www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Why do so few BC Priests wear beards?

djs,

I related what I was taught I will compare it with some sources and respond later. Can you please cite the source for the above list?

Bob:

Just so you are not confused, the flock was not orphaned; we had our own bishops. Until the canonical recognition of the Eparchy, however, they were subject to the RC bishop of Eger. The list is from A. Pekar's booklet, "The Bishops of the Mukachevo Eparchy".

djs


PS Bob, as I re-read your post, I think that you were more specifically refering to the earliest days. This is a little more complicated. Prince Rakoczi was in Pekar's words, a militant Calvinst and strongly opposed efforts toward re-union, and had the pro re-union Orthodox bishop, Basil Tarasovich (successor to pro re-union Bishops Hrihorovich and Petronious) under tight control (surveillance and prison). The task of implementing the union fell to his friend Parthenius Petrovich, who was later installed as his successor (1651-1665). It was not until the death of Racoczi (1660), at which time his wife Princess Sophia returned to her Catholic faith, that Bishop Petrovich then was able to take up residence in the episcopal see in Mukachevo and "extend the union to the central part of the eparchy."

[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Dear Bob,

Point well taken, Orthodox servant of God!

Again, religion and nationality/culture were so intertwined and the latter meant more in terms of identity.

So while the RC's in the person of the Poles, Slovaks and Hungarians were seen as enemies, this had little to do with the Ukrainian/Ruthenian Greek Catholics who, although they were in union with/under (whatever) Rome saw their Particular Church as distinct from the RC Church of their oppressive neighbours.

Put in another way, if one group of Christians oppressed you, do you stop being Christian in retaliation so as to really "show them?"

That is how the Greek Catholics saw matters. There was OUR Church (Greek Catholic) and THEIR Church (Roman Catholic). And not all RC's were like their neighbours, as so many GC's went to Rome and elsewhere to study as seminarians etc.

The Orthodox Russian Church was also "not a friend" although there was a Russophile movement among Ukrainian CAtholic priests used to combat Latinization and its concomitant denationalization.

A tug of war was the defining situation, really, and they got it from both sides.

Ultimately, some thought it great that we could be like liturgical chameleons, integrating Latin elements with Byzantine by way of a Church hybrid.

So at least there were some on the RC side who were perceived by Greek Catholics to at least be innocuous. There were none on the Russian Orthodox side. This feeling was extended to most of the Orthodox world when Ukrainian Orthodox priests tried to set up their own Church Autocephaly in the twenties and asked other Orthodox Churches to consecrate bishops for them. None would and so the independent, uncanonical movement began . . .

Ultimately, although we have much to complain against the RC's, the fact of the matter is that world Orthodoxy has never been a friend to the Ukrainians, not before, not now.

Sad, but true.

Alex

The list of bishops is enough to make a linguist's earlobes wiggle!!! Mavrocordatis? Greek: mavro=dark Latin: cordatus=hearted. YIKES! Who was this man?!?!?!?!

As for the beards issue: I'm half Greek; I'm hairy all over - except on the top of the head (must be the German/Irish influence). When I let the hair grow, I get ingrown hairs. And these puppies turn into rather nasty bumps that both itch and (without regular daily showering) become infected. While there are some traditionalist monastic types who suggest: "offer it up", I think that I need fewer rather than more distractions in attempting to live the Gospel.

What about the girth issue? Is that important? (Is a 29 inch waist a sign of holiness? Or is a 55 inch waist a sign of being good clergy?)

Externals are just that: externals. As Father said above: what's the point? [I too say: You go!! And if I'm ever in Ohio.....}

Blessings!

Dr. John

Bishop Theophane was a native Greek.

As to the girth issue: 55 in. may be pushing it, but it is the Paschal gift to Russians:

zhivot darovav!

djs

Gee, I wonder what brought the good bishop from Greece to TransUkrainia? Perhaps the Greeks didn't cotton to the idea of a hierarch with the surname "Black-hearted". We're not superstitious, mind you, but..... we have to have some standards!!

