From time to time, the claim circulates that Orthodox clergy wear “women’s clothing” (the black “rason”) in order supposedly to “cover up” the displacement of ancient “priestesses” and the “usurpation” of the priesthood by men. This narrative does not hold up historically or theologically. Basically, it is ridiculous. But since, unfortunately, there are quite a few ignorant and uncatechized people who believe such claims and repeat them, let us clarify the matter.

1) Where does the cassock (rason) come from?

In antiquity, the chiton (and, more generally, long garments) was a common way of dressing in Greece and Rome. It did not operate with the modern “male–female” clothing categories as we imagine them today. What differentiated one’s appearance was the quality of the fabric, ornamentation, the way it was belted, and social status.

Within ancient Greek education and culture, it is well known that outward appearance could signal ethos (character): philosophers and teachers often promoted simplicity as a way of life, in contrast to vanity. Plain dress in antiquity could be understood as a sign of temperance, self-control, and distance from display. Christians did not copy a “philosopher’s uniform,” but they lived in a setting where simplicity already had a recognized moral value.

When monasticism developed (from the 4th century onward), the Church gave simple dress a new content: not merely “simplicity for philosophical reasons,” but ascetic struggle, repentance, renunciation, and dedication to Christ. Thus, from the everyday plain clothing of late antiquity—especially through monastic life—we arrived at the garments that today we call the cassock ('rason' in Greek).

2) Did pagan priests have a “special uniform”?

In the ancient Greek and Roman world there were indeed, on certain occasions, distinctive items of dress for rituals: wreaths, ribbons, special head coverings, colors, or symbols that indicated an office. In many priesthoods, religious function was tied to the city and the political order. So “vesture” often also functioned as a marker of public status.

This, however, does not mean that there was everywhere a single standardized “uniform” the way we picture it today. Nor does it mean that the Church simply inherited an intact pagan model. In Christianity, the priesthood is not a political office of the city; it is a ministry within the Body of Christ, with the Eucharist at its center.

3) Pachomius and common monastic dress

An important historical point: in Egypt, Saint Pachomius (4th century) is regarded as one of the pioneers of cenobitic monasticism. Within a cenobitic organization, it is natural for a common, plain form of dress to appear as an element of order, equality, and ascetic discipline. This is not a “theatrical costume,” but a practical measure: to avoid distinctions, luxury, and competition, and to cultivate a shared way of life.

This also helps us understand something else: the cassock/rason as we know it became linked primarily with monasticism, because monastic life requires a stable framework. By contrast, a married parish priest living in the world often followed the simple customary clothing of his locale, without there being everywhere and always a mandatory “uniform.”

4) References in conciliar canons concerning the dress of clergy and monks

The sacred canons were not written to describe types and designs of garments. Yet indirectly they give us a picture: they aim to safeguard the seriousness and moral character of the clergy and monastic life, and to prevent worldly show.

Some canons in conciliar texts (4th–7th centuries) critique luxury, “eccentric” or ostentatious clothing, and behavior that causes scandal. This indicates that clergy moved within society and that there was a real temptation to imitate worldly fashion.

Other canons regulate matters of monastic order (what it means to be a monk, how one lives, how one is distinguished from a lay lifestyle). From these it follows that the Church wanted outward appearance to match one’s way of life: modesty, steadiness, and restraint from display.

The canons express pastoral concern: that the clergy not be turned into a social spectacle, and monasticism not become a personal style of self-promotion.

5) The difference between pagan priesthood and Christian priesthood

In ancient Greece and Rome there were both priestesses and priests, with important roles in particular places (e.g., the Pythia, the Vestal Virgins). Yet these roles were tied to specific cults, deities, and cities, often with social prerequisites or political power. It was not a single, unified “priesthood” that was simply replaced by Christians.

In Christianity, the priesthood is understood in the light of Christ. The New Testament speaks of Christ as the Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14), in terms that refer to the Jewish institution of the High Priest, not to a pagan priesthood. Christ’s sacrifice is one and complete, and the Church’s priestly ministry is Eucharistic and pastoral—participation in the Priesthood of Christ, not magical, divinatory, or political.

As for the fact that the Church does not have a female priesthood, She explains this theologically, through how She understands the mystery of Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:25 ff.). This does not diminish women. Honor given to the Theotokos, and to all women who were graced with the gift of holiness, is central. The call to holiness is shared; ministries are not all identical.

The cassock, then, is not a “women’s garment,” nor a historical alibi for some supposed “displacement of priestesses.” It is the fruit of a path of modesty and ecclesial order, rooted in the common dress of late antiquity and strongly shaped by monasticism (and by the cenobitic organization which, already with Pachomius, required a common way of life). And the conciliar canons, even indirectly, show what is sought: not display, not a worldly mindset, but good order and ethos.

Saint Paisios - Holy Mountain