Priests who do not wear the collar

Onesimus

Reading an article in the local newspaper of mine by a priest he was discussing the dresscode of priests. He shuns wearing the collar and garb. His argument being that the collar is not what makes a priest a priest.

But ya know the sacred collar is what identifies the priest as a priest. A nurses uniform is what identifies the nurse as a nurse. What would happen if all doctors and nurses at work just wore their own clothes at leisure? Anyone would have a hard time finding the doctor or nurse correct?

I think he is using all that argument to hide to real reason of why he won't wear the collar and that is because of the sex abuse scandals in ireland and the attitude that people have towards priests in general. He is out and out scared of wearing the collar so is looking for any excuse to justify his wearing civilian clothing.

He needs our prayers. But what are your thoughts on the subject? I mean I'd like to be able to look around in times of difficulty or if I just happen to be wondering through the town and need something blessed or to find a priest come and give an immediate prayer/last rites over somebody. Can't do that if he is disguised in civilian clothing.

Taking the sacred garb off behind clothed doors, the gym or swimming pool is fine.... but when your out in the public setting you should wear it at all times and as much as your surrounding permits.

I Criost
Onesimus

gimmebroadband

It's possible that the Roman Collar could attract unwarranted attention due to the abuse scandals, and it doesn't matter if the priest is innocent or not. I've heard of cases where priests were spat on in the streets. However, Church Law requires that they wear it.

The Roman collar is a sign of priestly consecration to the Lord. As a wedding ring distinguishes husband and wife and symbolizes the union they enjoy, so the Roman collar identifies bishops and priests (and often deacons and seminarians) and manifests their proximity to the Divine Master by virtue of their free consent to the ordained ministry to which they have been (or may be) called.

By wearing clerical clothing and not possessing excess clothes, the priest demonstrates adherence to the Lord’s example of material poverty. The priest does not choose his clothes – the Church has, thanks to her accumulated wisdom over the past two millennia. Humble acceptance of the Church’s desire that the priest wear the Roman collar illustrates a healthy submission to authority and conformity to the will of Christ as expressed through his Church.

http://www.courageouspriest.com/23-reasons-why-a-priest-should-wear-his-collar

philologos

Why is the collar "sacred"?
Why is garb "sacred"?

Manach

The collar is a challenge. It signifies what the person believes in and will defend and broadcasts that message et urbi et orbi. The traditional brand that is Catholic signifies the most authentic strain of Christianity and it is this cachet that is drawing in members to religious communities such as the Franciscans.

bonniebede

philologos wrote: »

Why is the collar "sacred"?
Why is garb "sacred"?

i'm not sure i would call it sacred...but...

I do think there are a lot of less than good reasons for not wearing a clerical collar.

Most importantly, I would say that we have to take the materiality of our humanity seriously. we are not disembodied spirits. God has created stuff as one of the means we communicate with him and others.

I think we need a renewed theology of clothing, to go with our theology of the body.

We could start with noting that in cultures all around the world people use clothing to mark various sorts of things...

clothes can express gender differences
clothes can express function differences (work clothes of various sorts)
clothes can express differences of time - ie holy days, holidays, celebrations like weddings, funerals etc etc.

All of this sort of thing comes quite naturally to human beings. We don't necessarily use the same symbols, in some cultures white is for weddings and black for funerals while other cultures wear white for funerals... but that is not the point. The point is that we as humans use some method of marking things important to us by signals given in the clothes we wear.

Of course we can use that for bad purposes, as in the case of someone dispised for their ethnicity of religion which is shown by their garb, or simply looking down on the poor, or the rich because of the clothes they wear.

St frances de Sales has some practical advise for those he was giving spiritual direction to. Some were occupied with attendance at court, and of course a certain standard of dress was required for their jobs. He pointed out that it was possible to adhere to certain standards, without becoming preoccupied with externals; it was not everyones place to live like a monk or nun with that simplicity of habit.

From a Godly perspective, functional clothing is part of the duty of care we have for ourselves.
Clothing also has to be modest.
The bible prohibits genders from dressing alike, and so we should express or gender in some way in the way we dress.
finally, just like the meals we eat on fast days and feast days are different, our clothing should show something of our attention to sacred times and seasons, like putting on our best for Sunday worship.

I also think we should be aware that wearing jeans was promoted by Marxists in the sixties as 'workers' clothing, also becasue it was unisex. Now it's fine to wear work clothes when you are working, but we have lost some refinement in our culture when we have no sense of time and place with respect to our clothing.

With respect to priests collars, I know very fine prioests who have been spat on in the streets, and canon law does allow priests and nuns to put off their religious garb in times of persecuation. But are we really there yet?

