Aurelio Porfiri
I recently watched a video of a debate between a non-denominational Bible scholar, a rabbi, an Orthodox bishop, a Protestant biblical scholar, and a Catholic priest. The rabbi had a skullcap, the bishop wore an ecclesiastical dress appropriate to his dignity, the Protestant scholar had a jacket and tie, while the Catholic priest seemed dressed to go to collect his pension. Unfortunately we have believed too much in the popular Italian saying that ‘the dress does not make the monk’ which contains a part of the truth but not all. It is true that you may not excel just by wearing an appropriate dress, but you certainly do better by edifying others with the dignity of your figure. The form in-form, at least. Hugh of San Vittore said well: “Omnia visibilia quaecumque nobis visibiliter erudiendo symbolice, id est figurative tradita, sunt proposita ad invisibilium significationem et declarationem … Quia enim in formis rerum visibleum pulchritudo earum consistit … visibilis pulchritudo invisibilis pulchritudinis imago est ”[All visible objects are proposed to us for the signification and declaration of invisible things, instructing us, through sight, in a symbolic way, that is figurative … Since in fact the beauty of visible things consists in their form … visible beauty is the image of invisible beauty (my translation)] (In Hierarchiam coelestem expositio, PL 175, coll. 954 and 978 in U. Eco, Art and beauty in medieval aesthetics). The form should not be despised.
Since Old Testament times, priests have worn appropriate clothing (see H. Bardtke’s “Clothing” entry in the Encyclopedia of the Bible). The priests of Mesopotamia wore a fez-shaped cap from which the conical priestly cap was derived. Even in Egyptian representations the priests wear a short apron. From the Bible we know the use of ephod, which some translate as “stole”. The Lord himself orders solemn dress for priests (Ex 32, 1-8): “You bring Aaron your brother and his sons with him to you among the Israelites, so that they may be my priests; Aaron and Nadab, Abihu, Eleazaro, Itamar, sons of Aaron. You will make sacred garments for your brother Aaron, expressing glory and majesty. You will speak to all the most experienced craftsmen, to whom I have given a spirit of wisdom, and they will make Aaron’s robes for his consecration and for the exercise of the priesthood in my honor. And here are the clothes they will make: the breastplate and the ephod, the mantle, the damask tunic, the turban and the belt. They will make sacred garments for your brother Aaron and for his sons to exercise the priesthood in my honor. They will have to use gold, purple and purple red, scarlet and fine linen. They will make the ephod with gold, purple and purple red, scarlet and fine woven linen, artistically worked. It will have two straps attached at both ends and thereby form a well-joined piece. The belt to fix it and that is above it will be of the same manufacture and will be of a single piece: it will be woven with gold, purple and purple red, scarlet and fine woven linen.” It seems to me a very clear and also very detailed indication. It seems that the priestly robes were linked “to the garments of the divinity” (H. Bardtke). We have such references in multiple places in the Bible.
Therefore the priest’s habit, especially on the occasion of ceremonies, was of great solemnity. Obviously all this passes onto the Christian Church at least since the third century (see the entry “liturgical vestments” by Robert Lesage, Sa.Ma. and “choral dress” by Robert Lesage in the Practical Dictionary of Roman Liturgy). In the fourth century, which was a time of formation of the Church, the Church was able to exercise her ministry freely, priests tended to distinguish themselves from the laity not only in the liturgy but also in civil life. In fact, the irony of Lesage is noteworthy, who notes that at his time, in the past century, there were altar boys or pueri chorales who, due to the richness of their robes, almost resembled popes and cardinals! In short, the abuse informs us about use. And this requirement has never been revoked even in our days, as a letter from St. John Paul II to his Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome Ugo Poletti informs us precisely on this in 1982: “The care of the beloved diocese of Rome it poses to my mind numerous problems, among which the one relating to the discipline of the ecclesiastical habit appears worthy of consideration for the pastoral consequences deriving from it.
Several times in the meetings with priests, I have expressed my thoughts about it, noting the value and meaning of this distinctive sign, not only because it contributes to the dignity of the priest in his external behavior or in the exercise of his ministry, but above all because highlights within the ecclesiastical community the public witness that every priest is required to give of his own identity and special belonging to God. And since this sign concretely expresses our “not being of the world” (cf. Jn 17:14), in prayer composed for Holy Thursday this year, alluding to the ecclesiastical habit, I turned to the Lord with this invocation: “Let us not sadden your Spirit … with what manifests itself as a desire to hide one’s priesthood in front of men and to avoid any external sign” (John Paul II, Precatio feria V in cena Domini anno MCMLXXXII recurrente, universis Ecclesiae sacerdotibus destined, 4, die 25 m ar. 1982: Teachings of John Paul II, V, 1 [1982] 1064). Sent by Christ for the proclamation of the Gospel, we have a message to transmit, which is expressed both with words and also with external signs, especially in today’s world which is so sensitive to the language of images.
The ecclesiastical habit, like the religious one, has a particular meaning: for the diocesan priest it mainly has the character of a sign, which distinguishes him from the secular environment in which he lives; for men and women religious, it also expresses the character of consecration and highlights the eschatological goal of religious life. The habit, therefore, is useful for the purposes of evangelization and leads to reflect on the realities that we represent in the world and on the primacy of the spiritual values that we affirm in the existence of man. By means of this sign, it is made easier for others to arrive at the Mystery, of which we are bearers, to the One to whom we belong and whom we want to announce with our whole being. I do not ignore the reasons of a historical, environmental, psychological and social nature, which can be proposed to the contrary. I could, however, say that motives of the same nature exist in his favor. Above all, however, I must point out that contrary reasons or pretexts, confronted objectively and serenely with the religious sense and with the expectations of the majority of the People of God, and with the positive fruit of the courageous testimony also of the habit, appear much more of a purely human character than ecclesiological. In the modern secular city where the sense of the sacred has so fearfully faded, people also need these calls to God, which cannot be neglected without a certain impoverishment of our priestly service.” It seems to me that the words of the Polish Pope say very clearly the profound need for the care of priestly robes even in secular life, not only with regard to liturgical vestments, there is of course a lot to say about it.
The priest does not do a job, he is a priest forever. A doctor finishes his shift in the hospital and does not need to wear medical clothes in civil life, but a priest is a sign of that Presence that is given only through his mediation in the liturgy. Precisely because of his tremendous role, the priest can never get out of his role and must always represent it for those he happens to meet. Many priests dress like lay people to be like us, but we need them to help us be like Him! Do not help us by trying to disguise yourself as those who are actually waiting for your help to progress in their spiritual life.
Follow
