abrideofChrist Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 I can tell you that for myself, the only reasonable explanation I could come up for what the title Bride of Christ means is the result of asking countless questions and counter questions and years of meditation on the texts. I handed this explanation to you and others on a platter free of charge. If the one thing keeping you from understanding my explanation of such an important distinction is the concept of essence vs. participation, then it might be a really good idea for you to pick up the phone or visit a Catholic university where you can ask a philosophy or theology professor to help you to understand that specific concept. The benefit would be tremendous. Years and years of labor on my part you'll understand within an hour if you can get your philosophy crash course done and out of the way. Maybe you already know someone who can help you. Right now, I have a priest-friend of mine helping me with a quote in Latin. He is a world class Latinist and I wanted to make sure I understood every nuance of that passage. Maybe you have someone in a local convent or abbey who could help you with this.
MarysLittleFlower Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) AbrideofChrist, thanks for the reply. I'll focus on each of the points chronologically as you talked about them. I'm wondering what you mean by over-sentimentalized bridal spirituality vs balanced bridal spirituality. I believe that what a bride does, is give herself completely to the Bridegroom and be fully devoted to him. In being a bride of Christ, - we can see what Jesus expects of His brides, in books like "Way of Divine Love". A bride of Christ would fully care about His interests, suffer for Him, care about what He cares for (salvation of souls), console Him, offer reparation, etc - most of all everything should be centered on love. I don't think that's over-sentimentalized at all, but a spiritual reality, so if an order really emphasizes a bridal spirituality, I don't think that's wrong. I'm not sure what you mean though. My point here is that in order to have a bridal spirituality, I don't think we should water it down, but just understand what it means in the bride's life. of course, it's more than just rings etc. If you mean focusing too much on the rings and the wedding dresses is over sentimentalized, - I think those things are good if there's also an understanding of what the spiritual reality means. Regarding the whole idea that men are monks and priests and aren't called brides of Christ, and what this means for nuns... you linked this to VII, but if it's the case that VII made it very clear that religious are NOT brides, would this be in the documents somewhere? however we have quotes kind of alluding to a bridal spirituality instead... I'm just not understanding what sources this is based on. It's also the tradition of the Church to have this bridal spirituality, and that's important...we need to look at all our tradition, of course, and not discard it. I'll try to look up what Fr Dubay said about CVs and comparing that to religious. However, he also said those things that I quoted before, which seem to be very direct in the spousal imagery and linking the virgin to the Church. So that's something I need to look up to understand. Regarding men, that 'bridal' part I quoted before was written for women, I think, because he talks about women there. For men, he said that they view celibacy as something different than women, for women it has a bridal component, and for men it's something like imitating Our Lord. He says the book can still apply to men because they are part of the Church, and as we know mystics who were men used spousal imagery too to describe union with God. But he doesn't say that men are drawn to spousal spirituality like women are in their vocations (not referring to mystical life), neither did he say that women don't have a right to a spousal relationship with Christ because they're nuns. It seems to be like - women have this approach in relation to their feminine nature. The question perhaps is: is it correct that "spousal relationship" means being a spouse? I guess then we're getting into what words mean. Anyways, I'll try to research more what Fr Thomas and Fr John Hardon said on the topic :) I found a quote from Mulieris Dignitatum... At the same time they realize the personal value of their own femininity by becoming "a sincere gift" for God who has revealed himself in Christ, a gift for Christ, the Redeemer of humanity and the Spouse of souls: a "spousal" gift. One cannot correctly understand virginity - a woman's consecration in virginity - without referring to spousal love. It is through this kind of love that a person becomes a gift for the other.42 Moreover, a man's consecration in priestly celibacy or in the religious state is to be understood analogously. The naturally spousal predisposition of the feminine personality finds a response in virginity understood in this way. Women, called from the very "beginning" to be loved and to love, in a vocation to virginity find Christ first of all as the Redeemer who "loved until the end" through his total gift of self; and they respond to this gift with a "sincere gift" of their whole lives. They thus give themselves to the divine Spouse, and this personal gift tends to union, which is properly spiritual in character. Through the Holy Spirit's action a woman becomes "one spirit" with Christ the Spouse (cf. 1 Cor 6:17). http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html I see what you mean about questions and answers. I'll try to speak to my priest about this. I just wanted to comment on another thing, what you said about mystics and mystical espousal. It's true that both men and women can use spousal imagery in describing the relation of God to the soul, - we can see St John of the Cross using this imagery, after all. But in the mystical life, espousal and marriage refers to a union with God, and this is for every soul, not just women. However regarding someone's vocation, it seems like only women have used the words "bride of Christ", but my point is that nuns used this too. Edited August 7, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower
MarysLittleFlower Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) Continued. Then, you'll come up with theories. These theories will have to be cohesive and give logical answers to the different problems and correspond to the truth for them to stand. Let me give you an example. If you identify religious life as having its essence women being the bride of Christ, then what is its essence for men? Is it okay that a priest who is a monk is the bride of Christ? Or is it not okay for a male person to be both the Bride of Christ fully represented in his body and the Other Christ fully represented in his body at the same time? Why? Obviously if it is not okay, then we need to try a different hypothesis. There are so many questions you can ask! What is the definition of religious life for men? Does it have to do something about the priesthood since some religious men are priests? Does it have to do with being a bride of Christ? Or does it have to do something with vows? Without asking relevant questions to make sure you're on the right track, you'll not be able to properly interpret things like Sr. Josepha's private revelations from Christ. Questions can be a very good thing to help with critical thinking skills. By testing your theories with pertinent and difficult questions, you can advance your understanding of things that can be puzzling. I see what you're saying. I think that religious men (monks) try to imitate Christ in how He lived and through the vows. Like how St Francis became poor. Priests act in persona Christi. The only way it seems men (especially priests) can use spousal language is in the mystical life referring to union with God, or referring to the Church as a whole. I know you used this to say that - nuns make the same vows as monks, so they're like monks, only female. My only difficulty is this: many women discerning religious life, and many nuns, seem to be drawn to their vocation because they want Jesus to be their only Beloved and Spouse. Men who discern religious life, maybe focus more on giving up the world for Christ (women obviously think of this too), and imitating Him (again, women think of this too, that's good). But at the heart of many women's vocational discernment, seems to be a desire to be a bride of Christ. I don't know... am I right or wrong? So do we just say - they were all meant to be CVs, and discerned incorrectly? there are 2 potential problems with this... - those who actually received revelations to join a particular order, like for example Saints, and others - we can't just assume that someone discerned incorrectly (not saying you're assuming this), one way or the other. I think another difficulty for me is this... if someone is drawn to a spousal spirituality, there must be some way that they could actually become a spouse. Of course, we know that the Church is the Bride, and each soul is meant to be united to God. So eventually, the "mystical marriage" 7th mansion of St Teresa would happen to all souls in Heaven. But religious are drawn to being His brides on earth too, that's why they don't marry. So if they're drawn to being brides, yet they're just like lay people in the world who are married, in waiting for the mystical marriage / union with God, - why do they choose their vocation often on these grounds? So either they become brides, or they share in the bridal component of the Church more profoundly than others, but what does this mean? I know you talk about the analogy to the priesthood.. and how we're all sharing in the common priesthood, but we're not priests like ordained priests. I just realized where this analogy is unclear to me: we're all sharing in common priesthood, and priests are ordained we're all sharing in the Church being a bride, by being in the Church and also because our souls would be united to God in Heaven, yet there are those called to be brides on earth that's clear. But what's unclear is how there could be an "in-between". Because religious, would participate MORE than others, and yet not still BE brides, according to what you said. But we don't see this analogy with the priesthood. We see either sharing in the common priesthood, or being priests. We dont' see an in-between of "sharing in the common priesthood - more". I'm not sure what this would mean... and how it would be distinguished from the other two... maybe because we dont' really have this. So if this is what nuns are, with sharing in being a bride of Christ, how do we understand this? Not saying it can't be, I mean I just don't know, but hopefully I would understand in time what the case is. Edited August 7, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower
abrideofChrist Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 I see what you're saying. I think that religious men (monks) try to imitate Christ in how He lived and through the vows. Like how St Francis became poor. Priests act in persona Christi. The only way it seems men (especially priests) can use spousal language is in the mystical life referring to union with God, or referring to the Church as a whole. I know you used this to say that - nuns make the same vows as monks, so they're like monks, only female. My only difficulty is this: many women discerning religious life, and many nuns, seem to be drawn to their vocation because they want Jesus to be their only Beloved and Spouse. Men who discern religious life, maybe focus more on giving up the world for Christ (women obviously think of this too), and imitating Him (again, women think of this too, that's good). But at the heart of many women's vocational discernment, seems to be a desire to be a bride of Christ. I don't know... am I right or wrong? So do we just say - they were all meant to be CVs, and discerned