Habits vs. No Habits

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A habit is not just a “piece of cloth” but a statement. What that statement is interpreted to be is debatable, as we see here. It is for sure a statement of your vocation and commitment. Personally, I don’'t care if sisters wear casual clothes off duty, but when they are acting in their official capacity, they should wear nuns clothes. This “problem” has not surfaced with priests wearing their official clothes; why is it with sisters? No one held a gun to their heads and said, “Put on that habit!” They knew what they were getting into from the get-go. My conclusion is that this “problem” is with a few who just want to complain about something, and bishops too afraid to be frank with them for fear of appearing to be beating up on a few “defenseless” females.

Again, you are making the same mistake that seems to be prevalent among many lay people in discussions on habits.

There is no such thing as “nuns clothes”. Not every religious institute has a habit. Some founders wished their followers to wear no habit.

I see the “problem” as being lay people who wish to force their opinions onto religious.

Habits really have nothing to do with the lay person so I have troubling understanding the fixation many lay people seem to have on them. What is missing from their lives that they are so determined to tell religious how they should be dressing?

Another question, why do some lay people feel entitled to tell religious how they should be dressing?

 

[Ocarm]

A habit is not just a “piece of cloth” but a statement.

Agreed. Predominantly, it’s a statement that your religious institute is one of those that wears a habit. The why and why not of that will vary from one institute to another.

I don’'t care if sisters wear casual clothes off duty, but when they are acting in their official capacity, they should wear nuns clothes.

Do you mean sisters, or do you mean nuns, or do you mean both? The terms aren’t entirely interchangeable.

Nuns are rarely seen by anyone, whether acting in official capacity or otherwise, because they spend their time in the cloister. In the past, the use of grilles and the other constraints of the enclosure meant that they were literally never seen by anyone, so it was impossible to tell what they were wearing, official capacity or otherwise.

(You may think I’m being picky, but if you’re going to make statements about religious, I believe you also need to demonstrate that you have a sufficient understanding of the theology and practice of religious life to give your contribution some weight).

This “problem” has not surfaced with priests wearing their official clothes; why is it with sisters?

On the contrary, there are endless complaints made to priests they they too are not dressed in harmony with the desires of the complainant; as someone who has lived in several priories with many priests, I hear this on a routine basis. There’s no shortage of helpful critics out there who are keen to express how disappointed they are in their ordained and consecrated fellow Catholics .

They knew what they were getting into from the get-go.

Yes. They often knew that they were joining an institute that had no mandate or requirement to wear a habit.

My conclusion is that this “problem” is with a few who just want to complain about something.

I agree that the problem here is very much about a minority of people who just want to complain about something.

Hence the way in which the habits vs. no habits discussion is resurrected, in one thread or another, every few weeks here on the forums. I assume that the lives of the militant critics are in sufficient good order that they have time to concentrate on the perceived deficiencies of others.

But unfortunately most of the people who breathe life into this most fatally challenged of horses have insufficient knowledge of religious life to add anything substantive to the discussion; and instead of just expressing an aesthetic preference for the habit - an opinion to which they are perfectly entitled, of course - they go further and question the integrity of the religious in question merely because they don’t meet that aesthetic desire.

Such judgements are disrespectful, but at the same time utterly irrelevant to religious men and women, whose obedience is offered to their institute rather than the likes and dislikes of posters here on CAF. Those of us religious who comment here know that the question has been asked and answered many times, and that there’s really nothing to add. Increasingly I think we need a sticky so that this poor old horse can have a decent burial.

 

[JReducation]

A habit is not just a “piece of cloth” but a statement. What that statement is interpreted to be is debatable, as we see here. It is for sure a statement of your vocation and commitment. Personally, I don’'t care if sisters wear casual clothes off duty, but when they are acting in their official capacity, they should wear nuns clothes. This “problem” has not surfaced with priests wearing their official clothes; why is it with sisters? No one held a gun to their heads and said, “Put on that habit!” They knew what they were getting into from the get-go. My conclusion is that this “problem” is with a few who just want to complain about something, and bishops too afraid to be frank with them for fear of appearing to be beating up on a few “defenseless” females.

