Jump to content
Join our Facebook Group ×
An Old School Catholic Message Board
Join our Facebook Group

Bride Of Christ

abrideofChrist

By abrideofChrist
in Catholic Debate Table

 Share

Recommended Posts

abrideofChrist

abrideofChrist

Posted
  • Author
Posted

How delightful, BarbaraTherese.  People are part of the Bride of Christ through baptism!  I am glad you are finally realizing that and could bring a quote to that effect.  Now, we just need to bring a quote that shows how a woman is made into a bride of Christ through the ministry of the Bishop.  Oh!  Silly me.  That was provided by Laurie who quoted the Rite, the Catechism, and Canon Law.  Now that that is settled, let's move on in the discussion, shall we?

 

With regard to ontological changes, it is quite an improvement that at least people are starting to realize that other Sacraments besides the ones with a permanent mark produce ontological changes.  If you would kindly re-read the USACV materials, perhaps you will discover language which shows that the Church considers the change in the CV similar to the Sacramental ones but done via a sacramental vs. Sacrament.  Again, my congratulations upon your valuable discovery.

BarbTherese

BarbTherese

Posted
Posted

How delightful, BarbaraTherese.  People are part of the Bride of Christ through baptism!  I am glad you are finally realizing that and could bring a quote to that effect.  Now, we just need to bring a quote that shows how a woman is made into a bride of Christ through the ministry of the Bishop.  Oh!  Silly me.  That was provided by Laurie who quoted the Rite, the Catechism, and Canon Law.  Now that that is settled, let's move on in the discussion, shall we?

 

With regard to ontological changes, it is quite an improvement that at least people are starting to realize that other Sacraments besides the ones with a permanent mark produce ontological changes.  If you would kindly re-read the USACV materials, perhaps you will discover language which shows that the Church considers the change in the CV similar to the Sacramental ones but done via a sacramental vs. Sacrament.  Again, my congratulations upon your valuable discovery.

Thank you.

 

I always knew that logically, baptism had to initiate one into a spousal relationship with Jesus, simply because The Church is The Bride of Christ - and The Church is her membership.  But I could never find a supporting quote that was sufficiently sound and reliable as to be uncontestable.  I fell over the quote last night researching something entirely different.  A sort of “What was that!” experience and then going back hoping to find it again as I had just glanced at it in passing  looking for something else entirely.

 

I suspect only that you have your ‘tongue in your cheek’ and I smiley-char025.gifam laughing after a re read of your post (I am writing this into Word for obvious reasons i.e. problems experienced on Phatmass and losing a post written with Phatmass timing out/getting knocked out completely).

 

I have moved on in reading matter and researching from this thread, unless of course I have another “What was that!” type of experience.  I have an appointment with my priest religious and superior of his Order spiritual director today and he has instructed me to write a Rule of Life for Bethany.  Astoundingly, it was completed very quickly from notes jotted here and there as I went about my days.  I sat down for an hour or so to start to make some logical flow of those notes and all just fell into place amazingly quickly.  The Rule has my primary focus I hope today and later this afternoon my appointment with my director - I though I was going to have to tell him that he will have to wait some time for The Rule, not having the time I thought to write one.  Our God of The Surprise and Hide and Seek. 

 

However, I have a Bipolar mind which is continually, almost, on the go and on various subjects.  Now and then, The Lord is generous with His Grace, I am actually entirely focused and over varying periods in length and totally unable to multi-task.  I don't get concerned, The Lord is in the driver's seat.

 

I have put the quote from the CCC into my files for future reference if needed.

 

Fraternally always............Barb :)

BarbTherese

BarbTherese

Posted
Posted

My primary interest is of course insight into my own vocation – “Bethany” – or Bethanite it has occurred to me.  Anyone interested in finding out what it is all about can click onto the following links and comment in those links.  The Rule of Life mentioned in my previous post is the Rule of Life for Bethany which my director (priest religious and superior in his Order with experience in leadership including Novice Master) had asked me to write.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130206-taking-the-faith-to-the-streets/page-1

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130346-religious-type-of-way-of-life-for-single-celibate-only-lay-women/

 

I do desire to have a working knowledge of The Church generally and this includes the various vocations of course.  This is partly my response to The Church’s urgings and to the laity to become evangelizers.  I have theories about this formation into evangelizers, one of which is knowledge of our subject i.e. The Church and Jesus who founded Her and is The Head of His Mystical Body, The Church, and our King, for one title only.

