www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News In Orthodox uniform

Glory to Jesus Christ.

I was pleased as punch to see the deacon�s program photos on this site: a couple of rows of Byzantine Catholic clergy in true Orthodox clerical uniform (riassa or podriasnik with pectoral cross on a chain) and many with beards. Glory to God! The habitless nun is rather incongruous though.

http://oldworldrus.com

Rusnak,

I had the experience of being called upon by a priest as "Sister" a few years back at a gathering, and the rather silly "argument" which ensued. I answered him that I did not have the grace of being a nun. He insisted that I looked like one. I replied that he would have to take the matter up with my husband and children. He still wasn't convinced... There WERE a couple of actual sisters in the room, but I was the only woman in the room with a schmatte on my head. It was rather funny....

I hope we'll see the restoration of a real habit & veil amongst our Religious - not by fiat or decree, but out of a real appreciation for what they are and what they mean.

Cheers,

Sharon


Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Glory to Jesus Christ.

Dear Sharon,

>I hope we'll see the restoration of a real habit & veil amongst our Religious - not by fiat or decree, but out of a real appreciation for what they are and what they mean.

Kudos (�bravo zulu� as they say in the Navy) to you for wearing a head scarf. It seems the identity crisis that dogs all the Byzantine Catholic churches is especially acute among nuns. Or maybe they�ve chosen an identity at odds with us. My priest, who knows priests in some of these Churches, says the problem is the nuns don�t really want to be Eastern; they want to be just like their Novus Ordo Roman �sisters�, up-to-date �empowered� �women religious� (excuse me as I struggle to hold down my lunch), hence no habits. If that�s true I hope it changes and we see Byzantine Catholic nuns � real monastics at that and not sisters in Roman orders (like the Franciscans) or copies of Roman orders (what the OSBM is) � in real Orthodox habits. (Note: I�m *not* advocating anything crazy like black wool in US Southern semitropical summers. Remember economy!!!!)

http://oldworldrus.com

Rusnak,

Not claiming any great insights, but I've noticed that the filthiest epithet in the English language is "obedience."

Head coverings are fundamentally a sign of submission - and that doesn't ride well with us in-dee-pendent and self-sufficient American types, East, West, Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. (Tho' I attended a picnic of mostly Protestant homeschoolers recently where I wasn't the only woman with something on my head, but I WAS one of a very few not in a long skirt.)

We don't particularly like to remember that Jesus' death was the perfect example of perfect obedience - made in perfect freedom.

And one of these years maybe I won't have to wrestle with that old demon, pride, but I ain't holding my breath...


Cheers,


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

I don't understand the point of being displeased at seeing in the secular world Byzantine religious without a "habit". If you want Byzantine Tradition, these women have no place outside the convent regardless of how they are dressed. You can hardly criticize one deviation without the greater, unless you are pushing a latinization on us.

Perhaps these "active" orders should be thought of as they first were - as groups of pious single women akin to (parish) Sisterhoods or Lay Associations rather than watered down monatics.

Do the women of your parish Sisterhood have common distinctive garb?

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 08-09-2000).]

Interesting thread. The idea of 'uniforms' is certainly a common thread throughout human history. Men and women who consecrated themselves to prayer and penance and withdrew to cenobitical common life wore poor garments to show their non-attachment to material things. Eventually, these garments became standardized into clerical and nun-ical habits. When religious started going out and doing work in the community, they continued to wear their distinctive garments. This was OK in regions where people were all of one church. But in a pluralistic society, like the US, it presents a semantic problem. While Catholics and Orthodox appreciate the garb as distinctive, those outside the 'household of the faith' perceive this attire as 'odd'.

Originally, Catholic priests in the U.S. wore the cassock as their ordinary attire, but the Anglicans developed the so-called "Roman Collar" to wear with the more common business suit of a gentleman. The Catholic bishops in synod issued a decree in the late 19th century forbidding the wearing of the cassock on the streets, and requiring the use of the Roman collar and suit. (And a hat, too.) This is certainly an adaptation to the culture of the U.S. It is no real leap to realize that with the changing role of women in American society, that the consecrated women of the church should themselves decide to make a change from the older habits-- that were VERY time-consuming to maintain-- to attire that was wash-and-wear and easier to work in.

