Bride Of Christ

[BarbTherese]

I really liked the following from Ecclesia de Eucharistia :

 

55. In a certain sense Mary lived her Eucharistic faith even before the institution of the Eucharist, by the very fact that she offered her virginal womb for the Incarnation of God's Word. The Eucharist, while commemorating the passion and resurrection, is also in continuity with the incarnation. At the Annunciation Mary conceived the Son of God in the physical reality of his body and blood, thus anticipating within herself what to some degree happens sacramentally in every believer who receives, under the signs of bread and wine, the Lord's body and blood.

As a result, there is a profound analogy between the Fiat which Mary said in reply to the angel, and the Amen which every believer says when receiving the body of the Lord. Mary was asked to believe that the One whom she conceived “through the Holy Spirit” was “the Son of God” (Lk 1:30-35). In continuity with the Virgin's faith, in the Eucharistic mystery we are asked to believe that the same Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Mary, becomes present in his full humanity and divinity under the signs of bread and wine.g

 

 

Mary, Mother of God, was and is undoubtedly the disciple par excellence on every level.  The fascinating thing to me is that we know so very little about her and yet she and St Joseph raised such an outstanding Son.  What we do know about her, however, is sufficient on which to model an entire lifetime, pilgrimage journey and discipleship and attain great holiness.

[BarbTherese]

BarbaraTherese and God's Beloved, neither of you must have read the link I provided because I have no objection to understanding the title of Bride of Christ in relation to the Eucharist- as a matter of fact I just read last night a scholarly article linking the CV with the Eucharist in the Rite of Consecration and why she is in the sanctuary for most of the Mass.  But, I do have problems with the terms transsignification and transfinalization which are explained in the linked page.  These are simply changes in how we look at something rather than in the thing itself.  That's problematic because the Rite itself says that a new spiritual anointing is given to the virgin and that's different than saying we look at the virgin in a new way even though nothing has happened to her. In other words, no real ontological change happens with transsigification or transfinalization which was the whole point of the modernist theologians.

 

I have read the link and understand what transsignification and transfinalization mean.

 

I think I understand now, the "bond" you speak about is the CV in relationship with The Blessed Eucharist and not the relationship of The Blessed Eucharist with The Universal Church?  I don't want to go into the vocation of CV further, I am only trying to grasp the meaning of your post above.

Edited August 18, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[abrideofChrist]

Why was I warning about the two terms?  Because if we get stuck on secondary effects, then we can lose sight of the primary things.  Pope Paul VI was warning that if we just look at transsignificance and transfinaliy when we look at the Eucharist, we risk understanding the primary reality of the Eucharist ACTUALLY BEING the BODY of Christ INSTEAD of MERELY signifying the Body of Christ or having its End as the Body of Christ.  Fr. Hardon explains it this way:

 

What I will do now is identify the two principal leaders of this devastating Eucharistic error. The error of transignification. This is the view that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist means when the consecration at Mass is performed only a change of meaning or significance of the bread and wine takes place. Their substance do not change only a change of meaning or significance of the bread and wine takes place their substance does not change. The consecrated elements are said to signify all that Christians associate with the Last Supper. The bread and wine acquire a higher meaning than merely food for the body. But they remain bread and wine.

 

 

Transusbstantiation is an ontological change.  Transsignification and transfinalization are merely sign value changes with no ontological changes wrought to the substance of bread and wine.  If we apply this to the CV, we say that the CV has no ontological change, just a sign value change.  We can't say this though because the Church herself says that the CV is given a new anointing of the Holy Spirit.  This means that there is an ontological reality of change and not just a sign value change.  This is why philosophy is important- it can help someone know when theologians get off track.  In this particular case Pope Paul VI and Fr. Hardon point out the dangers of accepting transsignification as THE explanation of the Eucharist.  It is true that there is a new sign value, but this is caused by the new ontological substantial change, it cannot substitute for it.

 

Because not everyone has studied philosophy, much less theology, I will break down my explanation even more for easier comprehension.

 

When Lot's wife looked back, she was turned to salt.  This was a substantial ontological change. 

 

If you looked at the salt statue that used to be Lot's wife but is now a salt statue, you could say that the sign value changed (transsignification).  She is no longer a sign of humans or a sign of belonging to Lot's family, or a sign of a member of the Hebrews, it is now a sign of Divine punishment for disobedience.  You can REALLY say that the salt statue has changed sign values because it is now a sign of Divine punishment instead of some other sign.  But if you SAY that the change wrought to the salt statue was merely of signification (that is, first it was a sign of one thing and now it is a sign of punishment for disobedience), then you'd be completely wrong because the Change occurred at the substantial level, the level of essence.  From a healthy human being it changed into a pillar of salt.  It may be true that the pillar now has a new sign value to it, but that is merely secondary to an ontological change.  Lot's wife is no longer there.  Her soul went to its destination but her body changed into salt.  It is no longer human.

 

If a CV is anointed with a new spiritual anointing, then that means she possess SOMETHING that was NOT THERE BEFORE.  This means that at her ontological level, she is changed because something has changed her at her fundamental level.  If she merely changed as a sign value, then that'd be like the man who holds up his hand to signify "STOP!".  He doesn't change if he makes his body into a message.  The only thing that changes is his sign-value.  But if the guy becomes blind or if he becomes a priest, something happens to the level of his being.  His sign-value might change as a result of that fundamental change, but we don't say that that is all there is to the change. 

 

I apologize to those who have studied philosophy.  This is all old hat, I know, but not everyone is familiar with the terms.

Edited August 18, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

I have read the link and understand what transsignification and transfinalization mean.

 

I think I understand now, the "bond" you speak about is the CV in relationship with The Blessed Eucharist and not the relationship of The Blessed Eucharist with The Universal Church?  I don't want to go into the vocation of CV further, I am only trying to grasp the meaning of your post above.

 

Well, the bond to which I was referring was the unique nuptial spousal bond that is formed when the bishop pronounces the words of consecration over the virgin.  It is similar to the unique spousal bond that is formed between spouses in matrimony and the bond of ordination that is formed when the bishop pronounces the words of ordination over the man.

[Ima Lurker]

So you've used logic and citations to show that what you say is a reasonable conclusion. While you haven't said anything that goes against Church teaching, at the same time, you've used credible sources to backup the idea you've laid out here.  No one up until now has been able to effectively debunk your original post. Or did I miss something? :)

 

So what now?

 

[God's Beloved]

Why was I warning about the two terms?  Because if we get stuck on secondary effects, then we can lose sight of the primary things.  Pope Paul VI was warning that if we just look at transsignificance and transfinaliy when we look at the Eucharist, we risk understanding the primary reality of the Eucharist ACTUALLY BEING the BODY of Christ INSTEAD of MERELY signifying the Body of Christ or having its End as the Body of Christ.  Fr. Hardon explains it this way:

 

 

Transusbstantiation is an ontological change.  Transsignification and transfinalization are merely sign value changes with no ontological changes wrought to the substance of bread and wine.  If we apply this to the CV, we say that the CV has no ontological change, just a sign value change.  We can't say this though because the Church herself says that the CV is given a new anointing of the Holy Spirit.  This means that there is an ontological reality of change and not just a sign value change.  This is why philosophy is important- it can help someone know when theologians get off track.  In this particular case Pope Paul VI and Fr. Hardon point out the dangers of accepting transsignification as THE explanation of the Eucharist.  It is true that there is a new sign value, but this is caused by the new ontological substantial change, it cannot substitute for it.

 

Because not everyone has studied philosophy, much less theology, I will break down my explanation even more for easier comprehension.

 

When Lot's wife looked back, she was turned to salt.  This was a substantial ontological change. 

 

If you looked at the salt statue that used to be Lot's wife but is now a salt statue, you could say that the sign value changed (transsignification).  She is no longer a sign of humans or a sign of belonging to Lot's family, or a sign of a member of the Hebrews, it is now a sign of Divine punishment for disobedience.  You can REALLY say that the salt statue has changed sign values because it is now a sign of Divine punishment instead of some other sign.  But if you SAY that the change wrought to the salt statue was merely of signification (that is, first it was a sign of one thing and now it is a sign of punishment for disobedience), then you'd be completely wrong because the Change occurred at the substantial level, the level of essence.  From a healthy human being it changed into a pillar of salt.  It may be true that the pillar now has a new sign value to it, but that is merely secondary to an ontological change.  Lot's wife is no longer there.  Her soul went to its destination but her body changed into salt.  It is no longer human.

 

If a CV is anointed with a new spiritual anointing, then that means she possess SOMETHING that was NOT THERE BEFORE.  This means that at her ontological level, she is changed because something has changed her at her fundamental level.  If she merely changed as a sign value, then that'd be like the man who holds up his hand to signify "STOP!".  He doesn't change if he makes his body into a message.  The only thing that changes is his sign-value.  But if the guy becomes blind or if he becomes a priest, something happens to the level of his being.  His sign-value might change as a result of that fundamental change, but we don't say that that is all there is to the change. 

 

I apologize to those who have studied philosophy.  This is all old hat, I know, but not everyone is familiar with the terms.

 

Thanks AbrideofChrist !

 

Frankly , I haven't been able to research further on these terms although I'd learnt about them many years ago. Knowledge needs brushing up.

 

I can see  you are saying that there is a substantial ontological change in the consecration of a virgin. I  have myself supported this possibility in my own writings taking the analogy of the Annunciation and the Eucharist [ as specified in the passage from Ecclesia de Eucharistia in my previous post http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/page-38#entry2616504 ]. The rite for virgins clearly mentions about a New spiritual anointing added to the baptismal grace.

 

Compare this with Profession of religious. It renews Baptismal grace and helps the religious to cooperate with Baptismal grace to strive to live her religious vocation. The rite for religious profession states :

 

I. Nature and import of Religious Profession
1. In response to God's call many Christians dedicate themselves to his
service and to the welfare of humanity through the sacred bonds of religious
life and seek to follow Christ more closely through the evangelical counsels
This leads to the grace of baptism achieving richer results in them.

2. The Church has always esteemed the religious life, which, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, has taken various forms in the course of history
It has raised religious life to the rank of a canonical state and approved a great
number of religious institutes and protected them by wise legislation.

For it is the Church that receives the vows of those who make
religious profession, begs God's grace for them by its public prayer, puts them
in God's hands, blesses them, and unites their offering with the Eucharistic
sacrifice

 

 

Perpetual profession reflects the unbreakable union between Christ and his
Bride, the Church

 

In Profession of religious , the spousal imagery is Symbolic . Perhaps a Transsignification ?! The bonds of religious life are not Spousal in substance; they are according to nature of religious life.

 

In Consecration of virgins, there is a Real Spousal Bond which implies a substantial change due to a new spiritual anointing and gift of the Holy Spirit. In addition to this is the eschatological imagery of the Church's love for Christ her bridegroom. The purpose , meaning of the life of the CV also changes as she is now wholly consecrated [ dedicated to worship , service of God and His people].

 

 

 

 

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

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.

 

I'm kind of confused.. I read that if a marriage is valid, it can't be dissolved...

[abrideofChrist]

I'm kind of confused.. I read that if a marriage is valid, it can't be dissolved...

 

MarysLittle Flower, I can understand where you're coming from... on the other hand I can't since God's Beloved discussed this.  Maybe doing a little research on this would be fruitful?  The Catechism and Canon Law would be good starting places.

Edited August 18, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Sponsa-Christi]

 

 

I'm kind of confused.. I read that if a marriage is valid, it can't be dissolved...

 

MarysLittleFlower,

 

I am trying to stay out of this thread so as to give abrideofChrist space to develop her ideas, but to answer your question briefly:

 

It's a valid and consummated marriage that can never be dissolved. If a marriage is valid (i.e., the vows were exchanged licitly in Church with the proper witnesses and permission, neither of the spouses had any impediments, both spouses were willing and able to consent to marriage, each spouse intended to follow the Church's teachings on marriage, etc.) but not consummated, then it can be dissolved by the Pope. This is a relatively rare occurrence, but it does happen.

[abrideofChrist]

Actually, MarysLittleFlower, you need to add one more qualifier to Sponsa Christi's explanation.  Insert "Sacramental" to her definition and you're good to go.

[Ima Lurker]

You know, I really appreciate what you've written here. When I first started reading this thread, I didn't know what ontology was, or univocal vs equivocal, and just recently I learned what "transignifcation" is.

 

Learning about this vocation got me truly excited about it and I've been sharing what I've learned with my friends and family who have responded warmly.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you (ABC) have come full circle here. By explaining what transignification is, you've managed to show what the ontological change actually is.

 

What's next?

 

Laurie, you have yet to post your promised thoughts analogies. I know you must be very busy but when you get the chance, I haven't forgotten and am happily waiting! Thanks!

[abrideofChrist]

Fr. Ludwig Munster wrote a book for nuns who were preparing to become CVs and for nun CVs who wanted to meditate upon their great gift of consecration, Christ in his Consecrated Virgins.

 

Here are some gems:

 

The consecration of virgins is Christ's espousal with the virgin.  Veil, ring and crown are symbols of the interior glory of the bridal relationship between Christ and the virgin. Chapter 11.

 

 

The bishop asks the virgins, "Do you desire to persevere in the state of holy virginity?"  They answer, "We desire it."  By these words the virgin pledges herself to Christ before the Church and God.  This pledge has a legal character.  In the subsequent consecration it receives the seal of indissolubility.  Chapter 6

 

 

Now, when a virgin is consecrated a bride of Christ, when God shows His generous love again, the whole Church must pour forth her gratitude in memory of all the great and wonderful works of divine omnipotence.  When a virgin becomes a bride of Christ the whole Church rejoices, for she herself again receives new life and love from Christ.  She grows and expands whenever Christ reveals Himself as the Spouse of a virgin.  And that his why she gives thanks always.

 

 

These words are striking when Munster is referring to nuns who are preparing to receive the Consecration of Virgins.  If a nun was a bride of Christ, why would he say Christ is espousing her at her Consecration? 

[abrideofChrist]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you (ABC) have come full circle here. By explaining what transignification is, you've managed to show what the ontological change actually is.

 

 

Actually, I haven't shown the nature of the change, just that there is an ontological change.  I believe it is what it says it is- that a spousal bond has been established between Christ and the virgin by the bishop's ministry.  But the categorization of this bond is not something I have specified too particularly.     
 

[Laurie]

Actually, MarysLittleFlower, you need to add one more qualifier to Sponsa Christi's explanation.  Insert "Sacramental" to her definition and you're good to go.

 

To build on this, and to your earlier question, MLF, Jimmy Akin is a pretty clear explainer of these things:

 

http://jimmyakin.com/2008/05/sacramental-mar.html

[Laurie]

Adding to our citations demonstrating that the consecration of a virgin is separate from a private vow and that God chooses to act directly through the Church (versus the idea that a CV receives her spousal identity directly from God with the Church simply confirming it) here are some helpful items:

 

From the homily in the Rite itself:

http://consecratedvirgins.org/usacv/sites/default/files/documents/VocRes-Decree.pdf

 

“The Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, through baptism has already made you temples of God’s glory and children of the Father. Today through our ministry he anoints you with a new grace and consecrates you to God by a new title. He gives each one of you the dignity of being a bride of Christ and binds you to the Son of God in a covenant to last for ever.”

 

[Laurie]

And, from Bishop Pierre Raffin, OP (Bishop of Metz):

 

“THE VOCATION AND MISSION OF CONSECRATED VIRGINS ACCORDING TO ORDO CONSECRATIONIS VIRGINUM”

 

[After discussing that the consecration of a virgin is a sacramental, and that a sacramental is effected through the Church, he writes]:

 

“Public and Solemn Consecration.

The words Ordo Consecrationis indicate that the consecration of virgins is primarily an act of the Church rather than a step taken by one person, or to put it better, an act of God himself through the ministry of the Church.”

[MarysLittleFlower]

Thanks for the replies! I'm a bit confused about marriage still. What do you mean by "dissoluble"? Because isn't it true if someone has a valid marriage and get divorced, the second marriage would not be valid because the first one was? that's why we don't believe in divorce.... so I'm confused about what you mean by 'dissoluble'.

Edited August 19, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Laurie]

MLF, the link I gave from Jimmy Akin gives a good overview, including answering your specific question:

 

"It is consummation that makes valid sacramental marriages indissoluble. Prior to that point, even valid sacramental marriages can be dissolved, as can marriages in which a baptized person is validly but non-sacramentally married to an unbaptized person."

[abrideofChrist]

MLF, the link I gave from Jimmy Akin gives a good overview, including answering your specific question:

 

"It is consummation that makes valid sacramental marriages indissoluble. Prior to that point, even valid sacramental marriages can be dissolved, as can marriages in which a baptized person is validly but non-sacramentally married to an unbaptized person."

