|
The Use of Secular-Style Dress by the Clergy of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church
EN | IT | RU
from the Office of His Apostolic Highness the Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia
30 October 2024
Summary:
The
Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church holds apostolic
authority, enabling oversight of ecclesiastical discipline, liturgical
norms, and clerical attire. Canon Law allows clerics to wear
secular-style clothing with episcopal consent in non-liturgical
contexts, reflecting historical practices across Christian traditions.
The Church, by virtual of its patrimony as the Pontifical Imperial
State of Rome-Ruthenia, integrates cultural and secular dimensions into
its traditions, by which clergy are permitted to adopt national,
ethnic, or secular-style dress in accordance with the cultural heritage
of this ethno-religious nation without borders. Historical precedents
affirm the adaptation of clerical attire, including but not limited to
secular dress in diplomatic and other contexts. The Church's embrace of
secular-style attire is justified within its own unique historical and
canonical framework, maintaining its Apostolic and cultural identity,
noting also that the secular culture of the Pontifical Imperial State
is, by its very nature, religious. Thus, clergy wearing secular-style
dress in accordance with tradition and canon law are considered
appropriately attired as clerics.
Read also about the Canonical Legitimacy of the Church.
Read also about the Temporal Rights of the Church.
Read also about Minority Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches.
1. Historical Authority of Patriarchs and Supreme Pontiffs
-
The Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church
possesses an apostolic authority analogous and equal to that of
historical Patriarchs, including the Roman Pope, the Coptic Pope, and
the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Oakley, 2003). This
authority stems from the Church’s apostolic foundation and its
canonical recognition as an autonomous entity with ecclesiastical and
secular jurisdiction. As such, the Supreme Pontiff exercises an
authority that extends to matters of ecclesiastical discipline,
liturgical norms, and clerical vesture within the Church’s
jurisdiction. This power is historically rooted in the original
apostolic roles of the early Church leaders, whose discretion covered
both spiritual and practical aspects of Christian life and governance,
including attire. The Supreme Pontiff's authority is therefore not only
spiritual but also administrative and ceremonial, encompassing aspects
of both public and private ecclesiastical life.
-
Throughout Christian history, both Eastern and Western
patriarchal authorities have exercised discretion over the attire of
clergy within their territories. The early Church, for instance, did
not prescribe specific forms of dress universally, allowing local
customs and traditions to guide clerical attire. It was only in later
centuries that standardized clerical dress became more common within
certain Christian traditions. Even within these traditions, patriarchs
and bishops retained the right to adapt clerical dress codes in
response to regional, cultural, or pastoral needs (Rivington, 1965; and Dvornik, 1966).
-
Historically, patriarchs (including those of both Eastern
and Western traditions) exercised rights to adapt vesture requirements,
in accordance with tradition within their unique ecclesial and
cultural contexts.
2. Canon Law Provisions Allowing Adaptation of Clerical Dress
-
Canon Law of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church
explicitly allows clerics to wear “private civic habit” (secular
attire) with episcopal permission when not engaged in liturgical or
formal ecclesiastical functions. This provision is tied specifically to
the history and tradition of the Christian Church as a whole and also
to the unique history, traditions, and patrimony of the United
Roman-Ruthenian Church (Code, 2024).
-
Canons 136 through 140 provide flexibility for clergy to
wear secular clothing in specific, secular contexts, aligning with
ancient practices across various apostolic Christian traditions( Code, 2024; Ullman, 1974).
3. Secular and Temporal Role of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church via the Pontifical Imperial State of Rome-Ruthenia
-
The United Roman-Ruthenian Church functions as a state
without borders, known as the Pontifical Imperial State of
Rome-Ruthenia, and is recognized as a sovereign entity. This
ecclesial-temporal status creates a unique secular dimension within the
Church, further supporting the appropriate use of secular or national
dress for clergy consistent with historical usage of the broad
Christian Church(Davis, 2009; Oakley, 2003; Charanis, 1974).
