According to Catholic doctors or Fathers of the Church, if Adam hadn't sinned, would we wear clothes? Or are clothes a consequence of Original Sin? St. Thomas Aquinas asks such speculative questions regarding the condition of Adam's offspring had he not sinned (*Summa Theologiæ* I q. 99 , q. 100 , q. 101 ); cf. "If there were no Original Sin, would everyone have been married? ".

What are the the common explanations in the Oriental Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and in the main-stream Protestantism (I mean those protestant believers who besides praying to the Father also pray directly to Jesus) on the reason why Adam and Eve were created naked by God? On one hand, we see throughout the whole Bible that angels are never naked. They are always dressed in bright and white robes. In the book of Revelation we see that in the eternal future all the saints will be wearing white robes. On the other hand, God said, after creating humans, that all the things that He had just created were "very good". So what is really "very good"? Is it to be naked or to be clothed in white robes? If robes, then why Adam and Eve were not originally created that way, that is, with white robes on?

During Alexei Navalny's (Russian Orthodox) funeral on March 1, 2024, multiple photos show the pallbearers wearing the same red-black-red armbands on the left arm, as seen in Photos: Crowds attend Navalny funeral as Kremlin warns against protests , In pictures: Defiant Russians gather for Alexei Navalny's funeral , and Funeral of Alexei Navalny in Moscow – in pictures , for instance. Looking back, it seems that the (military) pallbearers during Gorbachev's funeral also wore similar armbands, but in this case those were black-red-black, as seen In Photos: Gorbachev Laid To Rest After Moscow Funeral That Putin Didn’t Attend . I am aware that plain black armbands are sometimes used as a sign of mourning, but I could find no reference to the red color. Is this typical for (Russian) Orthodox funerals or is this a political/cultural/regional thing? What is the significance of the red color specifically? Do they have a specific name, and what is their origin? ![Four Russian men with red and black armbands carrying a coffin ][6] ![Several Russian peoples along the side of a street; some men are wearing red and black armbands ][7] ![A Russian man wearing a red and black armband speaks with a military official ][8] ![A Russian man holds a black and white photo of Gorbachev while four military men with black and red armbands stand nearby ][9]

Are Christian (Catholic) men allowed to cover their head? I've told no they can't, because Paul said not too, or some say yes, because Jesus himself did, and what Paul says didn't matter, but if a man is praying in private can he not cover his head? Wouldn't it be respectful for a man to cover his head in the presence of God and follow the ways of Jesus?

Are there any legends about what happened to Jesus's clothes after they were distributed? Any legends about the people that received them?

Why are discalced Carmelites discalced (don't wear shoes)? I think there are other religious orders that don't wear shoes, too.

In the Catholic Church, the clerical dress (cassock) of cardinals is scarlet red in color. Are there any other catholic prelates who may don red cassocks?