incorrectly? there are 2 potential problems with this... - those who actually received revelations to join a particular order, like for example Saints, and others - we can't just assume that someone discerned incorrectly (not saying you're assuming this), one way or the other. I think another difficulty for me is this... if someone is drawn to a spousal spirituality, there must be some way that they could actually become a spouse. Of course, we know that the Church is the Bride, and each soul is meant to be united to God. So eventually, the "mystical marriage" 7th mansion of St Teresa would happen to all souls in Heaven. But religious are drawn to being His brides on earth too, that's why they don't marry. So if they're drawn to being brides, yet they're just like lay people in the world who are married, in waiting for the mystical marriage / union with God, - why do they choose their vocation often on these grounds? So either they become brides, or they share in the bridal component of the Church more profoundly than others, but what does this mean? I know you talk about the analogy to the priesthood.. and how we're all sharing in the common priesthood, but we're not priests like ordained priests. I just realized where this analogy is unclear to me: we're all sharing in common priesthood, and priests are ordained we're all sharing in the Church being a bride, by being in the Church and also because our souls would be united to God in Heaven, yet there are those called to be brides on earth that's clear. But what's unclear is how there could be an "in-between". Because religious, would participate MORE than others, and yet not still BE brides, according to what you said. But we don't see this analogy with the priesthood. We see either sharing in the common priesthood, or being priests. We dont' see an in-between of "sharing in the common priesthood - more". I'm not sure what this would mean... and how it would be distinguished from the other two... maybe because we dont' really have this. So if this is what nuns are, with sharing in being a bride of Christ, how do we understand this? Not saying it can't be, I mean I just don't know, but hopefully I would understand in time what the case is. MarysLittleFlower, Yes, the way someone can actually become a spouse is by receiving the consecration to be a bride of Christ (that is, virginal consecration!). The religious sister is agreeing to live according to a rule and constitutions that help her to follow Christ in poverty, chastity, and obedience. That is the heart of the vows! The heart/essence of consecrated virginity is being transformed into a bride! That is what it is! So vows are a means to an end. The virginal consecration is not a means to an end. It establishes a permanent and real spousal relationship, an enduring quality! You ask about in between priesthood and common priesthood. We often forget about ordained men who are deacons. They are not just in the common priesthood but they share in the priesthood of Christ in an essentially different way. But notice that they cannot be called priests! They only share or participate in the priesthood of Christ in a limited way. The fullness of priesthood actually resides in the bishop because he alone has the fullness of orders. The reason I suggested that you call or talk to a philosopher is that they can show you in an hour what would take me a couple of weeks to prepare to teach you about the difference between participation and essence. Until you do understand the difference we cannot progress in this discussion because a key component of my position is not being understood by you. It's not that I wouldn't like to be able to share the philosophical concepts that are necessary to bring you to an understanding of the difference between participation and essence, it's that there are others who would be far better than I would be in giving you a decent explanation without needing to hit the books and spend days to figure out the best way of presenting it to someone who has not studied philosophy of being. I am very serious in this suggestion. At least in my diocese, if you called the chancery and asked for someone you could talk to who could explain the difference between essence and participation in theology, you would be connected to our diocesan theologian, who would either answer you or refer you to a philosopher who would take you step by step into what the concept means. Philosophers delight in this kind of thing and many would be willing to discuss this with you. And, if you did manage to get an explanation, then you'd have more at hand to evaluate my position and see if there are flaws in it. At this point, all you can do is spin your wheels because it does take some grounding in philosophy to know what I am talking about. This isn't your fault, but it does have a very easy solution.
MarysLittleFlower Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Thanks for the reply :) I forgot the Bishops have the fullness of the priesthood, that is true... however priests are also truly ordained. I'll try to investigate this further and see if I could speak with someone about it. Maybe this question does have sort of a personal component to it too. When I think of religious life and what it includes: leaving everything for Christ, not marrying, living in poverty/chastity/obedience, being hidden from the world, praying for souls, devoting yourself to only what God cares about, leaving any worldly pursuits, etc, - not to mention the ideas of reparation and doing everything for love - that seems to me, to be very linked to spousal spirituality. The early Church martyrs, like those who are young girls, were martyred rather than being given in marriage to someone else - because Jesus was their Beloved. It's hard for me to perhaps imagine a different motive in my own life, though I know it must be there, because for example monks don't link this to their vocation. But like how Fr Thomas Dubay said, it's easy for women to think of it this way.
God's Beloved Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 As I've mentioned earlier ,religious institutes have their founder's charism which the members try to integrate in their lives through several years of formation according to their constitutions. The Rite of consecration of virgins confers the charism on the virgin through the gift of the Holy Spirit. The founder is Jesus Christ who on the cross when His heart was pierced , emptied Himself so that the Bride of Christ would be born. One more aspect is that the blood and water that flowed from His side when His heart was pierced , first flowed on the Blessed Virgin Mary who is herself an image of the Church as Virgin, Bride , Mother. During the Annunciation virginity was not Christian . But due to the Paschal Mystery , Mary's virginity became Christian virginity. The Rite of consecration of virgins is also patterned on the Annunciation. It being a 'constitutive sacramental', it is through the action of the Holy Spirit according to the words of the prayer of consecration that this union takes place between the human nature of the virgin and the divine Word of God. the Word then possesses her completely. The Rite of religious profession does not confer this charism of the Virgin Mary upon the individual religious.
God's Beloved Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 For philosophy of Essence and Participation the following link may be helpful http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/
Pax_et bonum Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 You ask about in between priesthood and common priesthood. We often forget about ordained men who are deacons. They are not just in the common priesthood but they share in the priesthood of Christ in an essentially different way. But notice that they cannot be called priests! They only share or participate in the priesthood of Christ in a limited way. The fullness of priesthood actually resides in the bishop because he alone has the fullness of orders. I forgot the Bishops have the fullness of the priesthood, that is true... however priests are also truly ordained. I'll try to investigate this further and see if I could speak with someone about it. Sorry to jump in, but I learned something different for a paper on Holy Orders I had to write for my Sacraments class. Both presbyters and bishop have the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders. The difference between them lies in authority and responsibility. Priests do have the power to ordain and confirm, but they do not have the authority to do so unless their bishop gives them the authority. My source is Joseph Martos's book "Doors to the Sacred," and this particular point comes from page 421. It's just deacons of the three who don't share in the fullness of the priesthood because they have the grace and character of the order but not the power of the order.
God's Beloved Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/Blackwell-proofs/MP_C30.pdf Thomas Aquinas on Being and Essence Edited August 7, 2013 by God's Beloved
abrideofChrist Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 As I've mentioned earlier ,religious institutes have their founder's charism which the members try to integrate in their lives through several years of formation according to their constitutions. The Rite of consecration of virgins confers the charism on the virgin through the gift of the Holy Spirit. The founder is Jesus Christ who on the cross when His heart was pierced , emptied Himself so that the Bride of Christ would be born. One more aspect is that the blood and water that flowed from His side when His heart was pierced , first flowed on the Blessed Virgin Mary who is herself an image of the Church as Virgin, Bride , Mother. During the Annunciation virginity was not Christian . But due to the Paschal Mystery , Mary's virginity became Christian virginity. The Rite of consecration of virgins is also patterned on the Annunciation. It being a 'constitutive sacramental', it is through the action of the Holy Spirit according to the words of the prayer of consecration that this union takes place between the human nature of the virgin and the divine Word of God. the Word then possesses her completely. The Rite of religious profession does not confer this charism of the Virgin Mary upon the individual religious. I was under the impression that the Annunciation initiated Christian virginity as per Cardinal Ratzinger's homily.
abrideofChrist Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 Sorry to jump in, but I learned something different for a paper on Holy Orders I had to write for my Sacraments class. Both presbyters and bishop have the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders. The difference between them lies in authority and responsibility. Priests do have the power to ordain and confirm, but they do not have the authority to do so unless their bishop gives them the authority. My source is Joseph Martos's book "Doors to the Sacred," and this particular point comes from page 421. It's just deacons of the three who don't share in the fullness of the priesthood because they have the grace and character of the order but not the power of the order. I'm afraid this is incorrect. Priests do not have the power to ordain. This has always been a power given only to bishops. To confirm, yes, this can be delegated. But to ordain, this is not possible. It is Catholic doctrine that only bishops have the fullness of Orders. By the way, here's what the Catechism has to say: 1555 "Amongst those various offices which have been exercised in the Church from the earliest times the chief place, according to the witness of tradition, is held by the function of those who, through their appointment to the dignity and responsibility of bishop, and in virtue consequently of the unbroken succession going back to the beginning, are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic line."34 1556 To fulfill their exalted mission, "the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and by the imposition of hands they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration."35 1557 The Second Vatican Council "teaches . . . that the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred by episcopal consecration, that fullness namely which, both in the liturgical tradition of the Church and the language of the Fathers of the Church, is called the high priesthood, the acme (summa) of the sacred ministry."36 1558 "Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the offices of teaching and ruling. . . . In fact . . . by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given, and a sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as his representative (in Eius persona agant)."37 "By virtue, therefore, of the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, bishops have been constituted true and authentic teachers of the faith and have been made pontiffs and pastors."38
God's Beloved Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 I was under the impression that the Annunciation initiated Christian virginity as per Cardinal Ratzinger's homily. You're right, i meant the same thing . When the Annunciation took place , Jesus had not yet died on the Cross or founded the Church. After the paschal mystery was realized , in hindsight Mary's Virginity at the time of the Annunciation became Consecrated virginity , Christian virginity.
Pax_et bonum Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 I'm afraid this is incorrect. Priests do not have the power to ordain. This has always been a power given only to bishops. To confirm, yes, this can be delegated. But to ordain, this is not possible. Yeah I know, that was my bad.
abrideofChrist Posted August 8, 2013 Author Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) The fact is that religious life whether for men or women does not have bridal imagery as the essence at the individual level. Religious life in general does image the marriage of the Church with Christ......this is in the Symbolic sense . This does not mean that a religious is less United with Christ . He is as precious to her and she is as precious to Christ as it would be if she were a CV instead. What is being said is that CV have the right and the monopoly over the title Bride of Christ because this is the VERY CHARISM of OCV and canonically every form of consecrated life has the right to Protect its charism from being diluted . If religious institutes advertize that by joining them one gets the title of Bride of Christ , then this is diluting the Charism of OCV and relativizing it to say the Consecrated virginity belongs to and is part of Religious life. Similarly , if OCV advertizes that by becoming a consecrated virgin one can call oneself a Religious , then this is diluting the Charism of Religous life which is based on explicit profession of the Evangelical counsels of Obedience, Chastity and Poverty etc and relativizing it to say that Religious life belongs to and is part of the Order of Consecrated virgins. --If Religious find that some CV is calling herself a Religious then they have the right to ask the CV to Stop calling herself a Religious. But every CV has the right through Baptism to live the evangelical counsels. --If CV find that an individual Religious is claiming the title of Bride of Christ publicly , then she has the right to ask the individual Religious to Stop doing so. But every individual Religious has the right through Baptism to live her relationship with Christ in a spousal spirituality. This is an incredible insight, God's Beloved. I hadn't thought about it in terms of CVs sharing a "monopoly" on the title of Bride of Christ with the Church but in effect, we do. We must raise public awareness about our charism and demonstrate that by blurring distinctions we lose sight of these God given charims to different groups in the Church, including the Order of Virgins'. Thank you for sharing this. Edited August 8, 2013 by abrideofChrist
God's Beloved Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Thank you AbrideofChrist ! I often think of the Church as a Sacrament of Salvation to the entire world .For its sacramentality to shine , every color in the rainbow of vocations should shine brilliantly with the particular charism of each state of life / vocation . If all vocations lose sight of their foundational charism , the rainbow will but have faded , diluted colors . The important thing about sacramentality of the Church is that the witness of Charisms should bring the change they signify in this world . Think of the sacramentality of the humble actions of our Pope Francis . When he does something , others are inspired to imitate him and this is evangelizing the Church and the World. He as a religious is sharing the charism of religious life with the world. In today's world people look for points of reference . In consecrated life every individual and community has the Founder's Charism as a constant and yet dynamic point of reference which has to be adapted to today's world. CV is ancient. It is important to rediscover , redefine its charism and then adapt it to today's world too. In our discussion i feel we are arriving at clarity about the charism of CV. We couldn't do this ourselves . It helps to do this with the inputs / reactions of persons in other vocations because the charism of CV then goes through a test and has to be defined and adapted in relation to other vocations in the church too. So some amount of conflict is inevitable but the end result will be greater harmony and visible beauty of various charisms as gift of the Holy Spirit for the mission of the church which is to evangelize. Regarding this i have some thoughts which i shall send via PM. :cheers:
God's Beloved Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 This is an incredible insight, God's Beloved. I hadn't thought about it in terms of CVs sharing a "monopoly" on the title of Bride of Christ with the Church but in effect, we do. We must raise public awareness about our charism and demonstrate that by blurring distinctions we lose sight of these God given charims to different groups in the Church, including the Order of Virgins'. Thank you for sharing this. Well , regarding monopoly I mean it in a christian sense of gift which God has chosen to give to an individual or group of persons for the benefit of the community / church and world. The gift of the title 'Bride of Christ ' or 'virgin,bride,mother' is not for the CV to possess and lock in a safe for herself . Every gift is given so that it can be a blessing to others . The sacramentality of the charism has to shine so that baptized members of the church are reminded of their own thirst for union with God who alone can satisfy us fully.
BarbTherese Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Well , regarding monopoly I mean it in a christian sense of gift which God has chosen to give to an individual or group of persons for the benefit of the community / church and world. The gift of the title 'Bride of Christ ' or 'virgin,bride,mother' is not for the CV to possess and lock in a safe for herself . Every gift is given so that it can be a blessing to others . ................edit........... Beautifully stated.
BarbTherese Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 The CV vocation speaks to my own under private vows, since CV's are called to secular life without title or habit - yet unlike me they are a consecrated state in The Church and therefore a witness to and even a role model for me about my own vocation. The important thing for CV's themselves and for me is therefore how they live out their consecrated lives in the secular world without anything to mark them as different from the rest except the persons that they are. But how am I to identify them as CV's without distinguishing markings? The CV vocation originally flowed from the laity, from the baptized state in the laity - as a commitment of lay persons to virginity. They were then isolated from the lay state and transferred into a special consecrated state. I believe that religious life then flowed originally from the CV consecrated state. These states in life and The Gift of the Title "Bride of Christ" and "virgin, bride and mother" - a witness and image of The Church and in many instances laity do go out into the secular world embracing it as their 'vineyard', their mission in life, as well s functions in The Church (as I do) and as leaven without any distinguishing marks - although I always wear a silver cross on a leather thong and commitment band on my commitment or wedding finger. My most important focus is on the person that I am with the cross and ring to state why I am the way that I am. I am a committed Catholic layperson. I am not in the consecrated state which initially is a movement of The Holy Spirit taken up by the person and then confirmed by The Church as a person consecrated to God in a permanent state of life. My consecration is a self consecration under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit and taken up by me, but rather to remain in the lay state of life under this personal consecration or self dedication to God and under the terms of The Apostolate of The Laity; APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM . It is a serious matter with its own duties, rights, responsibilities and accountabilities. I move out into the secular world very often as The Church does through the laity without any form of requested identification by The Church other than the persons that we are. We move within all fields in the main of secular life and aspire to be as leaven everywhere. Perhaps I should abandon the cross and commitment band, but am not yet convinced that I should, although reading the USACV website I am doing a rethink. For it is not me per se that is going to do anything in the secular world, rather The Lord working in me - that is my primary focus. I do think that it might be of importance to wear something or other that does identify one as a person committed to God in the Catholic Faith. But as I said, doing a prayerful rethink. What declares or witnesses to the fact that I am who I am through a personal dedication to God in the Catholic Faith............is it simply to be the person that I am, or does the cross and ring (not a wedding band, but wide sterling silver commitment band) contribute something important to that vocation and call identifying me as a committed person to God. My primary focus however is always on the person that I am and called to be and I a vitally conscious of this everywhere I may be and with inadvertent most often faults and failings that identify for me that it is an aspiration rather than fait accompli - a journey or pilgrimage. I don't so much let myself down when I fail as I fail The Lord that I seek to serve and His Gospel to which I seek to give witness. But then The Lord's Permissive will covers all things with "all is well, all is well and all shall be well" (Julian of Norwich). I might be devastated on the feeling level (pride) by my failings - but my Faith tells me that The Lord watches over me in all things and directs and permits to good.
Benedictus Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 I think if the CV vocation was more known and regularly acknowledged somehow within the life of the church then it could be a major source of benefit, especially to young people exploring the essence of vocation in general. But vocation ministry isn't generally at the core of the parish and therefore the outflow of its life spirit is reduced as a result. Many vocations become obscured or seem invisible these days - out of sight and out of mind. I'd like to see more promotion and focus on vocation ministry by people who lead these lives by collaborating together and doing something to guide others who may not understand that what they are drawn towards has an actual recognition within the church.
Recommended Posts