Laurie Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 BarbaraTherese, I do understand your points and respect your wish to understand things as you can. Still, I must point out, that these kinds of theological and philosophical explanations are not a hindrance to understanding the vocation. They are NECESSARY. The Church, herself, has embraced, for example, Aristole and Aquinas, for a reason.That's because they had amazing minds that got to the truth of things, in a multitude of ways. The kinds of defintions and distinctions that ABC and I and others are offering are NOT a distraction to the discussion at hand. If a certain person isn't interested in them, or doesn't find them helpful, that's fine. It's not everyone's domain. But there MUST be people in the Church tackling these issues, each and every day. To take a concrete, relevant example. A human person has a human soul. The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God. The human person has an intellect (to know the truth) and free will (to choose the truth, intellectually, and morally, what we call that which is "good.") No single human person exists as "just a soul." A human person is always body/soul together. In this day and age, some people will say, well, a child who is severely mentally handicapped is not a person! This girl can't think! She can't do math! She can't tie her shoes! But the Catholic Church, to that, says HELL NO. She's got an intellect! Her very human soul endows her with a mind that can know God and a free will that can seek Him. Right now, on earth, there might be something the matter with her physical brain (the organ of her brain) that impedes the full action of her soul. But there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER WRONG WITH HER SOUL. When that child gets to Heaven her mind will not be encumbered by a faulty brain organ, and she will KNOW the truth, and she will love Him (Them ;)). THAT's what the Pro-Life movement hinges on. THAT's why these discussions make a difference. THAT comes straight from Aristole and Aquinas and others. Not everyone in the pew is going to be able to explain or teach these things. They don't have to be able to do so. But everyone in the Church does have to support, pray for, and encourage those who are tasked with teaching/thinking/elucidating.
BarbTherese Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) BarbaraTherese, I do understand your points and respect your wish to understand things as you can. Still, I must point out, that these kinds of theological and philosophical explanations are not a hindrance to understanding the vocation. They are NECESSARY. The Church, herself, has embraced, for example, Aristole and Aquinas, for a reason.That's because they had amazing minds that got to the truth of things, in a multitude of ways. The kinds of defintions and distinctions that ABC and I and others are offering are NOT a distraction to the discussion at hand. If a certain person isn't interested in them, or doesn't find them helpful, that's fine. It's not everyone's domain. But there MUST be people in the Church tackling these issues, each and every day. To take a concrete, relevant example. A human person has a human soul. The human soul is made in the image and likeness of God. The human person has an intellect (to know the truth) and free will (to choose the truth, intellectually, and morally, what we call that which is "good.") No single human person exists as "just a soul." A human person is always body/soul together. In this day and age, some people will say, well, a child who is severely mentally handicapped is not a person! This girl can't think! She can't do math! She can't tie her shoes! But the Catholic Church, to that, says HELL NO. She's got an intellect! Her very human soul endows her with a mind that can know God and a free will that can seek Him. Right now, on earth, there might be something the matter with her physical brain (the organ of her brain) that impedes the full action of her soul. But there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER WRONG WITH HER SOUL. When that child gets to Heaven her mind will not be encumbered by a faulty brain organ, and she will KNOW the truth, and she will love Him (Them ;)). THAT's what the Pro-Life movement hinges on. THAT's why these discussions make a difference. THAT comes straight from Aristole and Aquinas and others. Not everyone in the pew is going to be able to explain or teach these things. They don't have to be able to do so. But everyone in the Church does have to support, pray for, and encourage those who are tasked with teaching/thinking/elucidating. Thank you, Laurie. Most of what you said above, I have stated before in different wording. My problem is that if a person asks me "Why do nuns (or CV's) in the Catholic Church call themselves brides of Christ?" (and it is a VERY, VERY, frequently occurring question). I need to have an answer at hand. And I do and I feel it is the right answer and makes logical sense to me. Problem is that that answer is challenged in this thread and by a few. What I am seeking to discern is if I have the correct answer to give, or whether I have to change that answer. And it really does matter - a lot. It is a confusing point to people outside of The Church, and as we see in this thread not only outside The Church. To date, I feel that I am correct. But I do follow this thread with considerable interest wondering if there is something that I need to change about my answer with sound and reliable sources quoted