Not wearing a collar also has come to signify a certain disobedient liberal mindset, at best theologically and liturgically sloppy, at worst antagonistic to the authority of Christ and his church, even if a priest has just got into a slovenly habit , does he really want ot convey this impression? Its not for nothing that the nickname of the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) has become the Association of Collarless Priests!

Lastly, i know so many stories of priests and nuns who wear their habits and who are approached over and over with requests for help, for prayer, can you bless my baby, etc etc not to mention being asked questions which provide an opportunity to witness to the gospel. Why would you want to give all that up?

philologos

I don't see it as hugely significant whether or not people wear clerical garments or not. Christianity doesn't require it, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't practiced in the early church. However, if people choose to do so, that's fine, but it is not a requirement of Biblical Christianity for ministers to be dressed in garb or wearing a clerical collar.

If we are going to begin a "theology of clothing". We need to get it straight from the Bible rather than from human traditions that man has gathered together.

I'm not opposed to the clerical collar, but we need to ask ourselves why we are doing it. I'm personally not all that pushed about it. I'm not sure if I could even call it "sacred".

Brer Fox

A priest I know once said that you can tell much about a priest's theology by looking at his clothes. A black clerical shirt may signify orthodoxy; grey may indicate wishy-washy theology; blue or any other shade may indicate wacky theology.

I notice that many RC priests now wear grey shirts whilst some COI vicars increasingly wear black! What gives!?

bonniebede

philologos wrote: »

I don't see it as hugely significant whether or not people wear clerical garments or not. Christianity doesn't require it, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't practiced in the early church. However, if people choose to do so, that's fine, but it is not a requirement of Biblical Christianity for ministers to be dressed in garb or wearing a clerical collar.

If we are going to begin a "theology of clothing". We need to get it straight from the Bible rather than from human traditions that man has gathered together.

I'm not opposed to the clerical collar, but we need to ask ourselves why we are doing it. I'm personally not all that pushed about it. I'm not sure if I could even call it "sacred".

Nothing wrong with using human traditions - only 'traditions of men which nullify the word of God' (Matt 15:3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? )

Secondly, there is a biblical basis for priestly clothing..

Exod.28

B]1[/B "Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests -- Aaron and Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abi'hu, Elea'zar and Ith'amar.
B]2[/B And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty.
B]3[/B And you shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with an able mind, that they make Aaron's garments to consecrate him for my priesthood.
B]4[/B These are the garments which they shall make:
(there follows very detailed instructions for the clothes the priest is to wear)


B]40[/B "And for Aaron's sons you shall make coats and girdles and caps; you shall make them for glory and beauty.
B]41[/B And you shall put them upon Aaron your brother, and upon his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests.
B]42[/B And you shall make for them linen breeches to cover their naked flesh; from the loins to the thighs they shall reach;
B]43[/B and they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister in the holy place; lest they bring guilt upon themselves and die. This shall be a perpetual statute for him and for his descendants after him.

Ken bryan

I think .It,s very sad when good men feel they have to remove their collar .Just to satify the ignorant mob .
They should never Give into it .
For they then repeat the act of Peter by denying they Jesus .
Imo

philologos

bonniebede: There is a problem with human tradition if we're not clear on why we are doing it.

Secondly, the tradition that you speak of concerned the Temple and the Old Covenant agreement with mankind. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests anything about wearing garb. I don't anticipate that Paul or any of the other apostles did from the text.

I guess, what I'm saying is, I don't feel the same way as the OP. It makes little difference as to what our church leaders are wearing, it matters much more as to what they are preaching.

Onesimus

philologos wrote: »

bonniebede: There is a problem with human tradition if we're not clear on why we are doing it.

Secondly, the tradition that you speak of concerned the Temple and the Old Covenant agreement with mankind. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests anything about wearing garb. I don't anticipate that Paul or any of the other apostles did from the text.

I guess, what I'm saying is, I don't feel the same way as the OP. It makes little difference as to what our church leaders are wearing, it matters much more as to what they are preaching.

Philologos. We are not here in this thread to debate with other Christians Sacred Tradition ( something they don't believe in ). We don't expect someone like yourself to understand. Be a good lad and take it to the Protestent/Catholic debate thread.

doctoremma

I work next door to a large Catholic Church which, to my many years of observation, appears to be populated by three priests of different ages (I'd say 40-70 years). They all wear long, sleeved, black gowns (cassocks?) and collars (relatively unusual in the UK). A very friendly crew, often to be found walking their dog around the area.