**Reference request about Catholic mitres within the Latin Rite?** I desire to try my hand at making a mitre that is no longer in style within the Roman Rite. I am fixed on this one from the *Catholic Encyclopedia*’s article on the development of the shape of the mitre ; the article is too vague on this particular mitre: > **Development of the shape of the Mitre** > > As regards shape, there is such difference between the mitre of the eleventh century and that of the twentieth that it is difficult to recognize the same ornamental head-covering in the two. In its earliest form the mitre was a simple cap of soft material, which ended above in a point, while around the lower edge there was generally, although not always, an ornamental band (circulus). It would also seem that lappets were not always attached to the back of the mitre. Towards 1100 the mitre began to have a curved shape above and to grow into a round cap. In many cases there soon appeared a depression in the upper part similar to the one which is made when a soft felt hat is pressed down on the head from the forehead to the back of the head. In handsome mitres an ornamental band passed from front to back across the indentation; this made more prominent the puffs in the upper part of the cap to the right and left sides of the head. This calotte-shaped mitre was used until late in the twelfth century; in some places until the last quarter of the century. From about 1125 a mitre of another form and somewhat different appearance is often found. In it the puffs on the sides had developed into horns (cornua) which ended each in a point and were stiffened with parchment or some other interlining. This mitre formed the transition to the third style of mitre which is essentially the one still used today: the third mitre is distinguished from its predecessor, not actually by its shape, but only by its position on the head. While retaining its form, the mitre was henceforth so placed upon the head that the cornua no longer arose above the temples but above the forehead and the back of the head. The lappets had naturally, to be fastened to the under edge below the horn at the back. The first example of such a mitre appeared towards 1150. Elaborate mitres of this kind had not only an ornamental band (circulus) on the lower edge, but a similar ornamental band (titulus) went vertically over the middle of the horns. In the fourteenth century this form of mitre began to be distorted in shape. Up to then the mitre had been somewhat broader than high when folded together, but from this period on it began, slowly indeed, but steadily, to increase in height until, in the seventeenth century, it grew into an actual tower. Another change, which, however, did not appear until the fifteenth century, was that the sides were no longer made vertical, but diagonal. In the sixteenth century it began to be customary to curve, more or less decidedly, the diagonal sides of the horns. The illustration gives a summary of the development of the shape of the mitre. It should, however, be said that the changes did not take place everywhere at the same time, nor did the mitre everywhere pass through all the shapes of the development. A large number of mitres of the later Middle Ages have been preserved, but they all belong to the third form of mitre. Many have very costly ornamentation. For even in medieval times it, was a favourite custom to ornament especially the mitre with embroidery, rich bands (aurifrisia), pearls, precious stones, small ornamental disks of the precious metals; and even to use painting. Besides several hundred large and small pearls, a mitre of the late Middle Ages in St. Peter's at Salsburg is also ornamented with about five hundred more or less costly precious stones; it weighs over five and a half pounds. Similar mitres are also mentioned in the inventory of 1295 of Boniface VIII. Eight medieval mitres are preserved in the cathedral of Halberstadt. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the mitre was ornamented with rich, heavy embroidery in gold, which gave it a still more imposing appearance. A mitre of the eighteenth century preserved in the cathedral treasury at Limburg-on-the-Lahn is remarkable for the large number of precious stones that adorn it. The original material of the mitre appears to have been white linen alone, but as early as the thirteenth century (with the exception of course of the simple mitre) it was generally made of silk or ornamented with silk embroidery. **Can anyone furnish me with details on when this particular mitre was in usage within the Church and where?** If one could find a pattern for it, that would be awesome. However, I feel that this is unrealistic!

A few years back there was an interesting topic on StackExchange related to the question of "Does the Bible command women to cover their breasts ?" In studying Genesis 3:21, where God made aprons for Adam & Eve, I can't find any definitive answer to the question of whether aprons, being translated from כתנת (*kĕthoneth*), refers to also the top of the body or just to a covering around the waist. Considering the warm climate of Eden where fig trees could grow, the former translation of it referring to the covering of the top part of the body seems rather awkward. A possible connection between the ancient Israelites and the Minoans, who lived in very close proximity, are discussed here . A PG-13 video of Minoan attire can be found here . As the video. points out, it is difficult to reconstruct the meaning without taking into account and reflecting upon an observer's own social bias (14:23 minutes in). In other words, some people will only interpret the art as myth expressed in art work. While others will depict the attire as exclusively worn by those involved in goddess worship. Still others will interpret it as reflecting both religious and standard everyday fashionable attire, just like modern clergy attire reflects the cultural attire of ancient Rome. The latter seems to be the most natural interpretation, in my opinion. If this latter interpretation is true, than what is rather shocking about Minoan fashion attire is how out of place it seems in our culture. (Well, at least in most traditional settings.) For example, I would feel uncomfortable showing that video for a Bible class with men present. It might cause them to stumble with lust being stirred up. Also, if the latter interpretation is true, is there any Biblical, or extra Biblical Jewish tradition, that would indicate the ancient Israelites dressed differently than their neighbors - i.e. the ancient Minoans?

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities 7.69.2): > The men ordered to lead the slave to his punishment, having stretched out both his arms and fastened them to a piece of wood which extended across his breast and shoulders as far as his wrists, followed him, tearing his **naked body** with whips. > > “Some punishments were inflicted on the **naked body** and were more painful and humiliating than others.” - ASOR December 2018, Vol. VI, No. 12 Insight ([it-1 pp. 413-414](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000887)) Captive: A person in bondage, exile, confinement, or under restraint, especially one seized and carried off as a result of war. … Often conquerors delighted in … leading them off “**naked and barefoot, and with buttocks stripped**,” to their humiliation and shame. ​- Isaiah 20:4. (Matt.27:31; Jn. 19:23)

Yesterday, at a restaurant in Rome, at the table next to mine, there were seated four people: a Catholic priest (in a kind of cassock), two lay people, and the woman in the photo, who apparently wears some kind of religious uniform (as well as a crucifix on a chain) that I couldn't recognise. Does anyone know which uniform is this?

*Note: I'm little surprised that this question had not been asked before.* I've noticed that some churches place more emphasis on the issue of modesty than others. In more exaggerated cases, some churches go to the extremes of highly discouraging or straight up prohibiting women from wearing pants (and even makeup and jewelry), favoring instead more modest types of dresses, such as skirts. Two questions: 1. What is the historical origin of these modesty-related prohibitions? 2. What is the biblical basis?

Is there any referring in the holy books regarding Jesus if he covered his head? And if not, based on what a lot of pastors/bishops or pop, cover their head? (of course, different types and forms of covers on the head, I'm not familiar with their specific names) Also, I can see for example in the Orthodox Christianity that only people with function in the church are going with this cover, but other people from their community, although they are absolutely religious, they do not cover their head. And it raises another question if it's only for those who have a function in the church?

What is the origin of vicars/priests wearing the white dog collar, and is there a scriptural basis for such an item?

Should a priest refuse communion to the inappropriately dressed woman when she approaches to receive? For example, a woman comes dressed with a short dress or bare shoulders in the church, and she goes to receive communion; should the priest refuse the communion on the account of the scandal she is causing? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

There are a couple references in the Gospels indicating what Jesus wore, but not many. His undergarment was 'seamless' according to John 19:23. He also may have had the 'fringes' or 'tassels' of the garment that Jews wore, as we see a woman touching a 'fringe' of his outer garment in Mathew 9:20. Many think this indicates that he followed this Mosaic law with regard to dress: >The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. (Numbers 15:37-38, NIV) However, if Jesus wore these tassels, they would not have been like those 'extra long ones' wore by the Pharisees, for Jesus said: >“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long. (Matthew 23:5, NIV) So, here are some references to lead to various sub-questions: - Did Jesus wear sandals? Would he have worn a Jewish turban outside? - Would anyone one notice that he was a teacher by his dress, or was he just a regular looking guy? - Or, is this all mere speculation and unanswerable? The question is, **if we were casting a Jesus movie, what clothes did Jesus most likely wear as a combined set? The question is not pointed at 'one' specific article, but the combination of articles and the impression, if any, that they would make on a stranger, whether Jew or Gentile.** Note: A related question about the phylacteries or tefillin can be found [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8131/did-jesus-wear-tefillin) .

In John 19:23, it is said that Jesus clothes were not ripped because they were seamless and woven in one piece from top to bottom. Does that mean Jesus used to wear premium clothes? Since the soldiers refuse to rip up such a nice cloth I assume it is somehow valuable or special. Can someone please elaborate on the topic?

The habit of these nuns includes no guimpe (or a black one), a black veil, a white wimple, a rectangular white coif: Which order do they belong to? (I couldn't find anything quite like it on NunsAndSisters.com .)

Different denominations have different sacred items and garbs available for priests, bishops, and the like. For example, this Wikipedia article on vestments mentions that such liturgical garments are used by "Eastern Orthodox, Catholics (Latin Church and others), Anglicans, and Lutherans". And this article shows some other garments worn by clergy in some denominations. And then Mormons have the temple garments (a form of underwear) discussed in this article . This other question led me to check the YouTube videos of Jehovah's Witnesses meetings but I did not see any specific clothing or other items present in those. Do Jehovah's Witnesses have any specific garments (e.g. underwear) or sacred/symbolic objects used for any particular occasion or church position?

Agustín Fernández de San Vicente, Canon of the Cathedral of Durango, traveled in 1822 to California as a political emissary. He was a gambler and a dandy who, unsurprisingly, dressed better than the mendicant friars ministering to Californians at the time: > ... the canon's attire was really striking and colorful. His outfit was reddish in color. Whenever some girl or woman would be taken aback by the splendor and colors of his outfit, she would ask, "Who is that man?" [_Testimonio of Juana Machado_, in Beebe and Senkewicz] > > He wears a small calotte, a blue frock coat and a three-cornered hat.... [_The Khlebnikov Archive_] It's not clear to me whether the two quotes describe the same outfit. Traveling through California and conducting meetings with local officials, would the canon have worn some kind of clerical clothing, vestments, or some other non-church clothing? Would his cathedral college have entitled him to fancier clothing than a parish priest of the same diocese?