No Habits?

[wina]

I hate to say this, because it’s my generation. But I don’t happen to share it’s views on this point or many points regarding religious life. I hate to say it, but I believe that until we see that whole generation of people born between 1950 - 1970 die off, you’re not going to see radical changes in religious life. That generation, which as I said, happens to be my generation, became so involved in analyzing faith, analyzing religious life and traditions and they became overly concerned with personal growth and personal achievement and self-awareness and their personal journey to God, that they went overboard with all of this stuff.

As a theologian I can tell you that language does shape the way that we think. It’s not just that it expresses what we think. But the more that we use certain key phrases in our daily vocabulary, the more we believe them. These phrases become our dogmas or the rules that guide our lives.

One word that entered reiligious life and almost destroyed it during the 1970s was “maturity” Eveyrone was talking about being a mature Christian or Christian maturity. You no longer needed a reliigious superior to be your father or mother, because you were a mature Christian. You no longer needed a habit to define you, because mature people are self-defined.

Well what they did was that instead of improving religious life, they almost destroyed it, because they changed the classical meaning of mature. Mature means that which has achieved it’s end. No one is mature. Everyone is still growing up. We will be on our journey toward maturity until we die.

Since we are not mature, we do need structure and rules and authority. I find it interesting that one of the most competent organisms in the world happens to be the Armed Forces of most countries. The Armed Forces have all kinds of authority, uniforms, customs, rules and regulations that go back hundreds of years. They are very proud of them. One of the best trained armies in the world is the Israeli Army. When I was there, I noticed that they have more structure than a moanstery. I would not call any of these people immature. They have a mission and everything in their life has a purpose and a meaning. They understand this. They comply, even when they disagree.

This is what religious lost. We adotped a philosophy or paradigm that not only is it OK to disagree with tradition, rules and authority, but it’s a right and a duty to do so, otherwise you’re not a thinking person. That’s the biggest load of nonsense that I have ever heard. The holiest men and women in our history were the most compliant and least preocuppied about themselves.

Francis of Assis wore a habit, because it meant something to him. Not because it was a fashion statement. It reminded him of what he was. He was a poor man. He was a son of the Church. He was an itinerant preacher. He was worker. He was the father of a great family and still is, because I don’t think that there is another spiritual father in the Church who is as loved by his sons and daughters as is St. Francis by the Franciscan family. We’re very proud of our spiritual father…

But we too have caved to the secular thinking of the world. Listen to how we talk about habits. We don’t stop and talk about tradition, identity, the importance of a visible Church in the market place. We talk about what is practical, what is comfortable, what is consistent with being a professional. In other words, it’s a lot of talk about us and very little talk about our tradition, our history and our mission in the world, which is to make the Church very visible.

Man needs God. God does not need man. We promised to bring the Kingdom into the world by living according to the Evangelical Counsels. Therefore, we promised to make the Kingdom visible to man. It begins with symbols. It cannot stay there. If all you do is walk around in your habit and you do nothign else for the Church, you are useless. But symbols are very important to human beings. They speak to us much more deeply than words.

When we see a soldier or a flag, we think of our nation. When we see a lab coat or a white uniform, we know that we’re in the presence of a medical professional. And like this there are many symbols. Some of them we wear and some of them we disply. All of them are needed.

Until the baby-boomer generation retires, I don’t see much change coming. I’m seeing the change coming from the John Paul II generation. Our friars are mostly under 40. They are much more centered on tradition and wanting to reach Christ following the footsteps of St. Francis, than the over 40 crowd. The over 40 crowd wants to reach Christ too. But it seems that they want to do it on their terms, not on the terms of our traditions.

By the way, I do not label myself a traditionalist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well said

 

[albertziggy]

(shortened…) I hate to say this, because it’s my generation. But I don’t happen to share it’s views on this point or many points regarding religious life. I hate to say it, but I believe that until we see that whole generation of people born between 1950 - 1970 die off, you’re not going to see radical changes in religious life.

As a theologian I can tell you that language does shape the way that we think. It’s not just that it expresses what we think. But the more that we use certain key phrases in our daily vocabulary, the more we believe them. These phrases become our dogmas or the rules that guide our lives.

