Forums26
Topics35,536
Posts417,729
Members6,188
|
Most Online4,112 Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252 |
I don't know the historical position of the Latin Church on clerical beards. I hope one of the forum scholars can give us an answer on this subject. I do have this anecdote: The Capuchin Franciscan friars are known as the "beardy boys" because their rule allows/requires the friars to wear a beard.  (Sorry, no beard on the smiley guy).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
Originally posted by akemner: The norm in my parish is for men to wear beards. In fact we have only two males over the age of 20 without beards. Only my wife and our Subdeacon's wife wear head-coverings in church. St. Luke's has a subdeacon? This is news. May I ask what program of study did he participate in? Just wondering. Joe, the beardless one who likes to remain married
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
It still seems fairly commonplace (and mind you, I've only been to 4 Masses) for women to wear headcoverings in Roman Catholic churches, though obviously less than it was in pre-conciliar times.
Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252 |
Dear Logos Teen,
In my parish very few (almost none) women wear a headcovering.
In contrast, in the evangelical (home) church I once belonged to all women wore a headcovering because of St. Paul's instruction to do so.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 193
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 193 |
Dear All, Speaking as a monk, the issue of beards in the Latin church was influenced by many factors: 1) Many are correct that the practice (I don't think it was ever a law) in the pre-Counciliar [Vatican II] church was for clerics to be clean-shaven 2) But exception was made for religious orders such as the Franciscans & Benedictines. Most of the old photos I've seen from our Abbey's history have monks with big bushy beards 3) An added factor was that in our community, usually what were called "lay brothers" had beards, priests did not. Currently we have a mix - some monks with beards, other who do not have them. 4) Finally the fashion of the day dictated to a great degree what was acceptable. Our abbey was founded in the 1870's when many men were bearded. Concerning this last point, we operate a seminary and a good portion of our seminarians have facial hair - some beards, but usually goatees. In the past, moustaches were quite prevalent - but now are out of style. The same can be said of hair length. There is a humorous story I can relate about that... Seems in the 60's & 70's the superiors of the monastery were very concerned about our monks having too long "hippie" style hair and made rules prohibiting it. Fast forward to the late 90's - 2000's and a couple of our junior monks were actually reprimanded for cutting their hair too SHORT! They were shaving their heads and were ordered to stop it, even though the traditional Western tonsure was practically the same thing! Oh well, what goes around comes around! PAX
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
You mean they don't go for the Mt. Athos ponytail style anymore ? (but you have to put your hair in a bun under the skufya/kamilavka) Redemptorists, Carthusians, Norbertines, Trappists, and the Benedictines and Franciscans that Brother Elias mentioned all wear beards amongst others. In fact if you start looking at some religious orders and monasteries they are more common than one might think.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 640 Likes: 12
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 640 Likes: 12 |
Dear Joe,
Our Subdeacon is from the Eparchy of Chicago. He is preparing for the Deaconate, and is already minor-ordered around. I can't wait to see him in action as a Deacon, since he is really handy with a Kadillo, and has a pretty good sense of Liturgy. I also have a PM for you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Joe, that subdeacon at St. Luke's would be me. I completed the five-year Eparchy of Stamford diaconal program and am awaiting diaconal ordination (which will hopefully happen before Pascha). I assist both UGCC and Ruthenian parishes in our area, since Greek Catholic parishes are small, few and far between.
Bishop +John (Kudrick) blessed me to assist at St. Luke's parish. I also assist in one other Ukrainian Catholic parish and am assisting in developing a new mission. Out here in mission land Greek Catholic clergy are spread thin.
A bearded and sinful subdeacon
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,070 |
There are lots of things that St. Paul did not have available during his lifetime that most people find acceptable for clothing or personal use nowadays in the U.S. What St. Paul didn't have access to would not stop many of us from using them either- electricity, indoor plumbing, automobiles, etc.
There are very few beards in my Ruthenian parish, and the few women who wear headcoverings came from latinized backgrounds. Weather is a factor here, of course, since it gets really hot for about 6 months of the year. Women who go out of their way to dress as St. Paul recommended (in Arizona) are generally seen as trying to adopt an alternate ethnic persona in keeping with whatever ethnic jurisdiction they are a member of. As people become part of mainstream America they tend to drop the external differences as being window-dressing or unnecessary as a means of religious identity. What's inside is what matters, after all. Of course dress can help in adopting an identity, too, but most Americans don't seem to need it for religious identity anymore, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373 |
I prefer parishes that still hold to at least some of the "women headcovering" and proper dress traditions, whether it is in the RC,BC, or Orth. Churches. It is sad that you only find a few traditional, pre-N.O. RC parishes that have women covering their heads. I think too many women think about fashion first, tradition second. I must also laud the women of most of the ACROGC parishes that still come to church properly dressed (dresses instead of pants!) and with heads covered. During Pascha and special liturgies, these women don some very fashionable hats, especially the Pani's! We refer to these "upscale" headcoverings as "Pani Hats"! By the same tradition, it is also nice when men wear suits or jacket and ties. I think that this shows God we have taken the Lord's Day seriously and show Him respect by the way we dress when we come to His House! Ung-Certez 
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775 |
This is certainly an interesting discussion - truly an anthropoligist's delight!
So much of what we humans do in terms of grooming and attire is a result of our social context. We generally like to "fit in" with those around us, with whom we work, study, socialize and "play". Of course, the weather has a lot to do with it.
As a kid, there was no such thing as "jeans". Those pants were "dungarees" and they were reserved for yard-work or for those who labored outdoors on farms or on highways. For church, a man would wear a collared shirt with a tie, and a suit jacket if he had one. Women wore "housedresses" when working, or business attire (usually a skirt and jacket) or a "dressy" dress when employed outside the home. And a woman, going to church, would wear a kerchief or a hat.
(In the 60s, the 'mantilla' became REAL popular and women could carry one quite easily in their purses - thus putting an end to the "Kleenex" era. Does anyone else remember ladies putting a tissue on their heads to "make a visit" to the Blessed Sacrament?)
The 60s changed all that. Jeans became the de-rigeur uniform for both men and women. And t-shirts became acceptable attire for both men and women. And beards then became pretty standard for men, either the full thing or at least the Van-Dyke (the "olde" name for goatee). And the hair was rather long as opposed to the Eisenhower era.
So, I've lived through enough changes to realize that there is nothing really "sacred" about one's clothing. It should, however, be respectful of the circumstance and the other participants. Jeans are not appropriate at a wedding. Nor at a funeral. Nor generally at church, unless one is racing directly from another activity where jeans were worn. (I get miffed when folks say: "Oh! I can't go to church without my 'Sunday-go-to-meetin'' attire. Better to be in church and praying than worrying about what "the others" are thinking or saying. But this should not be a license to wear a Hooters T to Presanctified!)
I guess my only criteria are: wear something that is not-just-ordinary when going to church; make sure that the clothing is both clean and 'attractive/appropriate'. And for heaven's sake (and for the sake of one's fellow worshippers), BATHE. Sometimes even heavy incense cannot undo what sweat and bacteria create. The Jews are right: washing one's body before prayer is a real good thing.
Blessings! (And lots of Irish Spring!)
|
|
|
|
|