentecost, along with the Typikon and other such vital compendia of rules and regulations; and they look to the canons for guidance in every detail of church life. [6]

The Orthodox Church does not confess the Canons as being immovable, “it is only their dogmatic decrees that have eternal validity.”[7] Rather than being a code by which human life is to adhere on pain of transgression, Orthodox Canon law can be treated according to Oikonomia, a “liberal policy of compromise in matters not concerning the fundaments of the faith.”[8]

The term Oikonomia does not belong originally to legal vocabulary; meaning “household management,” it designates in the New Testament the divine plan of salvation: “He has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan [Oikonomia] for the fullness of time, to recapitulate all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Ep. 1:9-10; v. Also 3:2-3). But this divine plan for the management of history and of the world has been entrusted to men. [...] More specifically, the “management” or “stewardship” belongs to those who fulfill the ministry of leading the Church.[9]

The application of Oikonomia in regards to Canon law is always an attempt to guide an individual in their journey in faith, it is a prescriptive application of ecclesiastical law with a human understanding for particularities; “to use an expression of Patriarch Nicholas Mystikos (901-907, 912-925) – Oikonomia is ‘an imitation of God’s love for man’ and not simply an ‘exception to the rule’”[10]. Oikonomia is therefore a practical application of the law which seeks not to distance a person from the church by attempting to mould them to ideal and often harsh models which the fathers imagine. As such application of Oikonomia is tailor made to individual cases with an emphasis on respecting their personal sensitivities of faith. Why then is it that menstruating women should be permitted only according to Oikonomia to partake of the Eucharist? What does this say about Eucharistic discipline and how are the Canons of the Church respected in relation to the application of Oikonomia?

I would like to begin this section by proposing that one of the reasons menstruation attracts so much attention in religion is because of the social taboos which surround it. In discussing this essay with friends I would receive a slight look of horror when I mentioned the topic which I propose to discuss, menstruation is simply not mentioned in polite conversation. Is it a cultural taboo which has informed religious discussion of this topic, or is the problem in reverse, one of religious dogmatism causing a kind of social unease in discussing this topic? Fr. Thomas Hopko writes:

Like peoples of all cultures, the Hebrew people knew that life and death, and everything directly connected with them, such as reproduction and childbirth, sickness and suffering, and all things having to do with sex and food and blood, were strange and mysterious elements in human being and life to be treated with awesome respect and fearful care. Thus the Jews, like all peoples, developed elaborate rituals around the fearful and awesome aspects of human experience.[11]

This care taken to the unknown aspects of human life is the foundation for Mary Douglas’ understanding of the origins of the notion of ‘uncleanness’ in Judaic legal writings. The prohibition of certain animals from human consumption was not necessarily because of reasons of hygiene or ill-taste but for reasons of taxonomy. Because the prawn lives in the ocean but does not possess scales and fins it cannot be neatly categorised with fish. It is this ambiguity of definition which causes certain foods, actions, and states of being to be considered impure:

God’s work through the blessing is essentially to create order, through which men’s affairs prosper. Fertility of women, lifestock and fields is promised as a result of blessing and this is to be obtained by keeping covenant with God and observing all His precepts and ceremonies (Deut. XXVIII, 1-14). Where the blessing is withdrawn and the power of the curse is unleashed, there is barrenness, pestilence, confusion.[12]

As the human body is seen as a whole, emissions from this whole are treated with suspicion. It is not fair to say that the menstruation of women should deserve particular attention concerning ritual cleanness as the Canons of the church and the Levitical laws make reference also to emissions experienced by men from the sexual organs, whether such emissions are voluntary or not is without regard when considering the natural processes of the human body:

There was no idea that these acts were in any way sinful or evil in themselves, though, of course, wickedness might be present in many instances. And it clearly had nothing to do only with women, since ritual purification applied equally, and perhaps even primarily, to men.[13]

Both men and women are required to fast before receiving the Holy Eucharist, the Canons prohibiting menstruating women are not unusual as an example of ritual purity in Orthodox liturgical discipline. The Church possesses Canons specifically on male involuntary emissions with explanations of the remedial measures to be undertaken in order to present one’s self before the altar again, for example Canon VI of the thirty-five Canons of John the Faster:

Anyone who has been polluted in sleep by reason of an emission of semen, shall be denied communion for one day; but after chanting the fiftieth Psalm and making forty-nine metanies, it is believed that he will thus be purified.[14]

The main disparity here between male and female involuntary emissions is that a male is unclean for a single day whereas a woman is unclean for the several (at least seven) days after her menstruation.