As for the 50+ inch waist, it appears that the Russians are not doing well with only four major fast periods in the year! Perhaps we ought to suggest a new forty day fasting period (prior to beach and bathing suit season) called the Veliki Salatskaya. Of course, this might not be appropriate since Russian 'salads' oftentimes consist of hard-boiled eggs, MAJOR mayonaise infusion and other artery-clogging goodies. Hmmm. Is a puzzlement!!!

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John "El Greco"

Could you explain the tradition among your people, the Hellenes, regarding the "evil eye?"

I once had a prayer card from a Greek Orthodox church with a prayer against it.

Is that some sort of a superstition?

Kali-mera!

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!


[in jest]Perhaps you shouldn't blame the beard, but rather the lack of showering! [/in jest] :p

God Bless!

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

Dear Nik,

Hair! Hair!

Alex

Dear Dr. John,

Something else occurred to me regarding your post on the big-bellied Russian priests . . .

I grew up hearing that a large mid-section in a young male is a sure sign that he is called to the priesthood the "Dekanske Povolaniye."

The other day someone remarked about another's expansive midsection in the same way.

Alex

May I use this argument with the Vocations Director of the Eparchy of Parma?

***I grew up hearing that a large mid-section in a young male is a sure sign that he is called to the priesthood the "Dekanske Povolaniye."***

If so, I may get in.

Dan lauffer

Dear Dan,

Well, I certainly think it is the first step in the right direction . . .

And if the Parma Vocations Director disagrees, tell him he clearly doesn't respect our Eastern traditions . . .

That might just do the trick!

There still is Methodism in your Holy Madness, Servant of Christ!

Alex

Actually, Alex, the whole issue of symbolism -- including beards and 'evil eyes' connects with a nation's/culture's theology and spirituality.

I always root it in the language terms. In English, our word blessing "blessed saying" (like Latin: bene-dictio; and Greek: ev-logia) means: "speak well [of someone]". So, when we ask God to "bless" us, we ask Him to "say good things for us or on our behalf." And, since God is God, whatever He says will happen.

Analogously, this is also true of other people. People can "say good things" about me or on my behalf; but, in contradistinction to God, they can also say bad things. Thus, if there is any reality to the spiritual plane (graces, blessings, etc.) we must have a way of diverting something evil that is said of us. Thus, we wear crosses and small icons, etc.

The "eye" is originally the "eye of God" or the "eye of the angel guardian" which is supposed to deflect evil things said. But many Mediterranean folks believe that a person can "throw evil" at another person by a certain look. (the green-eye of envy comes to mind). Thus, the small 'mati' (eye) is meant to ward off the evil look/eye that a person may cast at another. Among Greeks (and Italians too) tiny stone eyes are painted and attached to the clothing of those who are particularly vulnerable to being cursed, i.e., infants, the sick and the very old. (You sometimes see them painted on the bow of fishing boats in Greece.)

We also have the custom of making "phylakta". They are small 'pillows' of churchy brocade and a small piece of altar linen is sewn inside. It is attached to a pillow, carried in a purse, or safety-pinned to a piece of clothing. Same purpose: protection against evil machinations of others.

I see the beard on the priest as something similar: it is an external reality that is meant to signify consecration, and thereby 'protection' from outside forces of evil. Same for the monastic habit.

As we have gotten away from a day-to-day understanding of the powers of blessings and curses, a lot of these customs seem quite 'quaint'. But, they are firmly rooted in our theological world-view.

What absolutely amazes me is our current culture's (morbid?) fascination with skulls, evil forces, zombies, death, etc. (look at kids' T-shirts and video games and movies like "Resident Evil") but these manifestations are absolutely devoid of a 'divine' counterpoint. As I ask people: "how do you define evil?" and "can you have 'evil' without having 'good' -- and isn't 'goodness' equal to God?". They have no idea why I would ask this. You oftentimes find characters named "Diablo" or "Baal" or even Satan in pop culture, but the antithesis is not God, but rather some shaman, or wizard or wiccan/druid magician. This drives me freakin' NUTS! [I think I studied too much philosophy and theology for my own good. I get headaches a lot.]

If you want the 'mati' (eye) just go to your local Greek parish festival, or go look in the chatchkee section of your local Greek merchandiser.

Blessings! (good-words!)
From my lips to God's ears.

