Hair,beards
as...@iwilltell.you
Reprinted from Orthodox Life - Vol. 46, No. 5 - October 1996
CONCERNING THE TRADITION
OF
LONG HAIR AND BEARDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question of the appropriateness of long hair and beards is
frequently put to traditional Orthodox clergy. A comprehensive article
appeared in Orthodox Life concerning clergy dress in the J./F. 1991
issue. At this time we would like to address the topic of clergy
appearance, i.e. hair and beards.
Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece,
Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early
twentieth century will notice that almost without exception both the
monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed
beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new,
modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been
continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to
investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life
spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his
style modernize from the first photographs up through the last.
There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is
said, "One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!"
Or even more absurd, "My wife will not allow it!". Such reasoning is
the "dogmatic" line of modernists who either desire to imitate
contemporary fashion (if beards are "in," they wear beards, if beards
are "out," they shave), or are ecumenically minded, not wanting to
offend clergy in denominations outside the Orthodox Church. The other
reason is based on a passage of Holy Scripture where Saint Paul
states, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have
long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) In answer to the
first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemns Modernism
and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail with the
argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture.
Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old
Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and
morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of
the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following
commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall
not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on
the top; and they shall not shave their beard... (Lev. 21: 5), and to
all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of
your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of
these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote
themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called
to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out
ward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the
Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be
fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the
long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers
6:5-6).
The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God's power resting
on the person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God's
power as in the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19). The strength
of these pious observances, transmitted to the New Testament Church,
were observed without question till our present times of willfulness
and the apostasy resulting from it. Why, one might ask, do those
Orthodox clergymen, while rejecting the above pious ordinances about
hair, continue to observe the custom of granting various head
coverings to clergy, a practice which also has its roots in the
ancient ordinances of the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 24:4-6) and the
tradition of the early Church (see Fusebius and Epiphanius of Cyprus
concerning the miters worn by the Apostles John and James)?
The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from
the following passage where it is mentioned that "head bands," in
Slavonic, and "towels" touched to his body were placed on the sick to
heal them. The "head bands" indicate the length of his hair (in accor
dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep it
in place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the
Apostle James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair
(Christian Reading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]).
If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian
community was to follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are
we to understand the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited
earlier (I Cor. 11:14)? Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing
men and woman who are praying (cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the
above passages, as well as in other passages concerning head coverings
(cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed to laymen, not clergy. In other
passages Saint Paul makes an obvious distinction between the clerical
and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6, Col. 1:7, and others). He
did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance in regard to hair and
beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observed it, as did
Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hair and
beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood.
In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach
you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor.
11:14) Saint Paul uses the Greek word for "hair." This particular word
for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being
only secondary and suggested), differing from the anatomical or
physical term for hair.1 Saint Paul's selection of words emphasizes
his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion,
which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We
note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon
of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: "Those therefore who
adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them,
that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a
bait in the way of unstable souls 3
In another source, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, we read the follow
ing concerning the Old Testament practice: "To an extent, hair style
was a matter of fashion, at least among the upper classes, who were
particularly open to foreign [pagan] influence. Nevertheless, long
hair appears to have been the rule among the Hebrews (cf. Ezek. 8:3),
both men and women"2 (cf. Cant 4:1; 7:5). Thus we observe that cropped
or stylized hair was the fashion among the pagans and not acceptable,
especially among the Christian clergy from most ancient times up to
our contemporary break with Holy Tradition. It is interesting to note
that the fashion of cropped or stylized hair and shaved beards found
its way into the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. So important
had this pagan custom be come for Roman clergy by the 11th Century
that it was listed among the reasons for the Anathema pronounced by
Cardinal Humbert on July 15, 1054 against Patriarch Michael in
Constantinople which precipitated the Western Church's final falling
away from the Orthodox Church: "While wearing beards and long hair you
[Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman
clergy, since they shave and cut their hair." [!]~
Igumen Luke
Footnotes:
1) Joseph Thayer D. D., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,
p. 354.
2) A. C. Myers ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, p.455
3) The Rudder, tranS. D. Cummings, p.403.
4) N. N. Voekov, The Church, Russia, and Rome, (in Russian), p. 98.
Do you have a problem with this argument??? I apologize....
nick cobb
The ONLY reason to have long hair for men and beards is the issue of: "VANITY."
Monks had long hair and beards because they were not to be overly concerned with
their appearance. They also did not bathe often and smelled like a barn.
The Old Testament regulations has NOTHING to do with us as Orthodox Christians. I
would think any Igumen would read the scriptures; especially Hebrews. We are "FREE"
in Christ.
Orthodox Christian men DO NOT need to have beards, long hair or smell like barn
yards!
as...@iwilltell.you
their mouth:
and my fears are true, you are a modernist, who feels that we all are
smarter and more spiritual than our forefathers and can decide whats
best for us. sorry nick but i'm not that arrogant or sure of my
perfection.
as...@iwilltell.you
anything, second of all most people here seem to take themselves too
seriously so i figure i will poke fun as much as possible till we all
act like human being instead of charater defacing machines.
I love this goup :)
peace and love to all
Reader Alban Mosher
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:38B049D2...@cris.com...
> Here we go with hair and beards!
>
Thus saith Nick the bald...
Father Lawrence E. Williams
as...@Iwilltell.you wrote in message
<38b04396...@news.megsinet.net>...
christopher
says...
> I came across this article thought i would share it with everyone.
>
> Reprinted from Orthodox Life - Vol. 46, No. 5 - October 1996
>
> CONCERNING THE TRADITION
> OF
> LONG HAIR AND BEARDS
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmm
Lots of Leviticus in that snippet you quoted. Thats always a sign of
suspect Christian theology. Be careful! That way lies the beliefs of the
Seventh Day Adventists
I thought such Judaising tendencies were done away with during the first
council of Jerusalem.
So Orthodox Christian Clergy have ALWAYS worn long hair????
THe Empress Theodora and Emperor Justinian were are seen in the Ravenna
mosaics along with members of the clergy. The clergy are depected as
having SHORT hair.
I wonder why!!???
They were Orthodox clergy.
Perhaps the tradition did not begin from early Christianity but was a
later innovatoion.
Mkaipo
Wayne
Pharisee, parading as a traditionalist but in reality little more than
a peacock. Sad! What really upsets me is that lurkers and seekers will
read your absolutely ludicrous words and believe that this is
Orthodoxy. It is most definitely NOT Orthodoxy but your version and
that of a small, separated group...almost of cultish proportions.
Wayne
well advised to invest in a decent spell and grammar checker.
Wayne
<will...@sisqtel.net> wrote:
>Get a spiritual life!!!
>
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!!!
Wayne
reading it through, however. Another sad indication of those who are
totally wrapped up in "outward expressions" rather than the inner
spirit.
On 20 Feb 2000 21:51:55 EST, cla...@concentric.net (christopher)
wrote:
>In article <38b04396...@news.megsinet.net>, as...@Iwilltell.you
>says...
>> I came across this article thought i would share it with everyone.
>>
>> Reprinted from Orthodox Life - Vol. 46, No. 5 - October 1996
>>
>> CONCERNING THE TRADITION
>> OF
>> LONG HAIR AND BEARDS
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
as...@iwilltell.you
from their mouth:
i don't kneed no stink'ng spell chker. hmmm i wonder if i can
something along this lines to post for a mood lightner.
caed...@mindspring.com
<as...@Iwilltell.you> wrote in message
news:38b04e7c...@news.megsinet.net...
> On 20 Feb 2000 15:03:24 EST, nick cobb <ni...@cris.com> spewed from
[snip]
> >The Old Testament regulations has NOTHING to do with us as Orthodox
Christians. I
> >would think any Igumen would read the scriptures; especially Hebrews. We
are "FREE"
> >in Christ.
[snip]
Sorry to piggy-back but that first sentence is too problematic to ignore. It
expresses an attitude just as extreme and dangerous as that of the
first-century Judaizers or of contemporary legalists who would try to bind
traditions and pious customs on all.
St. Paul, dealing with such Judaizers often emphasizes our freedom in
Christ. But even in the midst of such emphasis he says things like
Gal 3: 24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,
that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no
longer under a schoolmaster.
A subject he expands on when not having to deal with Judaizers
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Contra certain fundamentalists the 'scripture' St Paul is referring to is
the Old Testament alone. And it says exactly the opposite of the claim that
'the Old Testament regulations has NOTHING to do with us as Orthodox
Christians.'. We are not bound by them but as the word of God they are
profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction, and
*particularly* perfection (theosis). There is an *enormous* difference
between useful for theosis and 'nothing'. If anything, it is a greater
difference than that between 'useful for' and 'neccessary/required' (the
mindset of Judaizers/legalists)
(And this doesn't even address our Lord's words on the Law or the fact that
He whom we seek to follow, His immaculate Mother, and his sainted brother
and first bishop of the Church are all known for their pious obsevation of
the entirety of the Law)
Wayne
nature of the nouns they modify. Thus, Wayne did not spew for "THEIR"
mouth but rather from his. Got it?
Rachael
Wayne wrote :
> Please ensure that your adjectives agree with the plural or singular
> nature of the nouns they modify. Thus, Wayne did not spew for "THEIR"
> mouth but rather from his. Got it?
Wow---you are really into this "Orthodox Avenger" thing right now,
aren't you? What's up? Did remembering the Jordanville incident upset you
that much? I'm a bit concerned, as you are raging at almost everybody right
now.
Emmanouil Krokos
--
May God be with you
Emmanouil Krokos
Wayne
replied. He/She (don't know since he/she won't identify him/herself)
didn't happen to cotton to my post and therefore felt he (I'll make
this assumption) decided to use the word spew. Now, I generally do not
spew things. I read the post, weigh it as carefully as I can, and then
I post a response. If he disagreed with my original post, all he
needed to do was respond to it with the ad hominem attack. But since I
happened to hold a differing opinion, I was spewing according to him.
So, I simply responded back by showing him that perhaps it was he, wh
was spewing, given the grammatical construction of his post.
Secondly, I am not attacking "everyone", Rachel. You don't see me
attacking Father Fred, Nick, Alban, Grace, Matushka, Manny, Linards,
Robert, Jack, Scott, Phil, etc. right now. I've narrowed my focus on a
few persons who are attempting to wedge in their 'traditionalist'
baloney and pass it off as true Orthodoxy.
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:20:43 GMT, "Rachael" <ken...@home.potatocom>
wrote:
Wayne
to do was responded to it WITHOUT the ad hominem attack."
Rachael
Wayne wrote :
> Secondly, I am not attacking "everyone", Rachel. You don't see me
> attacking Father Fred, Nick, Alban, Grace, Matushka, Manny, Linards,
> Robert, Jack, Scott, Phil, etc. right now. I've narrowed my focus on a
> few persons who are attempting to wedge in their 'traditionalist'
> baloney and pass it off as true Orthodoxy.
I said "almost everyone", Wayne. And I meant it.
And who are these "traditional baloney-believers" who are here to foist
their "Pharisaical views" on true Orthodox Christians? Galina? Ephrem? Me?
Good grief.
The way I see it, Nick posted an article, calling trad practice
concerning menstruation non-Orthodox, and specifically a "ROCOR teaching".
Some of us defended it personally, Ephrem commended women who abstain, and
many folks pointed out that women in other jurisdictions abstained. You
called us "weak in our faith". You called the practice non-Orthodox. You
started to accuse folks of telling *you* that you were non-Orthodox, and
weak. This really seemed like projection. As I said, I read over and over
the thread, looking for where somebody had said that non-abstainers were
faltering in the faith, or non-Orthodox. I couldn't find anything. Caedmon
posted that, in fact, none of the folks on the abstention "side" had posted
any such accusation. I went into Deja, and *still* couldn't find anything.
I asked you twice to post it.
I'm not judging you, Wayne, and I'm sorry that I've been such a
terrier over this thread---I'm just wondering what the hell is going on
lately.
I still think Caedmon had it right, with his final post: we have no
room for looking down on each other over issues of traditional practice, if
we do what we do for the Lord. Way to go, Caedmon---again!
bripat
Rachael wrote:
>
> Wow---you are really into this "Orthodox Avenger" thing right now,
> aren't you?
Funny, I don't see Wayne as an Orthodox "Emma Peel" ;)))
Peace,
Brian
Rachael
bripat wrote :
> Funny, I don't see Wayne as an Orthodox "Emma Peel" ;)))
Maybe Wayne as the dapper John Steed? Bowler, cane---and a trowel for
dealing with the flower beds! What do you think, Wayne? Are you also an
Avengers fan? I have the Emma Peel boots and catsuit (although I'm not even
close to being as cute as Diana Rigg). Or maybe Linny could start
practicing those spiffy karate kicks!
Hmmm.....I like it! :-)
~~Rachael, too pop-cultured fer words....
Wayne
episode in many years, however.
The flowerbeds are looking all clean now and ready for their spring
planting. I've edged them, pruned the shrubs, clipped the hedges and
even done some tree pruning today. My "mood" is better now (he said as
he walked about, trowel in hand...looking for an evil mole to
clobber).
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:57:23 GMT, "Rachael" <ken...@home.potatocom>
wrote:
Phil (Silouan) Thompson
> I'm just wondering what the hell is going on
> lately.
We're overdue for Lent.
Phil (Silouan) Thompson
> ...turn it into a full hateful word throwing contest?
Dear askme,
If you want the hatefulness quotient to go down a bit, would you consider
dropping the "spew" stuff? If somebody responds to your post with anger or
disagreement, calling their comment "spew" is like throwing gasoline on a
fire...
I don't know if it's even *possible* to have a rational, relaxed, respectful
conversation on this newsgroup about things like beards, or pews, or ROCOR,
or the hieromonk Fr Ephraim, or the state of the Bulgarian or Ukranian
Church. Maybe it's because it's so hard to make eye contact, refill
somebody's drink, and smile sincerely while disagreeing with somebody you
respect, when your only equipment is 26 letters and a smiley :)
So, with admittedly little success, I try not to get involved in those
conversation threads. If I feel like I do need to respond, or even start a
potentially controversial thread, I try not to caricature or judge the folks
I disagree with. (Of course, if you've read anything I've posted, you'll
recognize that this is how I *wish* I were acting.)
I bet if we could get Alban, Wayne, Kevin, Nick, and Evagrius together for
beers (or Scotch or coffee) we could have some civil discussions. But when
it's "me versus the Internet" it's a given that misunderstandings will
flare. Everything sounds crabbier and ruder on Usenet.
I swear off this newsgroup every couple months. It's just too nasty for my
passionate, judgmental nature - I have to either yell at somebody or sign
off for a while. And more than once I've had to confess my posts to my
spiritual father (wince). So stick around or leave, whatever's best for
your soul - but if you're staying, play nice, wouldja? Thanks!
Phil (Silouan) Thompson
as...@iwilltell.you
from their mouth:
so sorry master, i missed please say it again..... or whatever makes
you feel better. hmm i think i found another article that will get
dander up, so sorry about that, but you know us evil people who are
sinners why we just wanna have some PEACE AND QUIET!!!!!!!! um did
you get that????
>Please ensure that your adjectives agree with the plural or singular
>nature of the nouns they modify. Thus, Wayne did not spew for "THEIR"
>mouth but rather from his. Got it?
