Bride Of Christ

[abrideofChrist]

[quote name='Chiquitunga' timestamp='1344226913' post='2463318']
St. Cecelia's Abbey, Ryde has it, [url="http://blog.farnboroughabbey.org/2012/01/08/st-cecilias-abbey-ryde-2/"]http://blog.farnboro...s-abbey-ryde-2/[/url] and they do the Profession and Consecration at the same time.

For a time after the document [i]Sponsa Christi[/i] (1950) came out (and way before that) Discalced Carmelite Nuns had it (at least Iron Mountain for sure) as I was just reading this not long ago in the book [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000PTMC70/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used"]A Few Lines to Tell You[/url] [/i](1957). It says they brought back the Rite of Consecration of Virgins after [i]Sponsa Christi[/i] and that they did it at the same time as the Solemn Profession. (perhaps when I get the chance, I'll get the book and quote it here)

I am not sure when and why they stopped doing this. It would be interesting to learn if perhaps some Carmels actually still do.. I know Valparaiso doesn't, as I have the program from one of the nun's Solemn Professions .. the same with Iron Mountain.
[/quote]

Thanks for sharing. I didn't know that. I do have documents about the indult of permission to have the Consecration given to a Carmel in Spain - or perhaps a group of Carmels... can't remember and am not going to dig through my papers to find it since it's probably in Latin anyway. The biggest reason I've found that Orders will not do this is because they don't want to "discriminate" against those members who can't receive it. I find this to be sad because it deprives the graces and that special "anointing" for those who have indeed preserved their virginity. When I went to the big gathering in Rome of consecrated virgins - about a week long convention- one of the problems mentioned was the fact that if the Consecration is given to the Community members right at final profession and they leave 5-10 years later... the vows can be dispensed but they are a consecrated virgin. This is one reason why it was traditional in some places to have the consecration conferred after 10, 25 years AFTER solemn profession so that there was a guarantee so to speak of perseverance in the vocation.

[Chiquitunga]

Oh! if at some point you do have the time to dig up that document about the Carmel/s in Spain that received the indult, I would be so grateful!! (two things I have a particular love for, Spanish Carmels and Consecrated Virginity) Thank you for mentioning it anyway. I will look into it. That is most interesting!

Also, I edited my last post since you quoted it a bit, so go back to read it, at least the end. Thanks again for letting me know about Princess Margaret. Here, I will post the article again (very related to the point you are trying to make in this thread) where I had heard of her story before, [url="http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/archives/300"]http://doihaveavocat...og/archives/300[/url] I love what she did!!!

[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

[quote name='abrideofChrist' timestamp='1344227336' post='2463321']The biggest reason I've found that Orders will not do this is because they don't want to "discriminate" against those members who can't receive it. I find this to be sad because it deprives the graces and that special "anointing" for those who have indeed preserved their virginity.[/quote]

This is understandable .. especially in community life. I really wish I could receive the Consecration, God willing, if/when I make Solemn Profession, but I feel I would not want to be made superior in any way to others who could not receive it. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

Edited August 6, 2012 by Chiquitunga

[emmaberry]

[quote name='Chiquitunga' timestamp='1344226913' post='2463318']
I am not sure when and why they stopped doing this. It would be interesting to learn if perhaps some Carmels actually still do.. I know Valparaiso doesn't [b]as I have the program from one of the nun's Solemn Professions[/b] .. the same with Iron Mountain.
[/quote]
Please scan/upload it if at all possible, or if you know of somewhere on the internet where one is, please point me to it. I would love to see one!
[quote name='Chiquitunga' timestamp='1344226913' post='2463318']
[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]What I wonder now regarding Carmelites is (also other mendicants like Poor Clares), did they have it for many years way back .. is it part of their tradition? It said in[i] A Few Lines to Tell You[/i] that it was restored. But now they don't have it, though perhaps some Carmels do by indult. Very interesting .. I have more detective work to do [/background][/size][/font][color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] [/background][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
I would like to know this also.
[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1344225385' post='2463305']
External displays of affection disqualify her from this, but not being a virgin would. Someone mentioned In This House of Brede-a great read!
[/quote]
Facepalm. I meant that external PDA stuff does [b]not[/b] disqualify a women from the consecration. Sorry!

Edited August 6, 2012 by emmaberry

[abrideofChrist]

[quote name='Chiquitunga' timestamp='1344226913' post='2463318']

For a time after the document [i]Sponsa Christi[/i] (1950) came out ...