[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Dr. John,

"I see the beard on the priest as something similar: it is an external reality that is meant to signify consecration, and thereby 'protection' from outside forces of evil. Same for the monastic habit."

It's nice to be on the same side of an issue again. After a lengthy detour you have brought us back to the central point. Thank you.

Dan Lauffer

"So at least there were some on the RC side who were perceived by Greek Catholics to at least be innocuous. There were none on the Russian Orthodox side. This feeling was extended to most of the Orthodox world when Ukrainian Orthodox priests tried to set up their own Church Autocephaly in the twenties and asked other Orthodox Churches to consecrate bishops for them. None would and so the independent, uncanonical movement began . . .

Ultimately, although we have much to complain against the RC's, the fact of the matter is that world Orthodoxy has never been a friend to the Ukrainians, not before, not now. Sad, but true. Alex"

I am glad that Alex mentioned this point in reference to the experience of Ukrainian Orthodox who fought for their church's rightful independence from Moscow. The phenomenon of "russification" definitely goes farther than just the Greek Catholic Church. It seems to extend to any church that wishes to escape the domination of the MP and its anachronistic sense of Russian imperialism. It is the same in Kyiv as it has been in Lviv and still goes on in places like Estonia and Belarus.

It would seem that the MP takes its self-claimed designation as the "third Rome" quite seriously, attempting to subjugate all other churches that have happened to "fall" under its authority at one time or another, perpetuating this relationship as something given "once and for all time" and taking drastic measures to forcibly keep these particular churches under the wing of its control. Sad yes, but true.

One point should be made regarding the movement for Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephaly. Although in the 1920s, the "free" church within Soviet Ukraine did not receive the cooperation it hoped for from other Orthodox churches, who mostly feared the great power of Moscow, which clearly had the support of the Stalinist regime (that made sure the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church did not make it far, by imprisoning and executing its leaders), the 1940s showed greater hope and progress for the UAOC. After autocephaly was granted to the Polish Orthodox Church in 1924, by the EP (a church comprised mostly of ethnic Ukrainians living within the Polish boarders), and during the brief time that Kyiv was free of Russian control, the hierarchs of the Polish church were able to assist their brethren in central Ukraine (Kyiv) by consecrating bishops for the so-called "second episcopacy" - which included such well-known leaders of the Diaspora Ukrainian Orthodox Church as Mystyslav Skrypnyk, Nikanor Abrymovych, Hriyorij Ohijchuk and Hennadij Skrypkevych, to name a few.

While there may be some question about the consecrations in Kyiv of the 1920s, that produced some hierarchs who later were able to make it to the US and Canada, including Ivan Theodorovych, the 1942 consecrations were not only canonical, but have the distinction of succession from the Patriarch of Antioch, who personally consecrated the primate of the Polish Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Dionisij Valedynskyj, who in turn sent his own bishops to Kyiv to revive the hierarchy of the Ukrainian Church there, once the territory was free from Soviet control (at least temporarily). If Moscow-based politics had not come right back into play after WW II, an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, in communion with the EP, would likely have survived and flourished. But, we all know the results of the post-war division of Europe, which brought havoc on both the Greek Catholic Church of Western Ukraine and the UAOC based in Kyiv. The end of the war saw a quick return to Soviet domination and the legal operation of only those churches under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate. Not until 1990, did we see freedom for any indigenous Ukrainian Church, Catholic or Orthodox. Difficult to hear but historically the truth. An excerpt from the "Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarch" follows below, highlighting the historical takeover of the Kyivan Church by the MP.

" . . . considering also the fact, which is not contradicted by history (for it is recorded that the first separation from our See of the Kievan Metropolia and the Orthodox Metropolia of Lithuania and Poland, dependent upon it, as well as their incorporation within the Holy Muscovite Church was accomplished contrary to canon law, as also all that which was agreed upon regarding the full church autonomy of the Kievan Metropolitan, who at the time had the title Exarch of the Ecumenical See), We and our Holy Metropolitans, Our beloved brothers and co-workers in the Holy Spirit, considered it our obligation to give ear to the request presented to Us by the Holy Orthodox Church in Poland and to give Our blessing and approval to its autocephalous and independent administration."

From the "Tomos of Autocephaly" granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Orthodox Church of Poland - 1924

Fr. Joe