Habits vs. No Habits

[JReducation]

The bishop has authority on how Mass is celebrated in his diocese, inside a convent or not. So, by all means, write to him.

But, being a convent, it’s under the authority of the order, in this case, OCD. Only the Father Provincial has authority over how their dress.

BUT, OCD allows for a lot of freedom to convents. They may even choose to be under the jurisdiction of the friars or not. That’s why someone said to look carefully at OCD convents, because they have more freedom of action than many other orders.

I think that it has to do with how St. Teresa founded the order, which started firstly with nuns only. And I’m sure that when a true daughter of St. Teresa is the prioress it’s all right, otherwise…

I only want to make one correction to this post. In cases of exempt religious orders, the bishop has no jurisdiction over the celebration of the mass or the Liturgy of the Hours inside the religious house or oratories owned by the religious order. The bishop’s authority extends only to seculars and non expempt diocesan religious congregations.

The Major Superior of an exempt religious order is the Order’s Ordinary, even if he is not a bishop. He has all the authority of a bishop.

In the case of women religious this gets a little tricky. If the community is an exempt community of Pontifical Right, the bishop has no jurisdiction in their oratory or chapel. However, the priest who celebrates the mass may be under his jurisdiction, if he’s a secular priest. If he’s a mendicant or a monk, he does not fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop. He falls under the jurisdiction of his Major Superior and the Bishop must present his concern to the Major Superior of the priest in question.

The bishop can also have the Blessed Sacrament taken out of a chapel of certain categories of religious houses. This is going to depend on what kind of religious house it is.

This is very complicated because two sets of rules come into play here, Canon Law and the laws of the particular religious institute. Certain religious families have Rules, not all. Those that have a Holy Rule are covered under the Rule and the only person who can override the Rule is the Holy Father, never a bishop, unless it explicitly says so in the Rule.

I can speak better about the Franciscan Rule. In the Rule of St. Francis the chapter on obedience requires blind obedience to the Pope, local Bishop and diocesan clergy. The Rule does not allow for questioning, opinions, or feelings. The four Franciscan Orders must obey, unless they have received an indult from the Holy See in the matter in question or are being asked to commit a sin.

But some Rules were written for communities that are autonomous of the diocese, such as the Rule of St. Benedict. I don’t know what the Rule of Carmel says regarding the local bishop. But the Carmelites are an exempt religioius family. They are protected by the Holy See from interference from laity and local clergy, unless the Rule says otherwise.

Keep in mind that the Religious Orders wanted to keep the laity at a distance and they wrote their rules in such a way that they are protected from the laity’s opinion, intervention and involvement in their internal affairs. This was done to protect the community from the political influence of the time. These rules have never been touched by the Church. They are still in effect.

That’s why I tell everyone on this forum who engages in campaign to persuade religious orders to change or to live according the the vision of the laity, that this is inappropriate and inconsistent with Church tradition. Orders are not diocesan congregations.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[CarmeliteGirl25]

I only want to make one correction to this post. In cases of exempt religious orders, the bishop has no jurisdiction over the celebration of the mass or the Liturgy of the Hours inside the religious house or oratories owned by the religious order. The bishop’s authority extends only to seculars and non expempt diocesan religious congregations.

The Major Superior of an exempt religious order is the Order’s Ordinary, even if he is not a bishop. He has all the authority of a bishop.

In the case of women religious this gets a little tricky. If the community is an exempt community of Pontifical Right, the bishop has no jurisdiction in their oratory or chapel. However, the priest who celebrates the mass may be under his jurisdiction, if he’s a secular priest. If he’s a mendicant or a monk, he does not fall under the jurisdiction of the bishop. He falls under the jurisdiction of his Major Superior and the Bishop must present his concern to the Major Superior of the priest in question.

The bishop can also have the Blessed Sacrament taken out of a chapel of certain categories of religious houses. This is going to depend on what kind of religious house it is.

This is very complicated because two sets of rules come into play here, Canon Law and the laws of the particular religious institute. Certain religious families have Rules, not all. Those that have a Holy Rule are covered under the Rule and the only person who can override the Rule is the Holy Father, never a bishop, unless it explicitly says so in the Rule.

I can speak better about the Franciscan Rule. In the Rule of St. Francis the chapter on obedience requires blind obedience to the Pope, local Bishop and diocesan clergy. The Rule does not allow for questioning, opinions, or feelings. The four Franciscan Orders must obey, unless they have received an indult from the Holy See in the matter in question or are being asked to commit a sin.

But some Rules were written for communities that are autonomous of the diocese, such as the Rule of St. Benedict. I don’t know what the Rule of Carmel says regarding the local bishop. But the Carmelites are an exempt religioius family. They are protected by the Holy See from interference from laity and local clergy, unless the Rule says otherwise.

Keep in mind that the Religious Orders wanted to keep the laity at a distance and they wrote their rules in such a way that they are protected from the laity’s opinion, intervention and involvement in their internal affairs. This was done to protect the community from the political influence of the time. These rules have never been touched by the Church. They are still in effect.

That’s why I tell everyone on this forum who engages in campaign to persuade religious orders to change or to live according the the vision of the laity, that this is inappropriate and inconsistent with Church tradition. Orders are not diocesan congregations.

Fraternally,

JR

It would be impervious of me to try to change the religious orders’ current Rules. I know it would not happen as I am but one individual and my views are flawed in many ways. But I am allowed to have an opinion, and I am allowed to stand up for what I believe in, otherwise, there would be no such thing as morals.

The Catholic sister that I have been speaking about belongs to a Franciscan order (I do not know which one). She could be very holy, for all I know. I have never visited her order (nor do I intend to). I am merely an outsider looking in. She has some strongly worded opinions against the habit due to her personal views, and I simply wanted to stand up for those who want to wear the habit.

I may never get through to her–in fact, I am sure I won’t. She seems to be as stubborn as I am. If God called her to that particular order, than who am I to say that she should wear a habit? I do not wish to play God.

For all those non-habited orders out there who are doing Christ’s work, God bless you! For all those habited orders who are doing the same, God bless you! May Christ rain His graces upon you! You are all in my thoughts and prayers!

 

[JReducation]

It would be impervious of me to try to change the religious orders’ current Rules. I know it would not happen as I am but one individual and my views are flawed in many ways. But I am allowed to have an opinion, and I am allowed to stand up for what I believe in, otherwise, there would be no such thing as morals.

The Catholic sister that I have been speaking about belongs to a Franciscan order (I do not know which one). She could be very holy, for all I know. I have never visited her order (nor do I intend to). I am merely an outsider looking in. She has some strongly worded opinions against the habit due to her personal views, and I simply wanted to stand up for those who want to wear the habit.

I may never get through to her–in fact, I am sure I won’t. She seems to be as stubborn as I am. If God called her to that particular order, than who am I to say that she should wear a habit? I do not wish to play God.

For all those non-habited orders out there who are doing Christ’s work, God bless you! For all those habited orders who are doing the same, God bless you! May Christ rain His graces upon you! You are all in my thoughts and prayers!

We are all allowed to stand up for what we believe, as long as that which we challenge can be challenged. When I speak about Rules I’m using the word with a capital R, as in the Holy Rule of an order. Those are not up for questioning by anyone. They all have Papal Bulls that place them out of the realm of public discussion. The Church does this very deliberately.

Whether a community wears a habit or not depends on the Holy Rule, if the community has one,. Not all communities have a Holy Rule. Only Orders have Rules. Congregations have statutes. Statutes are up to the members of the congregation to edit and change as they see fit. Holy Rules can only be changed by a Pope. The last Holy Rule that was ever changed by a Pope was in 1975 by Pope Paul VI who rewrote the Rule for the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. When he did, he took the habit out of the Rule. All religious communities of Franciscan Sisters (not the nuns) follow the Rule of Penance.

Pope Paul VI wanted the Brothers and Sisters of Penance to be identified with the secular world. Even though St. Francis had written a habit into the Rule, Pope Paul VI took it out. His justification was that the Rule clearly says that they must blindly obey the Pope, without questioning or opinions of their own. This is part of their conversion to a life of penance. It also says that they are to bring the Gospel into the secular enviornment through secular means under secular appearance.

As to this particular sister’s comments, I would say that they are unnecessary. The Rule of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance is very clear that they are not to pass judgment on others. This is strongly worded in the chapter on charity. Not having spoken with this sister, I can’t tell why she would make these comments. Therefore, I neither justify nor challenge them. Were I in her situation, I would have followed the Rule and said nothing on those who wear a habit. That’s not a matter of public concern. It is an internal affair of every religious institute.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Augustine]

What she said is all good, but it’s a non-sequitur about dumping the habit. Besides, the sophistry baffles me when someone claims that clothes don’t matter, provided that they’re not habits, when they matter and must be dropped.

I don’t know any saint who was a religious or a priest who didn’t wear any religious garb.

QED

 

[mercygate]

What she said is all good, but it’s a non-sequitur about dumping the habit. Besides, the sophistry baffles me when someone claims that clothes don’t matter, provided that they’re not habits, when they matter and must be dropped.

I don’t know any saint who was a religious or a priest who didn’t wear any religious garb.

QED

Vita consecrata, although it has the usual loopholes of post-conciliar documents, clearly favors the adoption of appropriate uniform dress for societies of apostolic life.

And you’re right: if clothes don’t matter, then why not just wear the habit and relax! Doesn’t Paul say something about yielding to those who have stronger convictions?

 

[JReducation]

What she said is all good, but it’s a non-sequitur about dumping the habit. Besides, the sophistry baffles me when someone claims that clothes don’t matter, provided that they’re not habits, when they matter and must be dropped.

I don’t know any saint who was a religious or a priest who didn’t wear any religious garb.

QED

Actually none of the saints who were secular priests wore religious garb. Secular priests began to wear distinctive garb during the 1800s. Prior to that they wore secular clothing.

Mother Seton’s Sisters of Charity did not wear religious garb. They adopted Mother Seton’s widow’s cap out of love for her. It does not appear in her Constitutions, nor in those written by St. Vincent de Paul. The Congregation of the Mission and the Society of Mary have never worn religious garb. The Congregation of the mission (Vincentians) were to dress as secular priests in the country where they served, because they are not religious. The Society of Mary (Marionists) are religious, but were forbidden a habit by their founder.

The Franciscan Brothers and Sisters of Penance had their habit taken away by Pope Paul VI. It is voluntary, not mandatory.

The constitutions of the Daughtes of Charity written by St. Vincent de Paul forbade the use of a habit. The coronet was adopted long after Vincent was dead. Vatican II encouraged the Daughters of Charity to restore the constitutions of St. Vincent de Paul.

St. Francis did not impose a habit or wore what we know as a habit. He and his four orders were to wear the clothes of the peasant of that time. There was no particular style or colour. That’s why you find Franciscans in black, brown, grey and other colour habits. There is no uniform dress code for the order. There was never such a code since the rule was written and approved in 1221. Every jurisdiction creates its own dress code to this day.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta did not include a habit in her constitutions. She wrote that her sisters were to be Indian sisters. Their style of dress was to be that of the Indian woman. The early sisters requested to wear the same sari and colour as Mother. The local bishop granted the permission, because the Missionaries of Charity were not a religious community at the time. They depended on the local bishop as a public association of the faithful.

I’m not opposed to habits. In fact, I wear one as do the other members of my fraternity. But I believe that it’s important for the laity to understand that they are not always part of religious life and in some cases were never part a some religious communities. Most religious communities wore the clothing of the time, which evolved into a customary form of dress. Few communities actually described a habit in their Rules or Constitutions until long after they had been in existence.

We should always seek to undestand the history of the community, it’s canonical status in the Church and the intent of its founder.

I know that in our fraternity the current habit was adopted as an option, not as a rule imposed by the Church. We did it as a means of identifying with our founder. Of course, we have never worn it 24/7, not even when Francis was alive. Francis always allowed the flexibility of wearing what was readily available. His focus was on Holy Poverty. If poverty did not allow for a formal habit, it was not required. For Francis, poverty was a greater good than the habit. This continues to be a guiding principle in our community. Every community has its own guiding principles.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[mercygate]

Actually none of the saints who were secular priests wore religious garb. Secular priests began to wear distinctive garb during the 1800s. Prior to that they wore secular clothing.

Mother Seton’s Sisters of Charity did not wear religious garb. They adopted Mother Seton’s widow’s cap out of love for her. It does not appear in her Constitutions, nor in those written by St. Vincent de Paul. The Congregation of the Mission and the Society of Mary have never worn religious garb. The Congregation of the mission (Vincentians) were to dress as secular priests in the country where they served, because they are not religious. The Society of Mary (Marionists) are religious, but were forbidden a habit by their founder.

The Franciscan Brothers and Sisters of Penance had their habit taken away by Pope Paul VI. It is voluntary, not mandatory.

The constitutions of the Daughtes of Charity written by St. Vincent de Paul forbade the use of a habit. The coronet was adopted long after Vincent was dead. Vatican II encouraged the Daughters of Charity to restore the constitutions of St. Vincent de Paul.

St. Francis did not impose a habit or wore what we know as a habit. He and his four orders were to wear the clothes of the peasant of that time. There was no particular style or colour. That’s why you find Franciscans in black, brown, grey and other colour habits. There is no uniform dress code for the order. There was never such a code since the rule was written and approved in 1221. Every jurisdiction creates its own dress code to this day.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta did not include a habit in her constitutions. She wrote that her sisters were to be Indian sisters. Their style of dress was to be that of the Indian woman. The early sisters requested to wear the same sari and colour as Mother. The local bishop granted the permission, because the Missionaries of Charity were not a religious community at the time. They depended on the local bishop as a public association of the faithful.

I’m not opposed to habits. In fact, I wear one as do the other members of my fraternity. But I believe that it’s important for the laity to understand that they are not always part of religious life and in some cases were never part a some religious communities. Most religious communities wore the clothing of the time, which evolved into a customary form of dress. Few communities actually described a habit in their Rules or Constitutions until long after they had been in existence.

We should always seek to undestand the history of the community, it’s canonical status in the Church and the intent of its founder.

I know that in our fraternity the current habit was adopted as an option, not as a rule imposed by the Church. We did it as a means of identifying with our founder. Of course, we have never worn it 24/7, not even when Francis was alive. Francis always allowed the flexibility of wearing what was readily available. His focus was on Holy Poverty. If poverty did not allow for a formal habit, it was not required. For Francis, poverty was a greater good than the habit. This continues to be a guiding principle in our community. Every community has its own guiding principles.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

JR

FWIW, I belong to a Confraternity that lives the1221 rule of the Franciscan lay order. No habit. No option for a habit but a dress code that is tighter than many Religious communities’ dress codes today: solid colors only in the spectrums from black to white and dark brown to cream. We are allowed to wear blue in honor of Our Lady. Boy! it sure makes life easy!

 

[JReducation]

FWIW, I belong to a Confraternity that lives the1221 rule of the Franciscan lay order. No habit. No option for a habit but a dress code that is tighter than many Religious communities’ dress codes today: solid colors only in the spectrums from black to white and dark brown to cream. We are allowed to wear blue in honor of Our Lady. Boy! it sure makes life easy!

That’s perfectly correct. The Rule of our holy father Francis did not bind us to a habit per se. It bound us to poverty in dress. The habit evolved with time. Therefore, it’s not binding under the rule.

I’m a consecrated Franciscan, we wear a gray habit. But that came into existence about fifty years after Francis died. It was written into the Constitutions. Later it was taken out by Pius X, reinstated by Leo XII and taken out again by Paul VI. It was recently reinstated by the General Chapter, but only according to the customs of the region. Not all regions around the globe wear it.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[mercygate]

That’s perfectly correct. The Rule of our holy father Francis did not bind us to a habit per se. It bound us to poverty in dress. The habit evolved with time. Therefore, it’s not binding under the rule.

I’m a consecrated Franciscan, we wear a gray habit. But that came into existence about fifty years after Francis died. It was written into the Constitutions. Later it was taken out by Pius X, reinstated by Leo XII and taken out again by Paul VI. It was recently reinstated by the General Chapter, but only according to the customs of the region. Not all regions around the globe wear it.

Fraternally,

JR

Disclaimer: my Confraternity was begun by SFOs, who wanted to return to the way of life laid out in the original rule of the Franciscan Lay Order. After much deliberation, some years ago, the SFO, whose rule has been so mitigated as to be unrecognizable, determined that to allow some of its members to live the 1221 rule would tend to polarize the Lay Order and deniet the petition to allow adoption of the old rule for those who wished to live it. Our community, and at least one other similar group, are recognized and overseen by local bishops.

 

[JReducation]

Disclaimer: my Confraternity was begun by SFOs, who wanted to return to the way of life laid out in the original rule of the Franciscan Lay Order. After much deliberation, some years ago, the SFO, whose rule has been so mitigated as to be unrecognizable, determined that to allow some of its members to live the 1221 rule would tend to polarize the Lay Order and deniet the petition to allow adoption of the old rule for those who wished to live it. Our community, and at least one other similar group, are recognized and overseen by local bishops.

That’s fine. By the way, the SFO is not a lay order. It is a canonically Secular Religious Order. The Friars Minor are a lay religious Order and so are the Poor Clares, but neither is secular. Some members of the SFO are deacons, priests and bishops. Its rule was rewritten by Popes Nicholas IV, Pius X, Leo XII and Paul VI. But that has nothing to do with the habit thread.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Augustine]

Priests wore a distinctive clothing before the 19th century, as St. Vincent the Paul himself did.

But overall I stand corrected.

 

[KaylaP]

Actually the Vatican is pretty clear that a religious should wear some time of religious clothing.

 

[JReducation]

Priests wore a distinctive clothing before the 19th century, as St. Vincent the Paul himself did.

But overall I stand corrected.

Actually, in the picture that we often see of Vincent de Paul he is wearing the typical dress of French secular priests and lawyers. During the 1700s there was no “official” clerical garb for secular priests. Every region had their own version. In the United States, Bishop John Caroll and the Council of Baltimore prohibited public use of cassocks and religious habits for secular priests, men religious and secular orders.

The reason behind the prohibition by Caroll and the Council was to protect the Church from persecution by the predominant Protestant Americans and from suspicion of being Papists. George Washington wrote a secret letter to Thomas Jefferson advising him to keep an eye on the Papists in the new Republic, because their allegiance was questionable.

In those days the new nation had no diplomatic relations with the Vatican and refused to acknowledge the Vatican as a sovereign nation. On the other hand, the Vatican did claim every Catholic as its citizen and still does today, just as Israel does with most Jews. Therefore, American priests and male religious adopted the dress of the Episcopal clergy, the black suit with white collar. However, it did not become a rule in the Church until much later.

The first American clerics and religious men to wear distinctive religious garb were in the Spanish and French colonies of what would later become the United States.

That is why you see pictures with many variations of clerical dress among the secular clergy of that time. It depended on their country of origin and the laws of that country. The title Father was also never used until the 1800s. Father was the proper title of a religious superior, whether he was a priest or not. He was the Father Superior. Secular priests were called MR and religious were called Brother, Friar or Dom.

History is not clear when secular priests became Father. As to a common mode of dress, there is none. Church law prescribes clerical dress, but it does not describe what it should look like. Most Western countries or Eastern countries that are of the Latin Rite wear the cassock. But there is no date as to when that became universal. It is generally believed that the Jesuits introduced it through their missionary work. But that fact is not proven.

Sisters copied their habits from nuns, except the Daughters of Charity and the Sisters of Charity. Nuns’ habits were originally the dress of the working woman of their time. Later reformers canonized the habits to what we saw until the later 1970s.

Many of the modern habits that we see in the newer communities are variations on the old monastic habit without the complicated headgear. One such community is the Sisters of Life. They have revived the Dominican habit without the old headgear. The current veil with the hair exposed was typically worn by postulants, not professed religious.

Many of the new communities have adopted the former monastic habits, but not the headgear due to hygiene reasons. The coif and double veil that we see Mother Angelica and her nuns wear is very unsanitary outdoors, because it does not allow the head to breathe. That’s why nuns and sisters shaved their hair. This design is more appropriate for those who spend much of their time inside. It is also difficult to maintain clean, if you are working in the dirty and polluted streets of a city.

If you notice the Franciscan Sistes of the Renewal, they do not wear a coif. Their habit is the simple mendicant tunic with a veil. They live and work on the streets of NYC.

Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity do not wear a coif, because Mother wrote that her sisters were to avoid all apearance of being European religious. Franciscan men do not wear scapulars and flowing cloaks, as do other religious men, because of poverty. Their garb was to be the least expensive. The more cloth the more expensive the habit.

The Missionary Servants of the Most Holy Trinity always wore a short skirt and never covered their hair. They were founded in the late 1940s in the United States and wore the dress of the women of the day. They were identifiable by a pin on their collar. This continues to be their way of dress today. Yet, they have grown into an international community of Pontifical Right.

The Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration do not wear the traditional Poor Clare habit. Their habit is the habit of the Dominican Sisters of the Holy Cross founded in Germany in the late 1800s, except that it is brown.

There are many practical and symbollic considerations that go into the form of dress of religious and secular institutes of consecrated life. They are not always made known to the laity. Some religious communities prefer not to share these reasons with the laity, an example are the Benedictine families of the ancient observance such as Trappists, Cistercians, Carthusians and Camaldolese. They strongly believe that the less they share with the laity, the better off they are. Thus they rarely make known their constitutions and their statutes to outsiders. There is a strong fear of contamination with the laity and a fear of confusing the laity.

I believe that we have to respect their privacy too.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[daughterofmary]

But, being a convent, it’s under the authority of the order, in this case, OCD. Only the Father Provincial has authority over how their dress.

BUT, OCD allows for a lot of freedom to convents. They may even choose to be under the jurisdiction of the friars or not. That’s why someone said to look carefully at OCD convents, because they have more freedom of action than many other orders.

1991 Carmels are under the jurisdiction of the Father General. 1990s are not, which is the major difference between them. They have not been allowed this freedom from the Father General, but from the Pope, specifically Pope John Paul II who saw it the right thing to do.

Thought I would mention that, specifically to clarify which ones can choose to be under the jurisdiction or not. It is a matter of which Constitution they follow.

 

[po18guy]

We are called to be holy - set apart. One whose life is given over to the service of the Lord should certainly be holy, both in attitude, belief and appearance. This is reinforced by a change in vestment. Many opportunities to evangelize are lost due to civilian attire, as many members of the public likely do not realize that a holy woman is in their midst. The habit has all too rapidly disappeared from our culture.

May we finally shake off the hangover of the 60s and return to sanity and holiness.

 

[Augustine]

1991 Carmels are under the jurisdiction of the Father General. 1990s are not, which is the major difference between them.

Is this true for OCarm or for OCD convents?

Thanks.

 

[FCEGM]

Is this true for OCarm or for OCD convents?

Thanks.

Augustine, this is true for the convents of the O.C.D…

 

[JReducation]

We are called to be holy - set apart. One whose life is given over to the service of the Lord should certainly be holy, both in attitude, belief and appearance. This is reinforced by a change in vestment. Many opportunities to evangelize are lost due to civilian attire, as many members of the public likely do not realize that a holy woman is in their midst. The habit has all too rapidly disappeared from our culture.

May we finally shake off the hangover of the 60s and return to sanity and holiness.

I agree with what you’re saying. What I’m trying to present is that there are many religious communities, more than we know, that never had a habit. They were not founded with one. Now, it seems that some people want to put all religious into habits. You can’t do that to those who never had one.

The reason they never had one in the first place was because their founder did not want one. This was always for a very specific reason. We should not interfere with the goals of the founders.

Each community has to return to its roots. We must support that. Those that fail to return to their roots will obviously die by attrition.

I hope this is clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[JReducation]

Augustine, this is true for the convents of the O.C.D…

The same is true for the Franciscan family. There are Franciscan congregations that are not part of the Franciscan Order. They have no juridical ties with the Franciscan Order.

The laity tends to hear the terms Franciscan or Carmelite and assume that they all belong to these Orders. Such is not the case.

The Church allows independent congregations that follow the spirit of Teresa of Avila or Francis of Assisi, but do not belong to their orders. Therefore, they do not come under the jurisdiction of the superiors of those orders. They have their own government and their own constitutions.

Among the Franciscans, those congregations that are not part of the Order do not follow the Rule of St. Francis, but the spirit of St. Francis. A few examples:

Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity, Father Benedict Groeschel’s Franciscans of the Renewal, Mother Angelica’s, Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word. They are not part of the Franciscan Orer. But they are part of the Franciscan Family. They are autonomous. The same happened with some Carmelite monasteries and congregations. They are autonomous. They are part of the Carmelite Family, but not legally part of the Carmelite Order.

In both cases, they ow no obedience to the Carmelite Superior General or the Council of Franciscan Ministers General.

In the case of the Franciscans, the Poor Clares are a separate Franciscan Order. They are not the same order as the friars or Secular Franciscans. The Poor Clares are autonomous. The do not follow the Rule of St. Francis. They follow the Rule of St. Clare, which was based on the Francis’ Rule. The Secular Franciscans are an autonomous Order. They do not follow the Rule of the Friars. St. Francis wrote a rule for them. They are an autonomous religious order for clergy, married and single people. The friars have no authority over them. They have their own Superior General in Rome.

In all these cases, each group is going to have similarities and differences, whether they are Franciscan or Carmelite. The Church structured it this way to give each group autonomy.

It has always been the wish of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes to separate religious orders, whether they are secular religious orders or regular religious orders or secular institutes, from the rest of the laity. The Sacred Congregation does not look well on the rest of the laity interfering in the internal affairs of their religious. Pope Benedict XVI has defended the rights of the religious to their autonomy from the laity.

He even wrote this into the Motu Proprio when he said (I’m paraphrasing), that the Extraordinary Form of the mass could be celebrated by any priest in any church and then made a parenthetical exception for those who are religious. They may not celebrate it at any time or in any place. The must have the approval of their superior, even if the superior is not a priest, as is often the case among Franciscans and other religious communities, where there are priests, but they are not superiors. The superior is a lay man.

The same applies to dress. The form of dress is to be determined by the chapter of the community, not by the major superior. The major superior has no authority over the form of dress of the religious in his or her community. Just as the chapter of the community decides how they are to pray, the chapter also decides how they are to dress. The major superior can only enforce what the chapter allows him or her to enforce. The major superior owes obedience to the chapter.

In some communities, the chapter has decided on a particular way of dress. Whether the major superior likes it or not, he or she must obey it ane enforce it. This is not as black and white as we all seem to think. The only person who has authority over everyone is the Pope and popes rarely choose to exercise that authority. All of their writings and teaching son religious garb has been in the form of commentary, not legislation. They have not legislated to any religious community how to dress. They have commented and even advised, but not mandated.

Recently, when Pope Benedict met with the delegates to the General Chapter of our Order he stated that he would not demand anything of the order except that it remain faithful to the spirit of St. Francis as the Holy Spirit guided us. There were two questions on the table. One of them is on this post, the habit. Benedict refused to comment on it. The other was to ordain more priests. To that he said that Francis did not want an order of parish priests. Therefore, we should be careful not to lose our charism and to attract more lay men to the order so as to be faithful to Francis’ vision.

But the habit question was not something that he wanted to get involved in. Though the consensus seems to be that the four Franciscan Orders are opting for a more regular use of the habit. That does not include the congregations. They are not part of the four orders, just like many of the OCD communities are not under the Superior General of the OCDs. Therefore, they are not part of the same group of Carmelites.

Confusing, but important distinctions . . .

Fraternally,

JR

 

[po18guy]

I agree with what you’re saying. What I’m trying to present is that there are many religious communities, more than we know, that never had a habit. They were not founded with one. Now, it seems that some people want to put all religious into habits. You can’t do that to those who never had one.

The reason they never had one in the first place was because their founder did not want one. This was always for a very specific reason. We should not interfere with the goals of the founders.

Each community has to return to its roots. We must support that. Those that fail to return to their roots will obviously die by attrition.

I hope this is clearer.

Fraternally,

JR

Amen!