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]abrideofChrist, first thank you for this informative post! I only read your non-edited version before I posted the above. Interesting okay, so the mendicants rejected it, mostly in Europe .. but some Carmels may have it by indult .. interesting.[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

Yes, you're right Sponsa Christi was in 1950. The prohibition from Rome for bishops to give the Consecration to those in the world came in 1926 ish. (In the 1920's some French women were consecrated and worked for the restoration of the Rite for non-religious which was accomplished in Vatican II). Sorry for my goof up.

The mendicants rejected this from the beginning, in their European foundations (I hate to assign a beginning date for the Carmelites, but we can at least say from when they started up the women's branches in Europe). Their thought was that Solemn Profession was equivalent and sufficient. It is equivalent in the sense that they receive a true consecration (as do all who profess perpetual vows in active congregations, hermitages, and secular institutes). It is not the same thing though. One is a blessing upon the vowed person (the sister/brother makes TO God) and the other is a consecration by God to a virgin specifically espousing her. One is a you make vows and I (God) bless you as a religious, and the other is you present yourself to me and I (God) espouse you as a bride.

The papers I have on the indult for a/some Carmel in Spain are old. Who knows if the convents even still exist. I would suggest just contacting the different Carmels in Spain if you're discerning and see if they have do it (even if the indult exists, they might not use it). The indult applies to the convents named, so it's not like they'd be in the USA.

[abrideofChrist]

[quote name='Chiquitunga' timestamp='1344229209' post='2463334']






[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]This is understandable .. especially in community life. I really wish I could receive the Consecration, God willing, if/when I make Solemn Profession, but I feel I would not want to be made superior in any way to others who could not receive it. [/background][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

Well, it's like saying no guys in a community [where the Rule permits a handful to be ordained for sacramental purposes] can or should be made priests because some others can't receive it. Why deny this blessing to the Church?

[emmaberry]

[quote name='VeniJesuAmorMi' timestamp='1344187693' post='2462975']
This is a very beautiful life, but I've never thought of it before. I would love to give myself to Our Lord in the religious life but its nice to know more about this. The information you've posted is helpful. I was also wondering if one has done things in the past without the knowledge that things they were doing were wrong but later after a conversion whey saw that things they experienced in were sinful; does this mean that one couldn't become a Consecrated Virgin even though things were done against chastity, but still has never been with a man?
[/quote]

VJAM: Please disregard my last post in response to your same question, as my answer is not correct. abrideofChrist put a lot of helpful information in the post right before yours, though.

God bless!

Edited August 6, 2012 by emmaberry

[Chiquitunga]

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='abrideofChrist' timestamp='1344230733' post='2463342']
Well, it's like saying no guys in a community [where the Rule permits a handful to be ordained for sacramental purposes] can or should be made priests because some others can't receive it. Why deny this blessing to the Church?
[/quote][/background][/size][/font][/color]
That's true. Good point.

[quote name='abrideofChrist' timestamp='1344230478' post='2463340']The papers I have on the indult for a/some Carmel in Spain are old. Who knows if the convents even still exist. I would suggest just contacting the different Carmels in Spain if you're discerning and see if they have do it (even if the indult exists, they might not use it). The indult applies to the convents named, so it's not like they'd be in the USA.
[/quote]
Can you say about how old? Thank you!

[Sponsa-Christi]

Hi—I’m a consecrated virgin who lurks here occasionally, though I’ve never posted before. I write the blog “Sponsa Christi,” and I first found Phatmass through the various links to my blog over the years!

This has been a great thread—the historical inter-relationship between the [i]Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity[/i] and the development of religious institutes is really fascinating.

About the mendicant Orders and the [i]Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity[/i]:

I believe that [u]one[/u] reason why the nuns of the “new” mendicant Orders (like the Dominicans and Poor Clares) have never had a tradition of using the [i]Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity[/i] is because at the time they were founded, they were considered less institutionally stable than the older Orders. For example, even though Benedictines live in personal poverty, in the Middle Ages their monasteries could still be quite wealthy—often, they would have had many lucrative sources of regular income, like land endowments or the substantial dowries of noblewomen who entered.

But in contrast to this, the mendicant Orders by definition wanted to live a life of even corporate poverty, depending on alms and on the labor of their own hands for their sustenance. My guess is that the Church at the time thought that since a “begging” community was more likely to fall victim to severe economic circumstances, having the nuns NOT receive the consecration of virgins would make the individual nuns’ situations easier to resolve in the unfortunate event of one of their monasteries having to close. (Similar to the reasons why the members of the first “active” women’s religious communities weren’t permitted to profess solemn vows—i.e., because their vocational situation seemed more precarious than that of their cloistered, purely contemplative counterparts.)

I think that the reason why some Carmelite monasteries were given permission to use the [i]Rite of Consecration [/i]in modern times is because, even though we consider them a part of the medieval mendicant movement, the Carmelite spiritual heritage (if not the actual Discalced Carmelite Order itself, which dates from the Counter-Reformation) claims a more ancient affinity with the early desert hermits.

[Sponsa-Christi]

Also:

[quote]That being said, I would definitely consider discerning a vocation to Consecrated Virginity if I knew that I was not called to religious life -- i.e. not being accepted to any convents but still feeling that strong urge to live a life fully for God.[/quote]

Please bear with me on this, but I have to say it: if a woman feels she might have a vocation to consecrated virginity, she should really discern this as a “first” vocation, and not as a kind of back-up plan in case she is not accepted into any religious community. (My thought is that, if an aspiring woman religious was not able to enter any convent but still wanted to give her life to God alone, it would be better if she considered making a private vow.)

Of course, it’s good to explore—and perhaps come to rule out—different forms of consecrated life when you’re first discerning. And in some cases, I certainly believe it’s possible that God in His providential ordering of circumstances might lead a former religious to her true vocation as a consecrated virgin.

But consecrated virginity lived “in the world” (i.e., as a part of a diocese rather than in the context of a religious community) really does have a distinct charism and spirituality of its own. Also, it’s my sincere conviction that—when the vocation of consecrated virginity is lived out to the fullest—it makes demands on you that are on a level comparable to that of religious life. Because of these things, one’s personal discernment of this vocation should be in response to a positive sense of being called to it specifically, and not as the result of seeking an “alternative.”

So in other words, a vocation to consecrated virginity means much more than simply living a virginal life for Christ without entering a convent!

[OnlySunshine]

[quote name='Sponsa-Christi' timestamp='1344720478' post='2466219']
Also:



Please bear with me on this, but I have to say it: if a woman feels she might have a vocation to consecrated virginity, she should really discern this as a “first” vocation, and not as a kind of back-up plan in case she is not accepted into any religious community. (My thought is that, if an aspiring woman religious was not able to enter any convent but still wanted to give her life to God alone, it would be better if she considered making a private vow.)

Of course, it’s good to explore—and perhaps come to rule out—different forms of consecrated life when you’re first discerning. And in some cases, I certainly believe it’s possible that God in His providential ordering of circumstances might lead a former religious to her true vocation as a consecrated virgin.

But consecrated virginity lived “in the world” (i.e., as a part of a diocese rather than in the context of a religious community) really does have a distinct charism and spirituality of its own. Also, it’s my sincere conviction that—when the vocation of consecrated virginity is lived out to the fullest—it makes demands on you that are on a level comparable to that of religious life. Because of these things, one’s personal discernment of this vocation should be in response to a positive sense of being called to it specifically, and not as the result of seeking an “alternative.”

So in other words, a vocation to consecrated virginity means much more than simply living a virginal life for Christ without entering a convent!
[/quote]

That's a good point. I don't have a spiritual director so discernment has been especially difficult without one. I sincerely feel that I need to check out religious life because it's the one vocation that keeps coming back to me. Whenever I stop discerning, I inevitably get the prodding to discern more deeply. But I will say this -- the one thing that has been the most constant in my discernment is the desire for the supernatural vocation instead of marriage. I have a natural attraction to marriage but I don't think I'd have the same satisfaction or happiness if I married a mortal man instead of living a spiritual life totally consecrated to Jesus. I wouldn't use the Consecrated Virginity vocation as a back-up because that's not an adequate way to discern. You have to feel a calling to it. If I ever discern in that direction, I know it takes years and I'm not even sure that my current Bishop would approve since Consecrated Virginity is so rare nowadays.

Also, welcome to Phatmass! I've read your blog several times and I always find it very interesting and informative. I deeply respect your vocation and you are in my prayers. God bless.

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='Sponsa-Christi' timestamp='1344720157' post='2466216']
Hi—I’m a consecrated virgin who lurks here occasionally, though I’ve never posted before. I write the blog “Sponsa Christi,” and I first found Phatmass through the various links to my blog over the years!