Ima Lurker

Ima Lurker

Posted
Posted

My primary interest is of course insight into my own vocation – “Bethany” – or Bethanite it has occurred to me.  Anyone interested in finding out what it is all about can click onto the following links and comment in those links.  The Rule of Life mentioned in my previous post is the Rule of Life for Bethany which my director (priest religious and superior in his Order with experience in leadership including Novice Master) had asked me to write.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130206-taking-the-faith-to-the-streets/page-1

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130346-religious-type-of-way-of-life-for-single-celibate-only-lay-women/

 

I do desire to have a working knowledge of The Church generally and this includes the various vocations of course.  This is partly my response to The Church’s urgings and to the laity to become evangelizers.  I have theories about this formation into evangelizers, one of which is knowledge of our subject i.e. The Church and Jesus who founded Her and is The Head of His Mystical Body, The Church, and our King, for one title only.

 

I laughed at ABC's cheeky humor as well. I think she must be British who are famous for their dry humor... 

 

I really like what you have to say. I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a new thread where this is more closely examined? I would love to hear your thoughts on the common priesthood as well. As a wife and mother, I think this could be helpful for me and others who want to explore the differences and similarities between consecrated lay persons and well, the common baptized children of God! :) People who do not receive an outward consecration to virginity or priesthood. I think you're on to the theology of lay life, something we could all study up on! Since you have researched so much on consecrated life, could you also talk about the priesthood, and how we're to exercise our royal priesthood. Since this thread is about consecrated life, it might be less confusing for some of us to have separate threads exploring separate thoughts. It's just a thought but one I thought my prove useful? 

 

If you have time, that is. 

 

And Laurie, it was your suggestion to read the 400 page document that inspired me to start, that and having a theologian friend to make sure I'm on the right page. Your thoughts have been so insightful. And your kindness to me is truly appreciated! :) 

 

Thank you and God bless!

BarbTherese

BarbTherese

Posted
Posted

I laughed at ABC's cheeky humor as well. I think she must be British who are famous for their dry humor... 

 

I really like what you have to say. I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a new thread where this is more closely examined? I would love to hear your thoughts on the common priesthood as well. As a wife and mother, I think this could be helpful for me and others who want to explore the differences and similarities between consecrated lay persons and well, the common baptized children of God! :) People who do not receive an outward consecration to virginity or priesthood. I think you're on to the theology of lay life, something we could all study up on! Since you have researched so much on consecrated life, could you also talk about the priesthood, and how we're to exercise our royal priesthood. Since this thread is about consecrated life, it might be less confusing for some of us to have separate threads exploring separate thoughts. It's just a thought but one I thought my prove useful? 

 

If you have time, that is. 

 

And Laurie, it was your suggestion to read the 400 page document that inspired me to start, that and having a theologian friend to make sure I'm on the right page. Your thoughts have been so insightful. And your kindness to me is truly appreciated! :)

 

Thank you and God bless!

 

Just back from my spiritual director, a needed coffee at my side.  My appt with Father went well, very well indeed. 

 

 

I really like what you have to say. I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a new thread where this is more closely examined? I would love to hear your thoughts on the common priesthood as well.

 

A discussion on the Apostolate of The Laity (APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM) might do it. Probably in Transmundane or the Spirituality forum. I wont have time to do it I don't think for a while, hard to tell.  You could always start one.

 

As a wife and mother, I think this could be helpful for me and others who want to explore the differences and similarities between consecrated lay persons and well, the common baptized children of God! :)

 

 

I am not a consecrated lay person (consecrated life in Canon Law).  I am fully in the laity in secular life in every way.  There is no difference (insofar as my personal vocation is concerned) from the most common vocation of the baptised children of God, be they married or in single chaste celibacy.  Being under private vows to the evangelical counsels and with a Rule of Life now written awaiting Father's approval, I live daily a very specific Gospel based way of life.  But my vocation and call is to the lay state in secular life, just as with all those baptised in the lay state of life; therefore in the lay state and outside of Holy Orders and Canonically Consecrated Life.