The most frequently cited Canon in defence of prohibiting menstruating women to commune is the second Canon of the church father Dionysius of Alexandria:

Concerning menstruous 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. 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 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; but if one is not wholly clean both in soul and in body, he shall be prevented from coming up to the Holies of Holies.[15]

Such a seemingly harsh refusal of permitting women to approach the altar is not likely to go unnoticed by the “traditionalist” who seeks to read a prescriptive agenda of “right and wrong” into how the Canons are applied. The canonist Dionysius states that it is an inherent repulsion of the unclean state of menstruation which repels a woman from approaching the altar in such a state. Such acknowledgement of a feeling of guilt shows that one’s perception of cleanness is important in considering one’s ability to commune at the altar. Though involuntary, the ‘sin’ of menstruation is no real act of defilement as it is natural to the state of womanhood, even still, this unclean feeling is a reminder of the fallen state of one’s human nature. By remembering one’s fallen nature and inability to commune as a consequence, the penitent is called to grow further in the church as they are required to observe the religious requirements of purification and preparation in making their future communion. As with men, who also have involuntary sexual defilement (nocturnal emissions), the state of uncleanness serves also as such a reminder in that they are too called to abstain from communing the following day until evening.

The Didascalia Apostolorum (composed in the third century) appears to contradict the Dionysian Canon above:

For if thou think, O woman, that in the seven days of thy flux thou art void of the Holy Spirit; if thou die in those days, thou wilt depart empty and without hope. But if the Holy Spirit is always in thee, without (just) impediment dost thou keep thyself from prayer and from the Scriptures and from the Eucharist. For consider and see, that prayer also is heard through the Holy Spirit, and the Eucharist through the Holy Spirit is accepted and sanctified, and the Scriptures are the words of the Holy Spirit, and are holy. For if the Holy Spirit is in thee, why dost thou keep thyself from approaching to the works of the Holy Spirit?[16]

It would seem that the idea of impurity is one which the individual feels on themselves. The above Canon shows that provided that person is maintaining a prayer life and is with the Holy Spirit, that it would be incorrect to abstain the Eucharist on grounds of menstrual uncleanness. The Canonist continues to say that as long as one is with the Holy Spirit (as proof of baptism), the idea that an impure spirit should distance one from the Eucharist is to grant the impure spirit access to one’s own body:

Thou then, O woman, according as thou sayest, (if) in the days of thy flux thou art void, thou shalt be filled with unclean spirits. For when the unclean spirit returns to thee and finds him a place, he will enter and dwell in thee always: and then will there be entering in of the unclean spirit and going forth of the Holy Spirit, and perpetual warfare.[17]

John Chrysostom says of the Eucharist, "This is a great and wonderful thing, so that if you approach it with pureness, you approach for salvation; but if you do so with an evil conscience, it is for punishment and vengeance."[18] The consideration therefore is not whether a communicant is clean by definitions provided by an external source, but rather whether they have prepared themselves through fasting and prayer and feel ready in a state of preparation to approach the altar. If the society they live in teaches that one is to feel impure during menstruation, it would be easy to see why it has become culturally normal to abstain from the chalice during such times. Though the Canons speak in a tone which has the feel of universal authority, it is helpful to remember that they have an uncommon cultural background to which they are being applied, it would hardly be possible to imagine the Canonist Dionysius believing himself to be writing for the twenty-first century inhabitants of North America. One such encounter with a Canon being applied in a culture where it is not observed is found in a dialogue with Gregory the Great and Augustine of Canterbury.

Gregory the Great, writing in the fifth century, counters the harshness of the Dionysian Canon by emphasising the involuntary nature of menstruation. When asked by Augustine of Canterbury whether it is acceptable for women who are in menstruation to enter into a church building both Gregory and Dionysius make reference to the woman with a flow of blood found in Mark 5:25[19]. Gregory affirms the correctness of a woman to receive the Holy Eucharist during her menstruations:

A woman’s monstrous flow of blood is an infirmity. Therefore if that woman who, in her infirmity, touched our Lord’s garment was justified in her boldness, why is it that what was permitted to one was not permitted to all women who are afflicted through the weakness of their natures? A woman ought not to be forbidden to receive the mystery of the Holy Communion at these times.[20]