-
Furthermore, historically, clergy of the aristocratic and
princely classes, of which the Prince-Bishop of Montenegro serves as
but one example, often wore national or secular dress in accordance
with their secular roles -- noting that secular roles in Christian
states are inherently tied to the Church, and therefore such secular
functions are an integral part of the Church's mission and role here on
earth. This vesture practice is seen in both Eastern and Western
Christian jurisdictions. It is also not limited to the aristocracy.
- In accordance with tradition and Canon Law, clergy in
secular dress are nevertheless considered still to be dressed as a
clergyman. That is, the secular dress, when properly used, itself
constitutes clerical dress.
4. Cultural and National Identity Reflected in Clerical Dress
-
As a Church with roots in various ancient Apostolic
traditions—Roman, Russian, Byzantine, Syrian, and others—the United
Roman-Ruthenian Church incorporates both Eastern and Western cultural
identities, permitting diverse expressions of clerical identity (Ostrogorsky, 1969; Meyendorff, 1989).
-
The Church’s dual ecclesiastical and cultural identity
supports wearing national or secular attire in non-liturgical settings,
acknowledging the cultural heritage within the clerical state, as
permitted by Canon Law. This is granted by the authority of the
Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia as Supreme Pontiff.
- This, in accordance with historical principles such as stated in the Council
in Trullo (Canon 27)* that the clergy dress in accordance with their
calling, which same canon does not prescribe what that dress must be,
those who follow the Code of Canon Law are considered to do just that,
including when in secular-style dress (Erickson, 1991; L'Huillier, 2000).
5. Historical Precedents Supporting Secular Dress in Clerical Roles
-
Historical Adaptation of Clerical Attire: Historically,
clerical attire has been subject to change and adaptation: while
cassocks and habits are always appropriate and indeed became common in
many regions, it was not always so. Secular attire or cultural dress
for clergy has historical precedent, especially among those in
non-parrochial or diplomatic roles.
Evolution of Clerical Dress. Clerical
dress has evolved significantly, and historically, it was not always as
standardized as it became in later centuries. Early Christian clergy
often wore everyday attire rather than specific vestments, which only
became distinctively "clerical" as Church hierarchies and formal
liturgical practices developed. By the medieval period, Church leaders
from different traditions began to specify clerical attire. However,
secular or local adaptations were permitted depending on the role and
regional customs of the clergy. Introduction of the Clerical Collar and Modern Western Clerical Suit: The
clerical collar, also known as the Roman collar, now a common element
of Western clerical dress, was introduced by protestant Anglican clergy
in the 19th century, particularly in the English-speaking world. This
style gradually became accepted across mainly-Western Christian
denominations, including Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy. The
clerical collar demonstrates the relatively recent introduction of what
is now often considered "traditional" clerical attire.Indeed, the
modern clerical collar, often considered a clerical requirement, is
in fact not required by tradition. After its introduction, it has
evolved by region and by jurisdiction. This innovation underscores that
clerical dress has historically adapted for various reasons. Secular or National Dress Among Eastern and Diplomatic Clergy: In
the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the historical
precedent for inclusion of secular or court dress within the clerical
habit is particularly notable among clergy involved in diplomatic or
court settings (Charanis, 1974). For example, Greek and Russian Orthodox
clergy involved in state affairs or diplomatic roles sometimes wore
a clerical habit modified to be secular or modified clerical attire appropriate to the court or
political setting (Dagron, 2003). Also,
for example, Coptic and Syrian Orthodox clergy in certain contexts have
worn regional or national attire incorporated into and with their
ecclesiastical garments. It is also common in the eastern churches for
clergy not in the clerical habit to wear secular-style dress, the rules
on this varying widely between the patriarchal churches and also by
location and context (Patsavos, 2007; Rodopoulos & Dragas, 2007).