to support such a change. Not philosophical and theological type terms that are not followed by an explanation of what that term might mean. Ontology for example is a contested term it seems to me from odd and relatively brief searches through Google. To me "ontological change" means that something is no longer what it appears to be and such ontological change can only take place in the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. The very fact that one cannot receive consecration into the consecrated state without Baptism and Confirmation tells me that ontological change only takes place with these three Sacraments. Change does take place (as with all Graces) with consecration; however it is not a complete ontological change in that what appears to be is no longer present. What appears to be remains, however with consecration that person is 'deputised' or constituted to give special service - sacramental service. The consecrated person is changed into a Sacramental to give witness, image or reflect some particular aspect of Jesus and His Church. In the case of the CV this is largely an eschatological witness. This is constitutive (or deputised for example) i.e. "consecrated" for special service in The Church. There is no ontological change which to my mind is complete change in the being of himself or herself (i.e. consecrated person). But then "ontological" is a contested term hence all interpretations using "ontological" as a term must also thus be contested, including mine. Therefore, I revert to what The Church states in Her Public Teaching Office - that ontological change only takes place in Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. And this supports my own understanding to date. Edited August 15, 2013 by BarbaraTherese
abrideofChrist Posted August 15, 2013 Author Posted August 15, 2013 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. BarbaraTherese, quite simply it is not true that the dead monkey is a monkey or a dead chipmunk is a chipmunk. TO BE a chipmunk (that is the essence of "chipmunk") requires life (body + soul) and in the case of a dead chipmunk you only have (body). This is exactly why philosophy is important. The essence of dead chipmunk is different than the essence of chipmunk. Period. It is heresy to think that ontological change is done only by the three sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and holy orders. I have repeatedly brought your attention to another sacrament that effects ontological change: the Eucharist. We say that an ontological change in its strictest sense occurs when the essence of bread is changed to be the essence of the Body of Christ. This is a pretty big deal. Protestants believe a number of other explanations like the essence of bread REMAINS and Christ is squeezed into the bread and is present WITH the bread or that the bread merely becomes a better "sign" of the Body of Christ but NOT actually the Body of Christ. The Church often does give simplified explanations of theological and philosophical realities for people who do not think they have the capacity of understanding advanced theological and philosophical principles. But at some point, to really understand something means that one does really get the difference. At some point, we have to realize that John and Jane are either married and have a spousal bond or that they are single. At some point we have to realize that a body is different than a body plus soul. At some point we have to realize that something that IS by nature, others can be through participation. I do not know if you are aware of this, but before seminarians study theology, they study philosophy. They must have at least two solid years of philosophy before they are allowed to go on to theology. Most of them moan about this because they don't see the relevance of philosophy to their being a priest. Only when they start to study theology do they begin to get the importance of philosophy. Studying theology without first studying philosophy is like reading without learning the alphabet. I have noticed that you quote from all kinds of theological documents, but at the same time you proclaim the fact that you have not and do not intend to study philosophy. Unless you study philosophy, you will not really understand much of the theological works you cite because they presuppose knowledge of philosophy. I am not saying this to be unkind, but because I would like to encourage you to begin studying philosophy so you can start to understand the underpinnings of the theological documents you are citing. A whole new vista will be open to you if you are able to do this. In my country, there is a huge battle about so called gay marriage. The problem is that everyone is focused on the word "love", and assign an erroneous definition to that word. Even on this thread, some people were focusing on "charity" and thinking that this is the last word when it comes to defining vocations (by saying all that matters is charity, then by definition all vocations are the same and we should not explore what makes them essentially different). When people did have a better philosophical background in earlier centuries, they actually got the fact that marriage is not just about love. They were able to reason to monogamy, to the fact that the physical bodies have sexual differences and that these differences suggest a purpose for them, they were able to reason to a reality called marriage. People today claim that the state has the authority to dissolve the marriage bond. How does a