Is it ever permissible for a Coptic priest to wear laymen's clothing in public (shorts, t-shirt, slacks, polo shirt, etc)? I don't mean in the privacy of their home, I mean shopping, outdoor activities, and the like.
Would be interested in reading some perspectives on this.
Comments
For personal edification and knowledge. If you are concerned that my subsequent posts will contain information about priests who wear laymen's clothes in public, that won't be the case.
Dude, you wasted minutes of your life writing that up. What a waste of brain space it is to know if priests wear regular clothes or not. Really, we shouldn't be concerned with that whatsoever, it won't benefit you to know that. Go outside, get some fresh air, get some nice ice cream and relax in a park, because you really need to go outside. Most of all, get off the computer.
Thanks
God Bless you, but go outside first.
Lettuce
So we shouldn't think of the black robe the priests wear today as something essential to Orthodoxy. It's a late development, without any good meaning or reason, that has just stuck. All the ideas about them wearing black because they're dead to the world are nice meditations, but they're just that meditations developed much later than the practise, not the reason for it.
At Nicaea, all the bishops would have been wearing different colours, wearing the normal barb of their land. To this day, the Indian Orthodox, who were far enough outside the Empire, do not wear black, but white.
Now, the vestments worn during the Liturgy are something else entirely. They do have meaning and significance, and go back to the very beginning. They are something to be maintained and followed carefully. They are part of Orthodoxy. The black street clothes are not a big deal.
Today, commonly, the general rule in the Coptic Orthodox Church is that priests are required to wear the black whenever in public. But as I said, that is in general. Every bishop has the authority to set rules regarding this in their own diocese. The Synod has the authority to decide matters of importance relating to all the diocese, but each bishop has authority for the internal affairs of his own diocese.
So there are some bishops who do not require their priest to wear the black in public, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. There are also bishops who will give permission to specific priests for a specific reason not to wear the black at times.
I often drive a priest places, and he is often not wearing the black, with full permission from his bishop, though he always puts it on to go to Church so people aren't offended, because people have the silly idea that it's essential for a priest to wear it.
When a priest does not wear the black, they should still be dressed respectfully, not in shorts and a t-shirt, but in dignified clothing.
If we see a priest "out of uniform", we should never judge them, but assume they have permission, with awareness that it is not something essential to our faith or tradition. We should also be careful about what we consider to be "in public". For example, a medical office can be considered a public place, but if a priest is going for physiotherapy or something, we should fully expect they would show up, even drive there, wearing clothes appropriate for that, not their clerical garb. If they are in a resort in the Caribbean on vacation, yes, they could possibly run into a parishioner. But we wouldn't expect them to be playing with their kids in the pool in the black.
I had to log on just to comment on your post.
Dude, you wasted minutes of your life writing that up. What a waste of brain space it is to know if priests wear regular clothes or not. Really, we shouldn't be concerned with that whatsoever, it won't benefit you to know that. Go outside, get some fresh air, get some nice ice cream and relax in a park, because you really need to go outside. Most of all, get off the computer.
Thanks
God Bless you, but go outside first.
Lettuce
No, he didn't. It's a reasonable question, even it's just out of curiosity. I love how people can start threads about grilled corn, and actually get responses, yet he can't ask a legitimate question?
[quote author=Khas. link=topic=13516.msg157628#msg157628 date=1342179684]
I had to log on just to comment on your post.
Dude, you wasted minutes of your life writing that up. What a waste of brain space it is to know if priests wear regular clothes or not. Really, we shouldn't be concerned with that whatsoever, it won't benefit you to know that. Go outside, get some fresh air, get some nice ice cream and relax in a park, because you really need to go outside. Most of all, get off the computer.
Thanks
God Bless you, but go outside first.
Lettuce
No, he didn't. It's a reasonable question, even it's just out of curiosity. I love how people can start threads about grilled corn, and actually get responses, yet he can't ask a legitimate question?
I know it's reasonable. I'm also curious to the answer. It was just a bad attempt to be a troll, I'm sorry.
I had to log on just to comment on your post.
Dude, you wasted minutes of your life writing that up. What a waste of brain space it is to know if priests wear regular clothes or not. Really, we shouldn't be concerned with that whatsoever, it won't benefit you to know that. Go outside, get some fresh air, get some nice ice cream and relax in a park, because you really need to go outside. Most of all, get off the computer.
Thanks
God Bless you, but go outside first.
Lettuce
Khas,
Your post is very disrespectful and unnecessary. You also did not read my question carefully. I did not ask "to know if priests wear regular clothes or not" as you claim. As a matter of fact, I specifically said that that is not the purpose of the question. If you are not interested in a particular thread you should probably mind your own business and not join the discussion - otherwise that would be a "waste of time" on your part wouldn't it? Given your aversion to "wasting time" you should probably follow your own advice a bit closer.
actually wearing black is in an indirect way essential to orthodoxy. to quote HH Pope Shenouda, wearing black is a sign of class, respect and honour.
So St. Athanasius wasn't a very good preist because he didn't wear the black, neglecting an essential part of Orthodoxy that wouldn't exist for centuries? So Christ wasn't a very good representation of Christ because he didn't wear the black? Bishops are the Christian priests. Presbyters participate in the priesthood of the bishop. We call presbyters priests because they are the members of the priesthood we typically interact with. Priest are not greater than people. One good priest said "if the priest is the holiest person in a church, that priest's service is a failure". Priesthood is not a rank, it is a role of service in a community. They are not separate and above the community they serve. Is the eye a greater rank in members of the body than the foot? We respect the priests because they have been found worthy and called to this great service, and because they hold the Body. But we can respect them just as much whether they're wearing a black cassock or not.
I have come to see that an essential part of my priesthood is precisely this "public" role. To be a witness (even physically) of the Kingdom, to participate in the sanctification of every aspect of the world. I think a very important aspect of our cassock and cross is precisely this aspect of being identified in public as a "public servant" very much like a police officer and such.
So, for me, I always insist to wear my cassock in public even if I am just running a quick errand or grabbing coffee from Starbucks. One employee of a local Starbucks (a non-Orthodox American young lady) said to me one day, "You know Father, every time you come in here, you bring us a great blessing." I was very touched, understanding that she was not speaking about ME but about the blessing of the priesthood in public.
That being said, there are times when I am somewhere and I am dedicating my time to my wife and kids...on vacation for example. I enjoy swimming and biking with them without the cassock of course...
In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos
But are you supported entirely by the Church or do you have to provide by some other means for your family? I think that those clergy who do not habitually wear a cassock are usually those that have to work at some secular employment.
Thank you for sharing your experience Father.
But are you supported entirely by the Church or do you have to provide by some other means for your family? I think that those clergy who do not habitually wear a cassock are usually those that have to work at some secular employment.
Yes, of course I agree with you Father. Those priests who have to work in secular jobs cannot be expected to wear the cassock in such circumstances.
I won't comment on the historical development of clerical garb...but in terms of my own personal experience of being a priest just over five years now I can say that I have had some of the most blessed experiences in public because of my cassock and appearance...
Fr. Bless, I apologize if it seemed my post was disrespectful to those like you who take up the cross daily of being publicly marked as holy in a society that often ridicules that, and of the fruit your service has born through that cross. I have great respect for the priests who, in obedience, wear the cassock as they are required, often for very good reasons.
All I meant to speak against was the idea that this custom is an essential part of Orthodox Christianity, because of the disrespect I have seen shown to priests who for equally valid reasons do not wear the cassock.
I think specifically of a monk whose service is to care for orphans, the mentally ill, the poor, the desperate in society, many of whom have been abused, and who could not approach someone in a clerical garb. Like Christ, who took on our flesh and walked among us in humility, this monk lays aside any glory of the priesthood, makes himself nothing, and serves in love. The stories of his service are like nothing I thought still happened in this world, with people knocking on his door, and saying that they are desperate, and they were told to seek him. With people walking up to him in a restaurant, and telling him that they sense that he is holy. Who, with a masters in psychology still has ties to that community, and is sometimes called in to perform an exorcism if appropriate on the cases they simply cannot treat with medicine. And yet, this man, so respected by the poor, the marginalized, is often mocked by his own congregation, who think of him as a second-class priest, and ask our priest how he can allow such a man to stand at the altar with him.
I think also of all the really stupid stories, like people who say "we had to pay our priest to build a pool in his back yard, because he had to play with his kids, but he couldn't got to a public pool because they wouldn't let him go in with his galebeya". There are many priests who are truly martyrs for obediently wearing the mark of the priesthood in today's secular world, and I have the utmost respect for them. But there is also a very common aspect of superstition, of people who think they're not really a priest if they take it off, and can't imagine priests not sleeping in it, and spread rumours that it is forbidden for priests even to wear pijamas, and say that we are more Orthodox than the godless Antiochians, who allow their priests to wear pants. This attitude I cannot stand.
Thanks for sharing these experiences. It's great to see so much good can come out of your appearance in public wearing the cassock.
[quote author=Fr. Kyrillos link=topic=13516.msg157660#msg157660 date=1342291283]
I won't comment on the historical development of clerical garb...but in terms of my own personal experience of being a priest just over five years now I can say that I have had some of the most blessed experiences in public because of my cassock and appearance...
Fr. Bless, I apologize if it seemed my post was disrespectful to those like you who take up the cross daily of being publicly marked as holy in a society that often ridicules that, and of the fruit your service has born through that cross. I have great respect for the priests who, in obedience, wear the cassock as they are required, often for very good reasons.
All I meant to speak against was the idea that this custom is an essential part of Orthodox Christianity, because of the disrespect I have seen shown to priests who for equally valid reasons do not wear the cassock.
Dear Jonathan,
Peace and Grace! My post was not in any way a response or reaction to your or anyone else! I just wanted to share my thoughts from my own experience. I agree with everything you said...There are times when, in my opinion, it is perfectly appropriate not to wear the cassock and there is nothing irreverent in this. But I also believe that the cassock, beard, and cross can be an important means of representing and sharing our faith. People love to come up and ask about my church just because of my appearance. I agree, though, that this is not a matter of faith but of discipline in the church and can be applied differently due to varying circumstances.
God bless!
Fr. Kyrillos
clearly my post was in response to someone who mentioned historical significance. I resent the accusation that I have no respect for St. Athanasius, or Christ Himself for that matter. It is obvious that it evolved into a necessary custom, much like everything else in our church. It is most definitely not acceptable for a deacon to serve in the sanctuary without his vestment. This was not necessary in ancient time due to the fact that the liturgy was not so much a liturgy as it was a small gathering where an apostle prayed over bread an wine. Many things evolve over time. Enlighten your mind. It is clear that had we not been struggling with persecution we would most definitely have eaten each other up over the most trivial matters.
I never said you had shown any disrespect for either St. Athanasius or Christ. I resent people frequently judging holy priest for not doing something that is very much not an essential part of Orthodox. In fact, only the Coptic Church, and no other Church, requires priests to wear cassocks at all times in public.
clearly my post was in response to someone who mentioned historical significance. I resent the accusation that I have no respect for St. Athanasius, or Christ Himself for that matter. It is obvious that it evolved into a necessary custom, much like everything else in our church. It is most definitely not acceptable for a deacon to serve in the sanctuary without his vestment. This was not necessary in ancient time due to the fact that the liturgy was not so much a liturgy as it was a small gathering where an apostle prayed over bread an wine. Many things evolve over time. Enlighten your mind. It is clear that had we not been struggling with persecution we would most definitely have eaten each other up over the most trivial matters.
I am sorry if my post came across as insulting or argumentative. I did not mean for it to.
I was simply attempting to make an argument that there is a flaw with your position:
You have said that wearing the black is an essential part of Orthodox, essential to represent Christ, when neither our great fathers like St. Athanasius, nor Christ himself wore it.
I was not in any way accusing you of showing disrespect towards St. Athanasius or Christ, merely pointing out the contradiction of saying that something is an essential part of Orthodoxy, when it is a practise that was not necessry to someone as great as St. Athanasius. I'm sorry if I did not make my point clearly enough, and caused offense.
To address your counterpoint that it was not essential, but has become essential, like "deacon's clothes", and that "everything else in our Church" evolved into an essential custom.
I must disagree that vestments are a later addition, and I must strongly disagree with an assertion that everything in our Church developed over time.
Eusebius, in the 300's, quotes earlier sources of those who knew St. John the Beloved personally, referring to him as a priest who wore the miter. The tunic, or tonia, is merely a baptismal gown. At one time all Christians wore their baptismal gown to the heavenly Liturgy, though over time only the clergy continued to. The pastoral stole the priest wears is also from the earliest time. These vestments are analogous to the OT vestments, and are a fulfillment with continuity. In times of persecution in the very early Church, there were times when these essentials may have had to be dispensed with. Certainly the vestments have changed in style over time. But their meaning and importance has not changed, they have been there since the beginning.
The Liturgy was not just a small gathering where an Apostle prayed over bread and wine. Christ delivered the Liturgy to the Apostles during the 40 days between Resurrection and Ascension. The words were free, composed by the bishop, or prayed on the fly, and later became fixed. Elaborations have certainly occurred. But all the essential parts of the Liturgy have been there form the beginning.
The faith Christ gave to the Apostles was the complete faith. Yes, terms like homoosion, osia, person, even Trinity came later. But these were not new things that were discovered that hadn't previously been believed. They were was of explaining the faith handed down, especially explaining it against an innovative interpretation challenging the ancient faith.
If "everything in our church" "evolved into a necessary custom", then we are following a religion of men, and not of God. Our faith an practise are handed down to us from Christ Himself.
Disciplines that arose later are not wrong. A bishop is free to dictate a uniform for his presbyters. The cassock we are familiar with has become very wide spread, to the point of being nearly universal. But not quite.
If we say that it is essential, then we slander our fathers in the British Orthodox Church, who have a blessing to wear appropriate clothing to secular employment. We slander our fathers in the Indian Orthodox Church, who wear white clothes that are not cassocks, yet are equally Orthodox to us. We slander our fathers in the Coptic Church who, for one reason or another, have been blessed not to wear their cassock at times. We slander our fathers in the other Oriental Orthodox Churches, many of whom do not require their priests to wear their cassocks when "off duty". We slander our brethren the Eastern Orthodox, many of whom have adopted a clerical suit, rather than a cassock for their priests.
There is nothing wrong with our bishops requiring our priests to wear cassocks. But if we say it is an essential part of Orthodox, then we are no different than the Pharisees, who taught traditions of men, condemned by Christ, condemning others. What is essential to Orthodox is the faith and praxis that Christ delivered to His Church. There are many important explanations and sayings that we will never dispense with. But to say a manner of dress is essential to Orthodox is to wander into the territory of the Pharisees.
WOW ! i never knew this! but they even got to russia ! thats so far from the arab countries. thanks now i know
Russia did not become an independent Church with it's down Patriarchate until the 1500's. They received their practise from Constantinople, which was under Islamic rule before there was any Church to speak of in Russia. India, on the other hand, was an ancient Church, not a land that received Christianity from an earlier Church after these things had been imposed on them, which is why their priests still wear their own garb. Saying that "All the Eastern Churches" were under Islamic rule doesn't mean all the Churches there are today, but all the ones there were back then :)
Another question... I heard that in the time of persecution by the Muslims in Egypt, the Muslims forced priest to wear a cassock and an ema. Is this true? If so then how/why would other orthodox churches wear it? Also if this is true why would the Orthodox Church still have priests wearing it?
Why dispense of it now? Meditations, such as symbolizing death the world, have risen up around it. If something with a bad origin can be used beneficially, there is no reason to cast it aside. Many people think that it is something essential to Christianity, and picture the fathers of Nicaea all in black. There is no reason to offend all these people by changing what they feel is an essential practise, since it causes no change. There is no force pushing for change on this (for the most part, where there is a legitimate reason to change it, it is dispensed with, which is legitimate, and we should still respect those priests, because this is not something that may not be dispensed with, which is all I have been arguing).