I personally like the idea of a habit-- a distinctive garment that marks one as a religious or a member of the clergy-- but the clothing has got to be practical for the work that one is doing. If cloistered, then long flowing sex-less garments are fine; but if you're running an old-age home, an orphanage, a hospital, or a parochial school, you've got to be able to work without an impediment. And when in public, you shouldn't be scaring small dogs and children.

When I was in seminary, the 'changes' were taking place. Many religious went from the old cassocks/riasa/habits to 'secular' attire. Unfortunately, many of the religious got their new duds from Woolworths or the Goodwill store; they had no 'role models' to advise them on how to look decent, so they got stuff that was truly awful. (Still is more or less true today.)

One anecdote: while on Cape Cod with 3 other seminarians, we were looking for the local RC church to attend Sunday services. We stopped in a mall parking lot and were going to try to find a phone book to help us out. Suddenly, one guy looked up and saw four women loading a station wagon with groceries. He said, "Look! There's a couple of nuns; we can ask them." He approached and asked: "Excuse me, sister, can you tell me the location of the local parish church?" Somewhat startled, she responded with the location and directions. She asked him, "How did you know that we were nuns?" Flustered, he responded something about radar for other religious. Returning, we asked him how he knew they were nuns. His response: "Have you ever seen four women out shopping who were dressed quite well but who had absolutely no sex appeal? They had to be nuns."

We prayed for him that evening.

Taking Dr. John's reply about 'practicality' into consideration, I am fascinated by Sharon's reference to the "real meaning" of the monastic habit.

What does the sight of a monk in cassok, Mantle and Klobuk (with veil) mean for

a) the believer, who knows the tradition and symbolism well
b) the Christian, of our own, or of another tradition
c) the 'common man' of no faith tradition on the street.

The new Code of Canons for the East I am told, requires monks to wear their habits always. (I have not read the new Code).

Shall we take it as God's will that habits be worn, or should we still consider it a matter for personal discernment (and that now ugly word... "Choice".)

I would like guidance, and the opinion of my friends here.

Elias, monk

I have the Canon right here.

Canon 540. In respect to the habit of the members the prescriptions of the statutes, and outside their own houses also the norms of the eparchial bishop, are to be followed.

John

Dear in Christ, John,

Thanks for the Canon! (Is that from the Eastern Code, or the Latin Code?)

I am also interested to know, not only the regulation, but "what it means" to the man in the street, when he sees a monk or nun in habit?

Elias

Well, this may sound crazy, but I have noticed that the "secularization" of various aspects of the Western Catholic Church--esp. in the matter of appearance--has coincided with the loss of respect for Catholic thought. I esp notice this in films--there was no problem making a movie like Scarlet and Black or the ones with Bing Crosby playing a priest, or Boys Town, or the ones about Marian apparitions... but now what do we get? Nothing Sacred and Dogma. It seems like the impression made on the common person on the street is that the religious are denigrating their own state of life by not proudly announcing it to the world, hiding it in fact.

I think that there could be some compromise made between practicality and out and out secularism. I saw a line of nuns wearing habits at out church last summer and they looked beautiful! I also remember being on Corfu in August and seing a parade including Orthodox priests who I thought must be awfully hot! So I think cotton in southern Augusts and shorter, less complicated (and easier to wash) clothes would be perfectly appropriate, but they ought to be the essense of modesty and definitely distinctive... reminiscent of the old habits would be nice too!

Philothea--who was amazed to find out that nuns do not subsist on thin gruel

Dear Philothea,

Thanks for your thoughts. I think you are right, it has something to do with the secular age, and the general lack of respect for our Christian religion in the culture in which we live.

It is an interesting experience to be criticized or insulted because of your appearance, and sometimes wearing religious habit you will be criticized (and worse!). My experience of wearing the monastic habit has included being spat at, and other forms of violence.

Part of me, says that to be "criticized or rejected" for the sake of Christ is a blessed thing, and so we should always rejoice to experience it.

However, there is something more. The religious habit means so much to me, and it is such a precious gift from God that I treasure it, as it has come to me from his hand. It is holy, so it pains me to see it insulted, and so because of this, I would hesitate to take the habit to a place where it would not be understood or respected. Exposing holy things to profane reaction cannot be correct?

It is especially painful, when I know that the monk inside is not worthy of the sacred symbol he wears, and so as a hypocrite deserves the reaction he receives. My unworthiness only confirms the scoffer in his conviction, and leads our religion into further discredit. But the habit itself, a holy thing does not deserve such treatment.

This is what I was trying to ask about...

If the habit is a sign that will be rejected, perhaps it would be better not to wear the religious habit where it is not understood, or respected, or even might be insulted?

Should we confine its use to Church, home, and monastic property, and 'sacred errands' such as hospital visits or blessing of homes, and adopt the "casual" dress of the modern age for other journeys and errands?

Or is the rejection itself, part of the calling and mission of religious?

A question I have wondered about now for 25 years, and I still am not sure about the answer to this question. I appreciate the general reactions and thoughts of this forum.

Elias, monk

Father,

First, wouldja quit insulting the holy monk who lives inside your habit? He's a friend, ya know....

Perhaps to someone with no faith, who sees a hairy guy in a "dress" and a "funny hat" it doesn't mean anything except one more freak in the parade... (I dunno. I've always been afflicted with some sort of faith, no matter how misdirected.)

I can remember as a very young Jewish child, being FASCINATED by the sight of nuns-in-habits - much more common back then - and even a stirring of desire - a tad strange, given that I hadn't a clue what Christianity was about, let alone monastic life.

The Sister who ran the Montessori preschool my daughter attended was one of a VERY few in her community who wore a veil. I asked her about it once. She said that she hadn't always worn one, but one day when she was stationed I forget where - somewhere in the far southwest, a "little old Mexican man" (he must have been tiny. Sister Marietta doesn't quite make 5 feet, standing on the phone book) asked her "Sister, why you no want to look like a sister?" and she decided that if it was that important to him, it should be important to her. She's worn it ever since - and has occasionally gotten heat from other Sisters about it. (So has a Dominican friar of my acquaintance who once even ran into a House where it was forbidden to wear the habit!)

A habit worn in the world is a major "sign of contradiction." It's a flat refusal to be anonymous about your committment to Christianity and a life of prayer. And in the world, if you stand up visibly for that crazy stuff, they shoot at you. (Or they talk your ear off.) Priests and Religious have been spat on and abused for centuries - in their habits. "Blessed are you when they insult you......"

The habit is holy, but that doesn't keep you from throwing it into the laundry. 'Tide' doesn't wash the holiness off. Neither does spit, though Tide will wash out the spit .

Is the habit holier than the monk? The habit is a garment, albeit a sacred one. But the monk - the monk is made in the image and likeness of God.

Slightly incoherent cheers on the Monday before Uniontown...

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Dear in Christ,

God Bless you all in this wonderful discussion!

There you go dear Father Elias, the view from the street, as presented by our good friend Sharon.

Too often I have heard excuses for not wearing the habit which go from :"it separates me from the rest of society" ( and what is the problem there? so do the vows we take); to , "I don't want special treatment by wearing it"; to "it's so antiquated and other age that it has lost its meaning".

Whatever the reason, there is a fundamental resistance to the wearing of this symbol of our commitment. If it were in true Humility that a person did not wear the habit, I might be able to accept it, but is most cases there is a selfish motive that exists which is masked by false humility. While monastics are also human and like human company and may even like to be called Jack or Bill....they must not forget not forgoe their primary consecration..that of being a monastic in the secular world. The allures of the World are very strong, and the deceptions of the evil one can even be masked in what looks like virue. Monastics ought to have accepted their monastic vocation by the time they make their Professions, and even in this modern world even at that Profession the monastic is invested with a habit. Does he or she then take it like a bridal gown and seal it in a box to save? Or is it their daily uniform, proclaiming them to be perpetually wed to their Master. Monastics ought to remember that they are "called" to their life and ought not to mitigate what they have called to, by themselves.

In the Eastern Tradition , other than a few minor cultural variations, the MOnastic Habit, also called the Angelic Habit is one for both male and female monastics. It has never been altered or modifed to please the tastes of society, and has often become a Badge of Martyrdom. Just knowing that our Brother and Sister monastics were put to death "just" for being monastics and allowing themselves to be identified as such , ought to encourage all of us Blessed to wear the Habit...to wear it.Those of the Slavic tradition have often even added red or scarlet tips to the lapets of the viel for the habits thus "dipped" in the blood of the martyrs.

We read in the "Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches", issued by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, 1996, in number 66 on The Liturgical Vestments, "As for the non-liturgical dress of the clergy, it is appropriate that the individual Churches sui iuris return to the style of the traditional Eastern usage."
I would take this to mean for those following the Byzantine liturgical tradition among the diocesan clergy that they are to wear the inner rason, the outer rason and the skophia or kamilavka. For monastics, the mandyas is usually worn in church rather than the outer rason and the head is covered with the klobuk and the leather monastic belt is worn about the inner rason. I am of the opinion that the general law found in the "Instruction" which interprets the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches cannot be overturned by the particular law of individual Churches sui iuris or the particular law of individual eparchies. This means that the attempt to make Eastern Catholic clergy appear like the clergy of the West has no validity in law. I am well aware that this thread has little to do with law but in matters of non-liturgical dress there is often the attempt to set a standard to which all should conform. The "Instruction" makes it clear what this standard should be.
I wear the traditional non-liturgical dress regularly. Once in a while, this may cause a problem but I believe the sign value surmounts any problems. I think it speaks to both believers and non-believers and especially to the wearer of a religious commitment. It is like a second skin and it projects an image. It speaks of simplicity, dignity and modesty. It reminds me that I am clothed in the glory of God's grace and that I am to act accordingly. It reminds me that I should give little account to outward appearances - I do not need to ask what I am going to wear - I know what I am to wear.

This is getting to be a MOST interesting thread.

There are some practical aspects to the whole business which I never realized 'til I got well acquainted with a couple of priests & friars. Dr. John mentioned 'em.

A friend and I are about to get started constructing a Dominican habit for a mutual friend. This friar already has a couple of habits. The one we will be building (at his request) will be different in that it will be a functional garment. In the Dominican Order, it appears that as secular clothes & suits with clerical collars became common, the habit became less and less functional. It's a choir habit. Don't try to cook wearing it, or you're likely to set your enormous sleeves on fire. It's hot in summer, gives little protection in winter, etc. I sure wouldn't want to wear that all the time - and they don't. Father would like to wear a habit more, but he's got to be able to work in it. So we're working from medieval illustrations....

We Eastern types have some of the same issues, compounded by the fact that sources for liturgical and non-liturgical eastern garb tend to be few and expensive. Most of our priests do not sew, and few have any real familiarity with the characteristics of different fibers. Mebbe there should be a course in Seminary...

Because there aren't a lot of good cassock or riassa patterns floating around (tho' they aren't rocket science to fake up) most priests are dependent upon expensive companies who make "choir" attire, or some kindly parish soul who sews. I've seen friends stifling in polyester horrors, rayon riassas that double in size after the first wash, sleeves long enough for Chewbacca, stuff you can't wash, stuff you have to iron EVERY time - again, garments that aren't particularly functional once you step outside of church.

If you're going to live in it, you have to be able to work in it. Radical thought....


Cheers,


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com