Your conclusion is not at all possible. Bishops do not have any authority to tell religious who are exempt what to wear. Bishops only have authority over diocesan religious. If a bishop welcomes a religious community into his diocese, he must accept them as they are at the time of admission to the diocese. If they make changes that are considered internal, as is the case with the habit, a bishop may not interfere. This applies to male and female communities. Nor may a bishop close down any house of exempt religious. That is called supression. Supression is allowed only to the pope. Once the constitution of a religious community of Pontifical Right is approved by the Holy See, the local bishop may not make any demands on that community outside of those constitutions.

If the Holy See approves a community without a habit, the bishop may not demand that it wear a habit. A bishop has the right to deny admission to his diocese to any religious community that applies for it. He may not expel from his diocese a community that was admitted by a predecessor.

There is one thing that a bishop can do. A bishop is an employer. Like any employer, he can have a dress code for his employees. In that dress code he can say that those communities that have a prescribed habit must wear it. This dress code would only apply to those religious who work for the diocese. Let’s take something like Franciscan University.

Franciscan Unniversity is inside a diocese, but it is not own or operated by the diocese. The Third Order Regular Franciscan Friars are the highest authority on the campus, not the bishop. If the friars allow religious to teach in shorts and t-shirts, the bishop cannot intervene. By the way, I’ve never seen them teach in shorts and t-shirts. That was just an example.

Here is another example. Take the Franciscans . . . any of the 114 branches of the order. We all have some kind of habit. However, many friars never wear it or wear it rarely. They usually wear a Roman collar. The Roman collar is not our habit. It’s not even mentioned in the constitution or the rule. Yet, people don’t bat an eyelash. Why not? It’s not the Franciscan habit. It does not even tell anyone that you’re a religious. It doesn’t even tell anyone whether you’re ordained or not. The Roman collar is worn by priests, brothers and seminarians. It’s worn by Catholics and Protestants.

This is a good example of how people are confusing their desire to see some kind of external religious gar and a habit. If people really wanted a habit, they would protest when a Franciscan, Carmelite, Dominican, Norbertine, Servite, Trinitarian, Benedictine or Augustinian walks down the street in a Roman collar or shows up to work in one. This is not their habit and it certainly does not set them apart as religious. When we put on a Roman collar we look like any secular priest or Protestant pastor.

People have to really think about what they would like to see and word it correctly. They must also think about what is proper to each religious institute and to each diocese. Finally, before making generalizations about the authority of a bishop, people need to learn what are the rights of a bishop over religious and what are the rights of a religious superior over the bishop.

There was a diocese that found itself facing a shutdown of three parishes and four schools without notice, because of this. The bishop demanded a habit. The major superior told the bishop that the consitutions did not call for a habit and that these constitutions were approved by Pope Paul VI. The bishop was not agreeable and tried to command the major superior. THAT went over like the atom bomb. One day, people went to mass and kids went to school to find the churches locked and the schools devoid of religious. The superior packed up his religious and pulled them without warning the bishop or the laity.

In a school that I know, the pastor tried to get the sisters to do something that they said was not in their constitution. After hours and hours of dialog, nothing. There was no agreement. The pastor finally said, “We’re going to do this.” The next day, the sisters were gone. They called their major superior and she told them to pack their bags and return to the motherhouse.

I believe this was a little dramatic. A letter of resignation would have been nice and the polite thing to do. However, people don’t always do the nice and the polite thing when they are being bullied. Many bishops, pastors and administrators learned from these experiences. This was in the 1970s. No one has tried to push a religious superior like that again, at least not in this country.

It’s good to engage in dialog. It’s great to share what one wants and needs. It’s important to listen to the other person. It’s charitable to try to give as much as one can for the good of others. At the end of it all, it is divine to accept the parameters with which we have to work. That’s real love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sedonaman]

Your conclusion is not at all possible. Bishops do not have any authority to tell religious who are exempt what to wear. Bishops only have authority over diocesan religious. …

Br. JR, OSF

I was in the military. One day I was complaining about something [it’s a soldier’s right to complain], and a sergeant told me that no one made me put on my uniform. He was right. In civilian life, I was a supervisor of engineers, and we had no dress code. Consequently, not an insignificant number of engineers dressed slovenly. I began to wonder what it was about a person’s appearance, that was superficial, that made a difference, after all, Einstein was not that well groomed. I concluded that your clothes made a statement, and a slovenly appearance said, “I don’t care what you think of me.” Carried to its logical conclusion it also says, “Therefore, I don’t care about you.” This is not a message you want sent to customers. Sisters who don’t dress in religious attire while on duty don’t really care about the people they are supposed to be serving; I don’t care what they say.