One word that entered reiligious life and almost destroyed it during the 1970s was “maturity” Eveyrone was talking about being a mature Christian or Christian maturity. You no longer needed a reliigious superior to be your father or mother, because you were a mature Christian. You no longer needed a habit to define you, because mature people are self-defined.

Well what they did was that instead of improving religious life, they almost destroyed it, because they changed the classical meaning of mature. Mature means that which has achieved it’s end. No one is mature. Everyone is still growing up. We will be on our journey toward maturity until we die.
.

This is what religious lost. We adotped a philosophy or paradigm that not only is it OK to disagree with tradition, rules and authority, but it’s a right and a duty to do so, otherwise you’re not a thinking person. That’s the biggest load of nonsense that I have ever heard. The holiest men and women in our history were the most compliant and least preocuppied about themselves.

Until the baby-boomer generation retires, I don’t see much change coming.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Br. JR:

You hit it right on the head. It seems that the baby–boomer generation to which you and I belong, have taken the religious life to a different route. From where I come from these changes came in the name of ‘personal wholeness’. I would blame this reason for the watering down of the view of the evangelical counsels. Take for instance poverty. For the fear of developing ‘hostile behavioral patterns’ such as living miserable destitution, evangelical poverty simply means ‘being detached, period ’ (‘Oh, it’s ok to have X, as long as you feel God is calling you to let go, you can keep it’.) To me, that is just short of saying ‘being attached with a bag of alibis’.

You mentioned how language affects the way we think. It makes me wonder how influential the term ‘secular’ and ‘secularity’ has on us as Secular Franciscans. The popular meanings are not at all pleasant. Could it be one of the reasons why we are still at a loss as to our identity?

I once read an article where the writer praised a Secular Franciscan fraternity because its members addressed each other with secular titles instead of being brothers and sisters. He believed that our order should develop a secular nature. That was not what St. Francis had in mind. Thank goodness he’s retired.

I just hope we don’t have to wait for the dying-off of the baby-boomer generation. I would like to see the changes in my lifetime.

In Christ,
albertziggy

 

[jimcintosh]

That was not what St. Francis had in mind. Thank goodness he’s retired.

Retired? St. Francis is dead! hahaha Sorry.

But, if you want to do what St. Francis had in mind, you’ll have a lot of work to do.

Francis founded the first order as a group of men who lived and worked in the world. The latest scholarship suggests that the Rule for the Hermitages was, in fact, the normal life of the brotherhood. Some were devoted to prayer, and the others went out to work to provide for the community. When there wasn’t enough provided in wages, they begged like the poor do. Then, after some period of time, the roles were reversed and those who were devoted to prayer went out to work and the others then turned to prayer. Those who went out to work, did so with their hands.

After the great clericalization of the order, however, the friars came to more and more see their work as sacramental work. It was under the generalship of only the fourth general minister, Haymo of Faversham (1240-1243), that the order decided not to accept any more lay brothers. As you can see by the dates, this was relatively early in the life of the order.

Since the brothers were now removed from the world, it fell to the seculars to be the Franciscan transforming agent in the world. Seculars have access to places I, as a friar, could never go. Imagine if there had been a secular in Goldman Sacks! Seculars can be involved in the world of banking, of politics, in all the endeavors of the world and can bring the Franciscan message to life in all these places.

It is a special vocation, and one that is open only to the seculars. I would embrace this vocation rather than worrying about what titles people use to address one another in a fraternity meeting.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Forgive me if I sound a little morbid, but I love black habits, such as those of the Benedictines, Servites, and Augustinians. Interestingly, though, the Augustinian devotional scapular is white. Obviously, about 3 layers of black clothing can be stifling in August, but, if I join an order with such an habit, I will just have to become used to it. Priests at the altar have to do that, I would think, if their church has no air-conditioning.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Since we are talking a lot about Franciscans, are there any major differences between Third Order Franciscans Regular and other religious Franciscans(including the Capuchins)?

 

[buffalo]

They choose not to wear the bridal dress of Christ anymore.

 

[Young_Thinker]

They choose not to wear the bridal dress of Christ anymore.

Thank you, sir. However, I am confused. Are you talking about their habit(I believe that it is black rather than gray or brown), or do they forbid ordination?

 

[buffalo]

Thank you, sir. However, I am confused. Are you talking about their habit(I believe that it is black rather than gray or brown), or do they forbid ordination?

The habit is known as the bridal dress of Christ.

 

[Young_Thinker]

The habit is known as the bridal dress of Christ.

I see.

 

[JReducation]

Since we are talking a lot about Franciscans, are there any major differences between Third Order Franciscans Regular and other religious Franciscans(including the Capuchins)?

The Third Order Regular (TOR) follows the same rule as the SFO. Because they are the same order. One arm is for seculars and the other for religious menn or women. They came out of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance very shortly after Francis’ death. But they were given the title “Regular” because it was common to refer to those who lived in religious communities as “regular” from the Latin “regula”, meaning those bound to a rule of life. They were originally secular priests who had joined the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. Just like many secular priests join the SFO today. They began to gather into communities. Eventually they were separated from the secular Brothers and Sisters of Penance (SFO) and were given their own government and they made solemn vows. This process took over 100 years. But their origins date back to about 1228. They became very popular in France after the French had kicked out all the religious. They reintroduced the Franciscan life to France. That’s why their habit is a copy of the habit of the Conventual Friars Minor, but it has pleats. The pleats were very typical of French culture.

The Capuchins are not part of the Third Order. They are Friars Minor, just like the OFMs and OFM Conv. That’s why you see OFM Cap after their name. They were five friars who joined together to live a more penitential and poorer life. Two came from the Observants (OFM today) and three came from the Conventuals (OFM Conv today). It was not Matthew Fosombroni’s intention to found an order. He was their first superior. That’s why he’s never called their founder. In fact, he later returned to the Conventual friary where he came from. For a long time, the little group of friars were bounced around between the Conventuals and the Observants. They were finally erected as a province. But that did not work out. There were many conflicts between them and the Observant and Conventual friars, They didn’t fit into either group. Although they were Friars Minor and followed the same rule, they had a very different lifestyle and a very different approach to ministry. They were finally given their own government. They became an autonomous branch of the Friars Minor.

Three centuries later the small Franciscan groups were gathered into one large order by Pope Leo XII. It is often referred to as the Leonine Union. Since each group had its own name, when they were unified under one Minister General, they were simply called Franciscans. The largest number of friars came from the group called Observants. Today we simply call them the Franciscans (OFM).

The Capuchins have always been Friars Minor and followed that rule. The TOR have always been Brothers of Penance and follow that rule. Canonically, the TOR and the SFO are one order, but two different arms of the same order. The Capuchins, Conventuals and Franciscans are also one order, with three arms. The Conventuals trace their superiors back to Brother Elias without branching out. The OFM and OFM Cap can also trace their roots back to Elias, but they are like branches on a tree. The reason that I mention Elias is because these divisions begin under the government of Brother Elias, who of course was the canonical successor to Francis. Those friars who were faithful to the reforms instituted by Elias moved into large houses called convents, thus the name Conventual Friars. The name Franciscan did not come up until many many years later.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

The Third Order Regular (TOR) follows the same rule as the SFO. Because they are the same order. One arm is for seculars and the other for religious menn or women. They came out of the Brothers and Sisters of Penance very shortly after Francis’ death. But they were given the title “Regular” because it was common to refer to those who lived in religious communities as “regular” from the Latin “regula”, meaning those bound to a rule of life. They were originally secular priests who had joined the Brothers and Sisters of Penance. Just like many secular priests join the SFO today. They began to gather into communities. Eventually they were separated from the secular Brothers and Sisters of Penance (SFO) and were given their own government and they made solemn vows. This process took over 100 years. But their origins date back to about 1228. They became very popular in France after the French had kicked out all the religious. They reintroduced the Franciscan life to France. That’s why their habit is a copy of the habit of the Conventual Friars Minor, but it has pleats. The pleats were very typical of French culture.

The Capuchins are not part of the Third Order. They are Friars Minor, just like the OFMs and OFM Conv. That’s why you see OFM Cap after their name. They were five friars who joined together to live a more penitential and poorer life. Two came from the Observants (OFM today) and three came from the Conventuals (OFM Conv today). It was not Matthew Fosombroni’s intention to found an order. He was their first superior. That’s why he’s never called their founder. In fact, he later returned to the Conventual friary where he came from. For a long time, the little group of friars were bounced around between the Conventuals and the Observants. They were finally erected as a province. But that did not work out. There were many conflicts between them and the Observant and Conventual friars, They didn’t fit into either group. Although they were Friars Minor and followed the same rule, they had a very different lifestyle and a very different approach to ministry. They were finally given their own government. They became an autonomous branch of the Friars Minor.

Three centuries later the small Franciscan groups were gathered into one large order by Pope Leo XII. It is often referred to as the Leonine Union. Since each group had its own name, when they were unified under one Minister General, they were simply called Franciscans. The largest number of friars came from the group called Observants. Today we simply call them the Franciscans (OFM).

The Capuchins have always been Friars Minor and followed that rule. The TOR have always been Brothers of Penance and follow that rule. Canonically, the TOR and the SFO are one order, but two different arms of the same order. The Capuchins, Conventuals and Franciscans are also one order, with three arms. The Conventuals trace their superiors back to Brother Elias without branching out. The OFM and OFM Cap can also trace their roots back to Elias, but they are like branches on a tree. The reason that I mention Elias is because these divisions begin under the government of Brother Elias, who of course was the canonical successor to Francis. Those friars who were faithful to the reforms instituted by Elias moved into large houses called convents, thus the name Conventual Friars. The name Franciscan did not come up until many many years later.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I appreciate your information, Brother. Experience obviously can teach one a lot.

 

[JReducation]

The habit is known as the bridal dress of Christ.

Not in the Franciscan tradition. We have never had that custom of calling it that. Our habits are a sign of penance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[buffalo]

Not in the Franciscan tradition. We have never had that custom of calling it that. Our habits are a sign of penance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I thought this was a thread about females.

 

[JReducation]

I thought this was a thread about females.

No, this is thread about habits. But just to answer your question, St. Clare did not refer to the habit as a wedding garment either. That as a concept that was introduced into the Church long after the monastic and mendicant orders were founded. It only those newer congregation, not orders, that use this language. The orders do not use this language.

We have to be very careful, because there are orders and congregations. Orders do not use the same language nor do they have the same customs and regulations as congregations. The average Catholic has never seen a member of a religious order. Most have see either secular clergy or clerks regular or congregatioins of religious.

Religious orders do very little parish work, so there is very little contact between us and the people in the pew. Most of us woerk in other minstries or are enclosed or semi-enclosed. We have a very different take on the habit. To us the habit is the garment of penance, not a wedding garment. That’s a term used only by religious congregations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[buffalo]

No, this is thread about habits. But just to answer your question, St. Clare did not refer to the habit as a wedding garment either. That as a concept that was introduced into the Church long after the monastic and mendicant orders were founded. It only those newer congregation, not orders, that use this language. The orders do not use this language.

We have to be very careful, because there are orders and congregations. Orders do not use the same language nor do they have the same customs and regulations as congregations. The average Catholic has never seen a member of a religious order. Most have see either secular clergy or clerks regular or congregatioins of religious.

Religious orders do very little parish work, so there is very little contact between us and the people in the pew. Most of us woerk in other minstries or are enclosed or semi-enclosed. We have a very different take on the habit. To us the habit is the garment of penance, not a wedding garment. That’s a term used only by religious congregations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you.

 

[jimcintosh]

The Third Order Regular (TOR) follows the same rule as the SFO. Because they are the same order. One arm is for seculars and the other for religious menn or women.

The TORs do not follow the same Rule as the SFO.

The SFO Rule was approved by Pope Paul VI in 1978 and can be found here: nafra-sfo.org/sforule.html

The TOR Rule was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1982 and can be found here: franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/resources/stf_rule_of_the_third_order_regular.htm

For those interested in the history of the TOR, it can be found here: franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/resources/Histories_Third_Order_Regular/stf_brief_history_of_the_order.htm

Three centuries later the small Franciscan groups were gathered into one large order by Pope Leo XII. It is often referred to as the Leonine Union. Since each group had its own name, when they were unified under one Minister General, they were simply called Franciscans. The largest number of friars came from the group called Observants. Today we simply call them the Franciscans (OFM).

Yes, the Leonine Union involved bring back together the Recollects, the Observants, etc. but these groups had always operated under one general minister. Since the time of the establishment of the Caps, there have been three first order general ministers in Rome. There were complicated rules governing who could be elected the OFM general minister (one time, someone from Italy, the next time, someone in Spain, etc.) but there had always been only one general minister governing all these diverse groups (albeit with various general vicars). Since the Caps and the Conventuals chose not to be part of the union, the Leonine Union was more settling on one habit, the union of different houses where they existed within the same province, etc.

The Conventuals trace their superiors back to Brother Elias without branching out. The OFM and OFM Cap can also trace their roots back to Elias, but they are like branches on a tree. The reason that I mention Elias is because these divisions begin under the government of Brother Elias, who of course was the canonical successor to Francis. Those friars who were faithful to the reforms instituted by Elias moved into large houses called convents, thus the name Conventual Friars.

Elias has been blamed for many things over the years, but I have never read that any divisions began that early in the history of the order. The first main division was the Spiritual Franciscans and that didn’t really get going until 1280, well after Elias. That particular reform was suppressed, mainly by Pope John XXII declaring that Jesus had never been poor and then declaring anyone who thought otherwise was a heretic. Since the Inquisition had by that time been started, it was a simple matter to round up the Spirituals to allow some to recant and burn the rest at the stake. The next major reform was the Observants (now OFM) and then the Capuchin reform.

I’d love to see your sources for saying any of that started under Elias.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Here’s a potentially silly question. It was mentioned on this thread or another of only having one habit and wearing a roman collar whilst washing that habit. I have read in other rules and constitutions of having two habits (like a thick one for winter and a worn one for summer).

So, what do the religious do when after doing their labor and getting sweaty, dirty and grimy and then having to go to pray, say, Evening Prayer. Do they go to community prayer in such a dirty state? Are their prescriptions for how often to wash the habits and themselves? (like I said, maybe a silly question)

 

[Ocarm]

So, what do the religious do when after doing their labor and getting sweaty, dirty and grimy and then having to go to pray, say, Evening Prayer. Do they go to community prayer in such a dirty state? Are their prescriptions for how often to wash the habits and themselves? (like I said, maybe a silly question)

In contemporary times, many religious would remove their habit when doing the kind of manual labour that involves dirt or sweat. And these days many religious wouldn’t engage in that kind of labour in the first place.

Working on the premise that the habit must be worn, and the work must be done, it has to be worn in whatever state it is found; I can certainly think of occasions when mine was less than pristine by the time evening prayer came round.

Historically this may have been less of an issue in some institutes - I emphasise ‘some’, I’m not attempting to speak for all communities. In the medieval era, manual labour was often carried out by lay brothers, many of whom were not educated in Latin and liturgy, and who would thus have said an abbreviated or simplified version of the divine office. Of course, there were also different standards of cleanliness then, with soap and hot water being in short supply.

In my own order (the Carmelites) older lay brothers whom I’ve spoken to recount having prayer separate to brothers who were clerics or preparing for orders - and this in the second half of the 20th century. Again, manual labour would have been reserved to them at this stage. I’m not aware of constitutions addressing this, although there may previously have been such instructions.

One point worth making is that the full length scapular worn in some institutes was originally a work apron, worn precisely so as to keep the tunic clean; if a capuche was also used, it would be removed and replaced by the scapular, which was typically taken off after work was over and not worn to prayers. Later the scapular became more obviously associated with the dress of the the order of Carmelites and so was in evidence all the time: now the one occasion where it definitely wouldn’t be worn is when doing manual work.

 

[JReducation]

The TORs do not follow the same Rule as the SFO.

