WR Pharisees and the "Dress Code"

Fr. Matthew Thurman has tackled the big daddy taboo and scandal facing all of Christendom at this historic juncture: the proper Western Rite "Dress Code."

A certain source with his own rumor mill Yahoo Group has made this an issue of late, focusing on the "standard" for beards on WR priests (the evangelization of the West apparently hanging in the balance).

Fr. Thurman finally stood up and gave the appropriate answer: We are a hierarchical Church; if you are a priest, obey your bishop.* He then passes on this uplifting information:

For the Western Rite, the dress code for the clergy was defined by our first Vicar General, Fr. Alexander Turner, and implemented by Metropolitan Antony (BASHIR) over 40 years ago and has remained unchanged. While on the grounds of one's parish, a priest may wear a Western style cassock and biretta. When a priest is off of the parish grounds, he is to dress in a Western clerical shirt/collar and a conservatively cut black suit. Cassock and biretta are not to be worn as regular street dress. Also, Byzantine dress (such as the Byzantine cassock, kamilavka, etc.) are prohibited as street dress for Western Rite clergy.

This last sentence is only common sense: the WRV absolutely forbids the mixing of Rites. (Interestingly, the former monastery of this discussion's source, St. Hilarion's in Austin, TX, wore Byzantine robes even while putatively "Western Rite.")

Fr. Thurman also related this valuable personal experience:

As someone who has dressed in both "western clericals" and "Byzantine cassock" while at seminary, I've notice that the "western clericals" were better received than the "Byzantine cassock." Those instances in the past when I've worn the "Byzantine cassock" in public, the general reception has been stares and whispers. In contrast, the response to "western clericals" typically involved the friendly greeting "hello, Father!" or curiosity questions about "what kind of minister" I was. Just in terms of a Christian witness to an increasingly secular world, my experience has been that western clerical are more accessible and less threatening than the Byzantine garb.

I had a similar discussion with a priest stricken with Convert Fanaticism Syndrome^TM. After a Greek chef he'd never before met in a strange town would not give him a free meal because he was not wearing a Byzantine cassock (I'm not making this up!), he decided he had to wear the cassock everywhere. He brought into his parish another convert priest who discussed the importance of wearing the cassock, since it was "a readily identifiable form of clerical dress."

"Readily identifiable" for whom? The average American:

1. Has no idea what the Orthodox Church is;
2. Has never seen an Orthodox priest; and
3. Has no idea how unknown clergy in an unknown church dress on the street (and even less interest in learning).

The only "readily identifiable" clerical dress for clergy in Western society is the clerical collar. An American may well recognize the Byzantine garb as clerical dress but, without the pectoral cross, won't recognize it as Christian, much less Orthodox. He may even think the priest is a Muslim. (If you think I'm exaggerating, ask the Sikhs who were abused post-9/11 because they were mistaken for Muslims.) Either way, the average American will not feel inclined to open up and ask for prayer and guidance.

This is another strength of the Western Rite: it retains those cultural factors that already resonate with Western Christians. Familiar (but Orthodox) liturgical forms, familiar vestments, and familiar dress help make Orthodoxy look like what it is: a catholic Church for all people.

But that wouldn't be "unique," now, would it?

* - Lest I be accused of having a blind, "papal" allegiance to all Church authorities: yes, sin and heresy excepted. (Rolls eyes.)