This has been a great thread—the historical inter-relationship between the [i]Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity[/i] and the development of religious institutes is really fascinating.

About the mendicant Orders and the [i]Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity[/i]:

I believe that [u]one[/u] reason why the nuns of the “new” mendicant Orders (like the Dominicans and Poor Clares) have never had a tradition of using the [i]Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity[/i] is because at the time they were founded, they were considered less institutionally stable than the older Orders. For example, even though Benedictines live in personal poverty, in the Middle Ages their monasteries could still be quite wealthy—often, they would have had many lucrative sources of regular income, like land endowments or the substantial dowries of noblewomen who entered.

But in contrast to this, the mendicant Orders by definition wanted to live a life of even corporate poverty, depending on alms and on the labor of their own hands for their sustenance. My guess is that the Church at the time thought that since a “begging” community was more likely to fall victim to severe economic circumstances, having the nuns NOT receive the consecration of virgins would make the individual nuns’ situations easier to resolve in the unfortunate event of one of their monasteries having to close. (Similar to the reasons why the members of the first “active” women’s religious communities weren’t permitted to profess solemn vows—i.e., because their vocational situation seemed more precarious than that of their cloistered, purely contemplative counterparts.)

I think that the reason why some Carmelite monasteries were given permission to use the [i]Rite of Consecration [/i]in modern times is because, even though we consider them a part of the medieval mendicant movement, the Carmelite spiritual heritage (if not the actual Discalced Carmelite Order itself, which dates from the Counter-Reformation) claims a more ancient affinity with the early desert hermits.
[/quote]
Sponsa-Christi, hi! I meant to post here before.. thank you so much for this!! I really appreciated that you took the time to sign on here and share your knowledge with us. Very interesting! Also, I read your blog from time to time, and it is great! I love your vocation!!!

[Chiquitunga]

Just thought I would answer this from the dating thread here instead.

 

 

I think I remember the discussion about the difference between religious life and consecrated virginity. Unfortunately I have a very poor memory for these things. Am I remembering correctly that contemplative religious do sometimes have a consecration of virginity as well, or could also be considered to have a more spousal approach to the vocation? (I mean nuns rather than Sisters, who are active or active contemplative). Chiquitunga mentioned how in the past many nuns had this consecration as well, I don't remember if now it's like this or not? I remember asking how it is in the communities with the Latin Mass but I don't remember the answer  :o

 

Yes, it is true that in the past many cloistered religious received the Rite of Consecration of Virgins. And after it fell into disuse during a certain period (I am not sure exactly when) it was again encouraged for cloistered religious in the Apostolic Constitution Sponsa Christi in 1950 (not available online in English) It says so here in A Few Lines to Tell You (written by Iron Mountain Carmel in 1957) and it also goes on to describe how this Rite was received in Carmel, which was done simultaneously with the Veiling. In the OCD Nuns' Manual (different book from the Ceremonial) from 1932 there are two different ceremonies for Solemn Profession and Veiling (receiving the black veil) and it says the Veiling can be done at the time of Solemn Profession or some other day chosen by the community.

 

As a side note, in the Veiling ceremony from 1932 it does have the Celebrant (which is normally a bishop) addressing the newly professed Nun "Veni Sponsa Christi"

 

However, now for some reason this practice of female cloistered religious receiving the Rite of Consecration of Virgins has fallen into disuse by the majority of the Orders, including Discalced Carmelite Nuns, except perhaps some/one in Spain, which abrideofChrist made reference to earlier in this thread, though they may be O.Carm.

 

 

The only communities that come to mind that do still receive it today are ~ St Cecilia’s Abbey, Ryde ~ Regina Laudis & Carthusian Nuns. Mostly likely there must be a few others out there that I have never heard of, and again there is that Carmel/s in Spain that abrideofChrist mentioned earlier. But I do not know of a community that receives it that also uses the 1962 Liturgy exclusively.

 

In answer to the second part I bolded in your post, yes, it is true that female cloistered contemplative religious do have a more spousal approach to their vocation, which is why it really makes sense that they receive the Consecration of Virgins. In Verbi Sponsa [Spouse of the Word] Instruction on the Contemplative Life and on the Enclosure of Nuns the language used to describe their vocation is indeed very spousal. 

Edited July 30, 2013 by BG45

[Chiquitunga]

linking this old thread here too for a few different perspectives ~ http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/67654-bride-of-christ-polygamy/

 

Yes, it is true that in the past many cloistered religious received the Rite of Consecration of Virgins. And after it fell into disuse during a certain period (I am not sure exactly when) it was again encouraged for cloistered religious in the Apostolic Constitution Sponsa Christi in 1950 (not available online in English) It says so here in A Few Lines to Tell You (written by Iron Mountain Carmel in 1957)

 

As a side note, Sponsa Christi also restored to them Solemn Vows, which were not taken for a period of time by cloistered religious (not sure exactly when) I remember reading somewhere that this had to do with the French Revolution, at least for cloistered religious in France and that neither St. Therese nor Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity took Solemn Vows actually.

[Chiquitunga]

also, I linked this blog post above as Regina Laudis, as it mentions them and I cannot find reference to this Consecration on their actual site. in case you missed it, here it is again ~ http://sponsa-christi.blogspot.com/2009/02/st-scholastica-rite-of-consecration-and.html

 

question, does anyone happen to know if the Benedictine Nuns in Westfield, VT receive the Consecration of Virgins? http://www.ihmwestfield.com/

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks for the info! :)

 

I'm trying to understand this... because I would always think of nuns as brides of Christ. Then I found out that they don't have the consecration of Virgins. Maybe this makes the spousal element less obvious in the rite, compared to Consecrated Virginity where it's very obvious. However, can they still be brides of Christ? I'm thinking of how some orders have the wedding dresses or the rings - and these are symbolic things that not every order has - but these things suggest a bridal sort of approach/understanding don't they? I know so little about the rites etc.

[Chiquitunga]

Thanks for the info! :)

 

I'm trying to understand this... because I would always think of nuns as brides of Christ. Then I found out that they don't have the consecration of Virgins. Maybe this makes the spousal element less obvious in the rite, compared to Consecrated Virginity where it's very obvious. However, can they still be brides of Christ? I'm thinking of how some orders have the wedding dresses or the rings - and these are symbolic things that not every order has - but these things suggest a bridal sort of approach/understanding don't they? I know so little about the rites etc.

 

I believe they can still be called brides of Christ, as for instance the two Church documents I linked to above written specifically about Nuns are titled Sponsa Christi and Verbi Sponsa

[Chiquitunga]

although to add a few more thoughts, it is true that Consecrated Virgins are very specifically consecrated as brides of Christ, and this is indeed something special which they receive. to quote abride from the other thread...

 

Because religious life is not strictly bridal, it is open to men.  Because consecrated virginity is strictly bridal, it is only open to women.

 

I love this fact, by the way, because it really illustrates the the Church's view on the difference between men and women. Women are not called to/cannot be ordained priests, but men cannot receive the Rite of Consecration of Virgins, different roles in the Mystical Body.

 

But going back to your post, yes with these two vocations so intertwined (CV and female religious) with their history as well, I don't believe it would be improper to refer to a female religious as a bride of Christ, and yes, it only makes sense that many of their customs, like rings and bridal dresses, reflect this feminine spirituality. 

 

[abrideofChrist]

The biggest clue that the Church sees the vocations as intertwined but different is that she gives the Consecration to a Life of Virginity over and above the Solemn Profession of vows for certain Orders of cloistered nuns.  That is why Sponsa Christi - the document - refers to the Consecration and says only enclosed nuns can receive it (this was the document that suppressed the Rite for women living in the world; note that officially this suppression was for a span of only 20 years, a drop in the bucket for a history of women receiving it starting with Our Lady at the Annunciation).  Sponsa Christi is an interesting Apostolic Constitution because it is the first one to my knowledge that restricts the Solemn Consecration to Virginity to cloistered nuns.  It also says that all "cloistered" orders are "heirs" of the first virgins... and yet it clearly makes the distinction between the consecration due to profession of vows and the consecration to a life of virginity.  Therefore, I have concluded that nuns who are not given the consecration to a life of virginity are "heirs" in the sense that they are in the consecrated state and have a "bridal spirituality".  The A.C. was also written in the era of the old Rite, in which the virgin had to attest to physical virginity before the bishop, which meant that it was a lot more clear than today's verbiage that not all nuns were eligible to receive the consecration of virginity. 