The SFO Rule was approved by Pope Paul VI in 1978 and can be found here: nafra-sfo.org/sforule.html

The TOR Rule was approved by Pope John Paul II in 1982 and can be found here: franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/resources/stf_rule_of_the_third_order_regular.htm

Maybe my wording is not clear or not specific enough. Yes, they have two rules approved by John Paul and Paul VI, but they come from the same original rule of penance. Through the centuries the TOR have had all kinds of modifictiions in order to adapt the rule of penance to religious life. The two rules, Paul VI and John Paul’s actually stem from the one.

For those interested in the history of the TOR, it can be found here: franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/resources/Histories_Third_Order_Regular/stf_brief_history_of_the_order.htm

I’ve never looked at this site. In addition to that site, for those who don’t like to read long things from a monitor, I read a book that I really liked, The origins of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis of Assisi by Francesco Bordoni.

Elias has been blamed for many things over the years, but I have never read that any divisions began that early in the history of the order. The first main division was the Spiritual Franciscans and that didn’t really get going until 1280,

I’d love to see your sources for saying any of that started under Elias.

The Capuchin traditon traces the beginnings of conflict within the order, over such things as property, back to the reforms that Elias tried to introduce and the struggle between the friars: to follow Francis to the letter or Elias who seemed to have stronger administrative skills and seemed more practical for a large community. It is true, that the first formally named group were the Spirituals, but that was not the beginning of the debates about the rule, particularly about poverty.

I think that we’re looking at the same things, but from different historical perspectives. There is no correct or incorrect perspective. When it comes to history, there are always many perspectives and all are equally right and equally wrong, because each has only some pieces of the picture. Only those who were there know the whole story and sometimes I wonder. LOL

Yes, Elias has been blamed for many things. My take is that he was a very complex man. I’ve often wondered if he was out of his time zone. Much of what we read about him sounds much more like things that are said today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

In contemporary times, many religious would remove their habit when doing the kind of manual labour that involves dirt or sweat. And these days many religious wouldn’t engage in that kind of labour in the first place.

Working on the premise that the habit must be worn, and the work must be done, it has to be worn in whatever state it is found; I can certainly think of occasions when mine was less than pristine by the time evening prayer came round.

Historically this may have been less of an issue in some institutes - I emphasise ‘some’, I’m not attempting to speak for all communities. In the medieval era, manual labour was often carried out by lay brothers, many of whom were not educated in Latin and liturgy, and who would thus have said an abbreviated or simplified version of the divine office. Of course, there were also different standards of cleanliness then, with soap and hot water being in short supply.

In my own order (the Carmelites) older lay brothers whom I’ve spoken to recount having prayer separate to brothers who were clerics or preparing for orders - and this in the second half of the 20th century. Again, manual labour would have been reserved to them at this stage. I’m not aware of constitutions addressing this, although there may previously have been such instructions.

One point worth making is that the full length scapular worn in some institutes was originally a work apron, worn precisely so as to keep the tunic clean; if a capuche was also used, it would be removed and replaced by the scapular, which was typically taken off after work was over and not worn to prayers. Later the scapular became more obviously associated with the dress of the the order of Carmelites and so was in evidence all the time: now the one occasion where it definitely wouldn’t be worn is when doing manual work.

In my own tradition the idea of cleanliness doesn’t seem to have ever been a major concern. This is not to say that Franciscans are slobs, but I have never heard anyone say that it was a real concern. I’m wondering if that was more a concern in communiteis of women.

In the renewal communities among Franciscans today, the habit is worn 24/7. Right now there are at least eight such communities in the USA alone. We all wear the habit 24/7. We no longer have the segregation between clerical and non-clerical brothers, except for sacamental matters. Everyone does their fair share of manual labor. Some friars do very technical work such as mechanics, carpentry and other such work. Others do a little of everything: cooking, sewing, cleaning etc. Others do more pastoral and academic work. A lot depends on the skills and needs of the situation. But the habit is still worn.

Something that has always puzzled me and maybe some of our Carmelite brothers can clarity for me. I’m noticiing an increase the number of Franciscan communities that are coming from the three branches of the Friars Minor or being founded with the same rule. The common thread among them is the search for greater austerity, get away from parishes, increase prayer life and greater poverty. Then there are specific ministries too.

Here is my question. Is it that we don’t hear about it or are there no such movements within the Carmelite family? I have only known two Carmelite obediences: Primitive and Discalced.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF