74 replies to this topic

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Opinions?

[emmaberry]

Oh goodness. I do have opinions, but I am not going to post them here, as some PMers feel very strongly about the subject, and I do not want to get into a cat fight!

There is a pretty typical dialogue in these habit vs no habit threads. I am guessing this one will follow that same pattern.

Good luck!

[ToJesusMyHeart]

If there is already a thread about this, I apologize for the repetition. Could someone point me to the thread, if it already exists?

Edited by ToJesusMyHeart, 04 August 2012 - 01:33 AM.

[emmaberry]

I am not sure if there is a particular thread-I think the issue has come up when discussing the LCWR and other issues indirectly related to the wearing of secular clothes vs a habit.

Wait, here is a thread: http://www.phatmass....t-on-the-habit/
http://www.phatmass....eligious-habit/
http://www.phatmass....1-how-important-is-the-religious-habit/
This turned into a beast of a habit thread: http://www.phatmass....ah/page__st__80

Hope this helped!

[maximillion]

Both have their own reasons and merit.
Every sister who is habitless will explain why, so will those who do wear the habit. I agree with the above poster in that it can become a very polarised debate - sadly!

[nunsense]

There should be a debate thread inside Vocation Station for things like this - it gets as heated as the Communion in the Hand debates!

[maximillion]

This^^^^^^^^^^^!

[emmaberry]

There should be a debate thread inside Vocation Station for things like this - it gets as heated as the Communion in the Hand debates!

That's a really good comparison-a seemingly small thing (though I think both are large issues) that everyone and their mother has an opinion about!

[organwerke]

I have recently visited a religious community whose sisters always wear a traditional, full habit. They are active, and do a lot of missionary works also in the poorest regions of the world, and they always wear the full habit. This is to say that whatever reasons you will find about the fact that some communities do not wear the habity my opinion is this that to wear a modified habit, or not to wear one, is never a matter of necessity.
This said, I think that to me the habit is very important. It is the first sign of a person's consecration in front of the eyes of the people.
I think it is necessary for members of institutes who make public vows. It is as a nuptial ring for married people. Even more, it is the wedding dress of the brides of christ. I am sure you would never see a girl who get married wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. The habit has its importance, always. We wear a kind of habit for every occasion. The religious habit is worn in every occasion to witness to the people that the person who wears it is a consecrated person and as a reminder of the reality of the Kingdom of God.
This is my humble opinion about the habit...

[abrideofChrist]

Opinions? I'm happy with whatever is approved for each institute. If it is a pin and that is approved, then I will not second guess the bishop or Vatican. One of my favorite communities that was started by a woman who's in a fast track for canonization in our times does not have a habit... they are the male Missionaries of Charity, whose foundress, Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta did not want a habit.

I think it is necessary for members of institutes who make public vows. It is as a nuptial ring for married people. Even more, it is the wedding dress of the brides of christ. I am sure you would never see a girl who get married wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt. The habit has its importance, always. We wear a kind of habit for every occasion. The religious habit is worn in every occasion to witness to the people that the person who wears it is a consecrated person and as a reminder of the reality of the Kingdom of God.
This is my humble opinion about the habit...

I don't share that opinion. Maybe because my wedding dress of the "brides of Christ" was a wedding dress. I'm a consecrated virgin, and the proper sign of my espousals with Christ is my wedding band. This wedding band is a witness to the people that the person who wears it is a consecrated person and reminds them of the reality of the Kingdom of God. To equate the habit with a wedding dress makes one wonder what a friar's habit signifies.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Do consecrated virgins go by "Sister" or just their baptismal name?

[abrideofChrist]

Do consecrated virgins go by "Sister" or just their baptismal name?

Depends. Religious nuns who have received the Consecration of virginity (over and above their religious profession) go by "Sister" or "Mother" or "Abbess" or whatever their title in religion is. Consecrated virgins "living in the world" go by their title(s) in the world. Take for example, one of our more famous CV's, Dr. Janet Smith. Various written and spoken forms of address for her could be:

Dr. Janet Smith
Rev. Dr. Janet Smith
Rev. Miss Janet Smith
Janet Smith, PhD
Janet Smith, PhD, OCV (or OV)
Janet Smith, OCV
Rev. Janet Smith, PhD, OCV
etc.

Some CVs were formerly religious or are currently also diocesan hermits, and have permission from their bishop to use the title of "Sister". This is rare. Sister Wendy Becket comes to mind. I know a CV who has a papal knighthood and other titles. She could be "Rev. Dame/Lady Agnes Lamb". (Sorry, I can't be more specific here.. I don't want to identify her with all the titles she has the right to use). Reverend, Miss, OCV, and OV are proper ways of identifying a consecrated virgin and may be used in combination with their other social, academic, honorary, and professional titles. The most polite way is to go with the preference of the Consecrated Virgin in question.

[mantellata]

The male missionaries of Charity do wear a habit -- http://www.mcpriests.com/01_who.htm It's a grey-blue sort of affair with the same cross pin on the shoulders that the Sisters wear.

The religious life is a symbol of the bridal union of Christ - this does include men, though women "image" this better. This is discussed in the documents of Vatican II and those following on religious life -- see Vita Consecrata http://www.vatican.v...secrata_en.html. Before God we all have a feminine or receptive stance -- whether we are male or female. John of the Cross also spoke of himself in a mystical marriage with Christ. Today we express this using the word union rather than marriage when we are speaking of men - but the Theology holds.

Religious must, according to the Church, wear a "distinctive garb" (see Essential Elements http://www.vatican.v...us-life_en.html) since they are public witnesses to the life of Resurrection -- but there are many ways in which this "distinctive garb" can be worn. For many it is a "traditional" or perhaps better put "monastic" habit. For others - it is something more akin to our own clothes. Generally the idea is to have something distinct and recognizable for that particular institute. Take for example the Servants of God's Love -- a wonderful community that is faithful to the Magisterium and lives the active religious life authentically. http://www.servantsofgodslove.net/ They wear navy, white and wheat colors and have a "mix and match" assortment of "outfits" -- a sort of habit (non monastic) -- and no veil. Personally I am a huge fan of the habit and the veil - yet this doesn't mean that there are not variations on the theme that are authentic and in line with the Magisterium. I do not believe the intent of the Council was ever to do away with the habit completely - as is evidenced in the line of emphasis in this regards in all the official post-Conciliar documents that followed Vita Consecrata.

Edited by mantellata, 04 August 2012 - 08:13 PM.

[abrideofChrist]

The religious life is a symbol of the bridal union of Christ - this does include men, though women "image" this better. This is discussed in the documents of Vatican II and those following on religious life -- see Vita Consecrata http://www.vatican.v...secrata_en.html. Before God we all have a feminine or receptive stance -- whether we are male or female. John of the Cross also spoke of himself in a mystical marriage with Christ. Today we express this using the word union rather than marriage when we are speaking of men - but the Theology holds.

Exactly, but only Consecrated Virgins share with the Church the specific title of "Bride of Christ". They fully and completely mirror / image not the bridal union of Christ, but the Church Herself as Virgin, Bride, Mother, and the spousality of the Church with Christ.

Edited by abrideofChrist, 04 August 2012 - 08:36 PM.

[krissylou]

I've noticed that very very very often, both sisters whose communities do not wear a habit as well as those who think the habit is very important will talk in terms of "being accessible."

(I'm talking about active apostolic sisters. The analysis would be different for contemplatives who don't go out-and-about.)

So, for instance, sisters who wear a habit will talk about being on the subway (or whatever), minding their own business, and someone pours out their life story because they just needed to talk to someone and the habit identified them as "safe." Sisters who don't wear a habit will often talk about how a habit can be a barrier, it sets them apart and can be something that needs to be overcome before they can minister.

Well waitaminnit. Some people say "a habit is important because it makes us more accessible!" Some people say "not having a habit is important because a habit makes us less accessible!" What gives? Is one just nuts? Or disingenuous?

I am guessing that for some people, seeing a sister in a habit triggers all sorts of senses of positive associations and paves the way for ministry. For some people it can be quite the opposite. And no one person, or one community, can be all things to all people. But, as any discerner knows, there are about a gazillion different communities out there! And just maybe, it's a really good thing that among all these different communities there are varying approaches so many different aspects of life, including dress.

[TheresaThoma]

I've noticed that very very very often, both sisters whose communities do not wear a habit as well as those who think the habit is very important will talk in terms of "being accessible."

(I'm talking about active apostolic sisters. The analysis would be different for contemplatives who don't go out-and-about.)

So, for instance, sisters who wear a habit will talk about being on the subway (or whatever), minding their own business, and someone pours out their life story because they just needed to talk to someone and the habit identified them as "safe." Sisters who don't wear a habit will often talk about how a habit can be a barrier, it sets them apart and can be something that needs to be overcome before they can minister.

Well waitaminnit. Some people say "a habit is important because it makes us more accessible!" Some people say "not having a habit is important because a habit makes us less accessible!" What gives? Is one just nuts? Or disingenuous?

I am guessing that for some people, seeing a sister in a habit triggers all sorts of senses of positive associations and paves the way for ministry. For some people it can be quite the opposite. And no one person, or one community, can be all things to all people. But, as any discerner knows, there are about a gazillion different communities out there! And just maybe, it's a really good thing that among all these different communities there are varying approaches so many different aspects of life, including dress.

Thank you this is amesome!

[mantellata]

First of all abrideofChrist welcome! I know you have been around for longer than myself here at Phatmass. I haven't however had the pleasure of meeting with you on the boards before. Thank you for your witness to the Church - She is more fruitful as a result of your consecration.

I am curious about the "proper title" of "Bride of Christ" only belonging to Consecrated Virgins. I've discerned the possibility of such a consecration and was a religious under vows for quite sometime.... and I never encountered what you speak of before. (Which doesn't mean it isn't true - I just am unaware of it!) I know that religious life has it's origins in those first virgins who lived in apostolic times and historically, religious (and religious women in particular) have always used and applied the term "Bride of Christ" in referring to themselves. It is also used to refer to those making vows in the liturgy of profession, which actually derives from the ancient consecration of Virgins... so I always assumed - and it seemed - being that it's in the liturgy - that it is a title also bestowed on religious. The reception of the veil in the liturgy of profession is also derived from the same consecration. I would love some further reading material on the matter as Consecrated Virginity is a beautiful and rare vocation in the Church that certainly enriches it.

[Maximilianus]

I'm all for something that makes a religious distinguishable from all the rest, pretty much what Canon 669 says minus the loophole. Doesn't have to be a full medieval habit, but something more than civvies.

Edited by Maximilianus, 04 August 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[BarbaraTherese]

Catholic Catechism
796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.²³⁴ The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."²³⁵ The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.²³⁶ The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.²³⁷ "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."²³⁸ He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:²³⁹
This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church."²⁴⁰ And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."²⁴¹ They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."²⁴²

[mantellata]

Dear Barbara Therese -- I'm not sure if you were replying to me (and I'm afraid at this point I ought to start a new thread) but my question was not that the Church is referred as the Bride of Christ - but that our consecrated virgin friend has informed us that the title is only proper to consecrated Virgins and not in reference to religious. I was always under the impression that they applied to both.