 

In a fascinating move, just 20 years after Sponsa Christi was written, the new Rite was promulgated in 1970 and it is split into two versions.  One is for cloistered nuns who by tradition or by special permission possess the privilege of the consecration, and the other is a resurrection of the Rite for women living in the world.  Everything that smacked of religious life was stripped from both Rites (except for the profession of vows for religious because it is supposed to be done in a vow and consecration ceremony) to make it clear that this was a form of consecration in its own right.  What's even more fascinating is that two groups of vowed women are eligible for the consecration, but a vast group of vowed women are not permitted to receive it.  Cloistered nuns can receive it in the form written for religious.  Vowed members of secular institutes can also receive it under the form for women living in the world.  This is significant because the Church is saying that the life of consecrated virginity is its own vocation and totally compatible with strict religious life (nuns) and with completely hidden secular life (secular institutes).  Notice, though, that religious sisters are excluded.  I suspect this is because they are further removed from the theology and praxis of being a bride of Christ and are seen as more apostolic disciples of Christ. 

 

Let me clarify.  All nuns were originally consecrated virgins.  It was the consecrated virgins who grouped together and formed monasteries.  They were really and truly brides of Christ because of their consecration to virginity to begin with.  Religious life and vows were a separate reality.  However, in the early centuries, women had to be virgins to become nuns.  Therefore, the concept of nuns being brides of Christ had its roots in the reality of the nuns being consecrated virgins.  This ended in the 12th century when mendicants and others started enclosed communities without the consecration to virginity.  By the time you get to active religious communities, the emphasis was on vows and not on virginity.  I think this is appropriate, because as I've said earlier in the thread, religious life is open to men and women precisely because it is not essentially spousal.  Apostolic religious make it very clear that their primary charism after prayer is for a specific mission.  This is vastly different from the emphasis of virgin nuns and virgins living in the world whose primary identity is bridal. 

 

13 years after women living in the world were able to receive the Consecration to virginity again, the Pope raised those who received it into the consecrated state by inserting it as such in the Code of Canon Law.  For those thirteen years, women living in the world were truly consecrated (like secular institute members) but were lay (like secular institute members).  Canon 604 put an end to anomaly in which women who were consecrated in the most ancient form of consecrated life in the Church (started with Our Lady) were lay and effectively ended the monopoly of the consecrated state for the relative late comer (religious life).  Canon 603 did the same thing for eremitical life, which was appropriate since consecrated virginity and eremitical life pre-dated religious life by a few centuries.

[maximillion]

I was given a ring at Final Profession inscribed with the words 'Jesus is my Spouse'.

 

As most of you know, this was an enclosed contemplative community. We didn't have Consecration of Virgins but we did have Solemn Vows. The whole of my noviciate the spousal aspect, of us all being Brides of Christ, was emphasised.

[abrideofChrist]

I was given a ring at Final Profession inscribed with the words 'Jesus is my Spouse'.

 

As most of you know, this was an enclosed contemplative community. We didn't have Consecration of Virgins but we did have Solemn Vows. The whole of my noviciate the spousal aspect, of us all being Brides of Christ, was emphasised.

 

Beautiful!  I was just reading some writings from a contemplative community and it is a nice tradition to emphasize bridal spirituality.  The reason I wrote the original post of this thread was certainly not to detract from those who consider themselves to be brides of Christ, but to point out that those who receive the Consecration are most properly brides and fully represent the Church in their new identity.  As Bugnini observed, the Rite of Consecration promulgated in 1970 under the two forms for religious and women in the world was a treasure the Church highly values because it is an act of complete and perpetual spousal self-giving to God and neighbor.  Had the Church thought that Solemn Vows of enclosed women religious were complete and perpetual spousal self giving, I feel the Commission would have recommended that the Consecration be suppressed.  Here's what I wrote in my OP:

 

The Commission that revised the Liturgical Rite of the Consecration noted to those who were baffled at the thought of keeping this Rite with its exaltation of virginity (rather than chastity) that they could not "be allowed to give the impression that the Church has less esteem today than in the past for consecrated virginity as an act of complete and perpetual spousal self-giving to God and neighbor and an escatological sign of the kingdom of heaven and the presence of God's love for the world and of Christ's love for the Church" (Bugnini).

 

Virginity is certainly baffling.  It is much easier to appreciate the vow of chastity than it is to understand the value of consecrated virginity.  I have been told that a Benedictine nun wrote a book that really helps explain why the Consecration of Virginity is a precious reality in the Church and why it is done even for religious who have religious consecration.  It's called One Bride.