 

People who do not receive an outward consecration to virginity or priesthood.

 

 

Non canonical consecration or a self dedication/consecration.  Vita Consecrata (The Consecrated Life) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_25031996_vita-consecrata_en.html terms a private dedication/consecration  a "special consecration".  There are many forms of private dedication/consecration ("special consecration") to God - not only to the evangelical counsels.

 

I think you're on to the theology of lay life, something we could all study up on!

 

 

 I can run with that.  It is almost my constant study.  But understanding all the vocations in The Church gives one insight into The Church overall and also one's own vocation no matter what it might be. The Church at the moment is making a consistent appeal to the laity especially to be evangelisers.  To evangelise about Jesus, His Gospel and His Church we need to understand the subject we are addressing or might be asked to adddress, for one very important point only.  "Why do....(insert here some aspect of Catholicism).......?" can be a very common question from those to whom we might be talking, very common question indeed.

 

Since you have researched so much on consecrated life, could you also talk about the priesthood, and how we're to exercise our royal priesthood. Since this thread is about consecrated life, it might be less confusing for some of us to have separate threads exploring separate thoughts. It's just a thought but one I thought my prove useful? 

 

 

 I entered religious life twice in my journey to date and this has informed my vocation now.  I entered in my teens and again in my forties.   I gave (with some others) a 30 minute address on "Women's Role in The Church" some years back to an assembly here in Adelaide. There was a panel present (which included our Archbishop) to ask any questions after each address.   Addresses were given in each state in Australia. The talks were videotaped and a book later produced by the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, launched in Canberra ACT (Australian Capital Territory).

 

 I think you will find all your answers in either

 

Vita Consecrata (already quoted above with link) may be helpful as well as the Catholic Catechism specifically those areas directly concerning the laity - these two links would guide you as a start:

 

BarbTherese

BarbTherese

Posted
Posted
I really like what you have to say. I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a new thread where this is more closely examined

 

 

Started a thread in Transmundane although I don't know if it is quite what you were thinking of i.e. the subject.  It will either catch on or simply die a natural death. At best, I suspect, a bit of both.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/130757-discussion-lumen-gentium-the-mystery-of-the-church/

MarysLittleFlower

MarysLittleFlower

Posted
Posted

I don't know if this makes sense, but... it seems like it's important to look into when ontological change occurs.

 

Specifically, if it occurs ONLY in the Sacraments, or in other cases too.

 

 

Ima Lurker

Ima Lurker

Posted
Posted

Maybe I can help you with this one? 

 

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610153 in response to your question earlier about the changes of a CV

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610167 direct q&a regarding ontological change in a CV

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610171 useful quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church helping us to understand the change better.

 

ABC also answered your question on ontological change in post 103: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610177

 

 

I've been re reading the posts as a refresher. I can't believe how much I've learned just from reading this thread! :D I hope this helps you, MLF, and that I'm not just wasting your time repeating so much here. I think it was your questions and several others who really got some to delve deep into the books for the answers and I'm really grateful for that! Truly my gain... ;) 

 

Peace and prayers! 

Laurie

Laurie

Posted
Posted

Blessings, Liturgical (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition)

[L. J. JOHNSON & J. R. QUINN]

 

“Types of Blessings. Among the Church’s sanctifying actions some constitute a person or object to service in the Church. These are known as constitutive blessings and result in a permanent deputation to worship. Some constitutive blessings are more solemn than others, indicated by the use of the holy oils in their celebration; these are called consecrations in contra-distinction to simple constitutive blessings. The consecration of an altar, a church, or a chalice are examples of this same type of blessings for objects.

 

In addition to these there are many blessings that call on God to bless the persons who make use of objects or who are in certain needs. In these the person or object is not permanently changed. They are known as invocative blessings. The prayers seeking God's protection for a home or a sick person are of this class. Since the blessings she imparts consist primarily in her impetration, these (blessings) are what one means first of all in speaking of her sacramentals. The term is used in a secondary sense of the objects to which she gives her blessing.”

