Consecration Of Virgins Ceremony And Evangelical Poverty?

[abrideofChrist]

wait, so you are saying that there is no need for the CV to have a propositum at all?

 

then why does the Rite even have that in there?

 

I am saying that for validity, only the unaltered prayer of consecration itself must be said over the virgin by her bishop.  For validity of the Mass, the essential words of consecration must be said over the bread and wine by the duly ordained priest.  For liciety, everything else that is prescribed by the laws and rubrics must be followed.  Omitting or changing these other parts can be gravely sinful but will not affect the validity of the Mass or of the Rite.  Think about it.  The Rite of Baptism is complex.  However, for validity, all that is necessary is that water is poured so there is a "washing" and the words pronounced "I baptize you.....".  If you are a priest and in a non emergency situation, it is seriously sinful to just say that one sentence because the Rite obliges the priest to lead all the other prayers and ceremonies involved.
 

[oremus1]

I am saying that for validity, only the unaltered prayer of consecration itself must be said over the virgin by her bishop.  For validity of the Mass, the essential words of consecration must be said over the bread and wine by the duly ordained priest.  For liciety, everything else that is prescribed by the laws and rubrics must be followed.  Omitting or changing these other parts can be gravely sinful but will not affect the validity of the Mass or of the Rite.  Think about it.  The Rite of Baptism is complex.  However, for validity, all that is necessary is that water is poured so there is a "washing" and the words pronounced "I baptize you.....".  If you are a priest and in a non emergency situation, it is seriously sinful to just say that one sentence because the Rite obliges the priest to lead all the other prayers and ceremonies involved.
 

 

so it is the person who is consecrated, regardless of their propositum. like, the 'consecration of a virgin' instead of 'consecrated virginity'

[oremus1]

so it is the person who is consecrated, regardless of their propositum. like, the 'consecration of a virgin' instead of 'consecrated virginity'

or even, 'consecration to a life of virginity lived in the world' for that matter

[abrideofChrist]

so it is the person who is consecrated, regardless of their propositum. like, the 'consecration of a virgin' instead of 'consecrated virginity'

 

Yes.  Read number 1 of the Praenotandae called "The Nature and Force of the Consecration of Virgins".  More importantly, read Vita Consecrata for an understanding of the essence of what a consecration is for consecrated persons. 

[oremus1]

Yes.  Read number 1 of the Praenotandae called "The Nature and Force of the Consecration of Virgins".  More importantly, read Vita Consecrata for an understanding of the essence of what a consecration is for consecrated persons. 

 oh im sorry, for such an important point, i'd think it would have been helpful if the actual title of the Rite did not say otherwise.

 

this is an interesting point though, that the old Rite was indeed Rite of Consecration (and Blessing) of Virigns. but now it is Consecration to a life of virginity.....and you say that the intention to remain that way for life is superfluous

 

 

Edited January 27, 2014 by oremus1

[abrideofChrist]

or even, 'consecration to a life of virginity lived in the world' for that matter

 

This is like saying a religious is consecrated to a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, or that a priest is consecrated to ministry.  Nobody is denying that the religious or the priest is consecrated but we are adding in a casual manner how their consecration is different from other forms of consecration.

[oremus1]

This is like saying a religious is consecrated to a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, or that a priest is consecrated to ministry.  Nobody is denying that the religious or the priest is consecrated but we are adding in a casual manner how their consecration is different from other forms of consecration.

OK so how comes does canon 604 say "Through their pledge to follow Christ more closely, virgins are consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan Bishop consecrates them according to the approved liturgical rite.

 

if a) the approved rite does not matter, only part of it does (one prayer)

 

and

 

b) they do not need to make any pledge or resolve at all.

 

Also, if the Rite does not matter, why was this a big deal: http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/archives/1133 - even within the parish

[abrideofChrist]

 oh im sorry, for such an important point, i'd think it would have been helpful if the actual title of the Rite did not say otherwise.

 

The title of the Rite says Ordo Consecrationis Virginum.  Or, in English, Order/Rite of the Consecration of Virgins.  Number 1 in the Praenotandae explains what the title says.  Have you read it?  It begins with "The custom of consecrating virgins..."

 

 

this is an interesting point though, that the old Rite was indeed Rite of Consecration (and Blessing) of Virigns. but now it is Consecration to a life of virginity.....and you say that the intention to remain that way for life is superfluous

 

No.  I didn't say that the intention to remain that way for life is superfluous.  I said that the verbal expression was not required for the validity of the consecration.  If you were in danger of death and your bishop was at your deathbed, it would suffice for validity that he pronounce the words of consecration over you for you to receive the grace of consecration.  Otherwise, the omission of the propositum (and the rest of the Rite) would be gravely matter.

[abrideofChrist]

OK so how comes does canon 604 say "Through their pledge to follow Christ more closely, virgins are consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan Bishop consecrates them according to the approved liturgical rite.

 

if a) the approved rite does not matter, only part of it does (one prayer)

 

and

 

b) they do not need to make any pledge or resolve at all.

 

Also, if the Rite does not matter, why was this a big deal: http://doihaveavocation.com/blog/archives/1133 - even within the parish

 

You are misrepresenting my words. I never said the Rite wasn't important or that the virgin shouldn't pronounce the propositum.  I was highlighting that a consecration is not upon the propositum or vows but on the person. 

Edited January 27, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[oremus1]

You are misrepresenting my words. I never said the Rite wasn't important or that the virgin shouldn't pronounce the propositum.  I was highlighting that a consecration is not upon the propositum or vows but on the person. 

 

 

no but you did effectively say that the Rite and propositum are unnecessary. so why are they there?

 

i'd find it hard to see how she can be mystically espoused to Christ without any desire to be, or any consent at all, if in theory, a bishop could consecrate a virgin without her knowledge or agreement at all.

[abrideofChrist]

no but you did effectively say that the Rite and propositum are unnecessary. so why are they there?

 

i'd find it hard to see how she can be mystically espoused to Christ without any desire to be, or any consent at all, if in theory, a bishop could consecrate a virgin without her knowledge or agreement at all.

 

I never did.  I made a distinction between liceity and validity.  I assumed you knew the difference.  Let me see if I can find a link for you.  A bishop is not going to spontaneously consecrate someone or ordain someone.

Edited January 27, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

Just googled and this came up.  Scroll down to the section on liceity and validity:  http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/CanonLaw/Articles/CanonLaw101.aspx

[oremus1]

I never did.  I made a distinction between liceity and validity.  I assumed you knew the difference.  Let me see if I can find a link for you.  A bishop is not going to spontaneously consecrate someone or ordain someone.

 

 

No. And neither would a virgin seek the consecration without first having an intention!

 

Another question, do you think the vocation should be the preserve of advanced theologians who speak many languages, or do you think the ordinary person who left school at 15 and works in a gas station could be called to be a bride of Christ?

 

if you agree (as i do) that she could equally be called, then what would you consider sufficient knowledge?

 

or, as her propositum is not required, is it sufficient for her to just read the rite and just turn up?

Edited January 27, 2014 by oremus1

[abrideofChrist]

No. And neither would a virgin seek the consecration without first having an intention!

That's right. 
 

 

Another question, do you think the vocation should be the preserve of advanced theologians who speak many languages, or do you think the ordinary person who left school at 15 and works in a gas station could be called to be a bride of Christ?

 

if you agree (as i do) that she could equally be called, then what would you consider sufficient knowledge?

 

 

That she knows how to live a virtuous life.  That she knows the basics of the Faith.  That she knows how to live the life as explained by the entire Rite.  This life must be balanced.  She should know about the vocation to marriage and be able to draw the parallels between the vocations.  In short, she must have the age and prudence necessary to be what the Rite expects her to be: a responsible human being who is a bride of Christ.

 

or, as her propositum is not required, is it sufficient for her to just read the rite and just turn up?

 

Straw man.  I never said that.  I was explaining earlier to you that the bare minimum for the person to be consecrated is the imparting of the prayer of Consecration.  Number 4 of the Praenotandae stipulates certain requirements must be verified before a woman is admitted to the Order of Virgins.  One of them is that "by their age, prudence, and their unviersally appproved pattern of life"... they show that they are suitable for this vocation.  Number 5 of the Praenotandae requires that the bishop stipulate how the life is to be led.  This takes time to assess on the part of both the bishop and the virgin.  Of course, this is a moot point and a moot discussion because no bishop in his right senses is going to conduct an illicit consecration if she simply read the rite and showed up.  For all the bishop knew, she could be a prostitute.

Edited January 27, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[abrideofChrist]

Do me a favor please, since you continue to read my words as if I am lumping liceity with validity.  Once and for all, I am not saying that the Rite should not be followed. I said that for a woman to be a consecrated virgin (assuming all other conditions for validity are observed), it is sufficient for a bishop to pray the prayer of consecration over her.  However, such an act would be illicit and wrong.  Just as it suffices for a valid Mass that a priest says "This is My Body" over the correct bread and "This is My Blood" over approved wine.  It would be gravely illicit and wrong for him to omit the rest of the Mass leading up to the Consecration and after it, but it would be a valid Mass.

[oremus1]

That's right. 
 

 

That she knows how to live a virtuous life.  That she knows the basics of the Faith.  That she knows how to live the life as explained by the entire Rite.  This life must be balanced.  She should know about the vocation to marriage and be able to draw the parallels between the vocations.  In short, she must have the age and prudence necessary to be what the Rite expects her to be: a responsible human being who is a bride of Christ.

 

Straw man.  I never said that.  I was explaining earlier to you that the bare minimum for the person to be consecrated is the imparting of the prayer of Consecration.  Number 4 of the Praenotandae stipulates certain requirements must be verified before a woman is admitted to the Order of Virgins.  One of them is that "by their age, prudence, and their unviersally appproved pattern of life"... they show that they are suitable for this vocation.  Number 5 of the Praenotandae requires that the bishop stipulate how the life is to be led.  This takes time to assess on the part of both the bishop and the virgin.  Of course, this is a moot point and a moot discussion because no bishop in his right senses is going to conduct an illicit consecration if she simply read the rite and showed up.  For all the bishop knew, she could be a prostitute.

 

the reason i ask is because you seem to presume that all CVs should speak multiple languages, have read the rite in at least two languages, have access to theological libraries and have at least a basic degree in theology, be reading many commentaries in other languages to enable them to interpret the rite.

 

in some areas of the USA, the USACV info packet is given to the CV to read through with someone over a period of time. that is the formation. in other areas, even that is alot. i even came across one who had not heard of vita consecrata despite being consecrated for several years.  

 

your idea is unrealistic. while you may be fortunate to have those things, it is not a requirement, and indeed the privilege of a minority. there is therefore no need to be condescending to those who do not. holiness is what matters, not academia, in sanctification.

[cmaD2006]

A reminder: THIS IS NOT DEBATE TABLE.  Please stop the back and forth debating.  If it continues I *will* move this thread into debate table.

 

The discussion until about a page ago was fine.

[abrideofChrist]

the reason i ask is because you seem to presume that all CVs should speak multiple languages, have read the rite in at least two languages, have access to theological libraries and have at least a basic degree in theology, be reading many commentaries in other languages to enable them to interpret the rite.

 

in some areas of the USA, the USACV info packet is given to the CV to read through with someone over a period of time. that is the formation. in other areas, even that is alot. i even came across one who had not heard of vita consecrata despite being consecrated for several years.  

 

your idea is unrealistic. while you may be fortunate to have those things, it is not a requirement, and indeed the privilege of a minority. there is therefore no need to be condescending to those who do not. holiness is what matters, not academia, in sanctification.

 

You are reading things that aren't present in my words.  I was criticizing people who make public statements on the vocation who do not have the proper education and formation when they go against the Rite and the Rite's intention and substitute something of their own creation.   People with influence must know their materials well enough if they are going to make a controversial stance and be able to back it up with something proportionate to the weight of the claim made.  (I know a consecrated virgin who is a very holy woman and who did not go to college.  She has read the Rite very carefully, and that is what has saved her from many errors.)  When you have people who say they have a degree in theology or a background in philosophy who are making fundamental mistakes in theology and philosophy, one must expect a certain level of responsibility for doing due diligence when making pronouncements on the vocation.  I question the prudence of virgins writing on the vocation when they are either unable or unwilling to do the due diligence necessary to pronounce on many aspects of consecrated life.  I am not condescending to those who don't have the education, I am unhappy with those have the educational resources and who decide to take public stances on the vocation and have not done their due diligence to ensure that what they say is correct and in line with the Church's teaching, particularly when it goes against any written part of the Rite!

Edited January 27, 2014 by abrideofChrist

[oremus1]

A reminder: THIS IS NOT DEBATE TABLE.  Please stop the back and forth debating.  If it continues I *will* move this thread into debate table.

 

The discussion until about a page ago was fine.

 

 

Hi there, although this thread has deviated from the original purpose, I am very grateful for all the advice and issues raised. i did not know that the consecration was always invalid if delegated to a priest - and someone is even kindly even looking that up for me. that is much more important that what one will wear for their consecration!

 

So while i do not wish it to be moved, perhaps if one of the mods could rename it a more appropriate name like 'consecration of virgins - general discussion' or such that would be cool :-)

 

continue ladies!

[cmaD2006]

Hi there, although this thread has deviated from the original purpose, I am very grateful for all the advice and issues raised. i did not know that the consecration was always invalid if delegated to a priest - and someone is even kindly even looking that up for me. that is much more important that what one will wear for their consecration!

 

So while i do not wish it to be moved, perhaps if one of the mods could rename it a more appropriate name like 'consecration of virgins - general discussion' or such that would be cool :-)

 

continue ladies!

 

Oremus1:

 

As the mod who focuses primarily on vocation station, I felt compelled to post and ask that the discussion does not continue in a debate like manner.

 

We have had discussions pertaining to consecrated virginity disintegrate into a full fledged debate in the past.  It is quite negative in vocation station, and really, really did put consecrated virginity in a bad light (due to the fact that the back and forth involved consecrated virgins).

----------------------------

So again -- please do *not* continue in a debate like fashion.  If it does again as a moderator I reserve the right to move it into debate table, so that the non-debate culture of Vocation Station is preserved.

Edited January 27, 2014 by cmaD2006