Lay Secular (Third) Orders and a return to the habit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrsdizzyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mrsdizzyd

Guest
So, I was down a CAF rabbit hole reading old threads about Third Orders, and I have emerged with a curiosity question.

First, am I correct in my understanding that VatII abolished Third Order “full” habits except for a small number of communities?

Over the last decade or two, we have seen various religious communities revive or change their habits.

Curiosity question: has there been any grassroots movement to restore “full” habits to those Third orders who desire it?

To be clear, some Third Orders do still have habits of sorts. Secular Franciscans have the Tau Cross, lay Dominicans and lay Carmelites have scapulars, etc. When I say “full” I am referring to the habits we see Sts. Catherine of Siena and Rose of Lima wearing. They were all lay Dominicans.

In the US, I’ve only found one Third Order who appears to still wear a full habit (Maybe? I can’t tell from the pictures):

Franciscan Tertiaries of the Immaculate

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 
Last edited:
Thank you for the correction on St. Martin de Porres. I edited my OP.

I think I saw a St. Pio group of Lay Franciscans who were in full habits. They looked Asian / Pacific Islander to me.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Curiosity question: has there been any grassroots movement to restore “full” habits to those Third orders who desire it?
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard of any, and I doubt that it would go anywhere. I think a lot of the point was that secular have a different vocation; we’re not just a lesser version of monastics.
 
angel12 said:
I think a lot of the point was that secular have a different vocation; we’re not just a lesser version of monastics.
Click to expand...
I don’t think wearing a habit necessarily indicated that you are somehow trying to be monastic. Couldn’t it also be a visible sign of your spirituality?
 
Persons under spiritual direction are permitted to develop a Personal Prayer Rule, and a habit, and have such approved by their local Ordinary. Yes, the habit would be worn at all times, or whenever stated in the plan of life.
 
I surely do not know a lot about this, and no where near as much as @Cloisters

However, I THINK all that Vatican II (or right after) did was draw a clearer line between lay people who do not make vows, etc from ones who do not.

For example: the Franciscan Third Order Regular all make vows. But the secular Franciscans do not.

I pray this helps
 
mrsdizzyd said:
I don’t think wearing a habit necessarily indicated that you are somehow trying to be monastic. Couldn’t it also be a visible sign of your spirituality?
Click to expand...
That certainly seems likely to me.

With so few people wearing habits (and too many priests not wearing Roman collars), the sign value is very important.

Why can’t members of Third Orders and Secular Orders consult with their spiritual directors and bring this powerful witness to a world thirsting for it?

If someone doesn’t want to wear a habit, then that should be their choice. But their choice shouldn’t impede others from doing so.

Deacon Christopher
 
We must be careful to note that ‘Third Order’ doesn’t necessarily mean a secular vocation. I know for a fact that when you speak of Third Order Franciscans, there are fully religious Third orders in community and secular Third Orders. Now, many of these Third Order groups have an associated secular branch, but generally in my experience, the secular branches may only wear the religious habit when they are in community with the father or mother religious order. The two Franciscan Tertiaries of the Immaculate which are shown above actually seem to be the religious brothers. It seems as if there are secular Franciscan Tertiaries with them because two of them appear to have put on a scapular matching the brother’s habits (one woman and one man). While not a full habit, some of the Secular Order habits worn when in community with their parent order are lesser forms to distinguish the two vocations. This was common practice up until Vatican II ( and still carries on today in various forms) within many orders where the habits of the simple professed/lay solemn professed/clerical solemn professed were slightly different to denote their various vocation and place within the order. Many Secular Third Orders I have come in contact with only allow the member to wear the full habit at their profession and when they are buried as a sign of communion with their parent order.

The granting of permission to wear a full religious habit must be granted by both the parent order (if there is one and it is not simply a personal hermetical consecration before the bishop) and the bishop of the diocese. The cases of Sts. Rose of Lima and Catherine of Sienna are somewhat special when compared to modern tertiaries, as they aren’t exactly what we would think of a member of a secular order today. In their cases, they took the full solemn vows of the Dominicans and lived a fully religious life according to the Dominican tradition. They just happened to live outside of a Dominican convent. This case is very rare today, as very few secular orders take solemn perpetual vows. These are vows which, according to canon law, can only be dispensed by Papal decree (back in Sts. Rose and Catherine’s time, even the Pope couldn’t dispense them, but the canon law changed in 1917). Instead, most (if not all) secular orders take either simple vows or promises (which can be dispensed by their religious superior and spiritual director), whether perpetual or for a set time.

Most orders today aren’t actually ‘orders’ in the traditional sense of the word (the last true ‘order’ was granted permission for solemn vows in the early 1600s). They are congregations and societies. Even the fully religious members of these orders do not take solemn vows, instead they take simple perpetual vows which may be dispensed by the superior general of the order. As such, the reception of the habit by a secular member upon their solemn profession like Sts. Rose and Catherine would not be possible.

Hope this sheds a little light on the subject.

God Bless,
Br. Ben, CRM
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I forgot to answer your first question.
mrsdizzyd said:
First, am I correct in my understanding that VatII abolished Third Order “full” habits except for a small number of communities?
Click to expand...
Vatican II did not abolish the wearing of any habit, whether religious or secular. It just gave general permission to orders to change the habit when it was a detriment to their apostolic activity. This was taken by many congregations and societies to chuck the habit out almost completely. The mindset for the removal of the secular habit was that they were meant to work and live out their vocation in the world. The wearing of the habit would confuse the general populace as to the secular or religious status of that person and thus be a detriment to the enacting of their vocation as a secular religious. That is why many orders, even those who took solemn vows, changed the habit to something distinct and less conspicuous for their secular members.

Specifically, Vatican II says:
The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed. (Perfectae Caritatis, 17)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thank you Br. Ben. That is a lot to chew on.

Thank you in particular for your words regarding Lay vs. Vowed Third Orders. I was thinking specifically about Lay Secular third orders (lay Dominicans, Lay Franciscans, Lay Carmelites, Etc).

Regarding the Franciscan Tertiaries of the Immaculate, I found a YouTube video of their first profession. They wear a long full length Scapular (the men have a hood attached to theirs), cord, rosary, and a largish pectoral tau cross. All is worn over their regular clothes. So, there is no tunic which I guess means it is not a “full” habit.
 
What do you mean by develop a habit with your spiritual director and local ordinary? Are you talking about something as simple as a blue skirt and white blouse with a grey cardigan or are you talking about an alb or tunic or scapular or ?
 
One of the contributing editors to my organization’s Yahoo Groups is also a lay spiritual director. He said that since the catechism states that each person is a charism, they are permitted to draw up a personal prayer rule, and a habit, and have it approved by their local ordinary. In some cases the person can take on the title of Sister or Brother. I personally don’t know of anyone who has done this, but he’s worked with people who have done so.

In a way, the foundation of a new community/charism can actually take that route, without having to “abuse” canon 603 eremitism.
 
Cloisters said:
In some cases the person can take on the title of Sister or Brother. I personally don’t know of anyone who has done this, but he’s worked with people who have done so.
Click to expand...
We have one such Sister in our archdiocese that I know of (or did; I haven’t seen her in some time). She lives in her own home, is not affiliated with a particular community or order, and wears a modest habit of [I think, usually] white blouse, denim skirt, and navy blue veil akin to this: https://goo.gl/images/R4EUmT. She’s officially recognized by the Church as “Sister Jane”. (not her actual name)
 