person argue against this on purely natural terms unless by showing that it is not simply a contract? If it's not just a contract, then it has to have something besides a legal existence. If it has an existence rooted in ontological being, then we need to argue that marriage is SOMETHING that is not dependent on the state's recognition or lack thereof. But if we argue that, then we need to say how this Something comes into being and how it disappears, and what it IS. I know that this is philosophical and too hard to follow for some people, but it is a fact of life. Only when we have an understanding of this, can we begin to understand why homosexual unions cannot have the essence of marriage. The essence of marriage is not undifferentiated love. If love itself creates marriage, then all of us would be married and we would only not be married to those we hate. Therefore, love is not the essence of marriage. So what is? Well, we need to look at a lot of factors to begin constructing a definition of marriage. It should be understood that we are not talking about constructing an arbitrary definition of marriage but one that is rooted in REALITY. One that actually captures the essence of marriage as opposed to a purely nominal construct. Part of the construction of the definition of marriage will have to do with procreation. Philosophy helps here, especially when we note what the philosophers (and THE Philosopher) have to say about things created for an end; that natural things are ordered to ends. I believe that an ear and hearing are classic examples. The De Anima is a classic work that discusses this principle, and the principle of life. If we begin to discuss ends, then we need to know to what purpose or end different sex organs serve in the human body. However, there are different ends, and this is why studying philosophy can be extremely useful in coming to an understanding of the definition of marriage. The Philosopher ties the concept of ends with the soul and other realities. Again, this is a concept which a philosopher would appreciate and the non philosopher would be very puzzled by. Ultimately, we by the use of natural reason, can come to a natural definition of marriage. It is a union between a man and a woman, having as essential elements unity, permanence, and the use of procreative power. If it doesn't have unity (monogamy), it is not marriage. If it doesn't have permanence, it is not marriage. If it isn't between a man and a woman, it is not marriage. If it does not involve the use of the procreative power, it is not marriage. It has to be all of these things or it is not marriage. Added to a natural definition of marriage, of course, is a theological one. We could not by our own unassisted reason know that marriage reflects the unbreakable union between Christ and His Church. All marriages do, but differ by kind and degree. We could not have the sacrament of marriage without another essential part, namely, the baptism of both parties. Our opposition to gay marriages does not stem on a purely legal construct but on a reality of nature and (in many cases) of super-nature. We oppose gay marriage on the basis that the legal approbation of such a union is not based upon any ontological realities. We oppose the idea that the state can dissolve marriage by divorce on the basis of an ontological reality and nature of the marriage bond, not legality. A solid formation in philosophy will enrich this understanding in a way my few paragraphs cannot hope to accomplish. Unfortunately, though, people want to skip the philosophy and jump into theology and this has disastrous results. They do not realize that the very language of theology has been hammered out throughout the centuries and specific definitions have been assigned to certain phrases. If we do not acknowledge and understand the different essences of the different vocations, we cannot begin to defend these vocations against false ones. We will no be ale to defend true marriage from false marriage (like gay marriage or polygamous marriage). We will not be able to tell the difference between the CV and a Religious.
abrideofChrist Posted August 15, 2013 Author Posted August 15, 2013 The reason that I, and others, oppose the alternative theory proposed on the other thread about the essence of the Bridal identity of the CV is because this reality is not based on a purely legal construct of the Church. In other words, it is not merely a purely canonical definition. As a matter of fact, one pivotal fact Sponsa Christi overlooked in her explanation of the reality of the Bride of Christ is that the reality existed before the canon in the Code of Canon law did! Thus, if this were purely a canonical construct as she would like us to believe, then it could not have existed before 1983 when canon 604 was brought into being. The Rite of Consecration to Virginity has its roots in the Annunciation, and more to the point, the revised Rite was promulgated in 1970, a good 13 years before the new Code of Canon law came into effect. We have to look to the Rite itself to understand the vocation if we realize that the Code is merely reflecting the reality that pre-existed. And the Rite itself says that through the ministry of the Bishop, the Virgin is MADE INTO or CoNSTITuTED into a Bride of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Just like marriage is what it is regardless of the laws on the books of different nations, so too, being a Bride of Christ is what it is, regardless of the laws in the Code of Canon Law.
BarbTherese Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Thank you very much indeed to those who have spoken to my Posts. And please do forgive the stubbornness of an uneducated mind to cling to what The Church states in Her Teaching Authority - meant most sincerely. I am not at all sure I am right (Truth) but until The Church actually makes a firm declaration changing what She is stating now, I am presupposing only that I am correct and for the purposes mainly of evangelisation. Transubstantiation or the ontological change brought about in the bread and wine changed ontologically into The Body of Blood of Christ cannot take place without that ontological change effected by Holy Orders in our priesthood. Certainly, I was amazed, staggered and then laughed, that anyone could think that I would call Transubstantiation into any sort of question. “Heresy†is a big accusation. My meaning is that ontological change in a person/candidate only takes place in Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. Certainly, the Grace of the other Sacraments, bring about change in the person, but not ontologically, in the essence of what they are. Not even marriage does this according to The Church. I hope I am saying what I mean correctly! If a bishop can ontologically change, through the power of The Holy Spirit, one thing into another outside of The Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ seems to me to be the crux of the matter, although only three of those Seven Sacraments brings about ontological change in a person or candidate according to The Church. Of course in The Blessed Eucharist bread and wine is ontologically changed into The Body and Blood of Christ. What appears to be present in Bread and Wine, is no longer present at all. It is The Lord! These are all Sacraments, not a liturgical consecration rite conducted by a bishop i.e. consecrated virginity in this instance. Perusing numerous sites, it seems to me that because theologians differ, the Consecration of Virgins and related theology is still in progress possibly. Until The Church makes an actual declaration (after examining various theologians arguments put forward – and if She discerns such necessary over and above what is already stated on the subject) I do prefer to hold to what The Church states at this point. Something indeed is taking place in reality when a virgin is consecrated, what exactly that something might be is still under debate it seems by some, not all - and some are contrary to what The Church states now, along with those who agree with Her. It might be ontological change and it might not be is only a potential as the theology is developed and then confirmed by The Church if She deems necessary. Seems to me The Church must first declare what indeed She anyway is meaning when She uses the word “ontological†since this word is also under debate. It also seems to me that when a person uses "ontological" they could mean several things at this point. Until The Church makes an actual declaration, I hold to what is already stated and will most certainly change my mind if The Church in Her Teaching Authority indicates that such a change is necessary in the minds of Catholics. http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/theology-of-body-order-of-consecrated.html In the Order of consecrated virgins, the role of the body is important in its Nuptial meaning . That’s what gives the consecrated virgin her Identity. But it is not limited to the body. It is a consecration of her whole being , every dimension of her life to God . Several theologians suggest that an ontological change is effected by the ‘prayer of consecration’ during the Rite of consecration to a life of virginity which leads to the permanent nature of the consecration which cannot be dispensed . http://ocvnewevangelisation.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/ocv-archetype-of-sacrament-of-matrimony.html Some understand the Rite according to the theology of the Annunciation . The words in the Prayer of Consecration – which is a constitutive sacramental - bring about an ontological change in the person of the virgin perhaps similar to transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist. Whatever the approach to the understanding of the Rite , to benefit from its empowerment and grace , it is indeed important for each one to be aware of their roles and have the correct intentions according to the mind of the church , throughout the rite. Otherwise there can be doubts regarding the validity of the consecrations of many CVs around the world since this vocation is little understood almost everywhere ! I tried to find out who my quoted source above actually is. I could not find details. A very quick perusal of the USACV website could not locate the word “ontological†anywhere at all. I did not, of course, read all the links on the website. Insofar as I can discern anyway, such as I am, The Church does not declare ontological change in the consecrated virgin. The Church, The Mystical Body of Christ on earth, is THE only Bride of Christ - all vocations reflect/image/witness this in some way including in the consecrated virgin, eschatologically.
BarbTherese Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Even St Teresa of Avila after her Mystical Marriage experience does not become The Bride of Christ, rather a bride of Christ witnessing to Christ's relationship with His Church (The Bride of Christ) in a quite rare, unique and entirely privileged and holy way or manner.
God's Beloved Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Hi Barbara and all others who prayed for my Mom. Thank you so much ! Her angiography did not show any block. She is improving. i've been reading the posts from my smartphone but could not respond in detail. Am back to the thread from my desktop, trying to catch up with the discussion. Please forgive me if I miss out anything already discussed ....... I shall respond to my short post linking to the Apostolic Exhortation Marialis Cultus with specific paragraphs refering to theology of CV , at another time. Regarding Ontological change : There are several documents of the Church and writings of theologians which discuss the term In persona ecclesia . This term has several nuances . Some see it as a person [ e.g. a bishop] acting ' in the name of the church' when the Church as a Public Juridical Person is represented by him in a country or legal forum etc. or a person is a spokesperson for the Mind of the Church in a certain disputed matter in the World. After the Second Vatican Council [which decided to revise the Rite of Consecration of Virgins] this term has been used very less in this sense. Another sense of the word In persona ecclesia is applied to CV , analogous to In persona Christi applied to a priest . That's why a priest while celebrating the sacraments is able to say certain words e.g. ' I absolve you ' , ' This is My Body '...... This is because ordination brings an ontological change in the person in terms of vocational Identity especially during liturgical actions [ Who am I ]. Similarly, the Rite of consecration of virgins which in the Homily mentions that she is being gifted the Title of the Church herself as Virgin , Bride , Mother ---gives the CV a new vocational Identity in her service to the Church [ Who am I ] . She receives the Liturgy of the Hours so that when she prays even as an Individual , she is not only joining her voice to those of Christ the High Priest and of His Church , but she prays In persona ecclesia . This brings a unique spirituality to the vocation of CV , making her prayer effective in a way that is different from the same prayer of the liturgy of the hours by an individual lay person. When she serves through charity , she does so In persona ecclesia . This is what makes her service different from the same service of charity done by an individual lay person or an NGO. [quotes in blue are the words of the authors . In black are my comments.] II. PRINCIPAL DUTIES OF THOSE CONSECRATED [taken from the Rite in the Roman Pontifical]2 Those who consecrate their chastity under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit do so for the sake of more fervent love of Christ and of greater freedom in the service of their brothers and sisters. They are to spend their time in works of penance and of mercy, in apostolic activity, and in prayer, according to their state in life and spiritual gifts. To fulfill their duty of prayer, they are strongly advised to celebrate the Liturgy of Hours each day, especially Lauds or Vespers. In this way, by joining their voices to those of Christ the High Priest and of his Church, they will offer unending praise to the heavenly Father and pray for the salvation of the whole world. On 15 May 2008 during a meeting of CV from 52 countries who were taking part in an International Congress Pilgrimage of the Ordo Virginum , the Holy Father Benedict XVI said : From the sphere of the diocese with its traditions , its saints, its values, its limits and its problems, you broaden your horizons to the universal Church, sharing above all in her liturgical prayer , which is also entrusted to you so that "the praise of the heavenly Father be always on your lips;pray without ceasing"[RCV,n.28 ]. In this way your prayerful " I" will gradually be enlarged , until there is no longer anything except a great " we" in the prayer. this is ecclesial prayer and true liturgy.May you open yourselves in your dialogue with God to a dialogue with all creatures , for whom you will find you are mothers, mothers of the children of God [ cf.RCV,n.28]. Take care always to radiate the dignity of being a bride of Christ, expressing the newness of Christian existence and the serene expectation of future life. Thus , with your own upright life you will be stars to guide the world on its journey. Indeed , the consecrated virgin is identified with that bride who, in unison withe the Spirit , invokes the coming of the Lord : " The Spirit and the Bride say : 'Come' " [ Rev 22 :17] So when the CV in vigil of the Second Coming of Christ , prays for God's Kingdom to come , her prayer is effective in a unique and special way because this is her Charism , essence of her vocation. She prays In persona Church. In Christ's eyes , it is the Church praying to Him , calling Him , hastening His Coming. In yr 1995 Pope John Paul II said to an International gathering of CV in Rome : It is also the task of virgins to be the hard-working hands of the local church's generosity , the voice of her prayer, the expression of her mercy , the relief of her poor , the comfort of her suffering sons and daughters , and the support of her orphans and widows.... The Rite of Consecration of vrigins 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. This is the mystical marriage that contains the call to give Jesus Christ to the world in service .The Virgin Mary-after she had conceived Jesus in her womb --set out to visit her cousin Elizabeth to serve her. From the Homily in the Rite of consecration of virgins in the Roman Pontifical , to indicate Ontological change due to union of marriage between two natures : When the fullness of time had come, the almighty Father showed, in the mystery of the Incarnation, his love for this great virtue. In the chaste womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Word was made flesh, in a marriage covenant uniting two natures, human and divine. In general the understanding of the Fathers of the Church and immemorial tradition is that the CV is an Embodiment of the Church as Virgin, Bride, Mother. This supports the theology of Ontological change in terms of WHO a CV IS . What very few persons reading this thread know is that the Rite of Consecration of Virgins was considered as one of the 12 Sacraments in the Church until the 12th century which defined the doctrine that there are 7 sacraments. In fact Marriage was not considered a sacrament until the 12th century. The liturgy of the Rite of Consecration of virgins became the Theological locus of the Sacrament of Matrimony .
God's Beloved Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 When the CV in vigil of the Second Coming of Christ , prays for God's Kingdom to come , her prayer is effective in a unique and special way because this is her Charism , essence of her vocation. She prays In persona Church. In Christ's eyes , she is the Church , His Bride praying to Him , calling Him , hastening His Coming.
abrideofChrist Posted August 15, 2013 Author Posted August 15, 2013 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). Since when has the consecration of virgins been invalidly conferred upon one who is not confirmed? Please back this up with appropriate citations.
abrideofChrist Posted August 15, 2013 Author Posted August 15, 2013 Even St Teresa of Avila after her Mystical Marriage experience does not become The Bride of Christ, rather a bride of Christ witnessing to Christ's relationship with His Church (The Bride of Christ) in a quite rare, unique and entirely privileged and holy way or manner. Irrelevant. Dubay and all the other theologians categorize this as mystical union, not the spousal union under discussion in this thread. If you don't accept Dubay, you can read in several different pages on the USACV's information packet that there is a difference.
BarbTherese Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Hi Barbara and all others who prayed for my Mom. Thank you so much ! Her angiography did not show any block. She is improving. i've been reading the posts from my smartphone but could not respond in detail. Am back to the thread from my desktop, trying to catch up with the discussion. Please forgive me if I miss out anything already discussed ....... ...............edit................. Thank you for the update on your Mom. May her health continue to improve and giving thanks for what has occurred already. Continuing to keep her in my intentions. Barb :)
Laurie Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Since when has the consecration of virgins been invalidly conferred upon one who is not confirmed? Please back this up with appropriate citations. Thanks, ABC, for catching this. I was assuming it was needed, too. I was thinking the Church would want the CV candidate to be confirmed before receiving the consecration. But the Church wanting it would not be the same as the absence of it rendering the consecration invalid. Very interesting.
abrideofChrist Posted August 15, 2013 Author Posted August 15, 2013 (edited) 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). So according to this idea, how do you define the married person vs. the single person in the Church? Remember that a true marriage bond is formed where none was before. Also remember that confirmation is advised but not absolutely necessary before marriage. Non baptized persons obviously would have neither baptism nor confirmation. The theology of the body teaches against the idea of someone being USED in a relationship so think carefully about what "some special purpose" in the Church would be for a married person. Edited August 15, 2013 by abrideofChrist
BarbTherese Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 I may stand corrected. I took it as a ‘for granted’ (apologies) that in order to receive a canonical consecration, one would need to have been baptized and confirmed at very least, very least. If these Sacraments had not been received prior, then that the consecration, if it took place, could be challenged on validity grounds. Perhaps I am wrong. I would have thought that evidence (baptismal and confirmation certificates) would need to be produced prior to consecration. Catholic catechism 1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace.89 For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."90 1304 Like Baptism which it completes, Confirmation is given only once, for it too imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual mark, the "character," which is the sign that Jesus Christ has marked a Christian with the seal of his Spirit by clothing him with power from on high so that he may be his witness.
Laurie Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Here's a 1998 document from the Congregation for the Clergy. (Putting my comments in colored font so they stand out.) Below are the opening 4 paragraphs: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_23111998_pvatican_en.html PRIESTS IN THE EARLY CHURCH AND IN VATICAN II The Second Vatican Council is itself interested in the priesthood, especially in regard to two debates: in these two principal fields, it is interesting to see which points of its discussion continue that of the early Church. 1. The first debate was about the nature of the priesthood. The Council has responded by beginning with the sacramentality of the episcopate, as the source of collegiality. In other words, it hastens to recognize that the bishops were not just simple priests with superior power over other priests merely for the sake of making someone a delegate, either of the Pope or of the community. Rather, the consecration which they receive inserts them into the mystery of the apostolic succession and brings about in them a change in being. The Council designated this change as "ontological" at the precise level of the "munera", the messianic works of Christ and his Church. The Bishops receive them already in ordination by the simple fact that they are newly configured to Christ, Head and Pastor. The indelible "character" has the consequence of enabling them to preach, to celebrate the sacraments, and to govern, having received this configuration, and having become also members of the body, a "sui generis college" of the consecrated, who in themselves are united with the Bishop of Rome, the Head of this College and the Supreme Pontiff, keeper of the Supreme Power of the Church universal. The concrete exercise of these duties demands more of a bond of communion, or to state the principle clearly in canonical terms, ordination itself confers a "Sacred Power" distinctively all its own, a sacramental power to build up the Church ( in contrast to the power of post-enlightened society, where there is a sense of competition between various interest groups). This is of general interest, because it's a Magisterial document that uses the phrase "ontological change" in relation to clarifying episcopal ordination. Furthermore, the phrase, "...the Council designated this change ontological at the precise level of the 'munera,' the messianic works of Christ and his Church" stood out to me. It makes it clear that ontological changes are not one size fits all. They are not cookie cutter changes.They happen at different levels, a level that needs to be clarified and explained. (E.g., the ontological change of episcopal ordination is a different change than that which happens at priestly and diaconal ordinations.)
BarbTherese Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 So according to this idea, how do you define the married person vs. the single person in the Church? Remember that a true marriage bond is formed where none was before. Also remember that confirmation is advised but not absolutely necessary before marriage. Non baptized persons obviously would have neither baptism nor confirmation. The theology of the body teaches against the idea of someone being USED in a relationship so think carefully about what "some special purpose" in the Church would be for a married person. Thank you very much for the question. You are stating that I remember points that are not in my memory at all - which is not to dispute at all that the points are correct or incorrect. I'm not going to answer because I'm pretty sure I have run my course in this thread and have made up my own mind about ontological change after research. It was ontological change that first really aroused my curiousity. I have settled on when it does or does not occur and in accord with the mind of The Church insofar as I am aware. Peace and Joy..........Barb :)
God's Beloved Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Here's a 1998 document from the Congregation for the Clergy. (Putting my comments in colored font so they stand out.) Below are the opening 4 paragraphs: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_23111998_pvatican_en.html PRIESTS IN THE EARLY CHURCH AND IN VATICAN II The Second Vatican Council is itself interested in the priesthood, especially in regard to two debates: in these two principal fields, it is interesting to see which points of its discussion continue that of the early Church. 1. The first debate was about the nature of the priesthood. The Council has responded by beginning with the sacramentality of the episcopate, as the source of collegiality. In other words, it hastens to recognize that the bishops were not just simple priests with superior power over other priests merely for the sake of making someone a delegate, either of the Pope or of the community. Rather, the consecration which they receive inserts them into the mystery of the apostolic succession and brings about in them a change in being. The Council designated this change as "ontological" at the precise level of the "munera", the messianic works of Christ and his Church. The Bishops receive them already in ordination by the simple fact that they are newly configured to Christ, Head and Pastor. The indelible "character" has the consequence of enabling them to preach, to celebrate the sacraments, and to govern, having received this configuration, and having become also members of the body, a "sui generis college" of the consecrated, who in themselves are united with the Bishop of Rome, the Head of this College and the Supreme Pontiff, keeper of the Supreme Power of the Church universal. The concrete exercise of these duties demands more of a bond of communion, or to state the principle clearly in canonical terms, ordination itself confers a "Sacred Power" distinctively all its own, a sacramental power to build up the Church ( in contrast to the power of post-enlightened society, where there is a sense of competition between various interest groups). This is of general interest, because it's a Magisterial document that uses the phrase "ontological change" in relation to clarifying episcopal ordination. Furthermore, the phrase, "...the Council designated this change ontological at the precise level of the 'munera,' the messianic works of Christ and his Church" stood out to me. It makes it clear that ontological changes are not one size fits all. They are not cookie cutter changes.They happen at different levels, a level that needs to be clarified and explained. (E.g., the ontological change of episcopal ordination is a different change than that which happens at priestly and diaconal ordinations.) Hi Laurie, Could it be a coincidence that I was reading the same document on the internet at the same time and was about to put the link here when I saw yours already in. The Holy Spirit is saying something thru this doc for sure .
Laurie Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Excellent! :) The Holy Spirit, and Our Beautiful Lady, on her feast day. :)
God's Beloved Posted August 15, 2013 Posted August 15, 2013 Thanks, ABC, for catching this. I was assuming it was needed, too. I was thinking the Church would want the CV candidate to be confirmed before receiving the consecration. But the Church wanting it would not be the same as the absence of it rendering the consecration invalid. Very interesting. The question whether the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the 'fullness' of grace conferred by the Rite of Consecration of virgins and Identification with the Church as Virgin, Bride ,Mother --is a question I have been theologizing upon a lot recently . I know a CV who was in this situation and received the sacrament of confirmation conditionally 'after' her consecration. Although the Church recommends but does not necessitate the sacrament of Confirmation before the sacrament of Matrimony , I am inclined towards a thesis that the bond in such a marriage would not be indissoluble . [Since the Church is encouraging theologizing in the area of validity of marriages ]. What happens when a Non catholic but baptized Christian marries a Catholic who has received baptism and confirmation , in the Catholic church ? I'll have to refer to my theology notes for the Church's position on this ---unless someone here already has the answer handy !! To me , if a CV is not fully initiated into the Church , she cannot receive the Title of the Church identifying her with the Church as Bride of Christ. It would be an 'in-between' kind of situation.
abrideofChrist Posted August 15, 2013 Author Posted August 15, 2013 Baptism of both parties and consummation of a valid marriage are the two elements needed for an indissoluble sacramental union. The non-confirmed status of the baptized non-Catholic is irrelevant with regards to both validity of the marriage and its indissolubility. A CV lacking the Sacramental strengthening of Confirmation would still be validly consecrated since the object of her consecration is not the strengthening of her baptismal commitment (Confirmation) but the creation of a spousal bond with Christ.
Recommended Posts