 

MLF, this is exactly what I was talking about in your thread.  Laurie took the time and provided a link to an article that addressed your original question.  You responded by repeating your question in a way that told us that either you did not read Jimmy Akin's article or you didn't understand what you read, even though it explicitly answered your question.  Frankly, if it were me who had gotten the link from Laurie, I would have read it.  CAREFULLY.  (I did as a matter of fact read it carefully and thought it was so crystal clear I was astounded to see your follow up question.)  Then I would have googled the terms I didn't understand.  For example, I would have googled Petrine privilege.  I would have googled Petrine privilege and divorce and Catholic.  I would have expended some elbow grease to figure out what dissoluble meant with regard to divorce.  And you know what?  Then I would have come to the conclusion after my internet research that there is a bond of marriage between validly married persons.  This bond can be natural, or it can be sacramental.  Of all the real, existing bonds of marriage, only ONE is indissoluble.  ALL THE REST are dissoluble. 

 

Then I would have realized, also from my research, that interestingly enough, the Church claims the authority to dissolve a marriage bond.This is why she objects to civil divorce.  It's not that the state can't dissolve a contract, but that the contract of marriage is not something the state has the power to dissolve.  Then I would have realized something else.  The reason that the Church is fighting to uphold the dignity of marriage is because some people think it's only a contract, only a legal piece of paper.  That it is a creation of the STATE instead of God. 

 

If marriage is a creation of the STATE then gay Marriage is possible, because it is defined by the State and has no reality other than pure legal fiction.  If marriage is an invisible reality that really and truly makes the person have a bond with another person, then we have to question the nature of that bond.  The Church did question and did come to conclusions about that bond.  Why do you think we have annulments and the Pauline/Petrine privileges?  Are they purely legal fiction of the Church's invention or do they speak to an invisible reality? 

 

This brings us back to my earlier points in this thread.  If it is true that marriage does not effect an ontological change in the spouses, then technically they are still single.  Therefore, those who state that only three Sacraments effect an ontological change are mistaken.  Why are they mistaken?  Laurie gave some compelling reasons. Then I go back to the idea of marriage.  Consecrated virginity, according to the Catechism, cannot be understood without reference to marriage and marriage cannot be understood without reference to consecrated virginity.  So, if even purely natural non sacramental marriage starts a bond that not even the State can dissolve, then maybe the bond the CV has is something that is likewise real and invisible.  If we claim that there is no real change, then we slip into the same mistake the State and Sponsa Christi make, namely that the reality is purely legal fiction.

 

Now, you could ask me what I mean by all of this, or you could do some elbow grease and get to work researching marriage and divorce and dissolution and annulment and bond and indissoluble bond and why gay marriage isn't marriage and all that stuff so that you know from your standpoint we are on the same page.  I would welcome a question that shows that you have indeed done some research into the nature of marriage and are at a point where you can start applying your knowledge to consecrated virginity.  I am not trying to be hard on you, I am simply saying that Laurie and I can't be depended upon to do all the research, especially when things that are cited that provide explicit answers are somehow ignored or misunderstood.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Okay, I tried doing some research and came across this link: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7272

 

It talks about cases if a person:

- marries a non Christian, as a non Christian, and later becomes Christian and faces opposition for their faith in a way that it's threatened

- marries a non Christian, as a Christian. (but the article says this is given very rarely and only by the Pope)

 

I have never heard of this before.. I thought there was only annulment, not a dissolution of a valid marriage. The article did say that the first one involves a threat to the faith, and the second is granted very rarely only by the Pope; I don't really understand the second one and the reasons for it, just from this research.

 

Then, it was mentioned in this thread that a non consummated Sacramental marriage can be dissolved.

 

I got confused cause I know the Church is against divorce and I thought a valid marriage can never be dissolved except by death...

 

am I right in understanding that two non Christians who marry, would commit adultery by divorcing and remarrying, if they didn't receive one of these dissolutions? for example if they both stay non Christian, and just divorce in a civil court. My understanding is that divorce doesn't exist, so nothing happens - as you said, because it's not the State's authority.

 

By the way I did read the article that Laurie posted... I'm just trying to understand these concepts, because for example there's the quote from the Council of Trent:

“The first parent of the human race, under the influence of the Divine Spirit, pronounced the bond of Matrimony perpetual and indissoluble…”

If marriage is indissoluble, then how can dissolution happen... Still trying to understand that part... cause I know the Church is against divorce. Is dissolution a type of exception, if the faith is threatened?

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower