Third Orders (secular)

[Cloisters]

I always enjoy your posts and seek them out. In this case, your post brings back many memories.

I vividly remember having the chance to experience that of which you speak in a visit in the United States back in the 1970s; it was related to what were historically called third orders secular but also involved the new ecclesial movements and other aspects related to the laity then emerging. I remember the differences between all four Dominican provinces then being quite stark, just as you delineate it…but in more than simply what concerned the Dominican Laity.

With the renewal of the role of the laity in the Church there were marked re-visioning for these various groups, and those of like sort, whose categories changed even more with the new Code of Canon Law, which is still having impact on them after more than 30 years of existing.

One thing of import is, however, that different groups have made different provisions as they have continued to evolve in the aftermath of the Council and the renewal it engendered. And this may be important for those discerning becoming a member of such a group as well as for these groups concerning their on-going existence. Some are simply better situated, by how they have evolved, to be compatible with the needs/limitations of certain categories of people. That is my observation.

You have seen the whole spectrum from when the model for a Lay Dominican was religious life to when that model was completely rejected to when it was partially re-claimed in some attenuated sense. It has been quite a journey. I remember particularly from that era the plight of one who wanted to be a lay Dominican but could not because of an inability to attend meetings – and this absolutely precluded admission.

I have to admit, I am warmly supportive of the change in titles…moderator and so forth is better than titles such as prior/prioress, novice master/mistress, and others derived from Religious Life. The change to the use of the same post nominal, on the other hand, I have ambivalence about, especially as it touches on the laity…even though I understand the justification for it. I should not be surprised if that gets re-visited, eventually.

Your remembrances certainly evoked many memories from long ago.

Thank you for the affirmation, particularly in this time of grief.

I have used TOP and TOSD in the past. I’ve noticed OPA for associates attached to convents, and OPL in other places. I still cringe using “OP” after my name.

When I called a member of my former chapter in the Eastern Province, she said the changes had taken place there, and she was supportive of them.

I think what needs to take place now is the Master General getting some laity formators together with all their materials, see what’s common, and what’s not, and come up with one Ratio.

 

[Cloisters]

An important document regarding the lay vocation (most tertiaries are lay persons):

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici.html

Reading St. JPII’s writings are a process, not an event. Thanks for the link, though, I have bookmarked it.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The fact that these Orders actually have laity was groundbreaking in and of itself at the time of their foundations. The great orders that existed before these usually wanted nothing to do with women or laity.

The Secular Franciscans are an actual free-standing Order in and of itself. Francis also said that anyone could be the superior general (not sure what they’re called). As of late, their lead “servant” was an SFO.

If you mean the OFS (SFO), their minister general is always an OFS

 

[Cloisters]

If you mean the OFS (SFO), their minister general is always an OFS

From the “grapevine” I had heard that some Franciscan organization had elected a layperson as it’s head honcho, and it wasn’t the layperson’s branch.

 

[Bookcat]

Reading St. JPII’s writings are a process, not an event. Thanks for the link, though, I have bookmarked it.

Tis not of that kind of writing. Rather straight forward - not some high philosophy.

This one is extremely important for tertiaries to read…and in fact for all lay persons to read.

 

[Cloisters]

Tis not of that kind of writing. Rather straight forward - not some high philosophy.

This one is extremely important for tertiaries to read…and in fact for all lay persons to read.

I realize that, but when one scores 96 out if 100 on the attention deficit disorder scale, reading his works are truly a process.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

From the “grapevine” I had heard that some Franciscan organization had elected a layperson as it’s head honcho, and it wasn’t the layperson’s branch.

That would be **huge ** news and I have not heard of it

 

[PapyrusDouay]

From the “grapevine” I had heard that some Franciscan organization had elected a layperson as it’s head honcho, and it wasn’t the layperson’s branch.

I’m not sure what this could be either. The ministers gerneral for all three First Order Franciscans are ordained. One possibile explanation…if you hear specifically heard the term “lay”, non-ordained friars are called “lay brothers”…one does not have to be ordained to be in the highest positions of the Order. It could be that a lay brother is a provincial minister somewhere…or some other position.

It was just a thought…although I am curious, especially if it’s actually a secular person. It wouldn’t be the case with any of the first orders, and the Franciscan Regular/Religious/ non-secular Third Orders are so varied I have no idea what could be possible, and cant even begin to guess.

And also just some simplified clarification for everyone, to explain what I’m talking about… Secular = not ordained. Lay = not in Consecrated Life. So…most members of third orders are Lay and Secular. A diocesan priest/deacon/bishop in OFS or OCDS would be secular but not lay. A non-ordained religious brother or sister would be lay but not secular, and a religious priest would be neither secular nor lay. Often these terms are used interchangeably, and although we usually know what is meant, it can occasionally lead to confusion

 

[Cloisters]

I’m not sure what this could be either. The ministers gerneral for all three First Order Franciscans are ordained. One possibile explanation…if you hear specifically heard the term “lay”, non-ordained friars are called “lay brothers”…one does not have to be ordained to be in the highest positions of the Order. It could be that a lay brother is a provincial minister somewhere…or some other position.

It was just a thought…although I am curious, especially if it’s actually a secular person. It wouldn’t be the case with any of the first orders, and the Franciscan Regular/Religious/ non-secular Third Orders are so varied I have no idea what could be possible, and cant even begin to guess.

And also just some simplified clarification for everyone, to explain what I’m talking about… Secular = not ordained. Lay = not in Consecrated Life. So…most members of third orders are Lay and Secular. A diocesan priest/deacon/bishop in OFS or OCDS would be secular but not lay. A non-ordained religious brother or sister would be lay but not secular, and a religious priest would be neither secular nor lay. Often these terms are used interchangeably, and although we usually know what is meant, it can occasionally lead to confusion

Perhaps it was a non-ordained lay brother. I’m wanting to say JREducation had posted something about it. Or possibly a lay Capuchin online friend. The way it came across was that an OFS had been elected to the position of a religious Minister Generalship, which just about blew my mind.

 

[PapyrusDouay]

And also just some simplified clarification for everyone, to explain what I’m talking about… Secular = not ordained. Lay = not in Consecrated Life.

Oops…other way around. Lay = not ordained. Secular = not in consecrated life… as the rest of my post describes. This is what happens when I post at almost 2:00 in the morning.

 

[Bookcat]

Secular = not in consecrated life.

Though that does not mean there is not a further consecration per se.

 

[carnes88]

Perhaps it was a non-ordained lay brother. I’m wanting to say JREducation had posted something about it. Or possibly a lay Capuchin online friend. The way it came across was that an OFS had been elected to the position of a religious Minister Generalship, which just about blew my mind.

The Minister General for the Secular Franciscan Order has to be a member of the Secular Franciscan order. We are not attached or apart of the friars or the nuns and sisters for we are our own order. The OFS Minister General, who is a Professed OFS, sits on the council with the other Four Franciscan Minister Generals of the Franciscan Order.