Seeing the act of the woman in the scriptures as representative of a change in policy concerning the role of menstruating women in religious life, Gregory, without reference to Canon Law, affirms that it would be incorrect to disallow a pious woman from partaking of Holy Communion on account of her ‘infirmity’. To forbid a woman who has otherwise prepared herself for the reception of the Eucharist would be to place the weight of law between that person and God, it would amount to a deprivation of her privilege to worship. It may be interesting here to remember the context of this dialogue between Gregory the Great and Augustine of Canterbury as being one of a mission church in a culture very different to that of Christian Rome. Is the role of Oikonomia more important in the mission lands? In modern times it is quite usual (though not universal) that when Christians who confess the Trinity and are baptised in the name of the Trinity are brought into the Orthodox Church that they should skip the rite of Baptism and experience solely the rite of Christmation. This is not a purely modern problem as it is addressed by Basil of Caesarea who, though affirming the illegitimacy of Baptism by heretics does not wish to provide an obstacle to the conversion of peoples to the Church:

If, however, this becomes an obstacle to [God’s] general oikonomia, one should again refer to custom and follow the Fathers who have managed [the Church][21]

Though clearly a social taboo, the cause for menstruation is acknowledged as a natural happening by the Orthodox Church and this removes from it the blame of sin. This does not however relieve the individual of any duty to abstain from the Eucharist as like the male equivalent of involuntary nocturnal emissions, it is a reminder of the naturally fallen nature of humanity and for this reason the penitent, out of such realisation for their fallen condition, abstains from the Eucharist.[22] [23] It is out of reverence for the divine things that menstruating women in their unclean state (the involuntary shedding of blood serving as a reminder of fallen nature), that they do not approach the church building for fear of desecrating the sacred confines. Occasionally an impure woman would not be permitted within the sacred confines of the church building, she would not be permitted to venerate the icons either by means of praying before them or touching them.

The popular Nastol’naja Kniga of S. Bulgakov instructs a priest not to allow menstruating women to come to church. In Russia, however, women are generally allowed to come to church during menstruation, but cannot receive Holy Communion, kiss icons, relics, or crosses, touch prosphora or the Antidoron, or drink holy water.[24]

This suggests Levitical understandings that an object which is touched by an impure person are made impure by that act. The seventeenth Canon of John the Faster provides a canonical basis for this reluctance to touch holy things:

As for women occupying a separate seat, let them not touch holy things for as many as seven days, the second Canon of St. Dionysius, but in particular the seventh Canon of Timothy bids.[25]

Therefore it is out of reverence for the sacred images and sacred space that women would abstain from communing with them. Social conventions follow from such acts of reverence. Such an abstention from interacting with the sacred things would seem acceptable only to those who consider this an act of piety and who, according to their culture, find it beneficial to do so. Such obedience to the Canons in this sense would be advisory in consultation with one’s spiritual father or mother, or with the guidance of the confessing priest. In this sense as noted earlier, Oikonomia is used to guide the individual in their journey as an Orthodox Christian. The sternness of the Canons serves to describe the impure state of menstruation which if treated with piety and without detriment to the spirit of the individuals’ striving to ultimate perfection can have positive consequences of acknowledgment of one’s fallen nature which is ultimately redeemed through preparation for one’s eventual communion. Vladimir Moss recognises the dangers of infrequent communion where excuses of impurity are used to distance one from the salvific and healing properties of such reception of the Eucharist:

The pastor should urge his flock to prepare and receive Communion more often, “lest the spiritual wolf seize” them, as it says in the prayers of preparation for Communion. But pastors and laity differ in their opinion of what constitutes frequent or infrequent Communion: what is frequent for one is infrequent for another. Most will agree that two or three times a year is infrequent. Some would consider once a month also infrequent. But more would probably consider that frequent![26]

The subjective belief of one’s own unclean or clean state is to be overviewed by the priest or spiritual guide in accordance with the beneficial state of the person abstaining from the Eucharist; therefore if a person considers themselves unclean during their menstruation and it is seen by their spiritual advisor that they should commune in order to resist some spirit of detachment from the rites of the church, it would be beneficial in such cases to practice Oikonomia provided it results in that person overcoming a sense of perpetual unworthiness to prepare for the mysteries of the Eucharist.

