Thank you for pointing this document out, I will have to read it in full when I have the time but…
What the pope said in the excerpt you have provide does not disagree with what I said. There is a subtle difference but it is there.
The pope said that the habit is a sort of witness, we could argue the exact meaning of what he said but I won’t. I said that religious do not wear the habit as a witness.
I do not see where the Pope said that a habit is a “sort of a witness”. He stated that people are sensitive to signs. He then stated that religious have a role to play because they are called to be a witness to their belonging to Christ. He went on to say that the habit is a visible sign of consecration.
See the difference? While it may be a witness, that is not the intention of the habit for religious.
Yes I see the difference but I would also humbly suggest that it is not necessarily up to the religious what aspects of their lives resonate with the lay faithful.
The Church goes out of her way to stimulate all of our body’s senses because in her wisdom she recognizes that touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound are all important aspects of our humanity. It is not necessary for a priest to wear his vestments or the roman collar for him to be a priest. It is not necessary for a church building to be beautiful for the sacrifice of the Mass to take place. We do it because visible signs are important and the Church recognizes this.
In a secular comparison, a physician has no reason to wear a lab coat into the exam room but they do to create the proper visible impression associated with their station in life. Do airline pilots really need to be in pseudo military uniforms to fly a commercial plane? Hardly, but it again serves as a visible sign as to who and what they are. A habit for someone who is consecrated religious can serve in similar capacity regardless of their original intent.
In the Decree on the Renewal and Adaptation of Religious Life it states that a habit is intended to be an outward mark of consecration to God. An outward mark obviously creates the intent for someone to see such a mark and be affected by it. St. Basil stated that the value of a religious habit is to help the one who wears it to realize his station in life and protect him from unbecoming conduct. So, I am in complete agreement that there are other reasons for wearing the habit than serving as a sign or witness to others. But that does not mean that a religious wearing his/her habit serving as a sign or witness to others can be discounted either. It can easily be both, rather than either/or.
I would also humbly suggest that one never knows how God is going to use things to further His plan. If a member of the laity looks at the religious differently because he/she is wearing the habit and that causes them to contemplate the meaning of religious consecration in some way, perhaps that is how God wants it. If a student in junior high looks at a religious sister differently because she is in the habit and that causes him or her to act more appropriately, perhaps that is part of God’s plan. Hopefully, we’ll all find out some day and we can talk about it then…
Though it is no excuse, lay people saying that a religious is somehow deficient because they do not live up to the standard they (the lay people) set is not condescending? If you do not believe that lay people do this just do a search on this topic and you will find it.
I’m sure there are those who act in such fashion but I do not think they represent the majority. It was Fulton Sheen who said:
Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our Priests and Religious. Your mission is to see that your Priests act like Priests, your Bishops like Bishops and your Religious act like Religious. I’m sure some take that too far but it would also suggest however that the laity do have some role in the process.
Our primary witness is our public vows.
Agreed, without a doubt.
None of this has anything to do with the OP or topic of the thread which is the wearing of habits by lay members of an order. I am in agreement that such a thing is likely a bad idea. I personally would not want to do so. If I were to go on a retreat with the order and the option existed to wear the habit, I would likely do so. I would also be interested in burial in the habit. Should I get to the point where I am accepted into the Dominican Laity I will explore those things. But I have no desire to walk into my anatomical assessment class Wed morning wearing a habit. You can be sure of that.
I’m mainly confused about why SFO’s are or aren’t different than any other third order? Are they or aren’t they? I mean wouldn’t it still be a vocation? And why would it be so bad for a secular person joining a third order to wear the full habit? Because wouldn’t they still be a part of that order or not?
I’m not trying to argue, I’m just trying to understand.