Everyone has a boss, and whoever is the boss of these orders should tell them to shape up or ship out.

 

[Ocarm]

Sisters who don’t dress in religious attire while on duty don’t really care about the people they are supposed to be serving; I don’t care what they say.

Will you please, please, please read some of Brother JR’s earlier posts in this thread that explain why some religious wear habits and some do not.

Please. It really is in your interest.

Your comments are so out-of-synch with the reality of why religious do or don’t wear habits that it’s truly disturbing.

Brother JR is an excellent teacher on this subject. Have some respect for his greater knowledge.

Everyone has a boss, and whoever is the boss of these orders should tell them to shape up or ship out.

Exactly!

Yes!

Correct!

Now who is the ‘boss’ of ‘these orders’? You, or the founders and foundresses whose instructions on religious dress they are bound to follow?

Get it now?

 

[sedonaman]

Will you please, please, please read some of Brother JR’s earlier posts in this thread that explain why some religious wear habits and some do not.

Please. It really is in your interest.

Your comments are so out-of-synch with the reality of why religious do or don’t wear habits that it’s truly disturbing.

Brother JR is an excellent teacher on this subject. Have some respect for his greater knowledge.

Exactly!

Yes!

Correct!

Now who is the ‘boss’ of ‘these orders’? You, or the founders and foundresses whose instructions on religious dress they are bound to follow?

Get it now?

No. They signed up to do the program, and they should do the program.

 

[Ocarm]

No. They signed up to do the program, and they should do the program.

Sigh.

Invincible ignorance, I think.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No. They signed up to do the program, and they should do the program.

One last try.

Not all religious have habits. So why should those whose program has no habit change their program to have a habit?

See now?

 

[ringil]

A habit is not just a “piece of cloth” but a statement. What that statement is interpreted to be is debatable, as we see here. It is for sure a statement of your vocation and commitment. Personally, I don’'t care if sisters wear casual clothes off duty, but when they are acting in their official capacity, they should wear nuns clothes. This “problem” has not surfaced with priests wearing their official clothes; why is it with sisters? No one held a gun to their heads and said, “Put on that habit!” They knew what they were getting into from the get-go. My conclusion is that this “problem” is with a few who just want to complain about something, and bishops too afraid to be frank with them for fear of appearing to be beating up on a few “defenseless” females.

Do you think that the reality may be a bit more subtle than how you are presenting it.

“nun’s clothes”, seriously?

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

I think there is a fixation on outward appearance. This is something I have noticed among some of those who identify themselves as “traditionalists”.

Again, I point to the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14).

The point of my last post was that the cloths do not make the religious. A Carmelite is not a Camelite because of the habit.

Those that make the habit their first and foremost concern about religious life have some maturing to do.

It is not true to say, “Diocesan Priests must wear their clerics, unless there is an adequate reason not to (Priests being hunted down and killed in France in the 1700’s, for instance).”

Canon Law states;
Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and legitimate local custom.

As for the “un-orthodox” habit comment, there is no such thing, there can be no such thing.

Orthodoxy is not for us to determine, it is not within out competency, we do not have the authority. I point you to this sticky thread in this forum Orthodox Orders REMINDER.

If a religious institute is in communion with Rome then, by definition, it is orthodox. Its constitutions/statues are approved by the Holy See. If they do not contain a habit, do contain a habit, or contain a habit you disapprove of (though you have no right to do so) it does not matter or affect their orthodoxy as they are in communion with Rome and Rome has approved their habit (or lack of one).

I never said that Habits are the most important thing. I said they are important to me. If the Eucharist is what brought you to the Church, would you be fine if they decided not to administer the Eucharist anymore? Of course, this cannot be done, but this is for the sake of the argument.

I know that Habits don’t make you a Religious. But it shows people what you are. Why would you want someone to take you for another person when you are something so respectable and honorable? I suppose cops and military men should stop wearing uniforms as well?

And I never said Nuns that didn’t wear Habits were unorthodox. I said wearing them shows Orthodoxy in my diocese.

As for the comment about Priests not wearing Clerics, my Priest friend talked to the new Bishop (Who is renowned for his Orthodoxy and holiness), and he said one of his main concerns was that almost none of the Priests wore Clerics in our diocese. Why would that be a concern for him if it didn’t matter?

Either way, if an order was not supposed to wear the Habit, I’m fine with it. But if they are supposed to, it is a problem for me. Tradition is very important to me, and if people are trying to break tradition to “move up with the times”, that insults the tradition of the Order’s founders (Not to mention it usually breaks the Rule).

And about traditionalists not liking Religious and Priests not wearing their proper clothing, this is because we favor tradition. And what is wrong with this? If I’m not mistaken, tradition is what founded our church. It is Christian tradition to believe that Mary was assumed into Heaven. If tradition was not important, Popes would brush this off as unimportant. But they don’t, because tradition defines who you are, and if you throw it away you throw away what formed the Catholic Church.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

I think there is a fixation on outward appearance. This is something I have noticed among some of those who identify themselves as “traditionalists”.

Again, I point to the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14).

The point of my last post was that the cloths do not make the religious. A Carmelite is not a Camelite because of the habit.

Those that make the habit their first and foremost concern about religious life have some maturing to do.

It is not true to say, “Diocesan Priests must wear their clerics, unless there is an adequate reason not to (Priests being hunted down and killed in France in the 1700’s, for instance).”

Canon Law states;
Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical dress, in accordance with the norms established by the Episcopal Conference and legitimate local custom.

As for the “un-orthodox” habit comment, there is no such thing, there can be no such thing.

Orthodoxy is not for us to determine, it is not within out competency, we do not have the authority. I point you to this sticky thread in this forum Orthodox Orders REMINDER.

If a religious institute is in communion with Rome then, by definition, it is orthodox. Its constitutions/statues are approved by the Holy See. If they do not contain a habit, do contain a habit, or contain a habit you disapprove of (though you have no right to do so) it does not matter or affect their orthodoxy as they are in communion with Rome and Rome has approved their habit (or lack of one).

And please, know that I don’t want to argue about something so superficial. The Habit is not what Religious life revolves around, I know. There are so many important things to do! Souls to be saved, babies to be rescued from abortion, prayers to be said! I don’t wish to waste precious time that could be used to help our society arguing about the relevance of the Habit. Let’s all just forget this ridiculous argument and do what we’re supposed to do: Worry about actual problems.

In Christ,
Miles. (Yes, I completely ripped that off from Brother Jay )

 

[MontChevalier]

Hello,

My experience on this matter is, well, very miniscule. In all my time knowing the Catholic Church, I have only met one Nun. But she wore no habit and it came to me as a surprised that she was a Nun. I thought she was just a secretary, doing volunteer work. But never did it cross my mind that she was a Nun.

I suppose the Habit would be important, since it, at the very least, shows who is who in the Church. Now, I’m not saying the Nun is a bad lady for not wearing the Habit, nor am I saying that she’s a bad lady at all, rather that, I find it odd that certain women refuse to wear the Habit. If I was a Priest; something I’m considering, but fear am too…is passionate the right word? Impulsive? Too quick to defend the Church?, I would wear their outfit nearly all the time.

I find wearing such a thing as a symbol of honor and representation, station and belief, truth and love, sympathy and compassion. I just figured others thought the same way. I guess not, to my surprise. It’s really an honor, you know? And I also thought the same of Nun’s habits.

Maybe I’m out of place here…

But Nuns should be proud to be Nuns and not be influenced by the trash of the world; the corruptible, the heretical and the evil. Peer pressure always forces people to do things, unfortunately. I would know. I’ll need to pray for the Nuns of the Catholic Church… One Nun can leave a mark on the world.

Pray, brothers and sisters.

In Christus
-MontChevaler

 

[JReducation]

No. They signed up to do the program, and they should do the program.

They are doing the program. You and I can’t change their program. If you read their constitutions, you will find that those sisters religious who do not wear a habit are not bound to wear one. The constitutions are approved by the Holy See. Once a constitution is approved by the Holy See, that is “the program”. There is no other.

When the Holy See approves a constitution without a habit it’s usually for one of three reasons:

1. 
   *]The founder never intended the community to have one. He or she actually wanted the religious to remain anonymous. He or she did NOT want them to be seen by others. This is very legitimate. It’s a form of enclosure. Just as one founder builds a very tall monastic wall around his religious so as to hide them away from society, another blends them into the crowd. There is an old saying that many founders found to be very true. If you want to hide something, put it in plain sight. One of those founders was Vincent de Paul. He explicitly said in his statutes that the streets of Paris were to be the cloister and modesty was to be their veil. Today, the Daughters of Charity have returned to the original statutes of St. Vincent. They blend in with the secular world as was his desire and intention. The Church recognizes and approves this. This is their program, to use your language.
   
   *]Another reason fro approving a constitution without a habit may be the character of the religious community. Many religious communities of men were founded as communities of Clerks Regular. These are priests who make vows and are part of a community for the purpose of a particular ministry, not for the purpose of living a fraternal or common life. The first of these communities was the Society of Jesus. St. Ignatius wanted his men to be priests, to make vows, but he did not want them to live as religious live. They were to live like secular clergy. They were not to have a distinctive garb. They were not to pray together, eat together, play together or even work together. These things are optional to the Society of Jesus. Unlike Carmelites or Franciscans that have a heavy emphasis on community life, the Clerks Regular, which are many, do not have that emphasis. A habit says something about them that is not true. It says that they are a brotherhood. They are not a brotherhood. They are as much brothers to each other as you and I are. But you and I are not a brotherhood. These communities are also exempt from a habit. They may wear whatever is normal or customary for clerics in their region, as Canon Law clearly states.
   
   *]Finally, the third reason that some communities are given permission not to have a habit, even when they had one before Vatican II, is because their habit is not practical for the work that they do or for the situations in which they live. If the community is organized around a particular apostolate, the Church requires that its mode of dress be consistent with that apostolate.
   
   For example, there is a congregation of sisters called The Medical Mission Sisters. Originally, they wore a habit similar to the old Maryknoll habit. However, that habit is no longer practical in the modern hospital setting, especially given the fact that we are much more conscious of diseases transmitted by body fluids, of such things a nuclear radiation used in certain treatments and with certain forms of technology, and certain requirements of the health departments in different regions of the world.
   
   In the past, these sisters wore the same habit every day. They had two habits, one for daily use and one for special days. This is not sanitary or safe. Since they are doctors, nurses medical technicians and other medical professionals, these sisters wear what is safe and practical for a hospital and what they can discard at the end of a shift or at the end of a medical procedure, something that they could not do in the past. In a case such as theirs, the Holy See realizes that their old custom was not practical or healthy.
   
   Like this, there are other communities that were given permission not to wear their former habits, because it ceased to be practical. This is the same reason that a friar may put aside his tunic, scapular and mantle and put on a Roman collar. The habit is his proper form of dress, not the Roma collar. The Roman collar does not identify him as a friar. If Brother David, Brother O’Carm and I walked down the street of your city in Roman collars, would you know which two are Carmelites and which one is Franciscan? Would you know which one is a priest and which one is not? Or is that you just want to see us in a uniform and you really don’t care whether we’re Carmelite or Franciscan? If that’s the case, then what you really want is not a habit that identifies us, but universal uniform and you don’t really care about our specific vocations and charisms.
   

   Hello,
   
   My experience on this matter is, well, very miniscule. In all my time knowing the Catholic Church, I have only met one Nun. But she wore no habit and it came to me as a surprised that she was a Nun. I thought she was just a secretary, doing volunteer work. But never did it cross my mind that she was a Nun.
   
   I suppose the Habit would be important, since it, at the very least, shows who is who in the Church. But Nuns should be proud to be Nuns and not be influenced by the trash of the world; the corruptible, the heretical and the evil. Peer pressure always forces people to do things, unfortunately.

   My friend, have you ever met a nun? Are you sure? Most Catholics live and die without ever meeting a nun.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And about traditionalists not liking Religious and Priests not wearing their proper clothing, this is because we favor tradition. And what is wrong with this? If I’m not mistaken, tradition is what founded our church. It is Christian tradition to believe that Mary was assumed into Heaven. If tradition was not important, Popes would brush this off as unimportant. But they don’t, because tradition defines who you are, and if you throw it away you throw away what formed the Catholic Church.

With this statement you continue to show that you do not know what true tradition in the Church is.

There is no proper clothing for religious. It all depends on the religious institute and their founder’s wishes.