I was thinking the same thing when I found your post. I believe that what the world needs now more than ever, is a return to the practices found say, during Catherine of Sienna or Rose of Lima, where lay religious orders wore full habits. We need there to be more visible signs for our faith in this world, not less. It seems to me people have accepted the norms of Vatican II as being more “evolved” for modern times, among them the banishing of secular habits. (I know Vat II didn’t officially banish, but in effect, that is what was done.) Well, we have seen the fruits of these practices, haven’t we? I ask, what harm is there that they wear habits, really? The reasons offered in previous posts don’t seem sufficient, and in my mind reflect the post-Vatican II mind set that has to me resulted in a secular-minded world, not a religious-minded world, which we desperately need in our times, IMO…
 
Last edited:
Depending upon the culture, sometimes they do. In cultures with histories of clerical elitism, especially in Europe, many of the average people or the poor see cassocks and habits as symbols of status and an outward sign that the wearer holds themselves above the average person. In that mindset, it would be somewhat like working with inner-city poverty, but driving a new BMW to work every day. Not exactly the same analogically speaking, but it kind of gets the gist across. Our Order encountered this issue when we were working with the drug adicts and poor in areas of Naples, Italy. No one would engage our priests with the habit, but if we just wore our regular cheap clothes we usually wear underneath our habits, the people were much more open.

This was one of the valid reasons for the habit to be changed (at least in these specific circumstances)
 
Last edited:
If you replace somethings here and there it was exactly what he told me, and honestly, I continue to discredit this story of cassocks and habits being symbols of status and repellents to people, this sounds like a post Vat II explanation.
No offense intended.
Trully repellent was the liberation theology look of the priest, a Jesuit with a ponytail, wearing jeans and flip flops.
 
I agree completely with changing the habit in those areas where there is a perception of clerical elitism. However, I believe that habits must still be worn in those areas where that perception is absent. The reason is because the religious habit is a sign of one’s consecration. If the religious stop wearing their habit with no justifiable reason, then their failure to wear their habit could also create the wrong impression that religious life is already dead in the world. Many young people may in fact have an inclination for the religious life, but if they don’t see anyone wearing a religious habit, they would be misled into thinking that “the consecrated life” does not really exist, and that what they feel inside was just a good thought, but not something that could be nurtured in a formal religious setting. Just my thought.

I am a lay Dominican myself. I believe that members of the secular third orders or lay fraternities, who are not in solemn vows like St. Rose, should not wear a very visible habit. The reason is because they are seculars, and wearing a visible habit might only be confusing to the general public. However, they may, at their option, wear a small pin or cross to indicate their dedication or commitment to the Order. That is just my opinion. As a lay Dominican I don’t even wear an optional pin or cross, but I always wear a small white scapular tucked inside my outer clothing, as required by our Particular Directory.

Thank you for your contributions here at CAF. Are you a priest, or hoping to be one?
 
Last edited:
rom said:
However, I believe that habits must still be worn in those areas where that perception is absent. The reason is because the religious habit is a sign of one’s consecration. If the religious stop wearing their habit with no justifiable reason, then their failure to wear their habit could also create the wrong impression that religious life is already dead in the world. Many young people may in fact have an inclination for the religious life, but if they don’t see anyone wearing a religious habit, they would be misled into thinking that “the consecrated life” does not really exist, and that what they feel inside was just a good thought, but not something that could be nurtured in a formal religious setting. Just my thought.
Click to expand...
My thouhts exactly. The change in the habit was only valid to those areas in which it is a detriment. The rest of the Order still wear the habit. Even those priests who remove the habit for ministry’s sake wear it in formal liturgical settings and when they are away from the area of their apostolate. In my experience, the discarding of the habit happens more readily with those who have experienced religious life before Vatican II (oddly enough). At least in the pontifical rite orders, habit wearing is making a comeback among the younger members.
rom said:
Thank you for your contributions here at CAF. Are you a priest, or hoping to be one?
Click to expand...
You’re very welcome. I’m currently a Simple Professed seminarian with the Order of Clerics Regular Minor. I’m stationed in the Philippines and haven’t been able to learn the language yet, so I have taken up CAF so I can have at least some apostolate until the time when I become fluent.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top