It just now occurred to me that when one sees the title of this post, coupled with an image of Metropolitan Herman, it would be easy to assume the following lines will be directed at the OCA as that issue that doesn’t go away. But no, it was something I posted a few days ago which led me to an issue of the Antiochian WORD, where one can find excerpts from Metropolitan Philip’s Address to the Clergy at the 2008 Symposium.
Let me let me say first off that I have much respect for the metropolitan. There was a time that I judged him by his appearance (see photo), thinking that he wasn’t Orthodox enough. However, since then I’ve had a change of heart. I realized, firstly, that it certainly is not my place to judge and secondly I was told of all the many great things he’s done for his Archdiocese. I suppose in the end I really don’t care, it’s not my place, he is a hierarch and if he has done anything wrong there more qualified people to take care of it. I do, however, disagree with some of his comments below. Just my opinion.
These following excerpt from the metropolitan’s talk can be contrasted with Archbishop Christodoulos’ of blessed memory regarding clergy etiquette found here.
“My dear friends, it seems to me that there are certain issues which do not go away, such as priestly dress in the church and outside the church. In the church, you must wear your cassock or jibbee. Outside the church in the streets, in the shopping centers, in the theaters, and in the hospitals, just wear your black shirt, collar and black suit.
I have heard that in some parts of our vast Archdiocese some clergy dress like monks in black cassocks with very long beards and pony tails, wearing sandals and no socks. If you are not monks, dress normally. To my knowledge, the only monk that we have in our Archdiocese is His Grace Bishop Basil. A few years ago, His Grace asked me about becoming a monk. So he went to a monastery in England and officially became a monk. If you are married and have children, you cannot dress like monks. Otherwise, you have to live in a monastery.
By the same token, when you come to the Archdiocesan Convention or to a Parish Life Conference, you cannot walk around in shorts, blue jeans and sneakers. Just dress normally.
On April 30, 2003, our Archdiocesan Synod under Item 8 stated: “Item which require uniformity across the Archdiocese, Clergy dress code and physical appearance – policy of the Archdiocese is that Jibbee or Cassock should be worn in appropriate places and appropriate times, i.e. in church, at a funeral home for the Trisagion Services. In public places where the priest is not performing priestly duties, he must wear a black clergy suit with collar and black suit jacket and trousers.”
Again on May 11, 2005, our Archdiocesan Synod stated under Item 6…”Uniform practice of appropriate clergy attire.” An example that was cited as inappropriate is, a subdeacon wearing an alloosee. Clergy should not go shopping wearing their cassocks. Photos of St. Tikhon from 1905 show him wearing a suit jacket and collar. Beards should be of reasonable length and excessively long. Outside the church, the clergy should wear the dress that is common in this Archdiocese. While on vacation, the clergy may wear casual dress that is appropriate to the circumstances. It is not necessary to wear cassocks while traveling.”
Antiochian WORD, Vol. 52, No. 7, September 2008
And, of course, the argument that if we want to wear cassocks, grow out our hair and have long beards we should go all the way and go to monasteries, that’s fine. As long as Roman collar wearing clergy make that final step and go the Catholic church and let us be Orthodox.
Best comment on this subject, ever.
Incidentally, I’ve run into both Metropolitan Christopher and Bishop Longin outside their respective residences, and have always seen them in cassocks. I can’t say about the other Bishops; I’ve never met Bishops Mitrophan and Georgije, and met Bishop Maksim only once, a year ago.
As for the Antiochian Archdiocese, His Eminence, Metropolitan Philip seems stuck in a certain modus operandi on which he settled several decades ago, and to which he’ll stick to until his dying day, I’m sure. Well, may God bless it. Fortunately, other Bishops in that Church (who are now ruling Bishops, leaving behind the wholly precarious former arrangement which made them regional “assistant bishops” or some such, with effectively no canonical powers) are much more open to their clergy wearing cassocks than is the Metropolitan: this is certainly the case with Bishops Basil and Joseph, some of whose seniormost clergymen I have met in multiple occasions, and have never once seen not wearing their cassocks.
Something in that talk makes me think of Peter “the great”. Also, can someone tell me what this alloosee is so I can go pick up one?
I’m glad it’s all been settled, then.
This is something that does need to be addressed in a uniform way, especially as we Orthodox strive for unity in North America. I say, let there be liberty– but not necessarily an individualist liberty. Let the bishops and the people decide, and let the clergy obey out of love for the Church. Beards and cassocks are a wonderful thing because they show people that we are different, we are the real thing. No beards and clerical collars might also be useful if they indicate to people that Orthodoxy is as much for Americans as it is for Serbs, Russians, and Greeks.
At least there seem to be clear standards for the Antiochian Orthodox clergy.
as long as Roman collar wearing clergy make that final step and go the Catholic church
Where they also wear cassocks.
Like Romanos, I am also amazed at how much attention this post has received. But as Fr. Yohannes pointed to the REALITY of the metropolitan’s remarks I think these comments show another reality; which is to say, Orthodox are experts at fixing the problem by focusing on the thing that doesn’t need fixing.
In light of Fr. Luke’s comments, let’s explain that to a newly converted Orthodox Christian and then say, In the end the Turks were right, who needs those silly outdated cassocks!
And, of course, the argument that if we want to wear cassocks, grow out our hair and have long beards we should go all the way and go to monasteries, that’s fine. As long as Roman collar wearing clergy make that final step and go the Catholic church and let us be Orthodox.
No, we’re not going to enter a monastery and they won’t go the Catholic church so as the St. Augustine quote above suggests, why can’t there be love among us? No one can prove that cassocks are “that important”, on the other hand no one can prove that they aren’t.
Rarely is it the cassock wearing priest who will criticize the collar wearing one. No, the latter is too busy changing and improving the Church, while the other is not only Orthodox, but proud of it.
I don’t understand why Orthodox clergy want to fit into North American culture by changing their outward appearance, while majority of the faithful and those who are interested in Orthodoxy are looking for something deeper, something that isn’t similar to the norms they find around them in our North American society.
From the writings of the holy hierarch, Bishop Augoustine Kantiotes:
“In Turkey, where Christianity is hated with a passion, the cassock was forbidden after the Asia Minor calamity (1922). The only exception is the Patriarch who can wear his cassock when he leaves the Patriarchate. In this way the Turks wanted to get revenge against the Orthodox Church because they knew very well that it was the clergy that held the people together for 400 years and did not allow the memory of the nation to die, not just Greece but in the other Balkan nations. The Turks hate priests; they even hate the cassock; it is like seeing the Greek flag. And in reality it was the cassock and the Greek soldier’s uniform from which the Greek flag was made!
One might give in and say, so the Turks, the Americans and some others do not want to see our priests wearing cassocks. But the Greeks, who know how much the cassock contributed to the nation, who in their streets and in the squares, see statues of priests and bishops who sacrificed themselves for the race, why is it that the Greeks dare to despise and have contempt for the cassock? The cassock, that special robe of Orthodox clergy, has its own history, a history mixed with blood and tears, a history which we should never forget.
By saying this we do not consider the cassock a dogma of our Faith, something unchangable, that is to say. But those who think that by doing away with the cassock and dressing priests in modern clothing the Church will be brought up to dateand it will profess are greatly mistaken. The cassock is not the reason for the failures and scandals of today’s clergy. If it is abolished not only will they not decrease but they will increase. In these evil times, our Church does not have any need for external reforms, but for internal changes. It has a need for a holy and inspired clergy that will wear and honor the cassock and will make it the banner of the most beautiful struggle for teh religious, moral and national rebirth of our nation.
It really amazes me how this post has drawn so much discussion, so many comments, and here’s one more from me (who supports the more cassock in public opinion), and it’s only an anecdote, nothing more.
As a young man I lived in Edmonton, Alberta, though I am a native Chicagoan. In the early 1970′s, in Edmonton, there were a lot of “homeless” or at least “on the street” native men (that is, American Indians, in old parlance), who lived their lives in almost perpetual alcoholic stupor. They could be seen singly or in little groups in downtown Edmonton, with their blankets and other nomadic gear in bags (shopping carts weren’t the norm yet). They sometimes begged, but mostly they kept to themselves, and we just tried to stay out of their range. In those days, many Orthodox priests did wear their cassock and cross out in public (Edmonton is a very Orthodox city, because of the large Ukrainian population).
Sometimes I would be downtown and witness this kind of thing: An Orthodox priest would emerge from a store or office, walking probably to his car. Almost as soon as he appeared, life seemed to enter into the limpid bodies of the native men (and sometimes women) lying on the edges of his path. Many would get up and humbly trundle over to the priest, kneel in front of him or at his side and sometimes even clasp him to them, hiding their heads in his cassock or (in winter) his long coat, waiting for his blessing. Now the odd thing is this. I wasn’t a practicing Orthodox Christian yet, still a rebellious 22 year old, and I don’t know if these native people were Orthodox or not (this is not Alaska, but Alberta), but it always impressed me when I saw this, brought me to tears almost, and I saw it happen more than once or twice, usually in winter. It was witnessing this kind of power (of mercy on the side of God through His servants the priests), that was instrumental in bringing me to see my life as worth something to a God who loves not only THEM but me as well. And I wonder, what was different about these Orthodox priests “in their blacks” (as I now call the cassock outfit) that elicited this response from the native men, and ultimately in me?
It would probably be a mixed bag if you polled the rank and file in terms of necessity of fitting in; and you would probably get some differing results in the various communities that make up the church in North America. The maxim that comes to my mind in all of this is that of St. Augustine
“In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love”
Whether or not the cassock is essential is obviously subject to variable opinion, but that in itself tells me some flexibility is probably in order. Particularly when it is clear something has been shown to have a place in the church (i.e. the wearing of the cassock). It seems to me the enforcement of non essentials works against the rule of charity, and will often lead to strife such as happened with the calendar in this country.
The “Latinizing” element in all of this is not in my opinion the clerical attire. We seem comfortable with our own “Papacies”, even when unaware of them.
It seems like there are more clergy than laity that think we should “fit in” to American culture.
The only thing I can see that I disagree with is mandating that something not be worn that is clearly part of the tradition of the church. I think it is a matter that should be left to the preference of the individual priest.
My own priest, a Protopresbyter in his 70′s, does not wear his cassock “off grounds” that I’ve ever seen. I’m fine with that, as I would be if he did. He also does not have a beard, again not something that bothers me.
I suppose it is possible when he’s in public people might think he’s an Episcopal or Catholic priest, but considering those are venerable traditions with whom we share much, that again would not be a major concern of mine.
Could somebody tell me where this idea came from that having a long beard and long hair is monastic?
Many of the early monastic communities forbade the monks from growing their hair long, and for centuries many monks had short hair just like the clergy. Their hair style evolved just like that of the clergy,-probably under Byzantine monarchial influence-so why do we call it monastic to have long hair? It simply became in the East a clerical symbol, and I don’t really see much of a problem with it.
As far as beards are concerned, I don’t see it as a big deal if a priest trims his beard, but not trimming it is certainly not just some monastic ideal. In fact I compiled just out interest a whole bunch of quotes on beards from different saints and sources. Here is the link http://solzemli.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/writings-related-to-beards-in-orthodox-christianity/
Thanks for your comment Fr. Yohannes -
Actually, even though I said I disagree with Metropolitan Philip I admit (don’t know if I already admitted this) that I don’t wear my cassock all the time. I wear it a lot of the times but not to the store and running errands, etc.
The one thing I will say about this whole thing is that at least the metropolitan said what he felt, there is something in writing. Nothing is up in the air. I think for the most part our Serbian bishops prefer that we wear our cassocks when we visit the sick, bless or visit homes and such things but I can’t really prove it. For that matter I’m not sure if our bishops wear their cassocks when they are out and about. (I don’t think so.)
This is one of the things I really like about Met. Philip, whether I agree or disagree, he says it like it is – and though I really do disagree I also realize that, in the end, it’s not that important of an issue.
Thanks again for the comment.
Metropolitan Philip’s Address to the Clergy at the 2008 Symposium sounds reasonsable and REALISTIC! I have been a Priest for over twenty years now and like most young Priest of a “traditional” bent (for a lack of a better term) worn my Cassock both on Church property and as my “every day” attaire. After a year or two of doing this I relized that it was not a practical situation; I won’t go into the “ways” but I switched to wearing my Cassock at Home at the Church Rectory (located next to the Church – on Church property) and of course in Church, and whenever preforming Liturgical rites. On the Street, so-to-speak, wearing a black suit with a Clerical Collar and the Pectoral Cross I am, by rank, allowed to wear, with a black hat works. In fact, my own experience is that I have more people come up to me and speak with me in that manner of dress than I ever did wear my Cassock 24/7.
The reality is most of us live here in North America were the practice of wearing the Cassock out on the Street was never the norm. If I was assigned to live in a country or region that the “custom” was for the Priest to wear his Cassock 24/7, then I would, absolute.
Also, I want to Commend the idea that non Monastic Clergy should not look like Monastics…that just false piety and plan sillyness. If you want to go around with uncut hair and an untrimmed beard, get a transfer to were that is an acceptable local custom or better yet, BECOME A MONK!
Father Bless!
Fr. Milovan,
We started attending St. Michael’s this past summer. We just recently moved from Montgomery, AL. The mission is going well and growing. We now meet in our own office type building in Huntsville. The mission has done a very good job of making the interior Orthodox. We are led by an OCA priest who is on loan to us. We hope we can get him transferred into the Serbian Church eventually. I am sure that some of our “old timers” will remember you. I will ask. I enjoy your blog very much. Thanks.
Matthew,
Thank you for your comment and your story.
I’ll admit that at times we clergy don’t realize how little things like wearing a cassock or not can affect those around us. I don’t wear mine all the time but I try to wear it as much as possible when around parishioners. You are right when you call this ‘a blessing’ – we have many of them in Orthodoxy and shouldn’t ignore them. Having a bishop say that the priest doesn’t need to wear his cassock that much is one thing but to insist that he not wear it, because we’re not monks, is another.
But, again, I agree with the metropolitan that this is indeed “an issue that will not go away” – clergy fifty years from now will still be wearing cassocks. Regardless of what a few bishops have to say about it. I’m almost sure of it. This includes the Antiochian Archdiocese who, by the way, have excellent priests.
Maybe it’s not so much that they are not wearing cassocks that bugs me as much as the fact that they’re wearing Roman collars.
Thanks for your comment.
Father, Bless!
This is something that I totally disagree with Met. Philip about. Just I few months ago I discussed this with a Western Rite Orthodox priest and he told me the same story.
I am a convert even though my grandfather was Serbian Orthodox and my mother and her brothers and sisters were Baptized and Chrismated in the Serbian or Russian Churches.
When I was a small boy perhaps 8 or 9, we went to visit my grandfather who was gravely ill. We waited in the living room while something was going on in the bedroom. After what seemed to be hours the door opened and out stepped what I thought was a giant. All in black with an ‘odd’ hat and beard. I was in awe. This image remains in my mind to this day and I am now 61. Is this the reason I became Orthodox? No, but I am sure GOD used it to lead me home. My mom and aunts and uncles all left the Orthodox Church at a young age due to circumstances. I am the first to return from my generation.
May GOD open the eyes of the Orthodox to this Blessing.
Joseph,
I noticed from your blog that you attend St. Michael’s Church in Madison, AL. Have you been there long? I was the first administrator of that parish. I think it was formed in late 2002.
I can’t remember how long I was with the group, I don’t think it was even a year. I remember meeting at an Episcopal Church and before that we met at, I think it was a Lutheran Church.
Interesting read. Thank you for sharing, Fr. Katanic. My own priests tend to wear the suit and collar when out and about.
I do not see a reason given for the wearing of the collar in the above quotations. What is the metropolitan’s reason for enforcing such attire? It may have been assumed at one time that the American culture would be more accepting of Orthodox clergy if they wore a black suit and collar but this is not the case. Most Americans that see a clergyman in a collar assume that they are a Roman Catholic. It is more confusing than anything else. Where would the metropolitan get the idea that a black cassock is something just a monk would wear?
Personally, I think the metropolitan said it right when he called this an issue which does not go away. I think cassocks are here to stay. We went through a phase in the Serbian church where almost all clergy wore collars. Today, among the younger clergy, there are maybe (maybe) two or three that wear a collar (that I know of). I’ve noticed young Greek priests, also notorious for wearing the collar, wearing cassocks more and more.
While we’re at it, we have a few churches that look a little out of the norm, shall we say. The Pittsburgh Cathedral, for instance, I think won an architectural award of sorts and while it resembles an Orthodox Church it is certainly different.