And also, often found in the pub on the other side of the church, knocking back a few real ales, wearing the full regalia. In what I promise is not a patronising statement, I think it's fabulous to be aware that these men aren't wierd, out-of-touch, haughty, puritanical people at all. Apart from what would be a large difference in life philosophy, they are no different to myself, having a drink in Friday afternoon sunshine, talking about football.

It might be a very easy thing for an atheist to forget.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

bonniebede: There is a problem with human tradition if we're not clear on why we are doing it.

Secondly, the tradition that you speak of concerned the Temple and the Old Covenant agreement with mankind. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests anything about wearing garb. I don't anticipate that Paul or any of the other apostles did from the text.

I guess, what I'm saying is, I don't feel the same way as the OP. It makes little difference as to what our church leaders are wearing, it matters much more as to what they are preaching.

Philologos. We are not here in this thread to debate with other Christians Sacred Tradition ( something they don't believe in ). We don't expect someone like yourself to understand. Be a good lad and take it to the Protestent/Catholic debate thread.

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just asking you why.

This isn't a Protestant / Catholic debate. Many denominations do this. So I'll be posting here on this occasion.

I'm asking why must people wear vestments or a clerical collar?

Benny_Cake

philologos wrote: »

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just asking you why.

This isn't a Protestant / Catholic debate. Many denominations do this. So I'll be posting here on this occasion.

I'm asking why must people wear vestments or a clerical collar?

Apparently the clerical collar originated in the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) - according to Wikipedia anyway.

It probably isn't the case that clerical garb "must" be worn but I don't see any compelling case why it shouldn't be worn either. It certainly isn't unscriptural. There can be cases where it might be desirable not to wear the collar (in certain forms of ministry it might be cause the person to be seen as an "authority figure" which might be unhelpful). Unless there is a compelling case to do so, I don't see the need to jettison it altogether.

Onesimus

philologos wrote: »

I'm not arguing against this. I'm just asking you why.

This isn't a Protestant / Catholic debate. Many denominations do this. So I'll be posting here on this occasion.

I'm asking why must people wear vestments or a clerical collar?

It is part of our Tradition. You didnt ask why. You became bold and begun the argument by calling our Traditions ''Human'' traditions and that we should take it all out of the Bible. You know right well that Catholics follow both Tradition and scriptures. As a result of questioning that it would have us inform you that sacred tradition is true and thus we would enter into a protestant/Catholic debate.

Get yourself on over to the protestant/Catholic debate thread. I'm sick to death of PDN and other mods allowing you to come in and derail threads into a debate. I don't know why that is. Perhaps you guys are friends off boards and you get special treatment but I'm sick to death of seeing favor being shown around here. You are the biggest culprit for this kind of craic of derailing threads with protestant vs. Catholic theology.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Onesimus

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If we are going to begin a "theology of clothing". We need to get it straight from the Bible rather than from human traditions that man has gathered together.

he is quite clearly taking this off topic and into a debate on whether it's biblical or unbiblical when he knows the OP is referring to Catholic clerical dresscode. and then following up that by calling it ''human traditions''.

he has a knack for de-railing threads with this type of off topic trash.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

Plowman wrote: »

Onesimus, the mods can't censor what others post unless it's blatantly off topic or trollish. Nor can they direct a discussion down a certain route. I don't think philologos' questions are off topic. However, if you feel philologos' contributions are not in the spirit of your OP, you could refrain from responding to them.

If we are going to begin a "theology of clothing". We need to get it straight from the Bible rather than from human traditions that man has gathered together.

he is quite clearly taking this off topic and into a debate on whether it's biblical or unbiblical when he knows the OP is referring to Catholic clerical dresscode. and then following up that by calling it ''human traditions''.

he has a knack for de-railing threads with this type of off topic trash.

It's not off topic. I'm asking questions about what you said. This isn't a Protestant / Catholic debate. Heck the majority of clergy in my own denomination wear vestments and clerical collar. It seems like a human tradition to me. That's why I'm curious as to why you object to him not wearing a clerical collar?

In short my POV is dress in clerical gear if you want but it isn't heresy or blasphemy if you don't.

I'll post more about my position when I'm back on a computer.

bonniebede

philologos wrote: »

I don't see it as hugely significant whether or not people wear clerical garments or not. Christianity doesn't require it, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't practiced in the early church. However, if people choose to do so, that's fine, but it is not a requirement of Biblical Christianity for ministers to be dressed in garb or wearing a clerical collar.

If we are going to begin a "theology of clothing". We need to get it straight from the Bible rather than from human traditions that man has gathered together.

I'm not opposed to the clerical collar, but we need to ask ourselves why we are doing it. I'm personally not all that pushed about it. I'm not sure if I could even call it "sacred".

With respect to the idea of traditions...