>
as...@iwilltell.you
from their mouth:
>Well, Rachel, let's examine the nature of that post to which I
>replied. He/She (don't know since he/she won't identify him/herself)
>didn't happen to cotton to my post and therefore felt he (I'll make
>this assumption) decided to use the word spew. Now, I generally do not
>spew things. I read the post, weigh it as carefully as I can, and then
>I post a response. If he disagreed with my original post, all he
>needed to do was respond to it with the ad hominem attack. But since I
>happened to hold a differing opinion, I was spewing according to him.
>So, I simply responded back by showing him that perhaps it was he, wh
>was spewing, given the grammatical construction of his post.
the spew comment was added after having seen or better yet read the
constant anger and basically non-Christian love that i have seen in
here. Personally, I suppose you can believe what you want. Question
is can you relay it without insulting your brethren therein lies the
crux of all this
>
>Secondly, I am not attacking "everyone", Rachel. You don't see me
>attacking Father Fred, Nick, Alban, Grace, Matushka, Manny, Linards,
>Robert, Jack, Scott, Phil, etc. right now. I've narrowed my focus on a
>few persons who are attempting to wedge in their 'traditionalist'
>baloney and pass it off as true Orthodoxy.
first off, i'm of the belief that "trditionalist" are as much Orthodox
as you sir, may not buy everything they say but hey, everyone needs a
diffrent rule. So which is better to let it go and not make an issue(
or respond with such love that there is no missunderstanding) or turn
it into a full hateful word throwing contest???? i am for the former
>
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:20:43 GMT, "Rachael" <ken...@home.potatocom>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Wayne wrote :
>>
>>> Please ensure that your adjectives agree with the plural or singular
>>> nature of the nouns they modify. Thus, Wayne did not spew for "THEIR"
>>> mouth but rather from his. Got it?
>>
>> Wow---you are really into this "Orthodox Avenger" thing right now,
as...@iwilltell.you
spewed from their mouth:
Okay i admit it, it may not be the best way but.... for some reason
people don't see how hateful they are till someone comes on as
hateful. sigh i'm getting very tired of all the garbage here. I was
under the asumption the Christ taught love... from what ive read here
it looks like i was in error for believeing such a thing.
Wayne
inability to use the Engleeesh language properly. If you want to be
sarcastic, y'all are going to have to learn a bit more Engleeesh!
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:42:50 GMT, as...@Iwilltell.you wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:44:33 GMT, lsh...@pacifier.com (Wayne) spewed
>from their mouth:
>so sorry master, i missed please say it again..... or whatever makes
>you feel better. hmm i think i found another article that will get
>dander up, so sorry about that, but you know us evil people who are
>sinners why we just wanna have some PEACE AND QUIET!!!!!!!! um did
>you get that????
>
>>Please ensure that your adjectives agree with the plural or singular
>>nature of the nouns they modify. Thus, Wayne did not spew for "THEIR"
>>mouth but rather from his. Got it?
>>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 06:23:29 GMT, as...@Iwilltell.you wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:14:03 GMT, lsh...@pacifier.com (Wayne) spewed
>>>from their mouth:
>>>
Wayne
are just as judgmental and self-righteous and those you condemn with
your whining posts.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:48:09 GMT, as...@Iwilltell.you wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:12:57 GMT, lsh...@pacifier.com (Wayne) spewed
>from their mouth:
>
>>>> Please ensure that your adjectives agree with the plural or singular
>>>> nature of the nouns they modify. Thus, Wayne did not spew for "THEIR"
>>>> mouth but rather from his. Got it?
>>>
Wayne
sake, grow up. If you are going to come on this newsgroup and start
being critical of others, expect to get it back in the teeth with
double force. And if you don't like the heat, then get out of the
kitchen. Translation: if you expect us to listen to you, stop being so
judgmental and practise what you so readily preach.
Wayne
as...@iwilltell.you
like i was explain'n i was using the spew in another group as a
humours side to the fact i suddenly became a atlas for freshwater fish
:) which i'm not!! sorry guys
as...@iwilltell.you
to the general assembly:
>About the only thing I got from that rather pathetic drivel was your
>inability to use the Engleeesh language properly. If you want to be
>sarcastic, y'all are going to have to learn a bit more Engleeesh!
maybe if i wore leather too... (english leather :))
>
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:42:50 GMT, as...@Iwilltell.you wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 14:44:33 GMT, lsh...@pacifier.com (Wayne) spewed
>>from their mouth:
>>so sorry master, i missed please say it again..... or whatever makes
>>you feel better. hmm i think i found another article that will get
>>dander up, so sorry about that, but you know us evil people who are
>>sinners why we just wanna have some PEACE AND QUIET!!!!!!!! um did
>>you get that????
>>
>>>Please ensure that your adjectives agree with the plural or singular
>>>nature of the nouns they modify. Thus, Wayne did not spew for "THEIR"
>>>mouth but rather from his. Got it?
>>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 06:23:29 GMT, as...@Iwilltell.you wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:14:03 GMT, lsh...@pacifier.com (Wayne) spewed
>>>>from their mouth:
>>>>
Bryan J. Maloney
cla...@concentric.net (christopher) wrote:
> I thought such Judaising tendencies were done away with during the first
> council of Jerusalem.
The Russians seem to have had recurrent problems with Judaizers.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
evagrius
Probably. I suspect the monks had long hair and beards but that
the Capital's main clergy were fashionable.
In article <MPG.131a71dd8...@news.concentric.net>,
cla...@concentric.net (christopher) wrote:
>In article <38b04396...@news.megsinet.net>,
as...@Iwilltell.you
>says...
>> I came across this article thought i would share it with
everyone.
>>
>> Reprinted from Orthodox Life - Vol. 46, No. 5 - October 1996
>>
>> CONCERNING THE TRADITION
>> OF
>> LONG HAIR AND BEARDS
>>
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
>
>Hmmmmm
>
>Lots of Leviticus in that snippet you quoted. Thats always a
sign of
>suspect Christian theology. Be careful! That way lies the
beliefs of the
>Seventh Day Adventists
>
>I thought such Judaising tendencies were done away with during
the first
>council of Jerusalem.
>
>So Orthodox Christian Clergy have ALWAYS worn long hair????
>
>THe Empress Theodora and Emperor Justinian were are seen in the
Ravenna
>mosaics along with members of the clergy. The clergy are
depected as
>having SHORT hair.
>
>I wonder why!!???
>
>They were Orthodox clergy.
>
>Perhaps the tradition did not begin from early Christianity but
was a
>later innovatoion.
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
evagrius
Actually, I don't think so.
I think the Russians were plagued by time-traveling long haired
motorcyclists. These guys were tough. No helmets, long hair and
beards that caught all the insects as they zoomed around on the
steppes. They didn't bathe either. They ate tough and drank
tough. Not too sympathetic to women either or male wimps.
They so impressed the Orthodox that they decided to look the
same.
They just couldn't find any motorcycles. They have vodka though.
In article <bjm10-22020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>In article <MPG.131a71dd8...@news.concentric.net>,
>cla...@concentric.net (christopher) wrote:
>
>> I thought such Judaising tendencies were done away with
during the first
>> council of Jerusalem.
>
>The Russians seem to have had recurrent problems with Judaizers.
>
>--
>"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
>should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
>dealing with our mental health crisis today."
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
evagrius
Perhaps Orthodox priests and monks now bathe, shave etc; because
there is a basic connection between being clean and disease.
Isn't having good health Orthodox?
Isn't being healthy a good thing?
Bryan J. Maloney
> Rachael wrote:
> >
>
> > Wow---you are really into this "Orthodox Avenger" thing right now,
> > aren't you?
>
> Funny, I don't see Wayne as an Orthodox "Emma Peel" ;)))
Wayne in a catsuit?
Rachael
Bryan J. Maloney
> Wayne in a catsuit?
And don't forget the boots! ;-)
Wayne
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:52:54 GMT, "Rachael" <ken...@home.potatocom>
wrote:
>
>Bryan J. Maloney
>
>> Wayne in a catsuit?
>
> And don't forget the boots! ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
Wayne
I've found a little remedy to ease the life we live
and make each day a happier one; it is the word forgive.
FTT
Rachael <ken...@home.potatocom> wrote in message
news:aDit4.36513$_G1.5...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
> Bryan J. Maloney
>
> > Wayne in a catsuit?
>
> And don't forget the boots! ;-)
>
FTT
Rachael
Wayne wrote :
> Meeeeow! ;->
I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I still still you'd look better in a
bowler and spats. But who am I to say? <shrug> That little hair flip and
the ankle boots might be just the thing!
;-D
Okay, okay. I'll stop now.
Maybe.
Baldwin414
Here is my understanding on the follicle issue gained from conversations with
various priests.
The Council of Jerusalem decided that out of the many Jewish customs,
traditions, and laws that only two were absolutly binding for the church: That
members could not engage in sexual immorality (rampant within the Near Eastern
and Mediterranean Gentiles at this time) and that members of the Church were
forbidden from drinking the blood of animals. In Hebrew culture, long hair and
beards were considered to be the proper way for men to look, keeping with the
"patriarchal" images of their forefathers. I suspect that this was so for much
of the very early Church, until it had expanded to include larger numbers of
non-Semitic people. At this time there were probably many different variances
depending on fashions dictated by government and geography.
A custom rose in Constantinople for the Empreror and his associates to have
long hair and beards. These associates included Patriarchs and other bishops
in the area. (Incidentally, our clerical vestments were also inspired by the
dress of the Empreror) Since at this time bishops were selected from the ranks
of monks, many monks started to grow their hair and beard long in imitation of
the bishops for perhaps ambitious reasons. This practice continued for a long
time until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. After the fall, many of
the clergy and laity kept their hair and beard long in defiance to the Turks.
As for Russia, it became Orthodox at a time when liturgically, the Church was
very well developed, and followed the traditions (note the lowercase t) of its
Mother Church in Constantinople. I am also sure that long hair and beards must
not have been uncommon among the Russians especially in the northern areas
where longer hair was a prized insulator against the cold.
I don't know when the teaching that monks had unkempt hair and beards to
disdain vanity, but it is not found in early monasticism, and I suspect that it
is a product of the Russian adapted Byzantine customs. Which does not dismiss
the issue. Regardless of when it was created, I think that long hair and
beards are a good defence against exterior vanity for many people, but in a few
can be cause for more vanity than would exist otherwise. (ie- look at how regal
and noble Bishop X looks with his patriarchal beard!)
Also helpful in this issue I think would be to look at secular fashion and see
the developments there in regards to beards and hair. Before the late 19th
cen, most men outside of aristocracy wore beards well trimmed or no. With the
advent of modern razors able to function without excessive cuts, beards fell
out of fashion. CS Lewis somewhere argues that beards were phased out of
Western society to support a more androgynous view of males. His argument is
very good, but I don't remember exactly where he said that so I won't attempt
to badly paraphrase it here.
Personally, I have a beard and shoulder length hair and I like both of those.
I think that it is very asthetically correct for an Orthodox priest, bishop,
monk, etc. to have a beard, but it is not an issue worthy of schism. Let us
love our neighbor, look after our own salvation, and concentrate on more
imporatant things.
In Christ,
David
Baldw...@aol.com
"Acquire the spirit of peace, and thousands shall be saved around you." -St.
Seraphim of Sarov
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Personally, I have a beard and shoulder length hair and I like both of those.
But how will you properly wear your gas mask in the Last Days? I
suggest you provide yourself with one of those special models from
Israel, designed to be worn by the Hasidic Jews. It has a hood that
covers the entire head, and doesn't rely on an airtight seal around
the cheeks.
Tonsorial vanity has its price! <G>