There is the argument of hygiene to be considered. In earlier times women were unable to restrain the flow of blood during their menstrual period, it was therefore considered more hygienic and considerate to remove oneself from society until the bleeding has ceased. As this is no longer the case it could be argued that in modern times the custom of not entering a church because of fear of defiling it is not relevant anymore. To prohibit a menstruating woman from receiving the Eucharist was partly because of the fear that she would defile the church with her issue of blood, Fr. Sergei Sveshnikov argues:

Very few people would disagree that leaving trails of menstrual blood in our sanctuaries is a bad idea, but it would be incorrect to focus on only women being subject to the rules of «ritual impurity.» A bleeding male would also be asked to abstain from entering a church, unless the flow of blood was stopped. In fact, in my memory there was a case when a priest cut his thumb while serving the Liturgy of Preparation (Prothesis), and had to leave the church as he was unable to stop the blood flow. The notion of ritual impurity in the Orthodox Church is much broader than menstruating women and also applies to some aspects of male physiology, as well as to some non-gender-specific situations.[27]

Fr Sergei Sveshnikov in quoting the seventh Canon of Timotheus:

Question VII

If a woman finds herself in the plight peculiar to her sex, ought she to come to the Mysteries on that day or not?

Answer

She ought not to do so, until she has been purified.[28]

He states that this is an outdated argument on grounds of the developments of modern hygiene. He argues Oikonomia from the Canons may be practiced in that it is only recently that woman are wearing menstrual protection and that though such protection may not be worn “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.”[29]

Sister Vassa Larin argues that ritual purity and worthiness to approach the altar are based primarily based on non-Christian ideas and are made null by the incarnation of Christ and the New Testament teachings of freedom from the Judaic laws. She criticises those who seek to maintain concepts of ritual purity in the Church as displaying a “rather disconcerting, fundamentally non-Christian phenomenon in the guise of Orthodox piety.”[30] Such expression of false “Orthodox piety” or “unenlightened zeal” may be detrimental to others in a community who will ultimately feel threatened by the practices of a few individuals within a Church community.

To conclude, history tells us that an association of menstruation and uncleanness pre-dates Christian thought and is not found purely in Judaic societies but as a world-wide phenomenon. With the Orthodoxy expanding through the world as an expression of Christian religion it encounters ideas of ritual purity which are native to those people and either accommodates or re-interprets such ideas according to the Christian message of God’s interaction with the human body. Orthodoxy does not seek to impose a conservative message of subjection upon women which leads to a distancing of women from the holy things but rather respects social norms according to how they may serve to be beneficial to the individuals’ life within their society. Because in Greece and Russia there are ancient customs of setting apart menstruating women from society there is a greater tolerance and indeed acceptance of cultural protocol. Where there are no such customs but rather an emphasis on the equality of women in society, and where it can be seen that women would be unduly subjected if they follow the Greek or Russian native observances of setting aside, care is taken to accommodate through Oikonomia these persons primarily in faith and communion rather than concepts of ritual purity which may distance or trouble that person in their attempts to develop themselves in the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is finding answers to its developing position in the “Western” world through a reverence to the Canons of the ancient fathers but primarily with a spirit of stewardship in the divine will:

With all wisdom and understanding, He made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfilment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. (Eph. 1:9-10)

C. S. Matthew, MMXIII 

Word Count: 4,630 (Excluding bibliography and footnotes)

Bibliography

Berger, T. Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History, Ashgate, (2011).

Connolly, R.H, Didascalia Apostolorum, Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1929).

Cummings, D., The Rudder, Orthodox Christian Educational Society, (1957).

Douglas, M. Purity and Danger, Routledge & Kegan Paul, (1966).

Dvornik, quoted in Erickson, J.H., Oikonomia in Byzantine Canon Law.

Erickson, J.H., The Challenge of Our Past, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, (1991).

Filat, V., ‘Why women are not allowed to enter the church during the menstrual cycle?’, 2010. http://moldovacrestina.net/english/churches/why-women-are-not-allowed-to-enter-the-church-during-the-menstrual-cycle/ [Accessed 29th January].

Hieromonk Patapios, ‘Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion’, http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx [Accessed 27th January 2012].

Hopko, T., ‘A Response to the Issue of Uncleannes’ http://www.stnina.org/print-journal/volume-3/volume-3-no-3-summer-1999/letters [Accessed: 13th February 2012].

Knight, C., Blood Relations: menstruation and the origins of culture, Yale University Press, (1995).

Larin, V., ‘Ritual Impurity’, 2009, http://www.pravmir.com/article_660.html [Accessed 1st February 2012].

Lossky, V., The Meaning of Icons, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, (1982).

Meyendorff, J., Byzantine Theology: Historical trends and doctrinal themes, Fordham Univ. Press, (1979).

Moss, V., ‘On Frequency of Communion’ 2010. http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/328/-frequency-communion/ [Accessed 14th February 2012].

Phipps, W.E., The Menstrual Taboo in the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 1980, pp. 298-303.

Regule, T., ‘An Interview with Bishop Kallistos Ware’ 1997. http://www.stnina.org/print-journal/volume-1/volume-1-no-3-summer-1997/an-interview-bishop-kallistos-ware [accessed 7th February 2012].

Sveshnikov, S., ‘On “Ritual Impurity”: In Response to Sister Vassa (Larin), http://www.pravmir.com/article_663.html [Accessed 7th February 2012].

[1] Lossky, V., The Meaning of Icons, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, (1982), p. 17

[2] ibid.

[3] Phipps, W.E., The Menstrual Taboo in the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter 1980, p. 298

[4] Ibid. Phipps

[5] Knight, C., Blood Relations: menstruation and the origins of culture, Yale University Press, (1995), p. 380

[6] Erickson, J.H., The Challenge of Our Past, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, (1991), p. 9

[7] Regule, T., ‘An Interview with Bishop Kallistos Ware’ 1997. http://www.stnina.org/print-journal/volume-1/volume-1-no-3-summer-1997/an-interview-bishop-kallistos-ware [accessed 7th February 2012].

[8] Dvornik, quoted in Erickson, J.H., Oikonomia in Byzantine Canon Law, p. 225

[9] Meyendorff, J., Byzantine Theology: Historical trends and doctrinal themes, Fordham Univ. Press, (1979), p. 88

[10] Ibid.

[11] Hopko, T., ‘A Response to the Issue of Uncleanness’ http://www.stnina.org/print-journal/volume-3/volume-3-no-3-summer-1999/letters [Accessed: 13th February 2012].

[12] Douglas, M. Purity and Danger, Routledge & Kegan Paul, (1966), p. 50

[13] ibid. Hopko

[14] Cummings, D., The Rudder, Orthodox Christian Educational Society, (1957), p. 935

[15] Filat, V., ‘Why women are not allowed to enter the church during the menstrual cycle?’, 2010. http://moldovacrestina.net/english/churches/why-women-are-not-allowed-to-enter-the-church-during-the-menstrual-cycle/ [Accessed 29th January]

[16] Connolly, R.H, Didascalia Apostolorum, Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1929), p. 116

[17] ibid. Connolly

[18] Hieromonk Patapios, ‘Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion’, http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/menses.aspx [Accessed 27th January 2012]

[19] Now there was a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years. She had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse. She had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for she said, "If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well." Immediately her hemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. Immediately aware that power had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, "Who touched my clothes?" - NRSV

[20] Gregory’s response to Augustine’s ninth question, in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People, 89, 93, cited in Berger, T. Gender Differences and the Making of Liturgical History, Ashgate, (2011), p. 108.

[21]Meyendorff, J., Byzantine Theology: historical trends and doctrinal themes, Fordham University Press, (1983), p. 89

[22] Ibid. Hieromonk Patapios

[23] The quiet acceptance of women in adhering to the Canon Laws is something being challenged by modern Orthodox persons today. In “Western” countries outside the ethnic lands of the Orthodox Church where other Christian denominations are more influential on a more liberal cultural character.

[24] Larin, V., ‘Ritual Impurity’, 2009, http://www.pravmir.com/article_660.html [Accessed 1st February 2012].

[25] Cummings, D., The Rudder, Orthodox Christian Educational Society, (1957), p. 941

[26] Moss, V., ‘On Frequency of Communion’ 2010. http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/328/-frequency-communion/ [Accessed 14th February 2012]

[27] Sveshnikov, S., ‘On “Ritual Impurity”: In Response to Sister Vassa (Larin), http://www.pravmir.com/article_663.html [Accessed 7th February 2012].

[28] Sveshnikov, S., ‘More to the Point: should nuns light their icon lamps?’ 2010., http://frsergei.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/more-to-the-point-should-nuns-light-their-icon-lamps/ [Accessed 20th February 2012]

[29] ibid.

[30] Larin, V., ‘Ritual Impurity’, 2009, http://www.pravmir.com/article_660.html [Accessed 1st February 2012].