We went through our phase but in the end I think there is something about the “traditional” look. I don’t even like calling it that, nor do I like the word ‘conservative’ Orthodox. Orthodox is Orthodox and the cassock is the look. We can go on and on but I am still amazed how much more the cassock attracts people as opposed to anything else.
And I agree with Andrew’s comments about those who work on taking the Latin influence out of the church only to replace it with something more Latin.
I am not saying the following is right or wrong, but this is what I found on St. Tikhon’s statement on clerical appearance in North America.
“St. Tikhon and Clerical Appearance
When Patriarch St. Tikhon was Bishop in America early this century, he ordered his clergy to shave and wear Western clerical dress. What does this say of your “traditional” dress? (J.K., NJ)
We have seen only one directive attributed to St. Tikhon on this subject, and it by no means “orders” clergy in America under his jurisdiction to abandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming. It is also well known that the late Father Georges Florovsky disputed the authenticity of this directive. Whatever the case, St. Tikhon did openly speak of a distinction between the “essentials” and “accidentals” of the Faith, allowing for a number of innovations, including some in clerical appearance. A distinction of the kind made by the Saint is atypical in Orthodoxy, wherein “externals” (matters of apparent accident) are thought to reflect and to be inseparable from an “internal” (or essential) reality. St. Tikhon of course embraced this principle, and his deviation from it merely entailed practical accommodations necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodox immigration to America. It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint’s memory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relatively new mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a local Church that is more than two centuries old.
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 3, pp. 19-21.”
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx
Somehow, the image didn’t get published. Here it is:
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/Holy_Fathers/St._Raphael_Hawaweeny/8.jpg
St. Raphael of Brooklyn with his archdeacon, Emmanuel Abo-Hatab
“Also, are we not behaving just like the Eastern rite Catholics we love to complain about? Who emulate our externals just to fit in, and make us appear to be one Church in the eyes of the uneducated?”
What’s the purpose of this line beyond jabbing at Eastern Catholics? Who are we trying to “fit in” with? We didn’t form our vestment choices from Orthodox ‘R Us or a mail-order catalogue.
My spiritual father – a hieromonk in a parish – has always worn his cassock in public. I find it ‘universalizing’ in its particularity like I wrote about in my post on the O Antiphons. That being said, he found a quote from St. Tikhon of Moscow noting that his clergy in North America should “dress like gentlemen” and not in the monastic-wear more common in the Russian Church of his day.
An Orthodox priest, it seems to me, is a permanent reminder, inside and outside of church services, of the inalienable and undaunted Presence of Jesus Christ our God in the world, both to the Orthodox population, and to the population at large. Moderation in dress and grooming for our priests (bishops and deacons included) is, it seems to me, a commendable standard: beard and hair not excessively long or wild, cassock and cross simple, freedom to choose footwear with or without socks granted. Presbytera (matushka, papadia) modestly dressed and groomed, as scripture recommends for all Christian women, hair of the head not necessarily covered at all times, but certainly in church services. In both cases, priest and presbytera, revealing Christ’s Presence in them and in their faithfulness, to the world, by the same free choice that they used in becoming what they are in the Body of Christ.
Forgive me for even expressing my opinion or hope, since it will have no effect on what happens in the Church, and neither am I taking sides between bishops or jurisdictions. I respect them all for what they are, but the fire inside me still burns for the witness of Jesus Christ in Orthodoxy, and for the salvation of the world around me.
Met. Philip like many other honest clergy hope to make Orthodoxy more indigenous in North America by adopting the externals of Catholics and Protestants. From what I have experienced, people would rather their clergy look like the holy icons, rather than look like the local Anglican minister
It is very correct to say that the externals are not even close to being as important as the internals are, but that doesn’t give one a free pass in order to make no attempt at all of correcting the externals as well.
I find it quite ironic that people who work so hard at removing the Latin influence from our theology end up looking like modern Latin clergy.
Also, are we not behaving just like the Eastern rite Catholics we love to complain about? Who emulate our externals just to fit in, and make us appear to be one Church in the eyes of the uneducated?
A beard and cassock are not the essence of Orthodoxy, but nor is an iconostasis, and I for one don’t want to see any of those external things go away.
In Christ,
Andrew
As a member of the AOAA, the saddest line in this excerpt to me is:
“To my knowledge, the only monk that we have in our Archdiocese is His Grace Bishop Basil.”