Popes have “brushed” off what you consider tradition by approving the constitutions/statues of religious institutes that do not have a habit.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

friend, have you ever met a nun? Are you sure? Most Catholics live and die without ever meeting a nun.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have never met a Nun, but I have seen them. In fact, when I visited the EWTN station, I was blessed to have seen a young woman profess final vows in front of the door to the cloister (Apparently she was allowed to leave for one last day with her family). I remember there was quite a few Nuns in front of her by the door to the Cloister, and I and many others (Including sobbing family members) saw her profess her vows, in which she then was clothed with her Habit, which she would have one for the rest of her life. It was a rare and deeply touching site to see.

Despite us being beside her (As it was just a hallway that led to the Cloister), we couldn’t hear her well as her mother and a few other women were crying too loud, so in that aspect it was a sad and rather uncomfortable position for everyone, especially the young woman, who was probably having major last thoughts about the entire ordeal.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

With this statement you continue to show that you do not know what true tradition in the Church is.

There is no proper clothing for religious. It all depends on the religious institute and their founder’s wishes.

Popes have “brushed” off what you consider tradition by approving the constitutions/statues of religious institutes that do not have a habit.

Look, I don’t know what you want out of me. It’s not a leap to say that traditionally, most Religious wear Habits. I have said time and time again that I realize not all wear them, because it’s not a part of their Rule. I am perfectly fine with that. In fact, I would rather have a Religious Order not wear a Habit that would impede them of doing their job than have them wear it and slow work down. I’m glad Pope’s have stated that it is not necessary, because it is most certainly not.

The more we talk about this, the more I regret ever sharing my love and experience with the Habit, and the more I start to resent the Habit, and all that it stands for. In fact, I’ll hate the Habit for you, if you’ll just leave me alone about it. They’re useless, okay? They don’t mean anything, they don’t have special powers, and they don’t make people love the Church (Despite my experience, where they did exactly that).

You may think I’m being irrational, but my patience has been tested and tested again, and I’m known for having very good patience. Please, just stop talking about my immaturity, my love for vain things, and my extremism. I’m sorry I misspoke…

 

[JReducation]

I have never met a Nun, but I have seen them. In fact, when I visited the EWTN station, I was blessed to have seen a young woman profess final vows in front of the door to the cloister (Apparently she was allowed to leave for one last day with her family). I remember there was quite a few Nuns in front of her by the door to the Cloister, and I and many others (Including sobbing family members) saw her profess her vows, in which she then was clothed with her Habit, which she would have one for the rest of her life. It was a rare and deeply touching site to see.

Despite us being beside her (As it was just a hallway that led to the Cloister), we couldn’t hear her well as her mother and a few other women were crying too loud, so in that aspect it was a sad and rather uncomfortable position for everyone, especially the young woman, who was probably having major last thoughts about the entire ordeal.

If she was receiving the habit, she was not making vows. You receive the habit when you become a novice. By the time that a nun makes solemn vows, she has been in the habit for at least five years.

Did you see a profession of vows or an investiture?

You are quite right, the Poor Clares are nuns. Nuns always live in cloisters. The women religious that teach, nurse, work in parishes, etc are sisters. They make different vows from those of nuns. Nuns make the same vows as friars and monks.

Sisters make the same vows as congregatioins of men. There are also consecrated women who are not sisters, even though we call them Sister as part of their title. These are called Institutes of Apostolic Life. These are not consecrated women religious. They often wear a habit or not, they make vows or not, but are not consecrated religious. They are neither sisters nor nuns. The Sisters of Schonstatt (sp?) are not sisters of nuns. The Daughters of Charity are not sisters or nuns. The Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul are neither sisters nor nuns. There are a few others that I can’t recall right now.

On another subject, before you blow up at Br. David, try to look at what you wrote.

And about traditionalists not liking Religious and Priests not wearing their proper clothing, this is because we favor tradition. And what is wrong with this? If I’m not mistaken, tradition is what founded our church. It is Christian tradition to believe that Mary was assumed into Heaven. If tradition was not important, Popes would brush this off as unimportant. But they don’t, because tradition defines who you are, and if you throw it away you throw away what formed the Catholic Church.

There are two kinds of tradition and you’re blending them in this paragraph. There is the faith that was handed down to us through the apostles. That’s the Christian Tradition, also known as the Apostolic Tradition or the Tradition of the Fathers, since they received it first.

