Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I think one thing I have trouble with is virginity vs. the vow of chastity in Religious Profession. Both are forsaking human marriage and choosing Christ as one's Bridegroom instead...
OnlySunshine Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I think one thing I have trouble with is virginity vs. the vow of chastity in Religious Profession. Both are forsaking human marriage and choosing Christ as one's Bridegroom instead... The difference as I understand it is that you do not have to be a virgin in order to take the vow of chastity. You do, however, have to be a virgin in order to be consecrated to a life of virginity. ;)
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I want to make it clear again though, that I do believe there is most definitely a difference between Consecrated Virginity and Religious Profession, as I just stated... thinking....
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) The difference as I understand it is that you do not have to be a virgin in order to take the vow of chastity. You do, however, have to be a virgin in order to be consecrated to a life of virginity. ;) thanks Mater! :like: yes, that is pretty clear... but yeah, I mean the difference between consecrated virginity and profession the vow of chastity... okay, abride has already answered that.... the CV is specifically consecrated by the Church as a bride and given that title. it is the ESSENCE of that vocation. the Religious professing the vow of chastity is not specifically getting consecrated as a bride of Christ, receiving a "new grace" and "new title" which it says in the homily in the Rite ... but rather she is continuing to be a bride of Christ as she was by virtue of her Baptism, and she is deepening that with the vow of chastity --- this is "by participation" aka by being a member of the Church Edited July 27, 2013 by Chiquitunga
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I think, or rather I know, one of the things I keep stumbling on is this term "by participation" In my mind it looks like a picture of a whole bunch of people collaborating with each other in doing something. but I know what the actual meaning is -- "being a part of" actually looking up "participation" according to one dictionary is it "The act of taking part or sharing in something" But we are talking about individual souls here and their interior relationship with Christ, which is something intimate. Yes it is something we all share, but something about the term "participation" doesn't sound right to me when thinking of individual souls. I am sorry, this is a tangent, but the choice of words can be important in a discussion like this. I would prefer personally to say "by being a member of His Church" rather than "by participation" This was what I was wondering here... Finally, the second part to this point is - therefore I believe a woman religious would have a spousal relationship with Christ (by participation in His Church) I do not think one can say that anyone cannot have a spousal relationship with Our Lord, if the individual soul can also be a bride of Christ (again by being a member of His Church). I think my question is, what then does the common sponsality mean for the individual soul's relationship with Christ? I believe the answer is that each soul can have an interior spousal relationship with Him, and especially for women who have forsaken human marriage for the sake of the Kingdom, though not in the same way as Consecrated Virgins. It is this post of yours, abrideofChrist, that really confused me If by "The interior relationship of these women with Christ is a spousal relationship" you mean that it IS a spousal relationship, I wouldn't agree. I would say it shares or participates in in the Church's spousal relationship. Again, this is because those of us who are unordained share in the priesthood of Christ but we are not priests. Consecrated virgins ARE spouses and Have a spousal relationship. Religious reflect that to a certain extent but only to a certain extent. I thought I read somewhere of a comparison someone else was making (on a different website/thread?) of how religious life is like the diaconate. It isn't lay. But it isn't the fullness of the priesthood or the fullness of what it means to be bride of Christ. Because an individual soul is a member of the Church, it is a bride before God (aka, the essence of a soul is a bride before God) therefore that soul's individual relationship with God IS spousal.
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 But we are talking about individual souls here and their interior relationship with Christ, which is something intimate. Yes it is something we all share, but something about the term "participation" doesn't sound right to me when thinking of individual souls. It is something we all share as members of His Church & it is something we all ARE -- something each of our individual souls ARE -- the ESSENCE of our souls
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 A CV's soul & vocation IS spousal to the deepest degree because she is giving herself completely to God in an essentially (aka, in ESSENCE) spousal way and being Consecrated by the Church very specifically as such, receiving a new title and grace. so she is fulfilling two of what Fr. Dubay defines as ways to be a "bride of Christ" A Religious is deepening one of these ways, her being a bride of Christ by virtue of her Baptism (why then should she be called a bride of Christ in a extraordinary way, as CVs are? is the question...) I am just thinking out loud here, but these statements would follow your own thoughts right? I can understand this completely. (Sorry, btw, that my posts now are more rambling in character than before, but it's because of the super odd hour and the need to wrap things up on my end.) okay, but to conclude what I am saying here..... still though, for the Religious, since her individual soul IS in ESSENCE a bride, her relationship with Christ IS spousal. It has to be. I believe each member of the Church would have a spousal relationship with Christ, whether they develop it in this world or not. If they do not give themselves to God in any way, still their soul is His bride through their Baptism. But if they do give themselves to Him to the degree of a radical self giving, as the evangelical counsels, then especially by virtue of their being women, they could be called "brides of Christ" in a special way, which brings me back to my point # 1 which I made in post 146 for all the reasons I believe this.
God's Beloved Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) What I said was carefully worded. I said that religious consecration or secular institute consecration is NOT spousal by definition but only by participation. If it is spousal by definition then there is no difference between any of the consecrations. If there is no difference between the consecrations, there is no difference in the vocations. If there is no difference in the vocations then religious life is essentially the same as secular institute life which is CLEARLY not the case. So one has to go back to my original point which is that these other forms other than consecrated virginity per se are mainly that of discipleship and SECONDARILY of a spousal character but that it is not the ESSENCE of these forms to BE spousal in the fullest sense. I don't know how many times I have to state this. According to me the essence of consecrated virginity is the call to assume the obligation to love the Christian community and the world--as a virgin, a bride of Christ and a mother.She is a symbol of the church even as an individual , like Virgin Mary. In the Order of Virgins, the Charism / Essence of the vocation is conferred on her through the gift of the Holy Spirit in the prayer of consecration by the bishop. I do not think that the Rite of Religous Profession can confer this charism of being virgin, bride , mother upon the individual religious . In Religious life ,the Charism /Essence varies in kind and degrees according to various institutes. It depends on the ascetic striving to live the vows of the Evangelical Counsels Religious are formed into living the charism given by the Holy Spirit to the Founders of the Institute . The rite of religious profession does not confer the charism of the particular institute upon the religious. The same rite can be used by several religious institutes with varying charisms. Edited July 27, 2013 by God's Beloved
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 okay, I can now finally get to answering your posts directly... I will do so part by part Hi Chiquitonga! Thank you for continuing this very open minded discourse and for reopening this subject. Let me be sure that I actually understand where you are coming from. It seems like we are really on the same page except that you are not entirely comfortable with the idea that nuns who are not CVs should not be called brides of Christ. Is that correct? Again, I think that this what you are trying to express and I just want to double check because I understand how frustrating it can be to be misunderstood. Yes, that is correct. :like:
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 p.s. to the above post... just saw it and realized my little smiley there could be interpreted as sarcasm. definitely did not mean that... seriously. meant it in a way as, yes, you have hit the nail on the head with that question. that is my point # 1 (trying to keep discussion organized in my mind by saying that, not to remind you) ... my point #2 boils down to how I believe individual baptized souls have a spousal relationship with Christ, and that it would be all the more/deeper for women who have forsaken marriage in this world and chosen Christ as Bridegroom instead
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 okay, something I want to point out here.... what you quoted from Vita Consecrata on Consecrated Virgins "It is a source of joy and hope to witness in our time a new flowering of the ancient Order of Virgins, known in Christian communities ever since apostolic times. Consecrated by the diocesan Bishop, these women acquire a particular link with the Church, which they are commited to serve while remaining in the world. Either alone or in association with others, they constitute a special eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and of the life to come, when the Church will at last fully live her love for Christ the Bridegroom." Verbi Sponsa on Nuns -- quoting from Vita Consecrata also "The Church as Bride of the Word shows forth in an exemplary way in those dedicated to a wholly contemplative life the mystery of her exclusive union with God. For this reason the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata presents the vocation and mission of cloistered nuns as “a sign of the exclusive union of the Church as Bride with her Lord, whom she loves above all thingsâ€, (1) showing how they are a unique grace and precious gift within the mystery of the Church's holiness." The word "image" and "sign" and pretty close. Most likely either of those words are used in documents to describe the other vocation also. Also the "unique grace" here reminds me of the "new grace" of a CV (referenced at beginning of thread, for others) And again, Verbi Sponsa does refer to the nun as "bride of the Incarnate Word" What about this for a hypothesis? That really they (the CV and Nun) can both be rightfully called brides of Christ in an extraordinary way (ordinary being by common Baptism, as we know) However, a CV would posses the title in an even more extraordinary way than a Nun, since it is the very essence of her vocation. This works for me :like: The CV Nun would then be extra-extraordinary!! lol (sorry, getting a little goofy bc of the hour, I'm just going to go to Mass and take a nap :sleep3:)
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) Okay, going to attempt to give a few thoughts in reply to the rest of your post. It is certainly true that cloistered nuns represent the Church better than other forms of religious life and are more suited to being called brides of Christ for the reasons we both accept as true. What I am concerned with, though, is that people who are discerning the vocation to being a cloistered nun will confuse the greater participation aspect for the full representation of the Church as bride and miss the beauty of religious life for what it actually is. Certainly when I was discerning the vocation to a cloistered community (and active communities), I really thought that nuns and sisters were brides of Christ in the fullest sense. I didn't know any better when I first began to think of religious life as a possible vocation for me. Most of the religious communities I was interested in joining told me that by becoming a sister or a nun, I would be the bride of Jesus. I was unpleasantly surprised to find out that this was not strictly true and being a painful thing to hear, I struggled with it for a long time. I finally realized that if I had a religious vocation, that unless I found a community that did the consecration, I would be totally given over to the Lord, but just not in a fully spousal manner. it would have been a lot more helpful if I had known that religious life was not fully spousal to begin with and had not been fooled into thinking it was because of what all the sisters and nuns were telling me. I don't think they were trying to deliberately mislead me because what they were telling me they believed because that is what they had been told. But what I feel you are trying to ask for is that they continue to call themselves brides of Christ even though it sets people up for the same problem that I experienced. That's a difficult dilemma and I'm not sure exactly how to answer here... I would hope that more and more Nuns and Sisters will learn more about Consecrated Virginity to be able to inform discerners about it too. Very few in the Church seem to have any idea about it at all really, which I am sure is greatly frustrating. I still think Nuns should to be able to tell women that they are brides of Christ, like the one Prioress told me when she gave me a copy of Verbi Sponsa. But I think along with this of course they need to stress their charism... and help the young women to discern if she is really drawn to that and to life in community. If she seems to be drawn exclusively to being espoused to Christ, the CV vocation should be made known to her. Sorry, these are just ramblings... hmmm. In answer to the bolded part again, I definitely do not think Nuns should ever stop calling themselves brides of Christ. I think that would go against their very nature! And if Verbi Sponsa called them thus... If a community of Nuns ever told me they weren't brides of Christ, I would greatly question the state of their spiritual lives and the community as a whole. Actually, I would run from such a community!! lol But that's getting onto another subject, which I do not intend to discuss here. I don't think I am the only person who wants to know the truth. I think that it is easier to be told upfront that nuns share in the Church's bridal nature more fully than most other people do, but that there is a vocation compatible with religious life that does make a woman the bride of Christ in the full sense of the word. Can you see the dilemma here? That if we use the term bride of Christ for non CV nuns, then we give people the impression that they do achieve the full nuptial union with Christ by religious profession. In answer to this & the above again, I would say there is a great need in the Church to make the vocation of Consecrated Virginity known. I think especially the history... for people to be aware that Nuns are considered the Heirs of these Virgins, and that this is the origin of their bridal spirituality/identity, and things like receiving a ring and veil at Profession. I still think they should be called Nuns for the reasons given, but I see the dilemma here. Again, I think education would be the important thing... to learn about the Rite, it's history, development... All of this I'm very ignorant of myself, and I want to be a bride of Christ! :blush: From this thread I've come to realize how much is on that site, http://consecratedvirgins.org/ (btw, just noticed someone I know in one of the pictures there! I know two CVs in my home diocese :)) edit: wait, I see them both! :proud: Edited July 27, 2013 by Chiquitunga
Laurie Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I have guests right now & for the near future, so I will be away from this thread for awhile. I've only skimmed the latest posts. At some point I will pop back in with some helpful definitions from Aquinas. Chiquitunga, I think those definitions and explanations from Aquinas will help you see how the word "participate" isn't meant in a weak sense here. It's a very strong sense! Sometimes it's hard because we have modern definitions for our words and that can cloud what the Church means, at times, when she uses the same words. More soon!
MarysLittleFlower Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I think I have sort of similar questions as Chiquitunga... issues such as: - it was brought up how if nuns were brides of Christ, how can this be true because there are also monks? I was reading the quote from Mulieris Dignitatum and it seems to link the spousal nature of the gift of virginity to femininity... could it be linked to nuns being women? - the idea that a nun's PRIMARY vocation would be that of a disciple doesn't seem to fit with the experience of many of primarily feeling drawn to being a bride of Christ, rather than a disciple only. If only CVs are truly brides of Christ: - then the first point doesn't apply - and with the second, it would maybe point to the nuns' spirituality or the relationship of their soul with God but then in Mulieris Dignitatum, it relates this type of self-gift to spousal love, which leads to the question: - how can someone give a gift that is in the "spousal order", or a "spousal gift" and yet not BE a spouse? Maybe I'm just having a trouble getting my mind around that. AbrideofChrist, I know you mentioned many times about participation... I need to think about these ideas some more.
MarysLittleFlower Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 okay, something I want to point out here.... what you quoted from Vita Consecrata on Consecrated Virgins "It is a source of joy and hope to witness in our time a new flowering of the ancient Order of Virgins, known in Christian communities ever since apostolic times. Consecrated by the diocesan Bishop, these women acquire a particular link with the Church, which they are commited to serve while remaining in the world. Either alone or in association with others, they constitute a special eschatological image of the Heavenly Bride and of the life to come, when the Church will at last fully live her love for Christ the Bridegroom." Verbi Sponsa on Nuns -- quoting from Vita Consecrata also "The Church as Bride of the Word shows forth in an exemplary way in those dedicated to a wholly contemplative life the mystery of her exclusive union with God. For this reason the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Vita Consecrata presents the vocation and mission of cloistered nuns as “a sign of the exclusive union of the Church as Bride with her Lord, whom she loves above all thingsâ€, (1) showing how they are a unique grace and precious gift within the mystery of the Church's holiness." The word "image" and "sign" and pretty close. Most likely either of those words are used in documents to describe the other vocation also. Also the "unique grace" here reminds me of the "new grace" of a CV (referenced at beginning of thread, for others) And again, Verbi Sponsa does refer to the nun as "bride of the Incarnate Word" What about this for a hypothesis? That really they (the CV and Nun) can both be rightfully called brides of Christ in an extraordinary way (ordinary being by common Baptism, as we know) However, a CV would posses the title in an even more extraordinary way than a Nun, since it is the very essence of her vocation. This works for me :like: The CV Nun would then be extra-extraordinary!! lol (sorry, getting a little goofy bc of the hour, I'm just going to go to Mass and take a nap :sleep3:) lol :) I'm trying to think about it all too.... I think I need to figure out what is truly meant by "participation" as well!
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I get what "by participation" means ... it's "by virtue of being a member of the Church" aka "because someone is a member of the Church" It's just that that particular word brings an image to my mind of a group of people doing something together... even side by side....that it is like collectively they are being the Bride of Christ... but cannot be an individual level, which is not what it means, and not what Fr. Dubay has said also. The individual soul can be called a bride of Christ by virtue of her Bapstism/membership in the Church. But my mind keeps seeing funny images when I see the word participation... like a group of people all diving into a pool at the same time, lol! but that one individual person could not dive into that pool themselves.... like Christ not looking upon individual souls as His unique and beloved brides, as He does... but just sees those who are "participating" in being the Bride of Christ collectively with everyone else.... and that they are only partially His brides therefore... like they are puzzle pieces that have to be put together in order to make the Bride of Christ. But that is not true! Individual souls are brides of Christ, and He loves them as brides in an individual way. If there were only one baptized person lalive, that person would be fully a bride of Christ. That fact is independent of the fact that there may be other members. I have guests right now & for the near future, so I will be away from this thread for awhile. I've only skimmed the latest posts. At some point I will pop back in with some helpful definitions from Aquinas. Chiquitunga, I think those definitions and explanations from Aquinas will help you see how the word "participate" isn't meant in a weak sense here. It's a very strong sense! Sometimes it's hard because we have modern definitions for our words and that can cloud what the Church means, at times, when she uses the same words. More soon! Thank you, Laurie! That is very true about our modern use of words and how the Church uses them. Thank Heavens for Latin! :like: I'm glad to hear it is meant in a very strong sense. I have to be away from the thread pretty soon myself too, so if I don't catch what and when you post (will come back to read it at some point though) I will look into seeing what I can find that St. Thomas has said on Consecrated Virginity too. Thanks again!
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 (edited) want to mention this also, the last time I saw my CV friend she gave me this book (as a gift! not for a birthday or anything :)) St. Therese of Lisieux: Spouse and Victim I still need to read it! :blush: (it's super short) though from what I skimmed, I can see it is especially about her mystical prayer life but it also mentions her Profession as an espousal. not mentioning this to bring up the argument again (this is no where near a Church document but just the author's thoughts) but I thought I'd mention the book anyway as another interesting source of reflection. I love how my CV friend gave it to me. next time I see her I know I'll be discussing this thread with her. it's much easier to talk to someone in person about this I think, than via the internet. but since we all so far apart, we do our best by the way, And You Are Christ's just came in the mail! :like: Edited July 27, 2013 by Chiquitunga
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 I actually do agree with a lot of abrideofChrist’s arguments here, but I personally have a very hard time saying that women like St. Catherine of Siena, St. Clare of Assisi, St. Kateri Tekakwitha, or Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta weren’t really brides of Christ because they weren’t technically consecrated virgins. These are my thoughts as well (which include not only Nuns strictly speaking but Religious Sisters as you mention as well, like Sr. Josefa Menendez) This would fall into the category of pious reflection I think, but even Pope Benedict XVI is saying here that St. Clare of Assisi became (which I stress because it seems to be saying this is something beyond common sponsality in Baptism) a virgin bride. He was speaking only of her entering religious life, and again this is more a pious reflection, but I do think it speaks to something of how the Church (this is a Pope after all) still calls those who forsake marriage in this world to choose Christ as Bridegroom, "brides" in a special way, beyond Baptism. Yes, he is speaking generally here using the term consecrated virgins later... but still, he is applying this to St. Clare. He is saying she has this nuptial vocation. And again, he is saying she became something, which would imply it was something beyond common sponsality. I think that the whole reality of a call to be a bride of Christ—that is, the call that some women experience to give themselves entirely to God in such a way that this all-consuming love precludes the spiritual and emotional possibility of an earthly marriage—is ultimately a much bigger and more mysterious thing than simply a matter of whether or not a woman has received the Rite of Consecration to a Life of Virginity. I think that the consecration of virgins is a very special, privileged expression of this more general call. I would even be comfortable saying that it might be the normative expression. I’m also comfortable saying that religious profession by itself isn’t the same thing as a call to be a bride of Christ. But I think that it’s entirely possible that any woman who has offered her life entirely to the Lord could be a spouse of Christ in actual fact, even if canon law doesn’t specifically grant her that title. I do believe that the Rite of Consecration has a real efficacy, or in other words, that it really does do something. Still, I do think that we can allow for the possibility that God might extend His grace beyond His promises in this instance. (After all, even in earthly marriages, it is possible to get a dispensation of form!) One consequence (among others) of the Rite of Consecration is that through it, the Church lets us know for sure who definitely is a bride of Christ. But, I don’t think this translates into the Church conversely letting us say that someone else is definitely NOT a bride of Christ. Even when it’s a case of a woman just making a private vow, I think we need to be respectful and reverent towards the wonders that our Lord might be working in an individual soul…I keep thinking of the old saying: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.†(Not trying to call anyone here a fool, BTW.) All of this I agree with completely. Thank you so much, Sponsa Christi, for sharing these thoughts. This brings to mind also how St. Thomas said "God is not bound to the visible sacraments." in the argument that God could Himself give the grace of Baptism to a child who had died before receiving it (this discussion, btw, I do not mean to bring up, there are other threads on PM on this already) I think this is hugely important to consider in this discussion.
Chiquitunga Posted July 27, 2013 Posted July 27, 2013 While I think highlighting the parallels and complementarity between priesthood and consecrated virginity generally works exceedingly well in trying to explain and understand this vocation, I think there are a few places where the analogy breaks down—and that this is one of those places. The analogy still works when you consider that man who doesn’t receive Holy Orders isn’t a priest, and a woman who doesn’t receive the consecration of virgins isn’t a consecrated virgin, and that no level of personal spirituality is going to change this. But, I think you can make somewhat of a distinction between the call to be a bride of Christ and the call to be a consecrated virgin technically speaking. All consecrated virgins are called to be brides of Christ, but I think there could be some brides of Christ who weren’t called to be consecrated virgins. (Kind of like: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.) I think that the general call to be a bride of Christ is a very mysterious mystical reality that we’re never going to be able to define and “pin down†in the same way as the consecration of virgins, religious profession, Holy Orders, or matrimony. I think it’s actually too mysterious for canon law even to try to touch. I believe that the general call to be a bride of Christ is a charism and a special grace that God gives directly to some souls, according to His good pleasure. Sometimes this charism is directly manifested and confirmed through the Rite of Consecration; sometimes it might be expressed in a more indirect secondary way through religious profession. Other times, it might remain more mysterious and hidden in a woman who simply makes a private vow. This I very much agree with also. Thank you very much again for sharing these thoughts!
MarysLittleFlower Posted July 28, 2013 Posted July 28, 2013 (edited) I get what "by participation" means ... it's "by virtue of being a member of the Church" aka "because someone is a member of the Church" It's just that that particular word brings an image to my mind of a group of people doing something together... even side by side....that it is like collectively they are being the Bride of Christ... but cannot be an individual level, which is not what it means, and not what Fr. Dubay has said also. The individual soul can be called a bride of Christ by virtue of her Bapstism/membership in the Church. But my mind keeps seeing funny images when I see the word participation... like a group of people all diving into a pool at the same time, lol! but that one individual person could not dive into that pool themselves.... like Christ not looking upon individual souls as His unique and beloved brides, as He does... but just sees those who are "participating" in being the Bride of Christ collectively with everyone else.... and that they are only partially His brides therefore... like they are puzzle pieces that have to be put together in order to make the Bride of Christ. But that is not true! Individual souls are brides of Christ, and He loves them as brides in an individual way. If there were only one baptized person lalive, that person would be fully a bride of Christ. That fact is independent of the fact that there may be other members. Thank you, Laurie! That is very true about our modern use of words and how the Church uses them. Thank Heavens for Latin! :like: I'm glad to hear it is meant in a very strong sense. I have to be away from the thread pretty soon myself too, so if I don't catch what and when you post (will come back to read it at some point though) I will look into seeing what I can find that St. Thomas has said on Consecrated Virginity too. Thanks again! I see what you mean about the word participation.... :) want to mention this also, the last time I saw my CV friend she gave me this book (as a gift! not for a birthday or anything :)) St. Therese of Lisieux: Spouse and Victim I still need to read it! :blush: (it's super short) though from what I skimmed, I can see it is especially about her mystical prayer life but it also mentions her Profession as an espousal. not mentioning this to bring up the argument again (this is no where near a Church document but just the author's thoughts) but I thought I'd mention the book anyway as another interesting source of reflection. I love how my CV friend gave it to me. next time I see her I know I'll be discussing this thread with her. it's much easier to talk to someone in person about this I think, than via the internet. but since we all so far apart, we do our best by the way, And You Are Christ's just came in the mail! :like: yay! :) that sounds like a good book about St Therese, she's one of my favourite Saints :) These are my thoughts as well (which include not only Nuns strictly speaking but Religious Sisters as you mention as well, like Sr. Josefa Menendez) This would fall into the category of pious reflection I think, but even Pope Benedict XVI is saying here that St. Clare of Assisi became (which I stress because it seems to be saying this is something beyond common sponsality in Baptism) a virgin bride. He was speaking only of her entering religious life, and again this is more a pious reflection, but I do think it speaks to something of how the Church (this is a Pope after all) still calls those who forsake marriage in this world to choose Christ as Bridegroom, "brides" in a special way, beyond Baptism. Yes, he is speaking generally here using the term consecrated virgins later... but still, he is applying this to St. Clare. He is saying she has this nuptial vocation. And again, he is saying she became something, which would imply it was something beyond common sponsality. All of this I agree with completely. Thank you so much, Sponsa Christi, for sharing these thoughts. This brings to mind also how St. Thomas said "God is not bound to the visible sacraments." in the argument that God could Himself give the grace of Baptism to a child who had died before receiving it (this discussion, btw, I do not mean to bring up, there are other threads on PM on this already) I think this is hugely important to consider in this discussion. Interesting that you mentioned St Clare... I was thinking about her this morning. I don't know if the movie is accurate about this... but in the movie "Clare and Francis" from Ignatius Press, St Clare talks about her vocation. At one point, she says that she wants to give herself to God as a bride gives herself to a bridegroom. When she runs away to become a nun, - the monks are singing "Veni Sponsa Christi". In the church, St Clare says: "I Clara, daughter and handmaiden of Our Lord God the Heavenly Father, take Jesus Christ as my Spouse, and vow to Him my life according to the perfection of the Holy Gospel". (I had to look up the DVD just now lol). I was curious about whether this is based on documents of what St Clare actually said, and if we have any record of what she said or what the early Poor Clares used in their Rite? Or it hasn't changed over time? Does anyone know? :) I just thought it was interesting and I'm wondering if there's more information about this... I'm not using the movie as a Church document, I just thought of that part :) Edited July 28, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower
Recommended Posts