As a Catholic we, as you know, respect 'Tradition' (capital T) which is the way in which the teachings of Christ have been handed down in the Church that he founded for that purpose.

but we also have many 'traditions' (small t) which do come from human custom and usage, built up as ways to practice and support the faith expressed in the Tradition (capital T)

You are right when you point out that clerical garb is part of these 'small t ' traditions.:)

But there is a point to these types of traditions. If I can draw a parallel with family life. A Christian family will hold to the truth of the faith that Jesus Christ is the God made man, that he was born in Bethlehem and so on as is written in the Scriptures. THis is a truth which we haold every day of the year.

However, there are many small traditions for celebrating Christmas which are not mandated by scripture in their specific details, and which are indeed formed by local cultural expressions, which contribute to the celbration of the truth of the faith.
For example we don't know what day Jesus was born on, so we have just picked a day to celebrate on. Its not an entirely arbitrary choice...by picking the winter solstice we can use the natural symbolism involved in the return of the light to reflect on the scriptures like 'he will visit us like the dawn from on high'. Obviously this was picked when Christians mostly lived in the Northern hemisphere!. One could multiply the examples...how we use candles to remind us that Jesus is the light of the world etc.

Recently the Second Vatican Council encouraged us Catholics as a church to examine these small traditions which over hte centuries have grown up around the Tradition, to examine, renew and preserve what continues to be useful, while retiring some of the traditions where they no longer served to clarify and support the faith, but may in fact have obscured it. A good example of this mandate in the teaching documents of the Church is in the directive on Popular Piety.

Unfortunately, one of the mistakes made in the wake of the Council was to assume that all such small traditions were valueless, and in the process many venerable customs and traditions have been abandoned and some even lost.

Now, as the real appropriation of the Council is finally getting underway, we can examine whether particular traditions were helpful or not, as we have the experience of both using them (before the Council) and not using them (after the council).

For example, it was distinctive among Catholics to fast from meat on Fridays.
This small tradition support part of the faith handed down from Jesus, namely that we are to fast and do penance, that fasting is a necessary form of prayer in spiritual warfare and so on. (I am not adding scripture quotes cause I'm sure you are all familiar with this.)
So without limiting the amount of fasting a Catholic could do, the Church said that in order to follow Jesus specific teachings we would as a community follow the minimum of fasting from meat on Fridays, among other things.

Following the Council this tradition was preserved, but it was thought that it would be helpful to widen the scope of the act by allowing, instead of fasting from meat, a fast from other types of food, or from food altogether for a short period, or the substitution of some good work such as prayer.

It was hoped that this would lead to people renewing their commitment to prayer and fasting. In fact, as is obvious, people got the idea that fasting and penance were no longer rewquired in any specific form, hence no longer necessary. In the last forty years we have seen a huge fall off in the practice of fasting andpenance among Christians (no only from this factor of course, but this did not help), and also a loss of the sense of ones identity as a Christian who adhered to Jesus through specific practices such as fasting. Good intentions, but it hasn't worked.

What is noticeable is that several bishops conferences have removed the permission to substitute any good work for Fasting from meat and returned to making that the specific penance required, and among younger Catholics the practice is definitely making a comeback.

I cite this as an example of how a human tradition, which can be changed or modified or even abandoned, can be used to support an essential teaching of Jesus, ie. the need to fast.

I would argue that in a similar way, the traditions around clothing have grown up for similar reasons. The Bible talks of Apostles being 'set apart' for a specific ministry of teaching the word of God. (SEe Acts 13:2, or Roms 1:1 among many).
This setting apart of those called to be APostles in the Church is part of our faith (Tradition).
THe small tradition of them wearing distinctive clothes flows from the desire to reflect this real spiritual distinction in a simple practical way.

THe question we need to ask is, whether or not, in this day and age, the traditional distinctive dress (clerical collar) helps or hinders their apostolic mission.

Some would argue that it hinders it... making people less likely to speak to them etc. Hence they argue for its abolition.
Other would say it is the opposite - that it aids their mission, as people can readily identify them and what they stand for and often approach them for help.

I also think that we not only employ cultural elemants, as Christians we also form the culture. I think when people show themselves to be estranged from the Church and so react badly to the collar and its wearer, we should see it as an opportunity to try to heal that estrangement rather than give in to it by removing the collar.

getz

Manach wrote: »

The collar is a challenge. It signifies what the person believes in and will defend and broadcasts that message et urbi et orbi. The traditional brand that is Catholic signifies the most authentic strain of Christianity and it is this cachet that is drawing in members to religious communities such as the Franciscans.

the white collar was first used by the catholic church at the end of the 16th century,