Then there are traditions withn insitutions. These are disciplines and customs. They don’t have the weight of Tradition. They are not part of our faith. Religious life is part of our faith. What religious wear, how they work, how they live or the different kinds of religious, is not part of our faith. Therefore, we don’t include those things under the umbrella of Tradition. They are customs or disciplines.

Brother is saying that you need to keep them separate. The Assumption of Mary is essential to the Christian life. The habit of a religious is not. It is accidental. Don’t blend the essential and the accidental.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DonJamieson]

If she was receiving the habit, she was not making vows. You receive the habit when you become a novice. By the time that a nun makes solemn vows, she has been in the habit for at least five years.

Did you see a profession of vows or an investiture?

You are quite right, the Poor Clares are nuns. Nuns always live in cloisters. The women religious that teach, nurse, work in parishes, etc are sisters. They make different vows from those of nuns. Nuns make the same vows as friars and monks.

Sisters make the same vows as congregatioins of men. There are also consecrated women who are not sisters, even though we call them Sister as part of their title. These are called Institutes of Apostolic Life. These are not consecrated women religious. They often wear a habit or not, they make vows or not, but are not consecrated religious. They are neither sisters nor nuns. The Sisters of Schonstatt (sp?) are not sisters of nuns. The Daughters of Charity are not sisters or nuns. The Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul are neither sisters nor nuns. There are a few others that I can’t recall right now.

On another subject, before you blow up at Br. David, try to look at what you wrote.

There are two kinds of tradition and you’re blending them in this paragraph. There is the faith that was handed down to us through the apostles. That’s the Christian Tradition, also known as the Apostolic Tradition or the Tradition of the Fathers, since they received it first.

Then there are traditions withn insitutions. These are disciplines and customs. They don’t have the weight of Tradition. They are not part of our faith. Religious life is part of our faith. What religious wear, how they work, how they live or the different kinds of religious, is not part of our faith. Therefore, we don’t include those things under the umbrella of Tradition. They are customs or disciplines.

Brother is saying that you need to keep them separate. The Assumption of Mary is essential to the Christian life. The habit of a religious is not. It is accidental. Don’t blend the essential and the accidental.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I meant her veil was switched from white to black.

I realize this, but it’s still tradition. He’s trying to say it’s not tradition at all. I’d say something that’s been done for more than twelve-hundred years is tradition.

Sigh Dang it…

 

[JReducation]

I have never met a Nun, but I have seen them. In fact, when I visited the EWTN station, I was blessed to have seen a young woman profess final vows in front of the door to the cloister (Apparently she was allowed to leave for one last day with her family). I remember there was quite a few Nuns in front of her by the door to the Cloister, and I and many others (Including sobbing family members) saw her profess her vows, in which she then was clothed with her Habit, which she would have one for the rest of her life. It was a rare and deeply touching site to see.

Despite us being beside her (As it was just a hallway that led to the Cloister), we couldn’t hear her well as her mother and a few other women were crying too loud, so in that aspect it was a sad and rather uncomfortable position for everyone, especially the young woman, who was probably having major last thoughts about the entire ordeal.

I meant her veil was switched from white to black.

OK, that’s called Simple Profession. Those are temporary vows, usually for three years. In some communities they do it one year at a time for up to five.

I realize this, but it’s still tradition. He’s trying to say it’s not tradition at all. I’d say something that’s been done for more than twelve-hundred years is tradition.

It is not tradition. It is A tradition. There is a difference. and it is subject to change at the discretion of those bound to it according to the mind of their founder.

For example, in the Franciscan family, we can drop the habit by simple vote, even though it is a tradition to have one. We’re not bound to keep it. It’s A tradition, not tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I realize this, but it’s still tradition. He’s trying to say it’s not tradition at all. I’d say something that’s been done for more than twelve-hundred years is tradition.

I never said any such thing.

As for the " twelve-hundred years", with this as your frame of reference then nothing can ever change in the Church. Please give me a date when everything was perfect so that I know what we should be doing in the Church.

I guess you would also be for a return to allowing only one confession in life after baptism because that was a “tradition” of the Church.

It is not tradition. It is A tradition. There is a difference. and it is subject to change at the discretion of those bound to it according to the mind of their founder.

For example, in the Franciscan family, we can drop the habit by simple vote, even though it is a tradition to have one. We’re not bound to keep it. It’s A tradition, not tradition.

Thank you for clearing up what I am saying.