Western Clergy’s Use of Secular Clothing in Public Roles: In
Western Christian tradition, clerical dress continued to adapt. During
the 19th century, for instance, Catholic clergy in Europe and America
increasingly wore the clerical suit—black suit with a Roman collar—as
an alternative to the cassock. -
Secular Dress and Protestant Usage: A Distinction for the United Roman-Ruthenian Church: Although
Protestant clergy, particularly in the post-Reformation protestant
Anglican tradition, adopted a suit and clerical collar, many Protestant
clergy adopted a suit and tie as standard dress, and even in liturgical
usage. However, the United Roman-Ruthenian Church’s use of similar
attire is rooted in a different historical and ecclesiastical
tradition. Protestant clerical attire evolved distinctively in the
Reformation context, often in conscious rejection of traditional
Catholic vesture, favoring attire that differentiated them from
Catholic or Orthodox tradition and culture. However, the use of
similar dress by the United Roman-Ruthenian Church is neither an
alignment with Protestantism nor a departure from its Apostolic roots. Importantly,
while Protestant dress reforms emphasized a theological shift towards
simplicity and separation from "priestly" vestments, the United
Roman-Ruthenian Church’s use of secular attire does not convey a
similar theological shift. It is a reflection of the Church’s dual
ecclesial-temporal nature and its engagement within broader society.
Thus, even when using attire similar to that worn by Protestant clergy,
the Church’s intent and historical context differ entirely, preserving
its Apostolic heritage and canonical foundation.
Conclusion 1: Supreme Pontiff’s Authority to Allow Secular-Style Attire
-
Based on historical and canonical precedent, the Supreme
Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church possesses legitimate
authority to permit secular-style attire for clergy. This decision
aligns with historical patriarchal rights, the dual
ecclesiastical-temporal nature of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and
Pontifical Imperial State, and the adaptability provided for in Canon
Law. Such secular-style attire, when use appropriate in accordance with
tradition and canon law, itself becomes clerical attire.
Conclusion 2: Justification for Clergy Wearing Secular-Style Dress
Conclusion 3: Secular-Style Dress as Clerical Dress of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church
- Therefore, by pontifical decree, an in accordance with
Sacred Tradition and historical precedent, clergy who wear
secular-style dress is accordance with the customs, traditions,
decrees, regulations, and canon law of the Church are dressed
appropriately as clerics and such dress is, by its very nature,
clerical.
* Canon 27: None of those who are in the catalogue of the clergy shall wear clothes
unsuited to them, either while still living in town or when on a
journey: but they shall wear such clothes as are assigned to those who
belong to the clergy.
References and Further Reading
Britannica. (n.d.). Religious dress – Eastern Orthodox, vestments, liturgical. In Britannica.com.
Charanis, P. (1974). Church-State Relations in the Byzantine
Empire as Reflected in the Role of the Patriarch in the Coronation of
the Byzantine Emperor. In The ecumenical world of Orthodox civilization (Vol. 3, pp. 77-90). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Code of Canon Law (2024). Pontifical Imperial State.
Dagron, G. (2003). Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium. Cambridge University Press.
Davis, T. F. X. (2009). Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dvornik, F. (1966). Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. Fordham University Press.
Erickson, J. H. (1991). The challenge of our past: Studies in Orthodox canon law and church history. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
Fennell, J. L. I. (1983). The Crisis of Medieval Russia, 1200-1304. Longman.
Gratian. Decretum. (Original work published c. 1140).
Hansen, M. F. (2015). The Spolia Churches of Rome: Recycling Antiquity in the Middle Ages. Aarhus University Press.
L'Huillier, P. (2000). The Church of the Ancient Councils: The disciplinary work of the first four ecumenical councils. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
Meyendorff, J. (1989). Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
Noble, T. F. X. (2011). The Apse Mosaic in Early Medieval Rome: Time, Network, and Repetition. Cambridge University Press.
Oakley, F. C. (2003). Council over Pope? Towards a Provisional Ecclesiology. Cambridge University Press.
Ostrogorsky, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine State. Rutgers University Press.
Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE. (n.d.). Reflections on the future of the
Oriental Orthodox Communion. Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE News.
Patsavos, L. J. (2007). Spiritual dimensions of the holy canons. Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Rivington, J. (1965). A New Eusebius. SPCK.
Rodopoulos, P., & Dragas, G. D. (2007). An overview of Orthodox canon law. Orthodox Research Institute.
Ullman, W. (1974). A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. Methuen.
|