 

Note that invocative blessings are distinguished from constitutive blessings (the consecration of a virgin is a constitutive blessing) because invocative blessings do not bring about a permanent change in the person or object. It logically follows that constitutive blessings do bring about a permanent change in the person.

BarbTherese

BarbTherese

Posted
Posted (edited)


Blessings, Liturgical (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition)

[L. J. JOHNSON & J. R. QUINN]

 

“Types of Blessings. Among the Church’s sanctifying actions some constitute a person or object to service in the Church. These are known as constitutive blessings and result in a permanent deputation to worship. Some constitutive blessings are more solemn than others, indicated by the use of the holy oils in their celebration; these are called consecrations in contra-distinction to simple constitutive blessings. The consecration of an altar, a church, or a chalice are examples of this same type of blessings for objects.

 

In addition to these there are many blessings that call on God to bless the persons who make use of objects or who are in certain needs. In these the person or object is not permanently changed. They are known as invocative blessings. The prayers seeking God's protection for a home or a sick person are of this class. Since the blessings she imparts consist primarily in her impetration, these (blessings) are what one means first of all in speaking of her sacramentals. The term is used in a secondary sense of the objects to which she gives her blessing.”

 

Note that invocative blessings are distinguished from constitutive blessings (the consecration of a virgin is a constitutive blessing) because invocative blessings do not bring about a permanent change in the person or object. It logically follows that constitutive blessings do bring about a permanent change in the person.

 

Constitutive brings about a change in what the person is deputised for ("permanent deputation to worship") It is a "deputation for" or "assigned to"; however, only Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders bring about an ontological change or change in the very essence of the person per se.

 

 

Constitutive : "A constitutive blessing, invoked by a bishop, priest or deacon, signifies the permanent sanctification and dedication of a person or thing for some sacred purpose. Here the person or object takes on a sacred character and would not be returned to non-sacred or profane use. For example, when religious Sisters or Brothers profess final vows, they are blessed, indicating a permanent change in their lives. Or, when a chalice is blessed, it becomes a sacred vessel dedicated solely to sacred usage.

 

 

 

 

 

Ontolotical Change

http://stpaulsparish.org/education/documents/ontological_change.pdf 

 

"– the Sacraments which produce an ontological change in a person: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders

 

– the Sacraments which provide grace for the support, strengthening, and development of the new life

and being created by this ontological change: Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Unction of the Sick,

Matrimony

 

Ontology is the “study and analysis of what something is.” This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s “existential analysis” to include the study of human existence. Thus an “ontologicalchange” is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence.

 

The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, when validly administered, produce an objective, permanent, systemic change in what a person is and the nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

 

 

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person.

nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person. It is also what theologically is at the center of the question of who can validly be the subject (recipient) of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

 

It is because the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Matrimony, and Unction of the Sick support, strengthen, and develop the new life created by this ontological change that this objective, systemic change in ones beingand existence must have taken place (through the Sacrament of Baptism) in order for any of these four Sacraments to be effective in the recipient’s life. (My note: As Baptism and Confirmation i.e. ontological change must have taken place before the Consecration of a Virgin, for example, can take place validly)

 

 

Edited by BarbaraTherese
BarbTherese

BarbTherese

Posted
Posted (edited)

Maybe I can help you with this one? 

 

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610153 in response to your question earlier about the changes of a CV

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610167 direct q&a regarding ontological change in a CV

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610171 useful quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church helping us to understand the change better.

 

ABC also answered your question on ontological change in post 103: http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2610177

 

 

I've been re reading the posts as a refresher. I can't believe how much I've learned just from reading this thread! :D I hope this helps you, MLF, and that I'm not just wasting your time repeating so much here. I think it was your questions and several others who really got some to delve deep into the books for the answers and I'm really grateful for that! Truly my gain... ;)

 

Peace and prayers! 

 

Only Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders confer ontological change.  This is why a CV cannot be consecrated validly unless Baptism and Confirmation and ontological change has taken place.  Ontological change is change in the actual person per se in reality.  What constitutes the person in ontological change actually undergoes very real change.  Consecration of a CV or any other form of consecrated life is The Church under the Inspiration of The Holy Spirit consecrating the baptised and confirmed person (ontologically changed) for some special purpose in The Church (sacramental).

Edited by BarbaraTherese
Laurie

Laurie

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thank you, BarbaraTherese. I know there is a lot going on in this thread!

 

Ima Lurker linked just above to one of my earlier posts on ontological change. I get into the sacrament versus sacramental and give some quotes from theologians in which the change brought about by some sacramentals is consistent with the ontological change brought about by the sacraments.

 

I've said repeatedly that sacramentals are not the same as sacramentals. I also quoted at length a few pages ago with some excellent NCE articles about the similarities and differences between the two.

 

It's a mistake to think "ontological change" can only happen in one, very restricted way. I think it's clear that a sacramental does not have the power & efficacy of a sacrament. It's also clear it does have power & efficacy and permanent efficacy at that!

 

There's no contradiction in reserving the strong sense of "ontological change" for the sacraments while saying, given the language theologians have used to describe constitute sacramentals, that they, too, bring about a real change. This is all based on philosophy and language (the topics we just can't seem to get away from! :)).

 

For example, these are all examples of ontological change, on various levels:

 

--pan on counter is room temperature; pan if filled with cold water; pan is put on burner and brought to a boil--within 20 minutes that pan underwent a real ontological change--from warm, to cold, to hot

 

--chipmunk scurries along, chipmunk gets hit by a bus :( Ontological. Change. (The animal soul of that chipmunk has departed as the life principle and only a corpse is left. Major ontological change. Poor chipmunk carcass decays and returns to the earth. Another ontological change.)

 

--And there are other kinds than just these two. But as you can see, there's quite a bit of difference between the first and second. The first is transitory, the second so dramatic that the thing that was there ceased to be due to the change.

 

There can be less radical ontological changes that are nonetheless permanent and effect a REAL change and others that are more radical and likewise effect a permanent and real change. The fact that the more radical one is real doesn't negate the other from being real, too.

Edited by Laurie
Laurie

Laurie

Posted
Posted

 

Ontolotical Change

http://stpaulsparish...ical_change.pdf 

 

"– the Sacraments which produce an ontological change in a person: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders

 

– the Sacraments which provide grace for the support, strengthening, and development of the new life

and being created by this ontological change: Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Unction of the Sick,

Matrimony

 

Ontology is the “study and analysis of what something is.” This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s “existential analysis” to include the study of human existence. Thus an “ontologicalchange” is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence.

 

The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, when validly administered, produce an objective, permanent, systemic change in what a person is and the nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

 

 

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person.

nature of his/her existence. This is the reason that these three

Sacraments can only be validly administered once to a person. It is also what theologically is at the center of the question of who can validly be the subject (recipient) of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

 

It is because the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation (Penance), Matrimony, and Unction of the Sick support, strengthen, and develop the new life created by this ontological change that this objective, systemic change in ones beingand existence must have taken place (through the Sacrament of Baptism) in order for any of these four Sacraments to be effective in the recipient’s life. (My note: As Baptism and Confirmation i.e. ontological change must have taken place before the Consecration of a Virgin, for example, can take place validly)

 

BarbaraTherese, I think this was originally from you (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

I'll start from the bottom, your comment in red first: Yes! Absolutely. The constitutive blessing of a CV is only possible due to Baptism and Confirmation.

 

Second, we don't disagree on the nature of the sacraments.

 

3rd, I didn't see an author listed on the link you gave for the Q&A on ontological change from St. Paul Parish. Here's your quote from above:

 

"Ontology is the study and analysis of what something is.' This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s 'existential analysis' to include the study of human existence. Thus an 'ontological change' is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence."

 

This is way off. It's true that "ontology" is the study of being. But Heidegger did NOT "expand it to include human existence!" That happened with Aristotle, if not to varying degrees before him!!!!!! You know the chipmunk example I gave above? Animal soul as the life principle of a chipmunk body? Aristole. Animal soul leaving the poor little chipmunk body? Death. Substantial (metaphysical) change. Aristotle.

 

The Church DOES NOT rely on Martin Heidegger for her explanations of things. She did NOT discover "ontological change" due to him!

 

Heidegger basically bucked most of the philosophy that the Church and her theologians and philosophers developed and relied upon. That doesn't mean he doesn't have anything interesting to say.

 

But there were 2,400 plus years of philosophers and then Christian philosophers and theologians talking about metaphysical (ontological) change before Martin was even a twinkle in his father's eye. I'm just saying.

 

 

abrideofChrist

abrideofChrist

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Laurie is right.  The deepest sense of ontological change, as I pointed out in a very early post in this thread, is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which occurs when a substance becomes another substance.  Or, in this case, when bread becomes the Body of Christ.  Sacraments with a "seal" are another example of ontological change.  But there ARE other ontological changes besides those caused by change in essence and a "seal".  One such change is that of the Consecration of Virgins.  Again, as she points out, this is why knowing philosophy can be helpful because a philosopher would know about the different types of ontological changes possible.  In the case of a consecration, we are talking about an non-existent bond between the virgin and Christ prior to the Consecration and then a bond forming through the ministry of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit.  There is a big difference between nothing and something- an infinite one, I might add.  You can compare this to the nuptial bond between a man and a woman. At first they are ontologically single with no bond between them and then through words and signs a bond is created between them that makes them husband and wife.  Again, infinite difference between a single person and a married person.  If we were to say that ontologically they were the same before and after the wedding vows, we'd be wrong.  If we were to say that God had somehow graced them with the spousal grace before the wedding and that the vows were merely a confirmation of a reality already present we'd be wrong.

Laurie

Laurie

Posted
Posted

Laurie is right.  The deepest sense of ontological change, as I pointed out in a very early post in this thread, is TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which occurs when a substance becomes another substance.  Or, in this case, when bread becomes the Body of Christ.  Sacraments with a "seal" are another example of ontological change.  But there ARE other ontological changes besides those caused by change in essence and a "seal".  One such change is that of the Consecration of Virgins.  Again, as she points out, this is why knowing philosophy can be helpful because a philosopher would know about the different types of ontological changes possible.  In the case of a consecration, we are talking about an non-existent bond between the virgin and Christ prior to the Consecration and then a bond forming through the ministry of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit.  There is a big difference between nothing and something- an infinite one, I might add.  You can compare this to the nuptial bond between a man and a woman. At first they are ontologically single with no bond between them and then through words and signs a bond is created between them that makes them husband and wife.  Again, infinite difference between a single person and a married person.  If we were to say that ontologically they were the same before and after the wedding vows, we'd be wrong.  If we were to say that God had somehow graced them with the spousal grace before the wedding and that the vows were merely a confirmation of a reality already present we'd be wrong.

 

Yup. Spot on.

 

You know, it's just occurred to me, I think some here might be mistaking the ESSENTIAL NATURE of the CV VOCATION with the ESSENTIAL NATURE of the woman who is consecrated.

 

The human soul is the essential nature of the woman who is consecrated.

 

To be the bride of Christ is the essential nature of the CV vocation. This is drawn from the essential elements of the vocation in Canon 604 (a CV is mystically betrothed to Christ via the constitutive blessing given by the bishop).

 

If anyone here thinks we are arguing that the constitutive blessing takes "a woman who has a human soul as her essence" and changes her human soul entirely into some new essence that consists of "human soul plus essentially bride of Christ" well, that would be incorrect.

 

That's not what we've been saying.

 

The VOCATION to the be a CV is ESSENTIALLY SPOUSAL.

 

The woman has her essence: human soul.

 

The vocation has it's own essence: to be the bride of Christ.

 

When a woman receives this vocation, her essence, her human soul, is altered. She receives a permanent blessing and a permanent union with Christ as her mystical spouse. It is a change to her human soul. But it is NOT swapping out her human soul for "something else."

 

 

 

abrideofChrist

abrideofChrist

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Just to tease things out a little bit more.  Marriage is in itself a reflection of Christ's union with the Church.  HOWEVER, marriage need not be sacramental to do this.

 

A true and valid marriage bond can form between people without the sacrament.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but they are not united by a sacramental bond.  Nevertheless, their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

A true and valid sacramental valid marriage bond can form between some people.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but their sacramental valid marriage bond can be dissolved.  Nevertheless, their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

A true and valid and indissoluble valid marriage bond can form between people.  The people united in such a bond are truly husband and wife but their sacramental valid marriage bond cannot be dissolved once a change happens by means of their bodies.  Their ontological reality is such that they are not single but married.

 

I suggest that you reflect on this reality and try to understand that in each of these cases, you have people who are NOT single.  What makes their bond different?  Why?  How?  And note that there is a discrete beginning to each type of bond.  It was not a continuous existence that was merely ratified, confirmed, or blessed by the Church.

Edited by abrideofChrist
BarbTherese

BarbTherese

Posted
Posted (edited)

BarbaraTherese, I think this was originally from you (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

I'll start from the bottom, your comment in red first: Yes! Absolutely. The constitutive blessing of a CV is only possible due to Baptism and Confirmation.

 

Second, we don't disagree on the nature of the sacraments.

 

3rd, I didn't see an author listed on the link you gave for the Q&A on ontological change from St. Paul Parish. Here's your quote from above:

 

"Ontology is the study and analysis of what something is.' This definition was expanded by the 20th Century philosopher Martin Heidegger’s 'existential analysis' to include the study of human existence. Thus an 'ontological change' is a change in what someone is and the nature of his/her existence."

 

This is way off. It's true that "ontology" is the study of being. But Heidegger did NOT "expand it to include human existence!" That happened with Aristotle, if not to varying degrees before him!!!!!! You know the chipmunk example I gave above? Animal soul as the life principle of a chipmunk body? Aristole. Animal soul leaving the poor little chipmunk body? Death. Substantial (metaphysical) change. Aristotle.

 

The Church DOES NOT rely on Martin Heidegger for her explanations of things. She did NOT discover "ontological change" due to him!

 

Heidegger basically bucked most of the philosophy that the Church and her theologians and philosophers developed and relied upon. That doesn't mean he doesn't have anything interesting to say.

 

But there were 2,400 plus years of philosophers and then Christian philosophers and theologians talking about metaphysical (ontological) change before Martin was even a twinkle in his father's eye. I'm just saying.

 

Thank you, Laurie.  Beyond me most of the above and with very real respect, and I am disinterested as a study at this point. But thank you for very much for sharing -   :)  I'm disinterested only because I have no training in these complex subjects while could I afford it I would be studying philosophy and some branch of theology.  Be that as it may, as a faithful and active very ordinary (face-in-the-pew) type Catholic by call and vocation, I do have a right to understand The Church and in language that I can understand.  If this were a forum confined to philosophy and theology and only philosophers and theologians can contribute, then it would be a different matter - to me.

 

In the examples you gave in a previous post.  Cold and Boiling water remain water.  The monkey remains a monkey deprived of one of its elements i.e. life i.  These are not ontological changes to me as I understand the term.  Their elements have changed, but not the essence of what is actually there.  It is still a monkey (though dead) and it is still water (though on the boil). 

 

That The Church states that ontological change takes place at Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders alone is good enough for my level of knowledge.  The very word "consecrated" as in "Consecrated Life" (includes CV's) is a constitutive blessing or assignment (deputation)  of the person as a sacramental or set aside for sacred use.  What that sacred use is to me is contained in the duties of the particular consecrated person and into which consecrated form they are consecrated.  Consecrated life is a state in life created by The Church under the inspiration of The Holy Spirit.  The Sacraments come to us direct from God instituted by Him directly.

 

1 - I have skimmed this article which was very interesting in places where I settled and read with concentration:Character in Theology:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03586a.htm

 

2 - This article was also interesting and I read it the same way as 1. above. Sacramentals: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13292d.htm

 

 

I don't have an agenda wanting my point of view to stand and against all others come what may.  Rather if I come across a convincing argument that my search for the Truth of the matter is not on track, then I am more than willing, eager in fact, to change my opinion and over the course of this thread rather than change my mind, insight has deepened, I feel.  I remain open minded on the matter insofar as sound resources are quoted/indicated, not personal concepts.

Edited by BarbaraTherese
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...